University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Getting ahead: performance management

(USC Thesis Other)

Getting ahead: performance management

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 1

Classified - Confidential

Getting Ahead: Performance Management
Matthew N. Landis
University of Southern California
August 2018

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 2

Classified - Confidential
Abstract
Organizations are continuously looking for a way to improve the development of their
employees and the results of their work. Many organizations rely on performance reviews as the
means of evaluating their employees. However, with every perceived improvement in the
process of performance evaluations, there tends to be a downside. This paper examines the
impact of performance evaluations on organizations. In particular the paper sought to understand
how the results of a performance evaluation within a technology company helped or hindered
opportunity within the organization. The study surveyed managers within the organization and
conducted focus groups with their direct reports. The goal was to identify similarities and
differences between each group’s perception of the performance evaluation process and how fair
it was.

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 3

Classified - Confidential
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank my dissertation chair Dr. Lawrance Picus for his
assistance and guidance in putting this analysis together. Additionally, I would like to thank my
dissertation committee members, Dr. Monique Datta and Dr. Kathy Stowe for challenging me to
make this document the best it could be. Last of all I would like to thank my family, friends and
co-workers who provided the support that allowed me to focus on completing such a
monumentous task. Especially, I would like to thank Jesse Jordan my partner in life, and our son
Jaxson who make my life rewarding everyday.

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 4

Classified - Confidential
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ 3
CHAPTER ONE: PROBLEM OF PRACTICE .............................................................................. 6
Introduction to the Problem of Practice ...................................................................................... 6
Background of Problem .............................................................................................................. 7
Importance of Addressing the Problem ...................................................................................... 8
Organizational Context and Mission of the Proposed Project Site ............................................. 8
Organizational Performance Goals ............................................................................................. 9
Description of Stakeholder Group ............................................................................................ 10
Purpose of the Project and the Project Question ....................................................................... 12
Definitions................................................................................................................................. 13
Organization of the Dissertation ............................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................................................ 14
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 14
Factors Influencing Performance Reviews ............................................................................... 14
Conceptual and Theoretical Framework ................................................................................... 20
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences ................................................................. 23
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 37
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 39
Purpose of the Project ............................................................................................................... 39
Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 39
Conceptual and Methodological Approach .............................................................................. 40
Conceptual Framework: Performance within Megamart .......................................................... 41
Conceptual Analysis ................................................................................................................. 43
Participants ................................................................................................................................ 43
Data Collection and Instrumentation ........................................................................................ 44
Surveys ...................................................................................................................................... 44
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale................................................................................... 45
Interviews .................................................................................................................................. 46
Interview Criteria and Rationale ............................................................................................... 47
Credibility and Trustworthiness ................................................................................................ 47
Validity and Reliability ............................................................................................................. 48
Ethics......................................................................................................................................... 49
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 5

Classified - Confidential
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................... 50
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA AND FINDINGS .............................................................................. 51
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................. 51
Participating Stakeholders ........................................................................................................ 52
Findings..................................................................................................................................... 53
Analysis of findings .................................................................................................................. 79
CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, EVALUATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN .......... 81
Organizational Context and Mission ........................................................................................ 81
Organizational Performance Goal ............................................................................................. 82
Description of Stakeholder Groups ........................................................................................... 82
Goal of the Stakeholder Group for the Study ........................................................................... 83
Purpose of the Project and Questions ....................................................................................... 83
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ................................................... 83
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ....................................................................... 94
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations ...................................................................... 95
Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................................. 106
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 107
APPENDIX A: SURVEY QUESTIONS.................................................................................... 108
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS.............................................................................. 111
APPENDIX C: INFORMATION SHEET FOR SURVEY ........................................................ 113
APPENDIX D: INFORMED CONSENT FOR INTERVIEW .................................................. 115
APPENDIX E: SAMPLE SURVEY .......................................................................................... 119
APPENDIX F: SAMPLE SURVEY ........................................................................................... 120
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 121

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 6

Classified - Confidential
CHAPTER ONE: PROBLEM OF PRACTICE
Introduction to the Problem of Practice
In November of 2016, an employee at Amazon.com attempted suicide by jumping off the
roof of Amazon’s headquarters. The suicide attempt was reportedly the consequence of his
feelings toward his performance review results. The backlash from the news of this event created
disgust internally from employees and externally from the general public and media. The event
resulted in subsequent changes to how Amazon manages performance review, (Eugene, 2016).
Increasingly, employees are feeling more like a number rather than a valued member of the
organization, and as the Amazon example showed, without a thoughtful approach they could
have drastic consequences.
Fair performance evaluations are important because it fosters a rewarding working
environment that promotes new and encourages employees to continuly improve (Kearney,
Gebert, & Voelpel, 2009). However, institutional obstacles exist that keep organizations from
achieving fair performance reviews, (Cook & Glass, 2014). One of the structural challenges is
how organizations implement performance management for their employees (Chattopadhayay &
Ghosh, 2012). Performance management determines the amount of recognition, rewards, and
advancement opportunities an employee receives, (Chang, Dainty, & Moore, 2005). Important to
this recognition and reward system is the ability to advance ones’ career to positions of influence
and leadership within the organization.
Organizations have increasingly relied upon performance evaluations as the preferred
method of determining employee advancement within the organization (Berger, Harbring, &
Sliwka, 2013). However, if a performance review is not implemented correctly, the results could
produce unfair employee ratings that could hinder advancement within the organization. Unfair
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 7

Classified - Confidential
performance ratings are a problem of practice because, although the goal of performance
management is to improve the overall performance of the organization and help employees
develop within the organization, in practice it may result in keeping the best employees from
advancing to positions of leadership within the organization (Moon, Scullen, & Latham 2016).
This study will focus on a major retailer Megamart’s (a psydonym) eCommerce division,
e-Megamart, which had a goal of increasing the number of minorities within its executive ranks.
While there are many variables that impact advancement, this study focused primarily on if the
performance management process utilized by e-Megamart that had an impact on achieving these
goals. Many of the individuals within the executive team were promoted through the ranks of the
organization into their current positions. Therefore, it makes sense to review whether one of the
tools that determines who advances within the organization is designed in a way to promote
fairness so that the best people can become a leader within the company. Thus, this analysis will
seek to answer if e-Megamarts managers have the knowledge, motivation and organization to
implement fair performance evaluations.
Background of Problem
Over the course of the last century, Human Resource departments have attempted to
maximize employee performance with an end goal of improving profit, customer satisfaction,
and improving employee satisfaction, among other things (Berger, Harbring, & Sliwka, 2013).
The employee evaluation was the means of gauging the output of employees’ work and
identifying opportunities to improve training, identify those who are ready for career
advancement, and take corrective action where needed (Berger et al., 2013). E-Megamart has
attempted to utilize performance management as a means of also improving employee
performance as well as a tactic for identifying future leaders within the organization and
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 8

Classified - Confidential
grooming them to successfully advance through the organization. However, the current makeup
of the executive leadership team suggests that there might be areas of opportunity for
improvement within the process. As of December 2017, a majority of the leadership within e-
Megamart came from external companies rather than being promoted internally into their role.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
Performance evaluations are important to address because it will lead to a rewarding
work environment that allows employees to focus on improving profits, customer experience,
etc. Research suggests that poor performance management processes lead to increased
competition among employees, ambiguity about performance, and a perception that the process
is tainted by human bias which creates a work environment where individual employees feel less
secure in their positions (Berger et al., 2013; Blume, Baldwin, & Rubin, 2009; Giumetti,
Schroeder, & Switzer, 2015). This increased lack of security staffs feels, results in employees
underachieving, leaving the company, or sabotaging their co-workers as a means of getting
ahead. The overall consequence for organizations is decreased performance and talent drains as
employees flee to environments they feel safer (Blume et al., 2009; Giumetti et al., 2015)
Organizational Context and Mission of the Proposed Project Site
This study will examine a major Fortune 500 company, Megamart, which is primary
focused on retail operations. According to the company’s website, it has more than 1,000 stores
and operates within more than 20 countries. This study will focus on Megamart’s e-commerce
division (e-Megamart). E-Megamart has 325 employees located in multiple sites across the
United States with many of their employees primarily located in the western part of the country.
E-Megamart’s employee tenure is relatively long with 40% of employees having 5-10 years of
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 9

Classified - Confidential
experience, 35% between 2-4 years of experience, and 25% less than 2 years of experience. The
employees who make up the e-commerce organization tend to be highly educated with all
employees holding at least a bachelor’s degree. According to the human resource department, the
employees tend to be young with 80% of employees between 20-30 years old, 15% between 30-
40 years old and 5% greater than 40 years old. The employees that make up this organization
also come from many different locations around the world. According to the human resources
department at the organization, 65% are originally from the United States, while 35% of the
employees come from international countries. When looking at the racial makeup of the
organization, 52% of the employees are Caucasian, 23% are Asian, 10% are Hispanic 5% are
black, and the remaining employees are other. The gender breakdown of the organization is 53%
female, and 47% of the employees are male.
Organizational Performance Goals
Beginning with the 2018 performance review process that analyzes the 2017 performance
year, e-Megamart wanted to implement a new performance review process where managers
utilized a 360-degree format. A new performance review meant that managers would solicit
feedback on their employee’s performance from peers, direct reports, and cross-functional team
members. The feedback provided would be incorporated with business metric results to provide a
finalized evaluation of the employee’s performance through the previous year. The driving factor
for changing the performance management processes was to increase the likelihood that
employee ratings will be based off two criteria, 1) achievement of performance metrics, and 2)
perception of performance by other team members. By combining both approaches the
organization hoped that managers would be able to have a more thorough understanding of their
employee’s performance which they could have used to guide the employee’s performance
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 10

Classified - Confidential
rating. The new performance management process hoped to result in an environment where their
best employees rise to the top.
Description of Stakeholder Group
Organizations have key stakeholders that are vital to ensuring that the institution
continues to move toward achieving its goals (Wheeler & Sillananpa, 1998). At e-Megamart,
there are many stakeholders that impact the performance management process but this study will
focus primarily on managers (M) and direct reports of the managers (DR). Managers are an
important stakeholder to focus on because they are instrumental to the performance evaluation
process as they are the group evaluating performance and determining ratings. As a result, they
determined how successful the performance review was at creating fairness and opportunity for
all their direct reports. On the other hand, direct reports were also an important stakeholder group
to assess. As the subjects of the performance review, their perceptions of how fair the process
was and if their managers were thorough in evaluating them, determined if the process was
successful. This research study dived into the role each of these stakeholders to determine if the
performance review goals e-Megamart had were achievable.
The management team at e-Megamart were responsible for leading tactical teams, and are
accountable for achieving organizational key performance goals. Managers are required to
develop and implement strategic plans to achieve the goals established by the executive team.
Further, the management team is also the everyday face of the organization, partnering with
outside suppliers and companies that provide the resources that are necessary to grow the
business such (i.e. items that will be sold within e-Megamart to customers). At an individual
level, each manager was responsible for evaluating each of their direct reports by soliciting
feedback from their direct, staff and other stakeholders within the organization that the direct
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 11

Classified - Confidential
report worked with throughout the year. They also participated in a manager meeting where each
person was ranked from top performer to bottom performer. The final rankings from that
meeting were used to determine which employees would be considered for future promotions.
The other key stakeholder that existed in this analysis were the direct reports. The direct
reports were the employees that work on the manager’s team and had objectives to work on
throughout the year on which they were evaluated. Within the performance management process,
the direct reports are the subject of the results. Direct reports would like to advance their career
so that they have more influence over the organizational strategy as well as benefit from the
additional salary and bonuses that come with promotions. Direct reports also use the results of
the performance review to determine where they can improve their performance to make the
promotion to the next level. Further, the results can serve as an indicator to their future within the
organization, poor results might indicate the direct report has limited opportunities for
advancement while strong results might indicate the direct report is on the fast track to
advancement. How they perceive the process and results will determine how successful the
performance review is.

Table 1: Organizational mission, global goal, and stakeholder goals

Organizational Mission
The mission of e-Megamart is to build a culture that is reflective of their values which are:
service to the customer, respect for the individual, striving for excellence, and acting with
integrity.

Organizational Performance Goal
With the 2018 performance review, which focuses on 2017 performance, Megamart wants to
promote an environment where the best performing employees have an opportunity to advance
their career across the full organization.

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 12

Classified - Confidential
E-Megamart Organizational
Goals:

By 2018, the organization will
have all managers complete a
360-performance review of their
direct reports based off KPI’s and
peer reviews.
Manager Goals:

Put in the effort of thoroughly
and fairly evaluating the
performance of their direct
reports.
Direct Report Goals:

By 2018, direct reports will
provide feedback in the post-
performance review survey
identifying if they believe the
process was fair and accurate.

Purpose of the Project and the Project Question
The purpose of this project was to examine e-Megamart’s performance review processes
and determine if the system helped the organization achieve its desired goal of increasing
opportunities for employees to advance within the organization regardless of their diverse
backgrounds. One of the avenues e-Megamart used to minimize bias and unfair results, was by
focusing the review process on impartial metrics that allow for employees to be fairly compared
to the performance of their peer set. The organization expected that the barriers, that once created
inequitable performance ratings, could be fixed if managers were given increased time, training,
and clarity of objectives. This analysis examined if e-Megamart provided adequate time, training
and clarity of goals to help managers focus in on the metrics that impact employee ratings. The
research did this by soliciting feedback from the management team and the direct report team
regarding their perceptions on the performance review process. Additionally, this analysis
attempted to identify gaps within the new process and identified common themes that both the
management team and direct report team suggested were needed to improve the performance
review process at e-Megamart.
The three research questions this analysis sought to answers were:
1) Do managers have the knowledge, motivation and organization to provide fair
and thorough performance reviews of their direct reports, and
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 13

Classified - Confidential
2) Do the direct reports view the process as fair and accurate?
3) Is there a better process that could be implemented to make the reviews
impartial?
Definitions
The term listed below is operationally defined for this study:
Performance review: The annual process of reviewing an employee’s level of success
in achieving personal and organizational goals (Law, 2007).
Organization of the Dissertation
This study has five chapters to organize the analysis and results. This chapter provides an
overview of key concepts and terminology related to fairness in performance evaluations within
organizations. Further, the chapter provides the organization’s mission, goals, stakeholders, and a
review of the framework. Chapter Two provides a review of current literature related to
performance evaluations, the importance of opportunity within the organization and challenges
facing management within the performance review process. Chapter Three evaluates the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements in the performance review process as well
as methodology related to how analysis was conducted, data was collected and the selection of
participants were made. In Chapter Four the results of the analysis will be reviewed as well as
insights that are gleaned from the inquiry. Finally, in Chapter Five this analysis provides
suggested solutions which are based on insights gathered form the data and current literature.

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 14

Classified - Confidential
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
This literature review will examine current research on performance reviews and their
impact on advancement within the organization. The literature review will start by examining the
types of performance evaluations that exist and their application within organizations. Next the
review will look deeper at the performance evaluation utilized by e-Megamart to understand the
strengths and weaknesses of this model and how it may impact opportunity within the
organization. The review will then examine how performance evaluations influence an
employee’s ascension within the organization. Through the examination of this literature, this
review will provide both a quantitative and qualitative perspective on the influence of
performance evaluations on opportunity in organizational leadership. After reviewing the current
research, the analysis will utilize Clark and Estes’ knowledge, motivation and organizational gap
analysis to understand influences of performance evaluations on opportunity to be promoted.
Factors Influencing Performance Reviews
Internal employees who advanced to executive leadership roles are significantly
underrepresented within e-Megamart. Research suggest there are many factors that contribute to
the lack of internal employees scaling to the top of the organizational pyramid such as historical
disadvantages, economic resources, and education (Berger et al., 2013; Blume et al., 2009;
Schleicher, Bull, & Green, 2008; Scullen, Bergey, & Aiman-Smith, 2005; Stewart et al., 2010).
However, one of the critical areas worth analyzing is the impact of performance evaluations on
advancement opportunities. Performance evaluations are an important part of human resources as
they help organizations determine how well employees are meeting organizational goals (Berger
et al., 2013; Blume et al., 2009; Schleicher et al., 2008; Scullen, et al., 2005; Stewart et al.,
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 15

Classified - Confidential
2010). In addition, organizations rely on their performance management process to give
themselves a competitive advantage, (Ahmed, Sultana, Paul, & Azeem, 2013). That is because
the process which they choose to use will be the deciding factor in how successful the
organization is in creating a completive advantage in attracting and maintaining talent and
ensuring they get the most out of that talent, (Ahmed, et al., 2013).
The Landscape of Performance Reviews. From a historical perspective, performance
evaluations were developed out of the need to improve the output of employees so that
organizations could maximize their return on capital investment and remain competitive (Blume
et al., 2009; Rangnz & Pashootanizadeh, 2014). Organizations sought to identify employees that
were delivering the most effort and develop them into leaders within the organization. They also
sought to identify employees that were a drain on resources and identify means of improving
their performance or removing them from the organization (Berger et al., 2013; Blume et al.,
2009; Roch et al., 2007; Schleicher et al., 2008; Scullen et al., 2005; Stewart et al., 2010). This
effort resulted in the development of many different approaches to evaluating employees yet they
tended to have similar criteria for evaluation.
In general, employee evaluations have been divided into two different categories, those
that are based on subjective (relative) criteria and those based on objective (absolute) criteria,
(Roch et al., 2007). Performance is ‘absolute’ when the criteria that is used to rate an employee’s
accomplishments is clearly defined and measurable so that the employee knows what needs to be
done to achieve the goal (Roch et al., 2007). Whereas, performance evaluations are characterized
as ‘relative’ when the terms of evaluation are based upon moving target or undefined metrics so
to render the employee unable to identify how well they are doing at any given time (Roch et al.,
2007).
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 16

Classified - Confidential
Each approach has its strengths and weaknesses in evaluating employees. Stewart et al.,
(2010) notes the value of using an absolute performance evaluation give clear targets to achieve,
and reduces conflict by allowing everyone a fair opportunity to achieve their goals. Yet, absolute
performance reviews have demonstrated that some employees will do only enough to achieve the
baseline goals and rarely go beyond that (Berger et al., 2013; Blume et al., 2009; Roch et al.,
2007; Schleicher et al., 2008; Scullen et al., 2005; Stewart et al., 2010). The primary complaint
about absolute performance evaluations is managers can be lenient in their evaluations so as to
allow employees to be ranked highly even if they do not give the same level of effort as their
peers. Absolute performance evaluations have been shown to allow the best employees to be
overlooked and not receive the recognition they may deserve (Berger et al., 2013; Blume et al.,
2009).
Relative performance evaluations, on the other hand, have been designed to differentiate
top performers from poor performers so that they receive recognition (Berger et al., 2013; Blume
et al., 2009; Roch et al., 2007; Schleicher et al., 2008; Scullen et al., 2005; Stewart et al., 2010).
Some of the other noted benefits of relative performance evaluations include encouraging
employees to do more than just the minimum amount of work, and ensuring that employees feel
their peers are pulling their weight (Berger et al., 2013; Blume et al., 2009; Roch et al., 2007;
Schleicher et al., 2008; Scullen et al., 2005; Stewart et al., 2010). On the flipside, relative
performance evaluations result in employee burn out, decreases in teamwork, high turnover, and
a feeling of inequitable evaluations (Berger et al., 2013; Blume et al., 2009; Roch et al., 2007;
Schleicher et al., 2008; Scullen et al., 2005; Stewart et al., 2010).
The appeal of getting more out of the workforce and creating a system that recognizes
employees for their work or lack thereof has resulted in the spread of relative performance
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 17

Classified - Confidential
evaluations (Blume et al., 2009; Schleicher et al., 2008). One form of relative performance
evaluations is Forced Distribution Rankings (FDR), which encourages managers to stack rank
employees from top performers to bottom performers using a bell curve. This method of relative
evaluations allowed organizations to clearly identify which employees have been over delivering
and rewarding them accordingly, as well as identifying those who were underperforming and
taking corrective action. FDR is the process which Megamart uses to evaluate employees and
will be reviewed in more detail to understand its impact on employee performance.
Force Distribution Rankings’ (FDR) Impact on Employees. Through the decades of
use, performance evaluations have shown many flaws. Blume et al. (2009) and Tziner, Murphy
and Cleveland (2005) point out some of the challenges include rater bias, challenges with
employee recognition, managers protecting poor performers, and lack of performance gains
which will be examined further. Rater bias has been one of the driving forces in the proliferation
of FDR. That is because in other performance evaluations managers could protect employees by
being lenient in their rating of an employee (Blume et al., 2009; Schleicher et al., 2008). FDR on
the other hand, forces managers to stack rank their team and ideally create clarity into the actual
performance of its members (Boyle, 2001; Guralnik, Rozmarin, & So, 2004; Meisler, 2003;
Schleicher et al., 2008).
Additionally, research suggests that other performance evaluations created a lack of
recognition for top performing employees (Berger et al., 2013). Research suggests that lack of
recognition leads to employee flight from the organization in search of new jobs where they feel
valued (Berger et al., 2013; Blume et al., 2009; Roch et al., 2007; Schleicher et al., 2008; Scullen
et al., 2005; Stewart et al., 2010). Organizations trying to reduce employee turnover and maintain
top talent have an interest in ensuring their top employees are recognized and rewarded so that
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 18

Classified - Confidential
they remain with the company. The lack of recognition has further supported the spread of FDR,
which through virtue of stack ranking, is intended identify top performers so that they could be
recognized and rewarded for their efforts (Hazels et al., 2008).
Another view by proponents of FDR is that other methods for performance reviews allow
mediocre employees to be hired and remain within the organization, and this creates an
environment where good employees need to do more to cover for bad employee performance
(Boyle, 2001; Grote, 2005). Top performers see these employees as free-riders that do not pull
their fair share yet receive similar benefits (Boyle, 2001; Grote, 2005). Research suggests that
FDR eliminates this by forcing managers to make smarter hiring decisions to ensure their
employees are not ranked at the bottom of the review process because it would negatively reflect
upon them (Boyle, 2001; Grote, 2005). This research is implying that not only are employees
subjected to FDR but so are the managers who review them. Therefore, if a manager is doing a
poor job at hiring and developing employees, they too could receive a poor rating in their review.
Further, proponents of FDR also believe that it continuously raises the bar on
performance, by ranking employees relative to the moving target of their peers’ performance
(Giumetti, et al., 2015). This ensures that underachievers who do not carry their weight of work
cannot hide and therefore the bar of performance is always raising (Berger et al., 2013; Blume et
al., 2009; Roch et al., 2007; Schleicher et al., 2008; Scullen et al., 2005; Stewart et al., 2010).
Yet, at best FDR is only useful at raising performance for a limited duration of time, (Berger et
al., 2013; Blume et al., 2009; Schleicher et al., 2008; Scullen et al., 2005; Stewart et al., 2010).
That is because poor performers tend to be eliminated in early rounds of performance reviews.
However, performance plateaus because stronger employees than those that remain do not enter
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 19

Classified - Confidential
the population of employees (Berger, Harbring, & Sliwka, 2013; Blume, et al., 2009; Schleicher,
et al., 2008; Scullen, et al., 2005; Stewart et al., 2010).
As noted, proponents of FDR suggest that it creates a better environment for top
performers to receive recognition and reward and where performance is continuously improved.
However, on the contrary, research suggest FDR breeds an environment of anxiety and
destructive competition among employees, (Berger et al., 2013). As risk to the employee’s job
security increases, employees look for advantages that will improve their ranking compared to
their peers, (Law, 2007). Where once sharing ideas that benefited the organization and team was
beneficial, now such actions by an employee can give their competition a leg up in performance
rankings, thereby potentially leading to their own termination or reduction in rewards.
How Performance Reviews Impact Ascension within the Organization. Having a
career suggest that there is a path that an employee follows that allows them to advance from
their current position to a more senior position in the future, (Harris, Pattie, & McMahan, 2015).
Current research suggest that performance evaluations have a central role in determining when
and how fast an employee progresses through the organization (Berger et al., 2013). Performance
evaluations signal to the organization when an employee has garnered enough skill and success
in their current role that they deserve to advance to the next stage within their career, (Harris et
al., 2015). Substantial literature exists that shows women are less likely than their male
counterparts to get promoted. Similarly, while less research exists around racial minority
advancement, the information that does exist suggest racial minorities also advance much slower
than white males.
Some research suggests that other barriers exist within performance evaluations that
could limit advancement including racial and gender minorities have less opportunity for
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 20

Classified - Confidential
advancement due to a glass ceiling that might arise out of biasness in performance evaluations
(Igbaria, & Baroudi, 1995; Konrad, & Yap, 2009). Research suggest that minority employees
maybe rating worse than their actual accomplishments suggest they should be, (Konrad et al.,
2009). Their low rating may be attributed to organizational leadership’s view that women and
minorities are less capable than their white male counterparts, (Konrad et al., 2009). Since it is
difficult to predict how successful a person will be in a position of leadership and influence
within the organization and the risk of picking the wrong person could be substantial,
organizations tend to select people who mirror previously successful individuals, (Konrad et al.,
2009).
Within organizations that use FDR, minorities are more inclined to leave the company
before they can advance. As Murray (2015) found, minority employees cite a feeling of bias
based on stereotypes when managers are looking to rate employees. She further noted that in
organizations with minimal opportunity in leadership positions, minorities are at a disadvantage
for receiving evaluations that are not influenced by their marginal status. Lack of advancement
may be due to managers looking to promote employees who resembled themselves, (Murray,
2015). Rating bias is supported by Hoe (2003), who found that when employees feel that the
organization does provide a sense of fair evaluations, employees are inclined to leave the
company. Research therefore concludes that without a fair process that limits bias based on an
individual’s attributes that minorities face less reward from performance evaluation than their
white male counterparts (Hoe, 2003; Igbaria et al., 1995; Konrad et al., 2009; Murray, 2015).
Conceptual and Theoretical Framework
In order to achieve organization, change and make improvements, leaders need to
understand the human causes that create performance gaps and use that knowledge to come up
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 21

Classified - Confidential
with solutions. Clark and Estes (2008) identify three areas of focus for leaders to identify gaps in
performance which are: people’s knowledge (K), what their motivation (M) is, and structures or
barriers within the organization (O) help or hinder people from achieving organizational goals.
Clark and Estes (2008) believe for organizations to be successful people within the organization
need to have the knowledge of how to achieve the goals. Therefore, leaders need to assess if their
people have the required knowledge to do the work, and if they do not find a solution to increase
their knowledge.
Furthermore, Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that motivation is another key input that
moves people to accomplish organizational objectives. Clark and Estes (2008) submit that
motivation is what gives people the desire to attempt a goal, to stay focused on achieving it and
determines how much effort they put into doing the tasks necessary to get over the finish line.
Therefore, leaders need to identify how motivated their teams are to achieve goals and adjust
their approach to keep them on track to achieve the organizational objective. Finally, Clark and
Estes (2008) propose that organizations need to be aligned to support the goals of the
organization. If the people within the organization have the knowledge and the motivation to
accomplish the goal but still cannot achieve it, the problem is most likely one of not having
organizational processes and tools to get the job done, (Clark & Estes 2008). The gap analysis of
e-Megamart’s performance management process and its impact on opportunity for advancement
within the organization will be reviewed through the lens of Clark and Estes (2008) knowledge,
motivation and organization model.
Table 1: Summary of Assumed Needs for Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Issues

Assumed Needs
Sources Knowledge Motivation Organization
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 22

Classified - Confidential
Learning and
Motivation
Theory
• (Procedural)
Managers need know
the step by step
process to evaluate
employees on
performance alone.
• (Conceptual)
Managers need to
understand the
criteria that should be
used for rating direct
reports.
• (Metacognitive)
Managers need to
reflect on the impact
their ratings might
have on their direct
reports future.
• (Self-Efficacy)
Managers need to
believe they can
provide fair and
thorough
performance
reviews.
• (Expectancy-Value)
Managers must know
that their
performance reviews
will alter direct
report behavior for
the better.
• (Cultural Setting
Influence) The
organization
needs to provide
the time to reflect
on performance
evaluation.
• (Cultural Setting
Influence) The
organization
needs to provide
the human
support to answer
manager
questions about
the process.
• (Cultural Setting
Influence) The
organization
needs to provide
training.
Assumed Needs
Sources Knowledge Motivation Organization
Related
Literature
• Need clearly defined
step by step
processes on how to
evaluate employees.
• Need knowledge of
performance criteria
to measure direct
report performance
by.
• Need skills to know
how to reflect on
their behavior and
identify how their
actions impact the
future of their direct
reports.
• Need to see value of
creating fair and
thorough
performance
evaluations.
• Need to understand
how to successful
leverage the
performance view to
improve behavior of
direct reports.
• Need support
from the
organization to
allocate time to
focus on
performance
reviews.
• Need support
from Human
Resources on
performance
review best
practices
• Need
organizational
training on best
practices.

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 23

Classified - Confidential
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences
Knowledge and Skills
Research has shown that effective organization change requires managers who are
aligned with the strategy and have clear understanding of how to effectively implement the
change (Sullivan, Rothwell, & Balasi, 2013). Moreover, additional analysis shows that when
change agents do not consider the organization’s employees feelings, it can lead to a decline in
employee morale (Berger et al., 2013; Blume et al., 2009; Chattopadhayay & Ghosh, 2012;
Giumetti et al., 2015; Law, 2007; Moon et al., 2016). This gap analysis reviewed whether or not
managers at e-Megamart had the knowledge and skills necessary to implement a fair
performance review that created favorable opportunity for internal employee advancement
within the organization. The process of implementing a fair performance review was examined
through a literature review that focused on the essential knowledge and skills necessary for
managers to effectively execute performance reviews within an organization. Additionally, the
review examined what skills and knowledge managers would need to be effective change agents
within the organization. Identifying the necessary process and skills managers need to be
effective at performance evaluations will allow for a baseline understanding of how ready e-
Megamart’s managers are for the activity.
Knowledge influences. According to Krathwohl (2002) there are four types of
knowledge categories: factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge and
metacognitive knowledge. Factual knowledge focuses on specific details, Conceptual
Knowledge centers on the connection and application of concepts; Procedural Knowledge
focuses on step by step processes; while Metacognitive Knowledge focuses on the self-
awareness of knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). To maximize the potential of managers to achieve
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 24

Classified - Confidential
their goal of implementing change each of these categories are critical to address. This
assessment considered e-Megamart’s manager’s conceptual knowledge and how they leveraged
it to implement a fair performance evaluation, their procedural knowledge of how to execute a
performance evaluation, and their metacognitive understanding of how they think about thinking
of the impacts of performance evaluations.
Addressing each element was important because it provided the framework for
understanding the level of competency managers within e-Megamart have to effectively manage
performance reviews which determined how successful the organization was at promoting
opportunity for advancement. Procedural knowledge allowed the management team to know the
steps necessary to evaluate employees (Krathwohl, 2002). Conceptual knowledge allows the
managers to understand the importance of fair and thorough performance evaluations within the
organization and their impact on them, (Krathwohl, 2002). While metacognition allowed the
managers to assess their awareness of how their rating impacted the futures of their direct reports
(Krathwohl, 2002).
Managers need know the step by step process to evaluate employees on performance
alone. Managers are change agents through whom organizations progress towards their goals. E-
Megamart’s managers needed to know the step for implementing change within the
organizations to provide a seamless transition and minimize hardship to their employees (Mayer,
2011; Schneider, Rittle-Johnson, Star, 2011; Star, 2005). Research suggests that without clearly
knowing the steps necessary to complete a task, achieving the organizational goal will more than
likely fail (Beer, & Nohria, 2000; Fullan, 2004; Kotter, 2007; Sirkin, Keenan, & Jackson, 2005).
Knowledge about the necessary steps to complete a task is further supported by research that has
shown that roughly 70% of organizational change fails because managers do not know the steps
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 25

Classified - Confidential
to successful implement processes (Beer et al., 2000; Fullan, 2004; Kotter, 2007; Sirkin et al.,
2005). To minimize the chances for failure, research advocates that managers know and practice
specific skills as well as leverage tools to be successful such as: creating a sense of urgency,
building coalitions, over communicating, creating milestones, providing a plan and providing
resources for teams to accomplish tasks (Beer et al., 2000; Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Fullan,
2004; Kotter, 2007; Sirkin et al., 2005). More specifically, Tsiknakis, Kouroubali, and
Vourvahakis (2005), found when implementing processes such as changes to performance
management, that when managers relied on step by step methods for implementing the change
were more successful than those who were left to figure it out as they went along.
Procedural knowledge exemplifies the knowledge type necessary for knowing the steps
necessary to implementing a fair performance evaluation process. To accomplish evaluating
employees on performance alone, managers need to work with the human resources department
to construct and outline the process for carrying out the performance review. Managers will also
need to evaluate how strong their skills set is for performing a review of their employees. If they
lack the necessary skills to successful manage the performance review process in a fair manner
they need to identify what additional training they would need and seek it out.
Managers need knowledge of performance criteria to measure direct report
performance by and align their behavior around one approach. Managers need have clear
guidelines which they could reference to determine how well their direct report performed over
the past year. Gwynne (2002) suggest that one common theme in performance evaluations is that
managers without training will rely on different indicators to guide their ratings of direct reports.
It is the difference in rating criteria that develops a perception of unfairness in the minds of direct
reports. Managers, as a result, need to understand why differences in manager approach to
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 26

Classified - Confidential
ratings exist and try to minimize it to produce a perceived fair and thorough process. Managers
need to see the big picture of achieving opportunity for advancement within the organization and
how performance management will allow them to improve upon it. Once they understand this,
managers can think about how they would apply what they know to improving the performance
review process.
Yukl (2012) notes the skills necessary for managers to achieve organizational goals
include: advocating change, envisioning change, encouraging innovation, and using collective
learning to improve on the process. Furthermore, research has shown that leaders who have
effectively implemented change within their organizations have similar characteristics which
include: asking what needs to be done, understanding what is right for the organization,
developing action plans, they make decisions and communicate those decisions (Drucker, 2004).
McFarlane, Enriquez, Schroeder and Dew (2011), found that for managers to effectively lead
change they need to understand who their audience is and tailor their approach to the audience to
ensure they understand the goal and how to achieve it. McFarlane et al. (2011) also found that
managers need to know how to leverage their support staff and key stakeholders to deliver the
change because they know how to use tools and influence others to make things happen.
Managers who want to implement change to their performance management process so that it
fosters opportunity for promotions.
This skill relates to conceptual knowledge and for e-Megamart to achieve change it will
require leaders to understand why change is necessary, who it is going to be impacted by the
change and what the expected results are going to be so that they can deliver desired outcomes.
Research suggests, for e-Megamart to have a performance management review process that
encourages opportunity for promotions, managers will have to actively engaged in influencing
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 27

Classified - Confidential
the process. Engaged managers can provide real time feedback to make changes and share
effective strategies to improve the process. Managers will also need to practice developing skills
to influence key stakeholders and getting their buy in so that they influence a broader audience to
move toward change.
Managers need to reflect on the impact their ratings might have on their direct reports
future. One of the primary challenges managers’ face when giving a performance evaluation is
to remain objective. If managers allow bias to influence their rating of a direct report, it might
produce unfair consequences such as those who are less deserving to get promoted, receive
raises, and get recognition, while those who are more deserving might not receive the promotion
they worked toward, the financial benefits of a good rating, and potentially even fired. Research
shows that human bias has a way of creeping into decision making, impacting the managers’
judgment about their employee’s performance (Berger et al., 2013; Blume et al., 2009;
Chattopadhayay et al., 2012; Giumetti et al., 2015; Law, 2007; Moon et al., 2016). Through a
process of self-reflection, managers should be able to see when bias is influencing their
perception of a direct reports performance. Reflecting upon the impact the ratings may have if
the manager chooses to use personal beliefs rather than unbiased metrics will help focus the
manager on using the right approach in the process.
Metacognition represents this knowledge type and is defined by the process in which
people think about thinking (Baker, 2006; Krathwohl, 2002). The noted research suggests that e-
Megamart should create an environment where managers can reflect on employee performance
as well as their own thought process to improve their ability to lead change (Baker, 2006; Berger,
et al., 2013; Blume et al., 2009; Brycz et al., 2014; Chattopadhayay et al., 2012; Giumetti et al.,
2015; Law, 2007; Moon et al., 2016). Moreover, managers will need to implement a fair
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 28

Classified - Confidential
evaluation process. For managers to do this they will need to minimize their own bias by
reflecting on whether their evaluations are based truly on employee performance.
Table 2: Stakeholder Goal and Knowledge Influence, Type and Assessment for Gap Analysis:

Motivation
Motivation is vital to an organization to keep employees working toward the company’s
goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011). For e-Megamart to achieve its goals of increasing
opportunity thorough fair and thorough performance evaluations, the organization had to keep its
managers motivated. For that reason, e-Megamart needed to identify what motivates the
management team and provide incentives for managers to achieve the goals (Lee et al., 2009).
Clark and Estes (2008), note that when individuals are self-motivated to actively pursue a goal,
Organizational Mission
E-Megamart’s goal is to increase overall employee performance and job satisfaction while
maintaining a respect for the individual.
Organizational Global Goal
E-Magamart will increase internal promotions to its executive leadership team by ensuring the
performance evaluation process allows for the best employees to be identified.
Stakeholder Goal
By Q1 2018, managers will implement best practices as outlined in the management
performance training program.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge
Type
Knowledge Influence Assessment
Managers need know the step
by step process to evaluate
employees on performance
alone.
Procedural Managers will be interviewed to gauge
their level of knowledge in the steps
necessary to administer a performance
evaluation.
Managers need to understand
the benefits of experience
within the organization in order
to increase opportunity within
e-Megamart’s leadership team.

Conceptual Managers will be interviewed to
understand their beliefs on the value of
experience within the organization.
Managers need to reflect on
what biases might influence
objective reviews, and
minimize subjective influences
on the process.
Metacognitive Managers will conduct two performance
evaluations of an individual (one where
they know who the person is and one where
they can only see the person’s metrics) to
see if they come to different results.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 29

Classified - Confidential
are persistent in achieving the goal, and put in the mental effort to accomplish the goal, then their
performance increases and the individual is more likely to achieve his or her goals. Based on
Clark and Estes view of motivation, this review looked at the level of self-efficacy managers at
e-Megamart had in developing comprehensive evaluations of their direct reports, as well as
identifying potential barriers to their level of engagement in the process.
This literature reviewed centers on change management within organizations and to what
degree managers felt they have a stake in the process. More specifically, did managers find value
in the performance evaluation process, and if that value translated into motivation to provide fair
and thorough assessments of their direct reports. The focus of this section is to consider
motivational influences on managers at e-Megamart. The first influencer on motivation of
managers at e-Megamart is their belief that they can achieve the goal of implementing change
within the company. The belief they can achieve the goal defines the motivational construct of
Self-Efficacy Theory. The secondary influence that impacts the manager’s motivation, is the
desire to implement the change. This desire and motivation to impact change defines
Expectancy-Value Theory.
Self-Efficacy Theory. Believing that you could achieve a goal or accomplish a task is a
major piece of what motivates individuals, and is the keystone of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986
;Pajares, 2006). According to Bandura (2000) and Pajares (2006), when people believe they can
accomplish a task they are more likely to be motivated to attempt doing the task. According to
Eccles (2006) and Pajares (2006), the source of human self-efficacy can be traced to four causes:
1) Mastery or the level of confidence an individual has based past successes, 2) perception of
one’s chances of success based upon their peer’s results, 3) how positive and negative
reinforcement from others influence one’s belief in how successful they will be, and 4) one’s
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 30

Classified - Confidential
psychological reaction to their emotional state. In general, if managers believe they can
accomplish the task and have a positive state of mind, they are more likely to engage in
attempting a goal. Manager self-efficacy was important to understand so that e-Megamart can
understand what it was going to take to keep managers motivated to achieve the organizational
goals.
Managers and Self-efficacy. Change comes through people within the organization
choosing to make a change rather than being forced to do so, and therefore e-Megamart needs to
create an environment that motivates others to want to change rather than force it (Malone,
2001). Based on previous experiences with performance reviews, managers within e-Megamart
held many reasons not to be motivated to spend significant time thoroughly diving into their
direct reports performance over the past year. Those reasons included lack of support from the
organization, little time to allocate to the task, and a desire to protect underperformers on their
teams. However, if e-Megamart wanted to see improvements in opportunity for promotions, then
change in manager motivation levels was needed. E-Megamart’s managers had to believe they
had the ability to achieve the task of thoroughly evaluating their employee and fairly rating their
direct report in comparison to the peer set. If e-Megamart could setup easy to achieve milestones
to build confidence in the management team, then the small success the managers had, would go
a long way in shaping their belief in their abilities to achieve their goals and stay motivated
(Bandura, 1986). According to Judge and Bono (2001), in their study of self-efficacy on job
performance, they found that strong self-efficacy resulted in task completion more consistently
than other emotional traits. This is further supported by Malone (2001), who found that self-
efficacy results in a 28% increase in individual performance. Milestone achievement did more to
motivate people to achieve goals and complete tasks, trumping even basic practices like goal
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 31

Classified - Confidential
setting (Malone, 2001). For managers to be successful at delivering the goals e-Megamart had,
they need to remain motivated and believe they have the skills and resources necessary to get the
assignment done.
Expectancy Value Theory. Like self-efficacy, Expectancy Value Theory believes that
human motivation is influenced not only by the level of beliefs individuals have in themselves to
accomplish a task, but also suggests that an individual has to have a desire to complete the task
(Eccles, 2006). According to Wigfield, Eccles, Schiefele, Roeser, and Davis-Kean (2006),
individuals determine whether or not they want to complete a task based on four underlying
values: 1) intrinsic interest - are they going to enjoy doing the task, 2) attainment value – does it
align with their identity, 3) utility value – does the task align with short or long-term goals, and
4) the perceived cost of doing the task. E-Megamart would need to create an environment where
managers not only believed they could accomplish the task of thorough performance reviews, but
they would also have to want to do it.
Managers and Expectancy Value Motivational Theory. Managers at e-Megamart will
not only need to have the knowledge of, but they will also have to be motivated to want to
achieve the organizational goal (Eccles, 2006). Managers must find value in what they are doing
to want to continue to do it. The primary value that managers would realize from a performance
evaluation of their direct reports, would be behavioral changes that led to better results. The
behavioral change created an intrinsic value by allowing managers to potentially see better
results that would reflect on their own performance more favorably. When looking deeper into
how intrinsic interest impacts motivation of managers during times of organizational change,
research shows employees were more involved in the process and were motivated to facilitate the
change if they felt the process aligned with their own goals (Remedios & Boreham, 2007).
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 32

Classified - Confidential
Further studies have shown that when incentives are tied to successful outcomes of organization
plans, that managers were more likely to align their goals with the organization’s goals
(Engellandt & Riphahn, 2011). By aligning manager’s incentives with the organizational goal of
implementing a new performance evaluation process, e-Megamart will be more likely to get
managers to desire achieving the task.
Table 3: Stakeholder Goal and Motivational Influence Assessment for Motivation Gap Analysis

Organizational Influence
Achieving a lofty goal such as increased promotional opportunities posed challenges.
Researchers have found that roughly 70% of all organizational initiatives fail (Beer & Nohria,
2000; Kotter, 2007; Sirkin & Keenan, 2005). According to Beer et al. (2000) the primary reason
organizational initiatives fail are due to managers losing focus because they lack the resources
and support necessary to support their plans. Furthermore, research also suggest that
Organizational Mission
E-Megamart’s goal is to increase overall employee performance and job satisfaction while
maintaining a respect for the individual.
Organizational Global Goal
E-Magamart will increase internal promotions to its executive leadership team by ensuring the
performance evaluation process allows for the best employees to be identified.
Stakeholder Goal
By Q1 2018, managers will implement best practices as outlined in the management performance
training program.
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment

Self-Efficacy – Managers need to believe they
have the resources and skills necessary to
complete the task.
Interview managers post performance review
to gauge their belief in themselves and
identify if they were given resources to
accomplish the task.
Expectancy-Value – Managers need to believe
that putting in additional effort into the
performance review, it will result in improved
performance by their direct reports.
Interview managers to gauge whether they
feel that the performance review changed
direct report performance for the better.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 33

Classified - Confidential
organizational initiatives fails in part because culture is hard to change (Schein, 2004). Culture
develops out of strategies and actions that result in success and therefore assumed to be right by
the members of the organization (Schein, 2004). Thus e-Megamart needed to understand that to
get managers to deliver results, they would need to provide resources and change culture.
Knowledge and motivation are not enough to achieve goals, organizations need to provide the
resources and support to facilitate change (Clark & Estes, 2008). This gap analysis reviewed if e-
Megamart had the culture and support necessary to create internal opportunity for promotions
through its performance management process.
Organizations create barriers to achieving goals with how they structure themselves and
the cultures they create. Research shown that organizational culture is deeply embedded and hard
to change (Schein, 2004). In his seminal work, Schein (2004), found that organizations have
three levels of culture: 1) artifacts and behaviors, 2) espoused values, and 3) assumptions.
Artifacts and behaviors refers to concrete and overt elements of culture that can be recognized by
those outside of the organization such as dress codes. Espoused values refer to the organization’s
stated tenets or philosophy and guides the actions of those within the organization. Finally,
cultural strength is reliant on the perception of individuals within the organization to be aligned
on their view of how the world should be shaped (Erez & Gati, 2004; Schein, 2004).
Moreover, Kazar (2001) suggests that there are six reasons motivating organizational
change: 1) change is evolutionary, 2) change is teleological, 3) Change occurs due to a life cycle,
4) change is political, 5) change occurs because of social cognition, and 6) change happens
because of culture. In the case of evolutionary change, the change is driven by the external
environment, where change happens at a gradual pace resulting in new structures of culture.
Conversely, teleological cultural change develops internally and driven by leaders within the
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 34

Classified - Confidential
organization, whereby the process of change is linear resulting in new cultural structures. Change
occurring in a life cycle occurs when leaders foster the natural progression of change, which
results in a new cultural structure. When change occurs by acting through opposing forces and
resulting in new institutional norms, then the process of change is referred to as political. Change
could also occur in a social way through a cognitive desire to align to social norms or rebel
against them, this type of change tends to be done through learning about social norms and
results in a new frame of organizational culture. Finally, culture drives organization change, and
this happens as a response to changes in the environment. This process tends to be non-linear and
takes a long time to occur.
Additionally, Henry (1996) notes that organizations go through three stages when trying
to achieve goals known as the “Force-Field Concept which are: 1) unfreezing, 2) change, and 3)
refreezing. In the unfreezing stage, leaders motivate the organization to move beyond cultural
norms and strive for a goal. In the change stage the leaders implement new practices that lead to
the goal. Finally, in the refreezing stage leaders make the new practices that were developed in
the change phase, into the new organizational cultural norm. Through these three phases
organization achieve their goals and solidify them as standard practice (Henry, 1996).
To assess the impact of culture on the organization, this gap analysis looked at whether
the organizational philosophy helped or hinders manager’s ability to methodically assess their
direct report’s performance over the past year. Culture will be examined through both setting and
models. The models are the values, beliefs, and attitudes shared in cultural practice (Rudea,
2011). While on the other hand, the settings are where cultural models are put into practice
(Rudea, 2011).
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 35

Classified - Confidential
Cultural setting: providing time to reflect on performance. According to Eisenbach,
Watson, and Pillai (1999), strong leadership is required to implement change within an
organization. They note that there are three elements of successful management during a time of
transition: 1) the ability to provide clear directions and priorities while allowing subordinates to
improvise as needed to achieve the goals, 2) experimenting with many low-cost strategies to
understand what the future of the organization can be, and 3) they link current initiatives to
future goals and keep their teams on track to achieve them (Eisenbach et al., 1999).
Managers within e-Megamart need to understand that they are integral to the
organization’s ability to increase opportunity through performance management. Managers
should exercise the Eisenbach et al. (1999) three characteristics of change agents to successfully
overcome the challenges opportunity within the organization. The three characteristics are: 1)
providing clear directions and prioritizing the need to create opportunity for internal employees
through the new review process will get managers aligned. 2) Experimenting with ways to
implement the process to find the best solution would ensure that the best process is discovered.
3) linking the success of the new program to the compensation of managers will ensure they will
do all they can to maximize the results to increase their own rewards.
Cultural setting: providing training to achieve results. Trenerry and Paradies (2012),
suggest that organizations need to intentionally fair work environments if they want to achieve it.
Some of the tactics that organizations should use in order to achieve impartiality is: 1) Equality
management through assessment and action to remedy inequality, and 2) social competency by
which the organization goes about encouraging individuals to understand more about other social
groups (Trenerry & Paradies, 2012).
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 36

Classified - Confidential
If Megamart’s leadership intentionally fosters fairness within the organization it will be
elevated as a priority within the minds of the implementers of the policy. Leaders should seek to
understand the gap between the goal of in-house promotions to leadership positions and the
reality of today and develop a plan to close that gap. Moreover, they should seek to elevate the
importance of what equality means to the organization to stay competitive in the evolving
business world. Through doing these two things could encourage employees to move from a
system of favoritism to one that fosters rewarding performance with promotions.
Cultural setting: providing human resources to support implementation. Accountability
is a key component of organizations and how they ensure goals get accomplished. According to
Hendry (1996), the most difficult part about starting a new initiative is just getting the process
started. As Schein (2004) notes, culture is part of the basic assumptions individuals within the
organization have about how to operate. Those assumptions have been confirmed through a
shared history that results in success at achieving goals. For a manager to influence equality
within the organization, they need to be able to get people to think beyond their success with
how things used to work and understand that future success requires the organization to adapt
(Henry, 1996). Managers can overcome this challenge using political change models, in which
managers restructure the organization to make achieving fair performance evaluations more
likely (Henry, 1996). If Megamart wants to increase internal opportunity for advancement within
the organization it needs to encourage managers to take the first step toward change. Using a
political change model like restructuring the organization so that managers must rely on
performance indicators more than favoritism to promote employees would be a means for
inducing change.

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 37

Classified - Confidential

Table 4: Stakeholder Goal and Motivational Influence Assessment for Organizational Analysis

Summary
The literature suggests that goal achievement is difficult and often fails if there is not
adequate knowledge, motivation and organizational support. Chapter Two tried to identify the
major reasons why goal achievement fails and the necessary steps needed to improve the
likelihood of success. Specifically, the chapter focused on the knowledge, motivation, self-
efficacy and organizational structural gaps that are leading to the inability to effectively
Organizational Mission
E-Megamart’s goal is to increase overall employee performance and job satisfaction while maintaining a
respect for the individual.
Organizational Global Goal
E-Magamart will increase internal promotions to its executive leadership team by ensuring the
performance evaluation process allows for the best employees to be identified.
Stakeholder Goal
By Q1 2018, managers will implement best practices as outlined in the management performance
training program.
Assumed Organizational Influences

Organizational Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence
1: The organization is not providing enough time to
managers for thorough reflection on direct report
performance

Survey managers on their perception of time
allocated to the task of performance
evaluations.
Cultural Model Influence
2: The organization is not providing enough training to
help managers be ready for the performance review
process.

Survey managers to understand the level of
training managers received to prepare them
for the task of performance reviews.
Cultural Setting Influence 3:
The organization is not providing expert support to help
managers through the performance evaluation with
answers to questions and guidance for dealing with
ambiguity.

Survey managers to determine how accessible
the human resource team was during the
process.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 38

Classified - Confidential
implement change management within the organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Tackling the
issues that lead to the gaps in performance is important in an organization and it will lead to
positive change that will improve the experience of everyone within the organization.

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 39

Classified - Confidential
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this study sought to examine the knowledge, motivation and organization
of e-Megamart’s management to put in the effort of thoroughly and fairly evaluating the
performance of their direct reports. The research was relevant as e-Megamart sought to expand
opportunity to internal employees to advance to leadership positions and most promotions to
leadership roles happen through the performance review process. Employees who achieve high
performance ratings were eligible and considered for filling vacant leadership positions.
Therefore, thorough and fair evaluations would result in the best performers having the chance to
be promoted regardless of their diverse backgrounds. The latest research showed that there were
consistent trends within performance management that could hinder or accelerate equity within
an organization. To build upon the existing research, this study collected surveys from the
management team at e-Megamart who are responsible for administering performance evaluations
as well as conducted focus groups with the direct reports who were the subject of the results of
the performance ratings that come from the evaluations.
Research Questions
This study utilized a mixed methods approach to gathering insights and data into the
behavior of managers and their direct reports within e-Megamart. This included a quantitative
study in which managers were given a survey with a goal of creating an empirical understanding
of their perceptions and feelings toward the performance management process. The research also
included a qualitative approach by which focus groups were conducted with direct reports of the
management team to identify whether manager perceptions align with the direct report’s
perception of the performance review process.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 40

Classified - Confidential
The following questions guided this study:
1) Do managers have the knowledge, motivation and organization to provide fair and thorough
performance reviews of their direct reports?
2) Do the direct reports view the process as fair and accurate?
Conceptual and Methodological Approach
This research relied on the Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis model which uses a
problem-solving analysis for identifying potential root causes for gaps in organizational
performance. Through this model, leaders could identify steps for making improvements to the
process of performance evaluations so that they can achieve their organizational goal of
increased opportunity to internal employees. Clark and Estes (2008) proposed a few approaches
to understand what causes gaps in organizational practice: 1) organizations can use qualitative
methods such as observations, surveys, interviews, and focus groups to understand underlying
behaviors that might be causing the gaps; 2) organizations could use quantitative methods such
as surveys, data gathering and polling to understand measurable reasons for gaps in performance;
or 3) organizations could use a mixed methods approach, which combine qualitative and
quantitative methods. For the purposes of this analysis, the researcher focused on a mixed
methods approach that used surveys of the management team and interviews with the direct
reports. Interviews consisted of recording individuals and noting their experience with the
performance management process within the organization. The surveys focused upon measuring
differences in perception regarding the thoroughness and fairness of performance reviews from
the manager’s perspective based on their answers.

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 41

Classified - Confidential
Conceptual Framework: Performance Management within Megamart
The previous chapters outlined the stakeholders and whether knowledge, motivation, and
organization influence them. However, these influences and the stakeholders do not operate in
isolation, rather they interact with one another. Understanding how they interacted was key to
analyzing ways of improving the process by which managers utilize the organization’s
performance management tools to improve opportunity to internal employees. Part of this
conceptual framework was to define the concepts, assumptions and beliefs (Maxwell, 2013)
necessary to understand the relationship between actors and their influences as seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework between Organization and Manager

E-Megamart had a goal of creating more opportunity to internal employees to advance to
executive leadership because the organization valued their experience. Experience in thought
leadership also keeped the company competitive in an ever-changing retail world. Therefore, the
organization believed it was accountable for creating an environment that remained conducive
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 42

Classified - Confidential
for promoting the best and the brightest. However, in this case, e-Megamart needed to overcome
cultural characteristics, structures and organizational limitations to knowledge, motivation and
organization that delayed it achieving its goals. E-Megamart needed to provide an environment
where time was specifically set aside for the task of working on performance reviews. This
included the manager’s time for soliciting feedback from co-workers, reflecting on their direct
reports performance over the past year, understanding the results of their performance metrics,
transforming all that information into an assessment of their behavior over the past year and
assigning a rating to that behavior. The organization needed to provide expert resources to
support managers when they had questions about the process or were unclear about next steps.
Finally, the organization needed to provide the training to ensure managers were given a baseline
of skill to be successful at completing the task.
Managers, for their part needed to have the knowledge of the steps necessary to fairly and
thoroughly complete a performance review of their direct report(s), understand the criteria that
was involved in determining direct report performance, and what the impact of their ratings had
on the outcome of their direct report’s opportunities within the organization. Managers needed to
have the motivation to want to thoroughly and fairly rate their direct reports. Which would
require them to prioritize the task of evaluating their direct reports over other tasks, allocating
enough time to calculate their direct report’s performance, and feel that the efforts that they put
into the process would result in improved behavior and results by their direct reports.
Organization support combined with manager knowledge and motivation should have
produced results that gave direct reports fair ratings that were based on metrics and peer
feedback. Thorough reviews would also eliminate manager bias, allowing for the best
performing direct reports to receive ratings that would allow them to advance within the
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 43

Classified - Confidential
organization. As a result, the organization would have moved closer to achieving their goal of
increasing the amount of internal employees promoted within the leadership ranks.
Conceptual Analysis
This analysis dived into the potential influences of knowledge, motivational, and
organizational problems that were leading to a performance gap between where the organization
was and their desired end state. This study used mixed methods taken through surveys of the
management teams within e-Megamart that identify the potential causes of gaps in the
performance management process as well as through focus group with the direct report team to
measure differences in their perceptions with those of their manager’s perceptions. This
approach sought to shed light on the potential causes, but also wanted to provide potential
solutions to the perceived problem of lacking internal promotions within the organization.
Participants
The participants in this study came from two different stakeholder groups which were the
managers of e-Megamart and their direct reports. The management team consisted of fifteen
managers with one to fifteen years of experience within the organization. Their age ranged from
26 years old to 38 years old with eight of the participants being female and seven of the
participants being male. Nine of the managers were classified as minorities. While the direct
report team consisted of 22 individuals with one to three years of experience within the
organization. They ranged in age from 21 to 30 years old and twelve of them were female while
the other ten were males. Of the 22 individuals that comprise the direct report team, fifteen were
classified as minorities. All the participants were college graduates and were recruited to e-
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 44

Classified - Confidential
Megamart directly out of college or graduate school. Additionally, it is important to note that
some managers had more than one direct report, but all managers had at least one direct report.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
To examine if performance evaluations had an impact on internal employee opportunity
within Megamart’s, this analysis utilized two methods of collecting data. The first method that
was used included a survey that gathered quantitative data which could be used to analyze
whether managers within e-Megamart believed they had the knowledge, motivation and
organization to support providing fair and thorough performance evaluations. The second
method focused on interviews that were conducted with the direct reports to gather a deeper
understanding of their perceptions regarding the results of the performance evaluation, and if
they believed the performance evaluations were fair and reflective of their actual performance.
Using multiple methods, this analysis sought to triangulate findings that would provide a
broader understanding of the performance evaluation process impact on internal opportunity.
Further, it was trying to understand if performance management was working as intended and
providing fair and thorough reviews that allow for the best employees the opportunity to advance
within the organization (Maxwell, 2013). Further details regarding the data collection methods
and how they were used are outlined below.
Surveys
The survey was administered to the full population of managers within e-Megamart.
There was a total of fifteen managers that made up the team with varying degrees of experience
at administering performance evaluations. The surveys were administered in English, as that was
the primary language used by all the managers on the team. To ensure validity and reliability of
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 45

Classified - Confidential
the survey to measure motivation, knowledge and organization and no incentives was offered to
the participants in exchange for the feedback they provided. The participants were also notified
that the information provided would be confidential and their personal information would not be
shared so that they could participate knowing that there would not be any retaliation based on
their participation or answers. According to Fink (2013), the survey questions were offered in the
closed format, because the researcher wanted to easily analyze and score the behaviors of the
participants to determine if there was a similar systemic behavior that were occurring within the
organization. The questions therefore, were meaningful, concrete, and unbiased in tone so that
the participants could easily identify a response that is relatable to their personal behavior (see
appendix A and B). The survey questions specifically asked the participant’s questions regarding
the performance review process within their organization, and what resources and support they
had throughout the process. The survey will also ask questions regarding the manager’s personal
perceptions, views and behaviors when it comes to evaluating other employees.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Position within the Organization. The survey focused on the management team within
e-Megamart and therefore the survey targeted employees in the following positions: Vice
President, General Manager, Director, and Divisional Manager, Senior Manager. During the
timeframe of this study there were fifteen members of the management team with these titles.
Selecting individuals that had these titles ensured that everyone within the organization who is
responsible for conducting performance reviews at the management level are included.
Length of Tenure within the Organization. This analysis is focused on manager’s
experience with performance evaluations within the organization, and so the study concentrated
on the population of managers who had conducted performance evaluations in the past as well as
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 46

Classified - Confidential
in 2018. As a result, the survey focused on managers with a tenure of one year or more to ensure
that they had conducted a performance evaluation using e-Megamart’s process in the past.
Interviews
This analysis used purposeful sampling, in which the participants are consciously
selected based on the limited size of the population to give full insight to their behaviors
(Maxwell, 2013). The researcher asked 22 direct reports to participate in an interview which
comprised the full direct report team that were subject to being evaluated in the performance
review process. The interviews were conducted in an informal format, with similar questions
being asked of all the participants and held in private within a meeting room offsite. Individuals
were interviewed in focus groups that encouraged all participants to speak freely. The meeting
room was private and in an area where no other employee would be aware of what occurred
within the focus group meeting. The interviews were conducted in English as it was the primary
language of the people who were interviewed. The questions were semi-structured to cover the
same topics so that the answers could be compared against one another. Additionally, the
questions were asked in an open-ended fashion to allow the participant to provide insight that
would not be gather through other means of data collection. Asking open-ended questions
allowed for the best approach in this type of analysis because it permitted information gathered
to be compared and analyzed, (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview questions were designed
to further flush out direct report perception of their manager’s behaviors, views and beliefs
regarding performance evaluations that were not fully identified in the survey questions.

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 47

Classified - Confidential
Interview Criteria and Rationale
Performance was evaluated by manager group. Participants who were interviewed
came from the direct report population who participated in the annual performance review that
analyzes their performance over the 2017 calendar year. To be considered for participation, the
employee would have needed to be with e-Megamart prior to September 1, 2017, have a
manager that was part of the survey group, and completed their performance review meeting to
discuss the results with their manager prior to March 2018.
Direct managers conducted an official performance review. To get insight into if the
direct reports felt that their performance review was reflective of their actual performance, the
focus group selected candidates who had their performance review officially administered by
their direct supervisor. Their direct supervisor would have had to manage the direct report for
more than 90 days.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Research needs to be credible and be trustworthy so that the reader can utilize the
information within (Merriam, 2016). To ensure that this analysis maintained the credibility and
trustworthiness of the reader, the author focused on adding rigor into ensuring that the study was
carried out in the most thoughtful means possible (Merriam, 2016). Moreover, the research
attempted to identify any counter arguments to the claims being made in this analysis so that the
reader could understand the larger argument about the topic being discussed which provided
multiple perspectives. Identifying the counter argument was completed through a review of
current literature that discussed current opinions on the topic of performance reviews and used
those opinions and research to guide the study. To add to the credibility of the study, the work
was reviewed by the dissertation Chair and committee to ensure proper methods and sound logic
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 48

Classified - Confidential
were applied in the creation of this research report. Furthermore, the process used for gathering
data was vetted by the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) to
certify that the process met ethical standards for the collection of data. Finally, the research
reflected upon potential biases and thoughts regarding the research so that the reader could
understand what may have influenced the research results (Merriam, 2016).
Validity and Reliability
To ensure validity and reliability within this study, the collection of data and means of
conducting the study was carried out in the most ethical means possible to ensure results reflect
reality (Merriam, 2016). To support the validity and reliability of the results of this study, the
analysis focused on doing three things: (1) creating credibility, (2) ensure transferability of
findings, and (3) ensure the information can be confirmed, (Shenton, 2004). Through taking
these steps, the author was able to elevate the credibility of the information contained within the
research.
To promote credibility in the research results, the analysis triangulated multiple sources
of data to identify and reach the conclusions (Merriam, 2016; Shenton, 2004). Triangulation was
done through a review of current literature, interviews with the individuals being studied, and
using surveys. Furthermore, the research encompassed opinions and perceptions of every
member within e-Megamart’s management team and their direct reports. Complete participation
allowed the survey to capture the full view of the behaviors, actions and opinions of the
population that was examined, rather than making assumptions based upon a smaller segment of
the population (Shenton, 2004). To ensure honesty in the reporting from the individuals who
participated, each person was informed that their participation was voluntary and that they could
choose not to participate. Each participant was asked similar questions in the focus groups and
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 49

Classified - Confidential
surveys. As well, the study was conducted in the same environment so that there were
consistencies in the experiences of the participants.
Transferability of the findings were just as important to the validity and reliability. This
study was highly focused and applicable to one organization (e-Megamart) and therefore the
results and key learnings cannot be specifically applied elsewhere. However, as Merriam (2016)
notes, reliability is measured by the extent to which results can be replicated. While the results
may not be replicated everywhere outside of the organization being studied, the results would be
replicable if another party were to conduct similar studies of the same individuals and teams
involved within this study. Otherwise if a participant refuses to participate the findings will be
able to be generalized and applied to the broader organization inclusive of the participants who
withdrew.
Finally, to ensure that the information can be confirmed, the findings went through a
process of member checking (Meriam, 2016). Whereby, the individuals who were the subjects
of the study were asked to validate that the claims made were accurate (Merriam, 2016; Shenton,
2004). Through this process, misinterpretation can be ruled out as a potential hindrance to the
validity of the findings, because the subjects were able to corroborate the findings as being
accurate to their understanding of the situation. By utilizing these steps, this analysis will create
increased validity and reliability within the data being presented.
Ethics
As a researcher I was focused on the meaning behind, and understanding of, the behavior
of the participants within the organization to answer the research questions (Merriam, 2009).
Further, I was focused on making ethical choices when conducting research for this study
because so much of the data collection will entail conversation with internal employees within
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 50

Classified - Confidential
the organization and the decisions made could impact their job security. Therefore, all the
participants were provided with consent forms that outlined the study and their rights within the
process. The consent forms were given to each participant at the commencement of the study so
they are aware from the beginning of the relationship about how the process and the information
they provide will be protected and used. Informed consent is important so that the participants
knew that their involvement in the study was voluntary, they can withdraw from the process at
any time, and all their discussions will be kept confidential. I submitted my study to the
University of Southern California (USC) Institutional Review Board (IRB) and followed the
rules and guidelines outlined by IRB regarding the protection of the rights and welfare of the
participants in this study. Prior to the interviews, I received permission from the participants to
record the interviews, which I transcribed. The transcription was provided to them as a copy post
interview to allow them the opportunity to review what was said and could be included in the
research. Finally, I took the step to remind the participants that no incentive was being provided
for their participation within the study so they were aware from the beginning of the study, that
no coercion or incentive was being provided for their participation.
Limitations and Delimitations
The purpose of this analysis was to study the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
features influencing performance evaluations and their impact on increasing opportunity among
current employees. The nature of the analysis resulted in limitations that are out of the control of
the researcher. Some limitations that occur during the process of data collection include having a
limited amount of time, unanswered questions by some of the participants within the focus
groups, inaccurate answers, and changes in schedule of performance review process.

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 51

Classified - Confidential
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA AND FINDINGS
Purpose of the Study
This chapter provides an overview of the findings, presented by categories of assumed
causes according to the KMO framework. The specific purpose of this study was to understand
the knowledge, motivation and organizational (KMO) implications of performance evaluations
on opportunity within the e-Megamart’s organization. The study was structured using the Clark
and Estes (2008) organizational model that applies a KMO gap analysis conceptual framework.
Through this conceptual framework this study examined how the potential KMO influences
could help the organizational achieve its goals. Additionally, the KMO influences were used to
identify questions that guided the framework of this study (Clark & Estes, 2008; Samkian,
2016b). The research questions used to guide this study were:
1) Do managers have the knowledge, motivation and organization to provide fair and
thorough performance reviews of their direct reports?
2) Do the direct reports view the process as fair and accurate?
3) Is there a better process that would make the reviews more impartial?
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2009) to paint a holistic picture of what behavior may
be occurring a study should be supported by analyzing the data derived from interviews, focus
groups, surveys, field observations and document and artifacts. For the purposes of this study,
quantitative data was collected through interviews and qualitative data was collected through
surveys to validate the assumed causes of the questions guiding this study (Creswell, 2014;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For this mixed methods study, the data collection process used to
develop an understanding of the two research questions included: a survey for the management
team of e-Megamart, and a focus group interview with the direct reports of the management team
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 52

Classified - Confidential
at e-Megamart. The results of the survey and focus groups were coded based upon the KMO
influences.
Participating Stakeholders
The primary stakeholders in this study come from two different participant groups which
include the managers and direct reports of e-Megamart’s merchandising team. The participant
group makes up the full population of 15 managers and 22 direct reports within the e-commerce
team within e-Megamart. Out of 15 potential participants, all 15 managers responded to the
survey and all 15-provided consent to participate resulting in a 100% response rate. Further, all
22 direct reports participated in the focus groups, resulting in a 100% participation rate.
All managers had at least one direct report, but some managers had more than one direct
report. The management team consist of 15 managers with one to 15 years of experience within
the organization and have all participated in the annual performance review process as the
evaluators of their direct reports. The managers range in age from 26 years old to 38 years old.
Eight female and seven male managers participated in the survey. Of the total manager
population, six were white males while the rest of the population would be classified as racial
minorities and/or women.
On the other hand, the direct report team consists of 22 individuals with one to three
years of experience within the organization, and represents the full population of individuals that
would be classified as direct reports. On average, the population is younger than the manager
population, with an age range between 21 to 30 years old. Of the direct report team, twelve of
them are female while the other ten are males. Of the 22 individuals that comprise the direct
report team, 12 would be defined as minorities. All the participants are college graduates and
were recruited to e-Megamart directly out of college or graduate school. The next section of this
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 53

Classified - Confidential
study provides the results of the findings for the research questions which comes from the
collection and analysis of data gathered in the survey of managers and the focus group interviews
of the direct reports.
Chart 1: Participating stakeholder demographics:

Findings
This study’s findings are organized around Knowledge, Motivation and Organization
based categories that focused on the two research questions and correlate with the KMO gap
analysis conceptual framework (Clark & Estes, 2008). The analysis began with the collection of
quantitative data using one electronic survey emailed to the management team. The survey
Gender Managers Direct Reports
Male 7 10
Female 8 12
Total 15 22
Ethnicity Managers Direct Reports
White 11 13
African-American 2 4
Hispanic 1 2
Multiethnic 0 1
Other 1 2
Total 15 22
Experience Managers Direct Reports
<1 year 0 0
1-5 years 7 22
6-10 years 4 0
>10 years 4 0
Age Managers Direct Reports
<21 years 0 0
21-25 years 0 14
26-30 years 3 8
31-35 years 10 0
36-40 years 2 0
>40 years 0 0
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 54

Classified - Confidential
included 12 questions about manager perceptions regarding the performance evaluation process
at e-Megamart. Participants within the survey group used a Likert Scale and a continuous rating
scale to measure the frequency at which they have experienced behaviors or had specific
perceptions regarding the performance management process.
Further, qualitative data, in the form of focus group interviews with the management
team’s direct reports, was collected. This phase of data collection occurred after the survey was
complete with the management team to build upon findings and identify insights that could be
leveraged for questions to be posed within the focus group interview. Of the 22 potential
participants that could have participated in the focus groups, all 22 direct reports agreed to
participate and provided consent. Counting all responses yielded a 100% participation rate from
the population of direct reports within the organization. The focus groups were divided into three
randomly selected groups, with two groups containing seven participants and one group
containing eight participants. All interviews were recorded, with participant verbal consent, and
later were transcribed, coded, and analyzed. Sample items from each survey instrument are
included in Appendix A (page 106) and B (page 109), respectively. In addition, the interview
protocol can be found in Appendix C (page 111).
The survey that went to the managers, offered three questions each within the categories
of knowledge, motivation and organization for a total of twelve questions. Each question was
designed to measure the average level of strength or opportunity the manager’s KMO was as
well as the manager’s impact on performance reviews in comparison to the perception the direct
reports had of their manager’s performance during the process and the impact of their manager’s
performance on their opportunities for advancement within the organization. The results are
discussed through the lens of each.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 55

Classified - Confidential
Do managers have the knowledge to execute a fair and thorough performance review?
For managers to successfully give their employees fair and thorough performance
reviews they need to feel confident that they know all the steps to complete the performance
review, understand the criteria for evaluating their direct report, and comprehending the impact
of the rating on their direct reports future within the organization. The manager survey sought to
identify the baseline interpretation of manager for these questions and the results were compared
to the perception of their direct reports to understand if there was truly alignment between
manager and direct report insights.
Manager’s need to know the steps to conduct a performance review
Knowing all the steps to the performance review process is important for managers to
provide a fair and thorough evaluation of their direct report. Clearly defined processes remove
ambiguity and allow managers to make informed decisions (Krathwohl, 2002). Missing a step
could result in key data points being overlooked and an employee not receiving a rating that
corresponds with their actual performance. To understand the level of knowledge the
management team had in regard to the performance review process, managers were asked: How
confident are you in knowing all the steps to the performance review process? The results in
figure 2 show the results of the manager’s confidence level.

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 56

Classified - Confidential
Figure 2: Confidence level in the understanding of performance review steps

In the first question, the researcher tried to understand each manager’s confidence level in
leading the performance review process. All fifteen managers responded to the question and the
results showed overwhelmingly that the management team felt confident in their understanding
of the performance review process. With a mean confidence level of 3.6 (median of 4, mode of
4), the management team identified their understanding as ‘highly confident.’ Of the fifteen
managers surveyed, only three of the managers identified themselves as being less than confident
(one ‘not confident, two ‘less confident’).
Comparing the manager perspective with the focus groups results from the management
team’s direct reports, it appears there exists a difference of opinion between the manager’s
confidence level and their direct report’s perception of the manager’s ability. From the direct
reports perspective, managers might not fully understand how to effectively deliver a
performance review rating and the consequences of the ratings. Direct report (DR) 3 reflected on
the experience suggesting that the manager was not fully aware of all the steps necessary to
complete a performance review when DR 3 said:
Honestly, I feel like my manager wasn’t clear about what she was supposed to do. She
would forward emails from the H.R. department but provide no context. I mean, I would
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 57

Classified - Confidential
look through the information provided in the email but I was unclear what I needed to do
and by what time? So, when I asked my manager for more timing she said she would
have to check and get back to me. Also, after I turned in my self-review, I didn’t know
when she was going to give me my rating. So, I was left in limbo wondering if like I was
going to get a good score of what? It was like kind of annoying because like I was
already nervous about getting feedback and she just wasn’t keeping me posted.
This disconnection between manager perceptions and direct report perception was also supported
by DR 14 who reflected that her manager’s lack of organization and clarity implied a deficiency
of understanding the necessary steps to complete a performance review:
Obviously my manager was either too busy to read the email from H.R. or just didn’t
know when he was supposed to do stuff. This is my first job and I never did an annual
review before so I have no idea what I am doing. My boss was like “hey you have to
submit a self-review by tomorrow!” That would have been good to know earlier so I
would have had more time to think about my performance over the last year. I think
having no time, hurt me in my final score and all. I thought about a bunch of stuff I
should have included after it was submitted and I feel I got no credit for it in my review
and didn’t get as high of a score as I should have.
However, not all feedback suggested that the manager’s perception was far off from that
which their direct reports witnessed. DR 10 believed she had a positive experience and her
manager provided clear guidance:
Wow, I didn’t experience what all the people here are saying. My manager walked me
through the process in our weekly meeting and gave me some pointers. I thought it was
pretty clear what I had to do and think the process was helpful.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 58

Classified - Confidential
DR 4 also found that his manager was knowledgeable about what needed to be done and how,
saying:
I think my boss knew what he was doing, he was pretty much able to knock out the whole
team’s evals quickly. Everyone on the team seemed to be okay with how the review went
even if they were nervous beforehand.
DR 9 who shares a manager with DR 4 agreed that in his perception, his manager understood
what needed to be done when he said: “Yeah like [DR4] said he really just walked me through
everything in the eval and told me what it meant and next steps. He made it straight forward. I
felt like he had things under control.” Which suggests that managers had a some level of
knowledge about what needed to happen and when.
Managers need to understand the criteria necessary to fairly and thoroughly evaluate their
employee’s performance.
Managers who use clear guidelines for evaluating employee performance provide more
consistent results that are fair, (Beer et al., 2000; Fullan, 2004; Kotter, 2007; Sirkin et al., 2005).
Therefore, the manager survey sought to identify if managers within e-Megamart know what the
organization considers the key criteria for measuring their direct report’s performance? The
results are a key indicator as to whether managers are using a level playing field in terms of
criteria when evaluating their employees against one another. Using different criteria could
produce results that are favorable to one employee but conversely not as favorable to another.
Managers were asked, “Do you understand the criteria that should be used for rating your direct
reports?” The results in figure 3 show the results of the manager’s level of understanding.

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 59

Classified - Confidential

Figure 3: Level of Manager Understanding of Criteria for Performance Measurements:

The results indicate that managers in general felt they understood the criteria they should
be using to evaluate their direct reports’ performance. They had a mean answer of 4.2 (median of
4, mode of 5), managers overwhelming suggested they ‘strongly understood’ or ‘clearly
understood’ what the criteria was for measuring how well their employee performed over the
past year. However, two of them thought less confidently about what criteria they should be
using when assessing the performance of their employees. These two individuals identified their
level of comprehension as ‘somewhat understood’ or had ‘no understanding’ of what the criteria
was for measuring their direct reports performance. These two ratings suggest that managers
could use some additional guidance in pinpointing the benchmarks required for assessing their
direct reports’ performance.
Direct reports had mixed feelings about their manager’s ability to identify the key
indicators of their performance when asked with the focus group “has your manager clearly
identified the metrics by which they are evaluating your performance, and if not do you think
they clearly understand what they should be?” DR 21 provided some insights to how she became
aware of the criteria through probing questions with her manager being used:
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 60

Classified - Confidential
Well after last year’s performance review, I wanted to make sure I knew all the metrics I
was going to be evaluated on. So, I asked my manager early in the process ‘what he was
going to use as the deciding factors in my performance?’ He said the usual things ‘sales,
margin, new items blah blah blah.’ I didn’t think that was clear enough so I asked him
‘what would get me to an exceeds in performance?’ He laid out the exact numbers I
needed to hit so that I knew if I did that I should be getting an exceeds no matter what. I
wish he would just tell me though rather than me having to pull it out of him [laughs].
Her comments suggest that criteria which direct reports should be measured on exists, but
managers are not doing a good enough job communicating that criteria to their direct reports so
that they can lay down goals to achieve the metrics being measured. DR 7 contributed to the
discussion by noting that he had a perception that there was standard metrics that everyone was
evaluated on and they should be standard across the board, but the answer suggests if there is a
standard, he was unware of it: “There has to be universal metrics, right? I don’t think it would be
fair if we all didn’t have to the same things we were being judged on.”
Finally, DR 1 also noted that if there were criteria he was not fully aware of it but had a general
idea of the criteria based on previous performance evaluations: “We get rated on the same thing
every year, its basic things that we should be looking at everyday anyway. Every year, no matter
who my manager was, I got evaluated on it. So, if you don’t know then that is your bad.”
The results of the direct report focus group suggest that managers may have a set of
criteria they should be using, however if one exists, they are not regularly sharing it with their
direct reports. There also exists an assumption that the criteria remain stagnant year over year,
which may not necessarily be the case if organizational goals change over time. The differences
that exist between manager and direct report perception suggest the organization could do a
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 61

Classified - Confidential
better job of informing all employees what the performance standards are and how employees
will be evaluated against them.
Managers need to know the impact that their performance evaluation has on their direct
report.
Understanding the consequences of performance evaluations is important for managers to
know so that they recognize the time and resource commitment necessary to provide their direct
reports with fair and thorough performance evaluations. When they understand how their
behavior impacts others they are more likely to be thoughtful about their actions. Therefore, the
survey included a question to measure the level of understanding each person had about the
effects of their ratings on their employees. The survey asked: “What impact does your rating
having on the advancement opportunities of your direct report? The results in figure 4 show the
results of the manager’s impact level.
Figure 4: Impact of Ratings on DR Opportunities:

Overall, the management team believed that the performance review had at least some
impact on the opportunities their direct report would have. The results showed that managers had
a mean of 4.2 (median of 4, mode of 5) which on average suggest they thought the performance
rating had slightly more than a ‘high impact’ on their direct report’s opportunities. The survey
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very High Impact
High Impact
Average Impact
Little Impact
No Impact
Participants (n=15)
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 62

Classified - Confidential
results overall suggested there existed a perception that how managers rated their employees
mattered, because no manager chose the answer options of ‘little impact’ or ‘no impact’ to
describe the level of influence their ratings had on their employee’s opportunities within e-
Megamart. More important to note, is that nearly all the managers (12 out of 15), suggested that
performance ratings had a ‘high’ or ‘very high’ impact on their employee’s future outcomes
which would suggest that managers would invest the time to ensure they were providing
thorough scores.
Direct reports also thought that the performance evaluation ratings had a major impact on
their futures within the organization, however feelings were mixed when it came to their
perceptions regarding their managers understanding of the importance to them. Direct reports
were asked: “How does your rating impact your future at e-Megamart, and do you think your
managers understand that?” DR 11 shared her feelings on the importance of the evaluation when
asked what impact she thought the evaluation had on her future:
I think it’s really important! I mean, I don’t want to be stuck in the position forever. I
want to move over to site merchandising and for me to be considered, I need to get a
good review. Fortunately for me I got a great rating so I could be eligible, but like the
others were saying, if your manager doesn’t take it seriously you could be screwed.
DR 21 felt similarly about the importance of the evaluation on her future within the organization
which resulted in some giggling from the other participants and head nodding in the affirmative,
saying: “It’s no joke, and it is why I get so nervous every year. If my boss thinks I am not up to
par than my whole career could be derailed. I literally feel like I am having a heart attack every
year!” DR 15 responded to DR 21’s comments by laughing and saying: “For real, this process is
no joke. No joke at all. You never know what you are going to get and that is scary when it could
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 63

Classified - Confidential
mean you get fired or something like that.” Overall, the direct reports suggested that the
performance review had a significant impact on their future within the organization and therefore
it should be taken seriously by their managers.
When asked if anyone else has a comment on the importance of performance evaluations
on the direct report’s future, DR 17 added one additional insight saying: “As important as
everyone knows this is, we should spend more time on it. I think it’s crazy that your whole year
is summed up in a 30-minute meeting with your manager, I mean come on really?”
DR 3 added to the discussion by talking about whether she thought her manager cared about her
future with the organization and how that might impact her rating: “I think [Manager] and I have
a good relationship and she cares about my future and my goals. So, I think when it comes to
deciding what rating I should get, she spends the time to reflect on the things I have done over
the year and gives me a rating that reflects my efforts.”
The results of the manager survey and the focus group with the direct reports suggest that
both parties understand that the performance evaluation carries great weight on the future of the
direct reports within e-Megamart. Considering that both parties know the impact, it would
suggest that managers should spend considerable time and resources into evaluating their direct
reports. Similarly, direct reports should put in just as much effort to make sure their managers are
aware of all the work and contributions they have made to the organization over the course of the
year. E-Megamart therefore, should ensure both parties have enough time to reflect on the
behaviors of the individuals being evaluated and provide a thorough grade of their performance.
Do Managers have the motivation to provide comprehensive and fair performance
evaluations?
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 64

Classified - Confidential
Motivation is necessary to get managers to take the steps necessary to provide their direct
reports with a thorough and fair evaluation (Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011). Without
motivation, managers would prioritize their daily responsibilities over performance reviews
which take away from the tasks they need to get done. Performance reviews had the potential to
take considerable time away from a manager’s schedule and therefore be a barrier to motivation.
Therefore, it is important to measure how managers prioritize performance reviews over other
tasks as a baseline of motivation. Additionally, it important to note how much time they spend on
the task of performance reviews to see if their perception of importance aligns with actual effort
being given to the responsibility. Finally, it is important to know if managers think the
performance review produced changes in their direct reports behavior because if there is no
behavior changing, managers may find lack the motivation to complete the process thoroughly
because there would be no benefits.
Managers need to prioritize performance evaluations
When managers spend time prioritizing tasks, they are more likely to deliver their best
results in evaluating direct reports because they make key tasks like performance evaluations
critical assignments they need to complete. When individuals put efforts behind their work they
are more likely to achieve the goals they have. Therefore, the first question within the motivation
section of the manager survey focused on what level of priority to they rank performance
reviews in comparison to other tasks they normally work on. Managers were asked: “Compared
to other daily tasks, how important is working on performance evaluations?” The results in
figure 5 show the results of the manager’s priority level.

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 65

Classified - Confidential
Figure 5: Manager Priority Level of Performance Reviews:

The results of the survey show that making performance reviews a priority over other
assignments they are typically working on. The mean answer to the question was 3.93 (median
of 4, mode of 4). With a rating of nearly ‘high priority’ managers on average tend to consider
performance reviews slightly more of an important task than other daily tasks. It is interesting to
note, is that no managers rated the task of performance reviews as a lower priority or not a
priority, and twelve of the fifteen managers surveyed said it was a ‘high priority’ or a ‘top
priority.’
In comparison, direct reports were asked: “How much effort do you think your manager
puts into preparing your performance review?” The question’s intent is to determine whether or
not direct reports have seen the work managers put into the process or to what extent the efforts
managers put in show in the meeting with direct report performance is discussed with the
manager. DR 14 believed the performance review process had difficulty capturing her actual
performance for a full year due to her manager’s lack of preparation:
Like I said earlier, I don’t think my boss was prepared for the review, and when we sat in
our meeting to discuss my performance for the year, my boss didn’t talk about some of
the big things I worked on. It was strange that I managed the spring promotional event for
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 66

Classified - Confidential
my team but my boss didn’t even talk about it. I brought it up and my boss was like “oh
yeah, I forgot about that, but that’s okay, because you got a good score anyway.
When asked to elaborate further on their perception of how they thought their manager
felt about the performance review process, DR 14 said: “I don’t think my boss cared too much. I
think it was more of a hassle than anything because we already have so much to do and this is
just another thing. My boss has told me plenty of times that she will help me get promoted when
I find something I want to do.” The perception by the direct reports is that the performance
review process is not taken seriously enough by the manager and therefore could have adverse
effects on their future within the organization. DR 7 expressed concern that his performance
review was also not taken seriously enough by his manager when he said:
I don’t think she thought it was a big deal, I felt she kind of went in know what she
wanted to rate people and I felt most people got an average rating. I don’t think she spent
too much time talking with me or everyone else about what they did. Not that it would
have any impact on the rating, I think she already had her mind made up regardless.
DR 22 noted that he was unaware of how much effort his manager put into the process of
preparing the performance review, but mentioned that his manager forgot to include some key
metrics that should have been reflected in his performance review: “I really can’t say how much
time my boss spent on this. When we discussed it though, I thought it was shocking that she left
out my work leading the holiday event… it just happened! That is a miss on her part.” The direct
reports fear that the manager may have missed key events within the direct reports performance
further indicated that managers needed to spend more time thoroughly evaluating their
employee. If managers had more time, training and resources they could ensure they capture all
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 67

Classified - Confidential
key inputs and the direct report may have felt that the manager cared more about the outcomes of
the evaluation.
Managers need to spend sufficient time assembling their direct reports performance review
How much time a manager spends on completing performance reviews reflects how
motivated they were to finish the process to standard. The second question of the motivation
section of the manager survey sought to identify how much time each manager spends on each
performance reviews. The results provide insight into the effort each manager gave as well as
provided a comparison to understand how important they thought the process was. Managers
were asked to select a period that corresponded with the average amount of time they spent on
each of their direct reports performance evaluations. The results in figure 6 show the time
managers allocated per performance reviews.
Figure 6: Time Managers Spent on Performance Reviews:

The results of the survey show that most managers (ten out of fifteen) spent between one
and five hours on each direct report’s performance evaluation. Four managers spent less than an
hour on the performance review, and only one manager spent more than five hours on the
assessment of each of their direct report. While there has been no study to identify the right
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 68

Classified - Confidential
amount of time managers should be spending on reviewing their employees, the average time
seemed relatively low. However, what these numbers do not take into consideration is the
amount of feedback managers provide throughout the year. If it was common for managers to
provide their direct report on going feedback, it may not have been as important to spend as
much time on performance reviews. This would be an important question to answer in future
research.
Direct reports were asked in the focus group: Tell me about how managers explained
your results in the performance review? DR 10 said that her manager spent about the same
amount of time on going over her performance review with her as her manager did with other
people on her team. She said:
Well my manager put 30 minutes on my calendar to discuss my performance and my
rating for the year. The first part of the meeting was dedicated to allowing me to discuss
how I thought I did over the year, then he gave me his thoughts on my performance, and
let me know my rating and what my bonus was going to be. He finished by letting me ask
any outstanding questions I might have had.
What the response indicated is that the manager should have tailored the meeting time to
support the needs of each direct report. Some direct reports may have needed additional time
with their manager to discuss strategies for improving their performance, or how they could take
what they are doing well and expand upon it. Future research should identify if the time
managers spent with the employees was adequate based upon their rating. DR 18 had a similar
experience to DR 10, when he said, “My meeting was about 30 minutes but we spent most of
that time just talking, we really only spent about 10 minutes on my performance and my rating. It
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 69

Classified - Confidential
was pretty good so didn’t need to get into the details. My boss usually just lets me know how
things are going in the moment, so no surprises there.”
Nearly all the participants in the forum shared similar experiences when it came to the
meeting to discuss performance. What this suggest is that managers had a standardized process
for delivering performance reviews with their direct reports, and from the comments made by the
direct reports, it was an effective means of having a performance discussion. E-Megamart should
ensure that the process is standardized across the organization. However, additional research
should be conducted into whether the time spent preparing the performance evaluation was
enough, or if additional incentives need to be made to ensure managers are spending more time
on the process of planning.
Managers are motivated to do performance reviews when the process produces positive
results in behavior.
As noted, performance reviews at e-Megamart are a means for assessing an employee’s
accomplishments over the past year and use the learnings to improve performance and behavior.
Research shows that when managers feel they can have an impact on employee performance,
they are more likely to be motivated to use the performance review process as a means of
encouraging positive behavior. Therefore, it only made sense to include a question that measured
how much impact managers thought performance evaluations had on their direct reports
behavior. Managers were asked within the survey: “How big of impact do performance reviews
have on your direct reports behavior?” The results in figure 7 show impact of performance
reviews on employee behavior.

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 70

Classified - Confidential
Figure 7: Performance Review Impact on DR behavior:

When evaluating the results of the manager survey, managers on average suggested that
performance reviews produced less than average impact on employee behavior. Managers gave a
mean rating for the impact on behavior of 2.73 (Median of 3, Mode of 3). Only two managers
suggested that performance reviews have a significant impact on employee behavior. The results
suggest that managers may not be as motivated to devote much time to the process because they
find little value in the outcome of the practice of annual evaluations. As such, in order to
encourage managers to be motivated to administor performance reviews, e-Megamart should
consider a means of demonstrating how performance reviews change behavior.
When comparing the results of the manager survey with the perceptions of the direct
reports, there was similar thoughts that performance reviews, at least in the current method, were
antiquated and not very useful. DR 2 suggested that the process felt more like a formality rather
than a necessity to improving performance when he said:
You know I think its old school to have this process. I talk with my manager all the time
and I like to get real time feedback. If I am doing something wrong and can do better, I
just want her to tell me. What good does it do if I don’t hear about issues, like if I suck at
doing something like analyzing promotions? You know what I mean? Like why waste a
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 71

Classified - Confidential
whole year before letting me know? I think its best if someone just tells me what the feel
and think to my face when it happens rather than be all sneaky about it.
Another direct report, DR 5, supported the thoughts of DR 2 by further discussing the
relationship she has with her manage and how she is always discussing her performance as a
means of getting continuously better:
Like he said, in my weekly touch base with my manager, he just lets me know what I am
doing well and what opportunities I have. Just seems like the annual review is
unnecessary. In fact, I think it makes things worse, because I get nervous about the rating
I am going to get and how it might influence my future here.
When asked to provide some insights into what they do to ensure their managers were
aware of all the things the direct reports had accomplished over the past year, many of the direct
reports had answers. DR 20 said: “What I do is keep a running list of things I accomplish on my
note pad throughout the year and when it comes time to do my self-evaluation I just rehash those
things. I think that is a good way to make sure my manager knows what I did for the company.”
DR 16 had a similar strategy, in which she said:
I do something similar, I have a file in Onenote where I capture anything I do that is
relevant and copy and paste it into my self-evaluation. I think it’s a good way for me to
keep track of everything and sometimes I read through it and think ‘oh yeah, I forgot
about that’ so you know, if I didn’t keep track I probably would have forgot to include it.
The results of the manager survey and the feedback provided by the direct report team in
the focus groups suggest that the organization’s desire to complete the performance review was
low, therefore, managers provided little effort. While the lack of motivation was not fully
identified in the manager survey. However, the direct reports shed more light into why managers
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 72

Classified - Confidential
may have found the performance evaluation to be a less than idea use of time, when they
suggested that performance discussions were typically an on-going event. They also suggested
that once a year performance reviews made it difficult to capture all the activity that reflected
their behavior. Rather, direct reports suggested that real time feedback and discussions with their
managers were far more important to improving their performance and correcting bad behavior.
In general, one can infer that managers think the performance evaluation process has little
additional value to the performance improvement process, therefore, managers lacked motivation
to utilize significant time and resources providing a thorough evaluation of their direct reports.
The results of the manager’s survey are supported by the perceptions the direct reports alleged
regarding manager motivation and the value it must their own personal performance level and
opportunities to advance.
Organizations need to provide the resources to effective administer performance reviews
For managers to successful deliver on the organizational goals of fair and comprehensive
performance evaluations, they need the organization to provide the time and resources necessary
to get the task done. Research suggest when organizations support managers in accomplishing
goals, managers are more likely to achieve results (Agarwala, 2003). Therefore, the manager
survey and the direct report focus group sought to understand how much support each group
receives from the organization in regard to training for the performance review, providing people
support that could answer questions or give guidance, and how much time is allocated to them to
complete the task at hand.
Managers need to receive training to successfully administer performance reviews
One of the reasons e-Megamart was encouraging fair and thorough performance reviews
as that there was inconsistency in the results produced in past performance evaluations.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 73

Classified - Confidential
Suggesting that managers may not have known the proper procedures for evaluating their direct
reports and sharing with them the results of their work over the past year. Research suggests that
when managers are given adequate training, they will be better prepared for the performance
review process. Hence, the manager survey sought to identify if training for managers were
provided and if so was it enough training? Managers were asked: “How much training does e-
Megamart provide you for giving performance reviews?” The results of manager perception for
training the received are in figure 8.
Figure 8: Manager Perceived Training Amount:

The results of the survey show that managers thought they recieved an ‘average’ amount
of training in comparison to other tasks they were trained for. The mean score for managers
came to 3.13 (Median of 3 and Mode of 3). The data also shows that all fifteen managers
received some training so they could identify a base level of investment made by e-Megamart to
provide the resources necessary to build knowledge of performance reviews. However,
considering the challenges that e-Megamart faced historically when it comes to performance
reviews, one would suspect that e-Megamart would have devoted more time and resources to the
training of developing the skills to successfully evaluate employees and how to identify key
learnings to share with employees that could be used to improve performance.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 74

Classified - Confidential
Lack of training was not an isolated issue for managers, direct reports cited having
similar issues in knowing what their role was within the process and how to best use their time.
When the direct reports were asked if the organization provided them with the resources to help
them get the most out of the performance evaluation. DR 19 said: “I don’t think there was really
any training, I just asked around and got some suggestions from my friends.” DR 12 felt
similarly when she said, “It would be nice if the company provided us with some help. I would
like to know what the best practice is. I think if we had that, then all the buyers could standardize
the process and make it go smoother for our managers.”
DR 18 also felt that additional support from the organization would help him build the skills he
needed to leverage the performance review to his benefit when he said:
I would love to know the best way to utilize the evals so that I can make sure my boss is
giving me the best score possible. This year I was kind of winging it and put what I
thought was important to include. I mean I asked my manager in our weekly meeting as
well and she provided some help but overall I could have probably given more if I knew
what was important and what wasn’t.
The feedback provided by managers in the survey and the perception direct reports
thought about their manager’s ability to deliver a performance review as well as the
organization’s level of support for giving them the tools to utilize the review process to their
benefit, suggest that the organization is not providing enough training. Managers held a
perception that training was about the same or equal to other trainings in the amount of
information that was provided. Direct reports felt they were left clueless about how to best use
the performance review to improve their output and become better employees. Overall, this
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 75

Classified - Confidential
suggest e-Megamart has opportunity to invest more resources in training all employees on the
merits of performance reviews and how to best use them.
Human Resource managers need to serve as resources for information and clarity
Organizations that provide expert resources for guidance in implementing processes and
tools are more likely to achieve their goals, (Agarwala, 2003). Human Resource managers are
the experts within e-Megamart for how the performance evaluation process should work. They
designed the tools, the process and the training that managers receive and therefore know how
they are intended to be used. The manager survey sought to understand how useful the Human
Resource team was in supporting them throughout the process of the performance evaluation,
and how available they made themselves for the managers to lean on. Managers were asked in
the survey: “How available was the Human Resources team to answer your questions about
performance reviews?” The results of the question are noted in figure 9.
Figure 9: The availability of Human Resource managers:

Considering how important it is to have access to expert support, the results of the
manager survey suggest that it was readily available. The mean score managers gave with regard
to their access to Human Resource managers was 3.73 (Median of 4, Mode of 4). This suggested
that managers thought that Human Resource managers were ‘available’ to help them with any
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 76

Classified - Confidential
questions or help they might have needed. One manager was unaware if there was organizational
help available because they chose not to use Human Resources for any questions they may have
had. Overall, the results suggest that organization did their part to assist managers with the
performance review process.
When the direct reports were asked about their perception of their manager’s knowledge
of using all the tools and resources available to them to come to an understanding of their
performance, the direct reports had some interesting insights that did not align with the results
from the manager survey. DR 6 suggested that her manager was unaware of the resources
available to her: “I think she talked with her friends and co-workers to understand what she
needed to do with the new tools. You would think that the HR department would have given her
more help since she was new and all.” DR 22 supported DR 6 claims, nodding his head
throughout her comments and sharing: “Exactly, my boss asked [Manager] what she was
supposed to do and I saw [Manager] come by her desk a few times to point her in the right
direction.”
However, two direct reports cited that their managers were seen getting help from the
Human Resources department on how to use the new tools. DR 10 who noted a positive
experience with her manager’s routine during the review process also saw her manager getting
assistance, she said:
[HR manager] came by my manager’s desk when he had some questions, and was also in
the room when he was giving my review. We both asked her questions during the
meeting and she was very helpful giving us answers and next steps. I think other
managers even asked my manager what they should be doing so help was available.
People just need to have the desire to seek it out.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 77

Classified - Confidential
Both managers and direct reports commonly felt they received support from the human
resources team when they sought help. Some direct reports even suggested that the human
resource team went above and beyond in helping with the performance review process. Having
the performance review experts to help guide the broader team through the process demonstrates
that e-Megamart is putting people resources in place to help the organization through the review
process.
Managers need to have the time necessary to comprehensively review their employee’s
performance.
One of the most valuable resources an organization could give to their teams so that they
can be successful in achieving goals is time. Research suggest that managers will cut corners
when they feel the time allotted to a task is inadequate. To help managers achieve their goals of
thorough and fair performance reviews of their direct reports, e-Megamart needs to provide
managers with the needed time for reflection of their employee’s performance. The manager
survey sought to identify how managers felt about the time they were given to complete their
task. Managers were asked: “Does the company give you the time necessary to thoroughly
evaluate your employee?” The results of the survey are noted in figure 10:
Figure 10: Manager perceptions regarding time to evaluate employee performance:

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 78

Classified - Confidential
The results of the survey show that managers have mixed feelings regarding the resources
of time given to them by the organization to focus on evaluating their direct reports. The mean
results of the survey were 2.93 (Median of 3, Mode of 2) show that managers on average thought
they had less than enough time to focus on the process. Six of the fifteen managers identified not
having enough time for the task of reflecting on their employee’s performance. Conversely, only
five managers thought they had ‘more than enough’ or ‘given a lot’ of time to work on
performance evaluations. The survey results imply that e-Megamart has an opportunity to set
time aside for managers to work on evaluations.
The lack of support offered by the organization to the management team was reflected in
the perceptions of some of the direct reports. DR 1 noted that she felt her manager was ill
prepared to give a thorough evaluation of her where she said: “My manager seemed really
frustrated by this whole thing. I saw him block off time to go work on reviews but something
always popped up and it cut into the time he had allocated to focusing on getting reviews done.”
DR 8 saw similar challenges for her supervisor when she said: “I don’t know how she got it
done? We were in the middle of our vendor negotiations so we had to spend a lot of time
preparing for that and we were traveling a lot. She must have done it on the plane or something?”
DR 13 cited similar issues for his manager: “I am shocked, really shocked my manager had the
time to write as much as she did in my review. She is always on the move and in meetings, so
when she got it done, I don’t know?”
When reviewing organizational support for managers and direct reports within the
performance review process, the results suggest e-Megamart has opportunity to close the gap.
Managers suggested that e-Megamart has an opportunity to provide more time and training to
successfully achieve the goal of providing fair and thorough performance evaluations. The
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 79

Classified - Confidential
management team rated the training average compared to other trainings and the time the
organization provides them as less than enough. Since performance evaluations are important to
the organization, and are a critical part of achieving their goals, e-Megamart should focus on
these areas for improvement.
Conversely, managers felt that on average they had more than adequate access to the
Human Resources team to get their questions answered if they needed help. On average
managers said the team was available or very available, with a rating of 3.73. Only one manager
noted that there was no attempt to reach out to the organizational partners which limited their
ability to provide a review of their availability. The success the organization has with using the
human resources team should provide a framework for how resources should be allocated to
achieve the outcomes they are trying to reach.
Analysis of findings
Chapter 4 included a discussion of results and finding for this study. These results and
findings are organized by knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences (Clark & Estes,
2008). Gaps were validated to exist in knowledge by the focus group but not in the manager
survey. Direct reports in the focus group cited challenges with manager’s not being clear about
process and a perception that managers lacked the knowledge of how to evaluate direct report
performance in general. Gaps were also identified to exist within manager and direct report
motivation. Managers noted they had little confidence in performance evaluations having an
impact on direct report behavior. Further, time devoted to the process of evaluating direct reports
was less than managers perceived to be enough.
Finally, the results of the survey and focus group validated gaps in organization
influences. Manager and direct reports identified lack of time to devote to evaluating employees
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 80

Classified - Confidential
was limited, and training on how to effectively evaluate employees was on par with other
training. Chapter 5 will present recommendations for solutions to address these gaps that if
corrected could lead to an improved performance review process that will help e-Megamart
achieve organizational goals.

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 81

Classified - Confidential
CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, EVALUATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Organizational Context and Mission
E-Megamart is a division responsible for retail sales and operations within the broader
organization of Megamart. Essentially, e-Megamart determines the product selection, retail price,
inventory position, and the go to market strategy for ecommerce retail sales. E-Megamart is
known as being the division within Megamart that could be innovative and try new things. They
achieve this by offering incremental products that are not found in store, providing customers
with tools that make their shopping experience easier, and finding ways to create value for the
customer so that they can save money and live better. This process helps Megamart achieve is
broader goal of remaining a relevant retailer and ensure customers continue to find value in
shopping with them.
To achieve its mission and ensure its customers continue to see Megamart as a leading
retailer in American, e-Megamart must continue to provide innovative shopping experiences that
allows Megamart to remain competitive with challenging organizations. Remaining competitive
means e-Megamart must foster an environment that allows creativity by fostering equity in views
and people. The consequences of not having an organization that nurtures current employees,
which results in experience, will hurt the organizational security. Innovation would not be
advanced, time would be wasted, and competitors would get a leg up on Megamart. Additionally,
these conditions would produce a work environment that would make it hard for e-Megamart to
retain employees because they would feel demoralized and unwanted.
When e-Megamart loses talent, it sets the organization back and increases costs by
forcing the organization to find new employees to take over the duties of the departed employee,
training the new employees, and allowing them time to build a strategy for growth. The delay
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 82

Classified - Confidential
results in e-Megamart falling further behind its competition, which could eventually result in the
organization no longer being competitive and going out of business. If the organization can
create an environment that recognizes employee’s contribution to the organization and help them
advance their career regardless of their diverse backgrounds, e-Megamart would be able to
accelerate closing the gap it has with its competition and remain a destination for customers.
Therefore, it is good news to note that the company has the ability to fix its problems with
opportunity by providing proper training to its management team, giving them the time the need
to thoroughly and fairly evaluate their direct report’s performance, and providing them with
expert support to answer the manager’s questions as they arise. By doing this the organization
would empower their managers to comprehensively provide their direct reports with a fair
performance evaluation, that communicates the value the employee brings to the company and
helps them improve their performance results.
Organizational Performance Goal
E-Walmart’s goal is to increase opportunity to internal employees to advance to
leadership positions within the organization through the creation of fair performance evaluations
so that internal employees have an equal chance for advancement starting with the 2018 period.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
There are two primary stakeholder groups that are responsible for achieving opportunity
within the organization: a) the managers who implement the performance evaluations and rate
the employees and b) the employees who are the subject of the performance evaluation. The
present study focused on the both stakeholder groups and identify if a gap existed between
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 83

Classified - Confidential
manager and direct report perceptions of how the performance evaluation process should work
and the actual outcomes of the process.
Goal of the Stakeholder Group for the Study
The goal for e-Megamart was to achieve increased opportunity for current employees to
advance to the leadership ranks and to accomplish that, managers and employees needed to have
the knowledge, motivation and organizational resources to succeed in providing fair performance
evaluations. The driving characteristic that would result in managers successfully executing the
performance review would be that they provided a performance evaluation of their direct reports
based solely upon metrics that represent the employee’s performance. To achieve this goal,
managers must be able to (a) identify the metrics that they need to evaluate employees on, (b)
identify how employee’s performance stack up against their peer group, and (c) provide clear
feedback to the employee that identifies strengths and opportunities within their performance in
comparison to their peers.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to investigate the KMO influences associated with
managers performance related to implementing fair performance reviews. The questions guiding
this improvement study were the following:
1. What knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors influence manager’s ability to
implement fair performance evaluations?
2. What are the recommended solutions that e-Megamart can implement to improve
performance evaluations?
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 84

Classified - Confidential
Knowledge Recommendations.
Introduction. The results of the survey showed that managers believe they understand
the steps to completing a performance review, believe they understand the criteria for evaluating
their direct reports performance, and understand the impact of the results on their direct report’s
future within the organization. However, the focus group results of the direct reports identified a
perception that managers were underprepared for the task of evaluating direct reports and my not
understand all the criteria necessary to fairly evaluate the direct reports. Table C embodies a
complete list of knowledge influences and their chance of the influence being validated based
upon the most common knowledge influences supported by the literature review. This includes
the work of Clark and Estes (2008), who suggest that procedural knowledge about something is
important to know the steps necessary to implement a process, as is the case for managers
implementing a new performance review process. Table C, is expected to demonstrate that these
behavioral influences are likely to be validated and applicable to achieving the stakeholders’
goal. Table C also shows the recommendations for these behavioral influences based on
academic principles.
Table C
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priorit
y
Yes,
No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Managers do not
understand the steps to
implement the new
performance review
process (D)
HP Y Conceptual or
declarative knowledge
is the understanding
that is related to
relationships between
Provide managers
with a job aid to
help them
understand the
steps within the
review process.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 85

Classified - Confidential
principles (Krathwohl,
2002).

Modeling to-be-learned
strategies or behaviors
improves self-efficacy,
learning, and
performance (Denler,
Wolters, & Benzon,
2009).

Managers do not know
how to compare
performance of one
employee to another
based on the metrics.
(P)

HP Y Procedural knowledge
increases when
declarative knowledge
required to perform the
skill is available or
known. (Clark et al.,
2008).

Effective observational
learning is achieved by
first organizing and
rehearsing modeled
behavior, then enacting
them overtly (Mayer,
2011).
Provide a training
session for
managers to
explain how the
new process
should be
implemented.

Managers will not
devote time to
reflecting on potential
bias that might
influence their rating
(M)
HP N Not a priority.

Declarative knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. An important piece of
knowledge managers need to have in order to implement a fair performance review is an
understanding of the procedural steps (D). However, there exists an assumed knowledge
influence that managers do not understand the steps to implement the new performance review
process. According to Krathwohl (2002), Conceptual or declarative knowledge is the
understanding that is related to relationships between principles. Helping managers understand
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 86

Classified - Confidential
the relationship between the steps to complete the performance review and the outcomes on
producing fair results is important.
One solution to overcoming this knowledge gap is modeling to-be-learned strategies or
behaviors improves self-efficacy, learning, and performance (Denler, Wolters, & Benzon, 2009).
Therefore, it is recommended that e-Megamart provide a job aid for managers to explain how the
new process should be implemented. Job aids are supported by Benito-Ostolaza, and Sanchis-
Llopis (2014), who find that when comparing two control groups, the group that receives
strategic training material significantly outperforms the group that does not receives limited
training materials. Considering that managers are unsure about how to even execute the new
performance evaluation, the organization runs the risk of not getting the results they want.
Hence, e-Megamart should provide a strategic job aid for the managers that lays out the step by
step process they need to take to perform the evaluation properly.
Procedural knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. One facet of the
performance review process is the ability for managers within e-Megamart to be able to
differentiate top performers from bottom performers. To do this, the managers need the
knowledge of how to utilize employee performance metrics (P). However, an assumed
knowledge influence suggests that managers do not know how to compare performance of one
employee to another based on the metrics. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) suggest that
information learned meaningfully and connected with prior knowledge is stored more quickly
and remembered more accurately because it elaborated with prior learning. Managers with e-
Megamart are using data all to inform decisions in other aspects of their daily duties. What is
recommended is that e-Megamart needs to help managers apply those experiences with using
data in the performance review process.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 87

Classified - Confidential
It is therefore recommended that e-Megamart provide a training session for managers to
explain how the new process should be implemented. Selden, Sherrier, and Wooters (2012),
found that when managers engage in performance management training that teaches them to
discern good performance traits from bad performance traits resulted in positive feedback from
the employee's perspective. As noted previously, Benito-Ostolaza et al. (2014), found that
managers who receive training on how compare performance of employees produce better results
than those who only receive limited or no training. Thus, it makes sense for e-Megamart to
devote time walking managers through the process of how to use metrics in a training session to
identify good employee traits from those that need to be modified.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. The data suggest that managers lacked the motivation to thoroughly
review their direct reports performance for the previous year. The identified challenges to
motivation were lack of time to reflect on performance and craft the evaluation, and a belief that
the results of the performance evaluation have little impact on direct report behavior. Table D
represents a full list of motivational influence and their potential of being validated. The
motivational influences change of being validated relies upon the commonly cited motivational
influences of achieving stakeholder goals in the literature reviews of motivational theory. As
Clark et al., (2008) note, there are primarily three indicators for motivation for human
performance which are choice, persistence and mental effort. They also suggest that choice is
actively starting something beyond the point of just intending to do it. While persistence is the
effort to pursue a goal in the face of resistance. Whereas, mental effort the ability to apply new
knowledge to solve a problem. All e-Megamart managers are being asked to deliver an annual
performance review of their employees. As such, their motivation to give a fair review of the
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 88

Classified - Confidential
employees work throughout the year may be limited by their perception that it doesn’t provide
value to their organization. Therefore, Table D, indicates some motivational influences that have
a high likelihood of being validated for achieving the organizational goals. Table D also provides
recommendations for the assumed motivational influences based on theoretical principles.
Table D
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Motivation
Influence:
Cause, Need, or
Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Managers see no
incentive in
conducting a
thorough
performance
review
HP Y Task performance is
increased when
rewarded (Skinner,
1957; Clark & Estes,
2008)

Individuals are more
likely to engage in an
activity when it
provides value to
them. (Eccles, 2009).
Provide incentives for
managers to provide
thoughtful and accurate
performance
evaluations.
Managers do not
believe they have
the time they
need to complete
a thorough
review.
HP Y Individuals who do
not perceive any
support in their
environment “tend to
be hopeless”
(Ambrose, 2010).

Effective
observational
learning is achieved
by first organizing
and rehearsing
modeled behaviors,
then enacting it
overtly (Ambrose,
2010).
Provide examples of
managers who have
accomplished the task
to serve as role-
models.

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 89

Classified - Confidential
Value solutions, or description of needs or assets. To encourage managers of e-Megamart to
provide fair evaluations of their employees they should find value in it. As Eccles (2009)
suggests that people are more willing to partake in activities when they provide value to them.
However, the assumed motivational influence is that managers see no incentive in providing
their employees with fair assessments. Garbers, and Konradt (2014) found in their study of the
effects of financial incentives on performance, that employees perform better when incentives
are designed to reward employees equitably on performance.
To overcome the motivational challenges that managers at e-Megamart might face in
identifying the value in providing fair performance evaluations, e-Megamart should consider
creating financial incentives that reward managers on team performance. Managers then will
have an increased desire to deliver results on the performance evaluation because they will be
rewarded in doing so. As Skinner (1957) and Clark and Estes (2008) suggest, task performance
is increased when the individual who must complete the task is rewarded for their efforts. If
managers will be further motivated to achieve the goal if incentives are tied to the completion of
the task.
Self-efficacy solutions, or description of needs or assets. It is important for managers to feel
they could complete the task of providing their employees with fair performance evaluations.
However, an assumed motivational influence is that managers do not feel they can get all the
reviews done on time if they must provide thoughtful analysis of each employee. Managers at e-
Megamart consistently experience failure in achieving major organizational initiatives because
they are not given enough time to thoroughly accomplish all the necessary steps. Managers past
experiences could lead them to believe that they could experience similar results with the new
performance evaluation process if they are not given enough time. Coffee and Rees (2011) found
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 90

Classified - Confidential
in their study on self-efficacy that people like to believe they can achieve goals, but when they
have experienced failure they are less likely to be motivated to try.
E-Megamart therefore should consider options increasing self-efficacy within their
management team so that they feel they can effectively evaluate their employees within the time
they have available. E-Megamart leadership can implement daily recognition for managers who
are making progress against the organizational goal of achieving full performance reviews on
time. As Bandura (1997) proposes, self-efficacy tends to increase when individuals find success
in tasks they are trying to complete. As managers achieve goals of on-time completion of direct
report performance reviews, leaders within the organization should track their progress and
formally recognize those who found success in the process to the broader management team in
meetings. Overtime, the management team will feel they can achieve the goal as they see their
peers doing it and receive positive feedback on their own progress.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. The results of the manager survey and direct report focus groups suggest
that managers needed more support from their organization to be successful. Manager and direct
reports cited challenges with lack of training, and time being allocated for employee reviews to
be completed. Table C reflect a set of organizational influences. This analysis will also examine
the likelihood of being confirmed based on the current literature available. Clark and Estes
(2008) propose that the most common reason that organizations do not achieve their goals is due
to limited resources, as well as having stakeholders who’s goals very from the organizational
objective. As Table E has indicated, some organizational influences have a high probability of
being validated and have a high priority for achieving the stakeholders’ goal. Table E also shows
the recommendations for these influences based on theoretical principles.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 91

Classified - Confidential
Table E
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Managers are not
given enough
training to be
prepared to give
performance
reviews that live up
to the organization
standards.
HP Y Organizational
performance
increases when
processes and
resources are
aligned with goals
established
collaboratively
(Clark & Estes,
2008).

Effective change
efforts insure that all
key stakeholders’
perspectives inform
the design and
decision-making
process leading to
the change, (Clark
& Estes, 2008).
Create time for
managers to have
formal training and
provide managers
with material they can
reference throughout
the process to answer
questions they may
have.

Managers who are
responsible for
providing thorough
performance
reviews have
limited time to
devote to
performance
reviews because
they have to
manage their
regular
responsibilities.
HP Y Organizational
performance
increases when top
management is
continually involved
in the improvement
process (Clark &
Estes, 2008)

Effective change
efforts ensure that
everyone has the
resources
(equipment,
personnel, time, etc)
needed to do their
job, and that if there
Work with leadership
to ensure managers
have allocated time to
focus solely on
performance reviews.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 92

Classified - Confidential
are resource
shortages, then
resources are
aligned with
organizational
priorities (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Managers are not
given enough
access to expert
support to answer
the questions they
have.

HP N Effective change
begins by
addressing
motivation
influencers; it
ensures the group
knows why it needs
to change. (Clark &
Estes, 2008).

Effective
organizations ensure
that organizational
messages, rewards,
policies and
procedures that
govern the work of
the organization are
aligned with or are
supportive of
organizational goals
and values (Clark
and Estes, 2008).
Provide scheduled
office hours that
managers can
leverage to get
questions answered
and guidance
throughout the
process.

Processes solutions, or description of needs or assets. Managers who are responsible for
providing thorough performance reviews, have to manage their regular responsibilities that
distract them from focusing on performance reviews. E-Megamart wants managers to take the
time to thoroughly review their employees so that a fair assessment is made and action can be
taken to reward the employee or provide additional support. However, a solution to the process
needs to be identified for managers to overcome the feeling that they cannot complete their other
responsibilities if they must focus on devoting adequate time to reviewing their direct reports.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 93

Classified - Confidential
Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that organizational performance increases when top management
is continually involved in the improvement process, within e-Megamart leadership should
identify that a problem exists with time and find ways to increase the amount of time managers
must focus on employee reviews and not feel forced to focus on their other responsibilities.
There are plenty of remedies for solving the lack of time managers feel, however
Denning (2011) suggests that individuals that are seeking to find time should focus on
prioritizing. When managers within e-Megamart can rank performance reviews over daily
responsibilities they will be able to achieve the goal of providing fair assessments of their
employees. Managers should identify what could be pushed off or delegated to another person on
their team so that they can focus on the organizational goal of fair and thorough performance
reviews. Additionally, the leadership of the organization should notice that there is additional
work being asked of managers and no additional time for them to do it. They should help their
managers identify what should be put on hold so that they can move performance reviews to the
top of the to-do-list. By working together, managers and leaders within the organization should
be able to achieve the goal.
Cultural model solutions, or description of needs or assets. There is a culture of not being
committed to completing tasks that are not relative to financial goals. Managers at e-Megamart
have been conditioned to focus on the bottom line and ensuring that everything they are working
on contributes to improving revenue for the organization. The manager’s bonus is solely based
upon their achievement of their financial plan so to create a feeling of losing out on potential
bonus money by focusing on tasks that lack a concrete financial measurement. Considering this
organization cultural mindset, performance reviews appear to be a time waster and therefore not
a contributor to improving financial performance. Clark and Estes (2008) believe that effective
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 94

Classified - Confidential
organizations ensure that organizational messages, rewards, policies and procedures that govern
the work of the organization are aligned with or are supportive of organizational goals and
values. If e-Megamart’s leadership wants to encourage managers to focus on performance
reviews they need to tie the outcome of the performance review to the manager’s bonus.
Research suggest that when organizations find ways to incentivize ideal behavior, they
tend to get the results they are seeking. Milne (2007) found incentives have a significant impact
on organizational culture and getting alignment between organizational goals and the employees
who should achieve them. Therefore, e-Megamart should consider identifying ways to
incentivize the managers to want to devote the necessary time to complete a fair and thorough
performance review of all their employees. One method would be to make the outcome of
completing good performance reviews on time a metric that impacts the sum of their annual
bonus. Managers who do not deliver the results that the organization is seeking to get in the
review process would receive a smaller bonus than those who do a good job of completing the
task as asked.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan

Implementation and Evaluation Framework

The evaluation plan for this analysis is informed by the New World Kirkpatrick Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), which is based focuses on his original Four Level Model of
Evaluation. This model proposes that the best approach to achieving organizational goals is to
work backwards and to evaluate what recommended solutions need to be achieved to bridge the
solution to the goal. Working backwards allows the organization to: a) develop solutions that
focus on assessing work behaviors, b) identify leading indicators of what learnings occurred
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 95

Classified - Confidential
during implementation of the solution, and c) finally, identifying the indicators that demonstrate
members of the organization are satisfied with implementation strategies of the solution.
Building the evaluation plan within this context allows for connections to be built between
immediate needs for solutions and the larger organizational goals.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations

The purpose of managers giving performance reviews is to build upon their employee’s
strengths and correct any deficiencies. Measuring how effective managers are at the task, of
developing their employees through the performance review process, depends on two things: 1)
Their ability to effectively analyze the performance of the employee over the course of the
previous year, as well as, 2) being able to compare their direct report against their peer
employees to get an accurate assessment. This analysis examined the knowledge and skills,
motivational, and organizational barriers that prevent managers from completing performance
reviews thoroughly and fairly. The proposed solution, a holistic performance review training
program, related job aids, and a shift in the way in which incentives are rewarded to the
management team is expected to focus managers on achieving the goals of thorough and fair
reviews.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table F indicates the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form of outcomes,
metrics and methods for both external and internal outcomes for Managers within e-Megamart.
If the internal and external outcomes are achieved then e-Megamart should achieve its goal of
getting managers to provide fair and thorough performance reviews that allow the best
candidates for positions to be promoted without bias to the employee’s differences.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 96

Classified - Confidential
Table F
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders which were the focus in this research were the
managers who completed the performance review and the employees who were subject to the
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. Increase the number of
potential employees that
view e-Megamart as a fair
place to work.
The number of candidates who
indicate that e-Megamart is a
fair place to work during their
interview process.
Collect data from the candidate
applications for employment
and identify the percentage of
employees who cite a fair
workplace as a reason to want to
be employed.
2. Internal employees
advancing within the
organization at the same
rate as non-internal
employees.
The percentage of internal
employees promoted compared
to previous years.
Collect HR reports of employee
promotions this year versus
previous years.
3. Reduced employee
turn-over.
The percentage of employees
who leave the company,
compared to previous years,
who site lack of opportunity or
discrimination.
Collect HR exit interview
surveys and identify employees
who site lack of opportunity or
discrimination as the primary
reason for departure.
Internal Outcomes
5. Decrease the amount of
time it takes for managers
to fairly and thoroughly
review employees.
The number of hours the
manager spends collecting data
and analyzing data.
Have managers’ report daily
how many hours they are
devoting to reviewing each
employee.
6. Increase the number of
employees that rate their
performance review as
fair and thorough.
The number of employees who
cite their performance
evaluation reflecting their actual
performance.
Collect data from the annual
post-performance review
survey.
7. Increased employee
confidence/satisfaction in
their manager.
The percentage of employees
that rate their manager as good,
very good, or role model on
their annual manager 360
feedback survey.
Pull results from the annual
manager 360 feedback survey
and measure improvements in
percentages over time.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 97

Classified - Confidential
outcomes of the performance review. The first critical behavior that managers need to
demonstrate is the ability to thoroughly analyze and review worker performance over the past
year. The second critical behavior is that they have to be able to compare and contrast employee
performance versus their peer set. The final critical behavior is that the manager needs to be able
to fairly rate the direct report’s performance in comparison to other personnel. The specific
metrics, methods, and timing for each of these outcome behaviors appears in Table G.
Table G

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for New Reviewers
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Thoroughly
analyze and review
employee
performance over the
past year.
The number of e-
Megamart leadership
principles that the
employee is measured
against.

The HR business partner
will review all initial
performance ratings to
ensure that managers
have measured each
employee against all e-
Megamart leadership
principles.
This will occur in
the first week after
initial performance
review assessments
are due.
2. Able to compare
and contrast employee
performance versus
the employee’s peer
set
The number of
employees who are
measured within the
initial performance
review assessment.
HR business partner will
tally and provide an
excel spreadsheet with
how many employees
are being reviewed by
manager.
HR business partner
will provide this
information the first
week after initial
assessments are
due.
3. Managers are fairly
rating the employee’s
performance in
comparison to other
employees.
Ensuring all
employees are stack
ranked from top
performer to bottom
performer.

The HR director will
review all ratings and
ensure that each
employee is assigned a
unique stacking.
This will occur the
second week after
the performance
reviews are
completed.

Required drivers. Managers need the support of their supervisors and the HR business
team to ensure that they are applying the skills they learned in the training and job aids to apply
to the performance review process. Incentives should be structured and aligned to the
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 98

Classified - Confidential
achievement of the organizational goals of promoting a fair performance review. Table H shows
the recommended drivers to support critical behaviors of new reviewers.
Table H
Required Drivers to Support New Reviewers’ Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Job Aid including definition
of each rating and
qualifications to receive it.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Job Aid including checklist of
timing that each step of the
review process needs to be
completed.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Performance review kick-off
training to align managers
with new steps and
requirements.
One time a week prior to
performance review month.
1, 2, 3
Meetings with the HR
business partners to discuss
questions, challenges and
learnings.
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Encouraging
Collaboration and peer
modeling during team
meetings.
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Feedback and coaching from
HR business partner and
Supervisors.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Rewarding
Performance incentive aligned
with employee feedback in
post-performance review
survey.
Annually 1, 2, 3
Monitoring
Supervisors review late or
missing performance reviews
by manager at weekly team
meetings.
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Supervisor discussing
performance review status
Weekly 1, 2, 3
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 99

Classified - Confidential
during weekly touch bases
with managers.

Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following completion of the recommended solutions, most notably the
job aids, training, and meetings, the stakeholders will be able to:
1. Analyze employee performance within organizational standards, (D)
2. Interpret performance against organizational KPI’s of financial metrics and provide a
fair rating, (D)
3. Compare and contrast employee performance versus peer employees and rank
employees against each other, (D)
4. Correctly attribute the skills and knowledge that make employees worthy or each
rating level, (P)
5. Create an appropriate timeline for different review processes, (P) and
6. Plan and monitor their work to ensure they are abiding by organizational requirements.
(P, M)
Program. The stakeholder goals outlined in the previous section will be achieved through a
combination of job aids, training programs and a question and answer meeting that lays out the
necessary steps to complete a fair and thorough performance review. The managers will be
exposed to a variety of topics that relate to effective performance management and
implementation of a performance review. The combined efforts will be executed in three phases:
1. training program, 2. question and answer meeting with human resources managers and
executives, and 3. a job aid distributed via email to all manager prior to the performance review
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 100

Classified - Confidential
kick off period. The total time that managers will need to devote to this learning process will not
exceed 240 minutes (4 hours).
During the training program, managers will spend 120 minutes (2 hours) reviewing
sample metrics and results of hypothetical employee performance. They will partner with Human
Resources managers to practice identifying key metrics and personal behaviors/traits that
exemplify employees of each rating. Through this process managers will have exposure to
sample performance and what it relates to in terms of rating. They will also receive feedback and
discuss with other managers to get a sense of how well they are doing at identifying
organizational standards for performance within their direct reports and apply those learnings to
the reviews they will conduct.
Managers will also have the opportunity to participate in a question and answer session
with Human Resource managers and organizational executives to ask clarifying questions for up
to 60 min (1 hour). In this session they will be able to hear questions of other managers that they
may not have thought of and apply the answers to decisions they will make in the performance
management process. Additionally, they will be able to clarify any outstanding concerns they
may have developed while in the training program.
Finally, the job aid that will be provided to manager prior to the performance review kick
off period will include key terms and references to the principles and tactics that should be
implemented during the performance review of their direct reports. Additionally, another job aid
will be provided that outlines the calendar of events and milestones that managers need to track
and provide deliverables by in order to stay on track. Managers will be provided stakeholder
contacts that could be utilized for asking clarifying questions and get timely responses so that
they can be sure they are achieving the desired results of the performance review.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 101

Classified - Confidential
Components of learning. The ability for managers to demonstrate they have declarative
knowledge is an important element to applying knowledge to resolve issues. It is important for
this analysis to measure learning from both the declarative and procedural knowledge that is
being offered through the three training elements noted above. Further, it is also important that
the manager feel that the training they received is applicable to the work they have to do and feel
confident they can successfully apply their acquired skills and knowledge to the performance
review process. Table I lists the evaluation methods and timing for these components of learning.
Table I
Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”

Knowledge checks using multiple choice. After the sample performance
review in the training session.
Knowledge checks through discussions with Human
Resource managers and executives.
During the question and answer
session
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

Demonstration in group events and individually practice of
using the job aids to successfully perform a performance
review.
During the training session
Quality of the feedback from peers, and human resource
managers during training session.
During the training session
Individual application of the material during the
performance reviews
At the end of the training
sessions
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 102

Classified - Confidential
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”

Human Resources manager and executive observation of
managers throughout the training series.
During the training session and
question and answer session.
Discussions of the value of what they are being asked to do
on the job.
During the training session and
the question and answer session.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”

Individual discussion during open forums During the training and question
and answer sessions.
Discussions following practice and feedback. During the training session.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”

Discussions following practice and feedback. During the training session.
Discussion of action plan. During the question and answer
session.

Level 1: Reaction
Table J
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement

Observation by Human Resource managers
and executives
During the the training and question and answer
session.
Attendance of managers During the the training and question and answer
session.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 103

Classified - Confidential
Follow up questions and answers Following the training and question and answer
session.
Relevance

Manager pulse check during the training
session.
After the sample and practice performance
review in the training session.
Customer Satisfaction

Brief pulse-check with managers post the
initial training session.
After the sample and practice performance
review in the training session.

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. During the training session,
Human Resources managers will take a survey off all managers to gauge their confidence in
being able to execute a performance evaluation within organization goals and standards. The data
collected from the survey will be used to identify how useful the material covered in the training
session was to managers so that the human resources managers can provide additional
instructions in the job aid if further clarification is needed.
For Level 1, during the training session, the human resources managers will conduct
periodic brief pulse-checks in which they will ask managers about the relevance of the content to
their understanding of how to conduct a performance evaluation. While Level 2 will include
checks for understanding using sample performance evaluations to gauge if the mangers can
correctly rate employees based off predetermined rankings. Appendix E shows the evaluation
instrument that the human resource managers will use to gather data on performance on Level 1
and Level 2 indicators.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 104

Classified - Confidential
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Approximately three months
after the training has been completed, managers will be given a survey containing both open
ended questions and scaled items. The survey will address the manager’s perception of the
training and forum (Level 1), as well as their knowledge and skills gained (Level 2), how they
applied these skills to the performance management process (Level 3), and whether the training
has helped them move toward achieving the stakeholder goal (Level 4). By using this survey,
the human resource team can determine how to optimize future trainings to ensure managers are
gaining the necessary knowledge and skills to effectively implement a fair performance
evaluation. Appendix F is the evaluation instrument used for evaluating Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Collecting data immediately from managers will allow the HR team to identify
opportunities to provide managers with immediate answers to questions they may have regarding
the performance management process. Survey results (both Likert scale and open-ended
questions) from the training course and the follow-up survey will be used to identify if managers
were able to apply learnings to practice. Furthermore, the data that is collect can be used to
optimize the training program for future performance reviews so that managers get the right
information they need to provide fair and thorough reviews of their direct reports. The graph
below is an example of a report of data on this measure and will indicate whether the program is
helping the stakeholders reach the goal, or if adjustments need to be made.

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 105

Classified - Confidential
Table 2: The format of training

Summary
In order to achieve success utilizing the Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick, & Kirkpatrick,
2016) to plan, implement and evaluate a performance review process, one has to look at the
desired outcomes and work backwards towards the training that is needed to achieve it. This
analysis will ask the following questions: 1. Does the training meet the organizational
expectations to help managers gain the knowledge to give a thorough and fair performance
review; 2. If not, what is causing the disconnect between the training and the results; and 3. What
changes can be made to the training program to enhance it? Through lens of these three
questions the research will be able to analyze the data and identify root causes as to why the
program is working or failing. This chapter described how the practicioner will implement the
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) to create a training program to prepare
managers to conduct performance management in a fair and thorough way. The training progam
30%
40%
20%
10%
The format of the training program helps me to learn how to give
thorough performance reviews?
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 106

Classified - Confidential
is expected to give managers the knowledge and skills necessary to achieve the organization goal
of making performance reviews fair so that the best employees can advance into leadership
positions within the company, and those who need help can get it. By using the structure outlined
in this chapter, the HR team will be able to get feedback on how they can optimize the course to
give managers the resources they need to be successful in the performance review process.
Recommendations for Future Research
Due to the limitations of the research, many questions still remaind unanswered. E-
Megamart’s goal is to expand opportunity to current employees to reach the leadership ranks.
Performance evaluations is one part of the process to expand opportunity. Fair and thorough
performance reviews allow the best and the brightest to climb the corportate ladder to leadership
positions within the organization. This research looked at whether managers had the knowledge,
motivation and organizational support to implement fair and thorough performance reviews.
However, future research should take the analysis one step further and consider if the process if
fair and thorough, does it actually result in the advancement of minorities (racial and gender) to
leadership positions within the organization.
Additionally, one question that arose from the feedback direct reports provided during the
focus groups, was if managers spent adequate time with each direct report to share their finding
of their evaluation and how to use the results to improve their performance further? Future
research should consider probing this question further to identify if performance review meetings
between manager and direct report should be tailored to the specific people involved in the
discussion or if a standard amount of time is enough? The research completed in this analysis
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 107

Classified - Confidential
should provide a good foundation from which future researchers can dive further into the impact
of performance reviews on organizations.
Conclusions
What this research sought to identify is if managers had the knowledge, motivation and
organizational structures to successfully implement a performance review that was fair and
thorough. The results suggested that there still exists opportunities for improving the process as
managers demonstrated a lack of authority in knowledge of performance review implementation.
Further, managers and direct reports sited lacking enough time to thoroughly go through the
performance review process. While managers also suggested that the organization could have
provided additional resources to make the process more seamless. Some of the recommendations
outlined on how to improve the process could increase manager engagement, help with process
understanding, and align organizational resources to support the execution of performance
reviews. Taking these steps will help e-Megamart move closer to the goal of achieving fair and
thorough performance reviews.

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 108

Classified - Confidential
APPENDIX A
Survey Questions
1. How would you rate your knowledge on the proper process to administer a performance
review?
a. Very Confident
b. Highly Confident
c. Confident
d. Less Confident
e. Not Confident
2. Do you understand the criteria that should be used for evaluating your direct report?
a. Clearly Understand
b. Strongly Understand
c. Understand
d. Somewhat Understand
e. No Understanding
3. What impact does your rating have on the opportunities of your direct report in the
organization?
a. Very High Impact
b. High Impact
c. Average Impact
d. Little Impact
e. No Impact
4. Compared to other daily tasks, how important is completing performance evaluations?
a. Top Priority
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 109

Classified - Confidential
b. High Priority
c. Average Priority
d. Low Priority
e. Not a Priority
5. On average how much time did you spend on your direct reports performance review?
a. >15 Hours
b. 11-15 Hours
c. 6-10 Hours
d. 1-5 Hours
e. <1 Hour
6. How much impact does the performance review have on your direct reports behavior?
a. A lot
b. More than Average
c. Average
d. Less than Average
e. None
7. How available was the human resource team to answer questions you may have about
performance reviews?
a. Very Available
b. Available
c. Limited Availability
d. Not Available
e. N/A
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 110

Classified - Confidential
8. How much training did the organization give you to prepare you for the performance
review process?
a. A lot
b. More than Average
c. Average
d. Less than Average
e. None
9. Does the company give you enough time to thoroughly complete your performance
reviews?
a. Give a Lot of Time
b. More Than Enough Time
c. Enough Time
d. Not Enough Time
e. None

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 111

Classified - Confidential
APPENDIX B
Interview Questions
Knowledge
1. Is there anything you would change about the performance review process?
2. What do you think were the indicators your manager used to evaluate your performance
over the past year?
3. Do you know all the steps you manager took in determining your performance?
4. Do you think the results were reflective of your true performance?
a. Why?
b. If not, what do you think your manager should consider getting a better
representation of your performance over the past year?
Motivation
5. Talk about the efforts your manager has put into developing your skills and career over
the past year?
6. How important do you think your career advancement is to your manager?
7. How did you feel after the performance review was delivered to you?
8. Could you manager have done anything different within the performance review meeting
to help you understand why you achieved your ranking?
9. Do you think the organization gives your manager enough time to work on your
performance review?
Organization
10. How do you feel the organization supports your advancement or betterment?
11. Talk about how the human resource managers helped the team during the performance
review process?
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 112

Classified - Confidential
12. Do you feel there are clear goals defined that you need to achieve to advance your career?
13. Do you feel the performance review process was clear?
14. What could have be done to improve the training and preparation for the performance
review process if anything?

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 113

Classified - Confidential
APPENDIX C
Information Sheet for Survey
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research analysis seeks to identify and understand your perceptions and attitudes toward
performance reviews within your organization. Findings from this study will contribute to
already existing literature on performance reviews and their impact on career advancement
within organizations. This research is being conducted to further develop the understanding of
how performance evaluations might impact opportunity for advacement within businesses. The
findings from this study maybe used to improve upon the performance review process and
practices that may lead to more diverse work environments.

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 114

Classified - Confidential
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to take a survey which should take no
longer than 30 minutes to complete. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to,
you may choose to leave the answer blank or choose “N/A” to the question(s) being posed.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. Your
responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. The data will
be kept on the researcher’s password-protected laptop and will be kept indefinitely.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies
to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator:

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 115

Classified - Confidential
APPENDIX D
Informed Consent for Interview
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by at the University of Southern
California, because of your position within your company and the experience you have with
conducting performance evaluations. Your participation is voluntary. You should read the
information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand, before deciding
whether to participate. You will be given a copy of this form to maintain for your records.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research analysis seeks to identify and understand your perceptions and attitudes toward
performance reviews within your organization. Findings from this study will contribute to
already existing literature on performance reviews and their impact on career advancement
within organizations. This research is being conducted to further develop the understanding of
how performance evaluations might impact opportunity for advancement within businesses. The
findings from this study maybe used to improve upon the performance review process and
practices that may lead to more diverse work environments.

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 116

Classified - Confidential
STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be interviewed for roughly one hour. During
which time you will be asked questions by an interviewer. You are under no obligation to answer
the questions.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks associated with this research study.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Findings from this study will contribute to already existing literature on performance reviews
and their impact on career advancement within organizations. This research is being conducted
to further develop the understanding of how performance evaluations might impact opportunity
for advancement within businesses. The findings from this study maybe used to improve upon
the performance review process and practices that may lead to more diverse work environments.

CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members
of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection
Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect
the rights and welfare of research subjects.

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 117

Classified - Confidential
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. Your
responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. The data will
be stored on the researcher’s password-protected laptop and will be kept indefinitely. When the
results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will
be used.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies
because of your participation in this research study.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Principal
Investigator:

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 118

Classified - Confidential

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.

Name of Participant

Signature of Participant Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe
that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to
participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 119

Classified - Confidential
APPENDIX E
Sample Survey
Instructions: Please complete the following survey to the best of your ability. The survey will
provide Human Resource managers with important data that will allow them to understand how
effective the training program was and areas that can be improved.
The following questions will utilize a scale, please indicate on the scale if you Strongly Disagree,
Disagree, Agree, or Strongly Agree with the item.
1. The format of the training program helps me to learn.
2. The instructor presented in a fashion that helps facilitate my learning.
3. I found the content of the training program interesting.
4. What I learned in this training program will help me give a thorough performance review.
5. I enjoy this training program and would recommend it to other managers who conduct
performance reviews.
The following questions will ask for you to write responses in the space provided. Please give as
much information and detail as possible when answering these questions.
1. In what ways do you feel that the training could help you be more successful at
conducting a performance review?
2. What aspect of the training did you find most interesting and useful?
3. What aspect of the training did you find least useful?
4. How could the training be improved?

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 120

Classified - Confidential
APPENDIX F
Sample Survey
Instructions: Please complete the following survey to the best of your ability about the training
course you took three months ago regarding how to perform the responsibilities of a performance
evaluation. The survey will provide the human resource managers with important data to
analyze the effectiveness of the course and areas that can be improved.
The following items will utilize a scale. Please indicate if you Strongly Disagree, Disagree,
Agree, or Strongly Agree.
1. I have used what I learned in the in the training program in my execution of my team’s
performance evaluations?
2. The training provided me with a valuable information that I applied to my work.
3. I have received help from the human resource team and my supervisor in order to apply
what I learned successfully after the training course was complete.
4. The training program had a positive impact on my ability to achieve the organizational
goals?
The following questions will ask for you to write responses in the space provided. Please give as
much information and detail as possible when answering these questions.
1. What did you learn in the training program that has been most useful for you job?
2. Reflecting on your experience in the performance review process, what information
should be added to the training that would make the experience easier?
3. Describe any challenges you have experienced in applying what you learned to the
performance review process. How do you think the training could help you overcome
these challenges?

GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 121

Classified - Confidential
References
Agarwala, T. (2003). Innovative human resource practices and organizational commitment: An
empirical investigation. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 14(2), 175-197.
Ahmed, I., Sultana, I., Paul, S. K., Azeem, A. (2013) Employee performance evaluation: a fuzzy
approach. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 62(7).
Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (2009). What is learning anyway? A
topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 176–192.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000, Mayndah &;June). Cracking the code of change. Harvard
Business Review, 78(3), 133–141.
Benito-Ostolaza, & Sanchis-Llopis. (2014). Training strategic thinking: Experimental
evidence. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 785-789.
Berger, J., Harbring, C., & Sliwka, D. (2013). Performance Appraisals and the Impact of Forced
Distribution — An Experimental Investigation. Journal of Management Science, 59(1),
54-68.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 122

Classified - Confidential
Blume, B.D., Baldwin, T.T. & Rubin, R.S. (2009), Reactions to different types forced
distribution performance evaluation systems. Journal of Business Psychology, 24(1), 77-
91.
Boyle, M. 2001. Performance reviews: Perilous curves ahead. Fortune, 143(11): 187
Brycz, H., Wyszomirska-Góra, M., Bar-Tal, Y., & Wisniewski, P. (2014). The effect of
metacognitive self on confirmation bias revealed in relation to community and competence.
Polish Psychological Bulletin, 45(3), 306-311.
Chang, M., Dainty, A., Moore, D., (2005). Implementing a new performance management system
within a project‐based organization: A case study. International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management. 56(1), 60-75.
Chattopadhayay, R., & Ghosh, A. K. (2012). Performance appraisal based on a forced distribution
system: Its drawbacks and remedies. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, 61(8), 881-896.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Coffee, P., & Rees, T. (2011). When the chips are down: Effects of attributional feedback
on self-efficacy and task performance following initial and repeated failure. Journal
of Sports Sciences, 29(3), 235-245.
Cook, A., & Glass, C. M. (2014) Analyzing promotions of racial/ethnic minority CEO’s. The
Journal of Managerial Psychology. 29(4).
Corts, K. S. (2007). Teams versus individual accountability: Solving multitask problems through
job design. The RAND Journal of Economics, 38(2), 467–479.
Denning, P. (2011). Managing time. Communications of the ACM, 54(3), 32-34.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 123

Classified - Confidential
Drucker, P. F. (2004, June). What makes an effective executive. Harvard Business Review, 82(6),
25–33.
Dunsmoor, J. E., Martin, A., LaBar, K. S. (2012). Role of conceptual knowledge in learning and
retention of conditioned fear. Biological Psychology. 89(2).
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Eisenbach, R., Watson, K., & Pillai, R. (1999). Transformational leadership in the context of
organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(2) 80–89.
Engellandt, A., & Riphahn, R. (2011). Evidence on incentive effects of sinjective performance
evaluations. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 64(2), 241-257.
Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the micro level of
the individual to the macro level of the global culture. Applied Psychology, 53(4).
Eugene, K. (2016). Hundreds of Amazon employees used an anonymous app to vent about how
the recent suicide attempt was handled. Business Insider.
Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public
sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168–176.
Fullan, M. (2004). Leadership across the system. Insight, 14–17.
Garbers, Y., & Konradt, U. (2014). The effect of financial incentives on performance: A
quantitative review of individual and team‐based financial incentives. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 102-137.
Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Switzer, Fred S., I.,II. (2015). Forced distribution rating
systems: When Does “Rank and Yank” Lead to Adverse Impact? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 100(1), 180-193.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 124

Classified - Confidential
Goette, L., Huffman, D., Meier, S., & Sutter, M. (2012). Competition between organizational
groups: Its impact on altruistic and antisocial motivations. Management Science, 58(5),
948–960.
Grote, D. (2005). Forced ranking: Making performance management work. Harvard Business
School Press.
Guralnik, O., Rozmarin, E., & So, A. 2004. Forced distribution: Is it right for you? Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 15: 339-345.
Gwynne, Peter. (2002). How consistent are performance review criteria? Managers in the same
company frequently use different criteria to review their employees' work -- unless the
organization has trained them to do otherwise. (Human Resources).(Brief Article). MIT
Sloan Management Review, 43(4), 15-15.
Harris, C. M., Pattie, M. W., & McMahan, G. C. (2015). Advancement along a career path: The
influence of human capital and performance. Human Resource Management Journal,
25(1), 102-115.
Hazels, B., & Sasse, C. M. (2008). Forced ranking: A review. S.A.M.Advanced Management
Journal, 73(2), 35-39.
Hendry, C. (1996). Understanding and creating whole organizational change through learning
theory. Human Relations, 49(5), 621–641.
Hao, Z. (2003). What Can We Do with Individual and Institutional Racism and Sexism in the
Tenure and Promotion Processes in American Colleges and Universities? Race, Gender
& Class, 10(3), 126–144.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 125

Classified - Confidential
Hofhuis, J., Van der Zee, K., & Otten, S., (2014). Comparing antecedents of voluntary job
turnover among majority and minority employees. Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion: An
International Journal, 33(8).
Igbaria, M., & Baroudi, J. J. (1995). The impact of job performance evaluations on career
advancement prospects: An examination of gender differences in the IS workplace. MIS
Quarterly, 19(1), 107-123.
Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. (2009). When and How Diversity Benefits Teams: The
Importance of Team Members' Need for Cognition. The Academy of Management
Journal, 52(3), 581-598.
Kotter, J. P. (2007, January). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business
Review, 85(1), 96–103.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Kravitz, D. A (2003). More women in the workplace: Is there a payoff in firm performance.
Academy of Management Executive, 17, 148-149.
Konrad, A. M., & Yap, M. (2009). Gender and racial differentials in promotions: Is there a sticky
floor, a mid-level bottleneck, or a glass ceiling? Relations Industrielles, 64(4), 593-619.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction
and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80-92.
Law, D. R. (2007). Appraising performance appraisals: A critical look at an external control
management technique. International Journal of Reality Therapy, 26(2), 18-25.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 126

Classified - Confidential
Lee, H., & Roth, G. L. (2009). A conceptual framework for examining knowledge management
in higher education contexts. New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource
Development, 23(4), 22-37.
Malone, J. W. (2001). Shining a new light on organizational change: Improving self-efficacy
through coaching. Organization Development Journal, 19(2), 27-36.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. 91-125.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks:
SAGE Publishing.
McFarlane, F. R., Enriquez, M., Schroeder, F. K., & Dew, D. (2011). How do we lead when
change is constant? Journal of Rehabilitation, 77(4), 4-12.
Meisler, A. 2003. Dead man’s curve. Workforce, 82: 44-49.
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the
multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review,
21(2), 402-433.
Milne, P. (2007). Motivation, incentives and organisational culture. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 11(6), 28-38.
Moon, S. H., Scullen, S. E., & Latham, G. P., (2016). Precarious curve ahead: The effects of
forced distribution rating systems on job performance. Human Resource Management
Review, 26(1), 1-86.
Morgan, J., & Várdy, F. (2009). Diversity in the Workplace. The American Economic Review,
99(1), 472-485.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 127

Classified - Confidential
Morgenroth, T., Ryan, M. K., & Peters, K. (2015). The motivational theory of role modeling:
How role models influence role aspirants’ goals. Review of General Psychology, 19(4),
465-483.
Munoz-Merino, P. J. (2014). Motivation and emotions in competition systems for education:
An empirical study. IEEE Transactions on Education, 57(3).
Murray, C. D. (2015). Barriers and challenges minority men and women experienced with senior
executive service advancement. Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational
Culture, 6(1), 16-37.
Olson C. A., & Davis G. M. (2003). Pros and cons of forced ranking and other relative
performance ranking systems. Society for Human Resource Management Legal Report,
March.
O'Malley, M. (2003). Forced ranking: Proceed only with great caution. World at Work Journal,
12(1), 31-39.
Prieto, L. C., Phipps, S. T., & Osiri, J. K. (2011). Linking workplace diversity to organizational
performance: A conceptual framework. Journal of Diversity Management (JDM), 4(4),
13–22.
Rangriz, H., & Pashootanizadeh, H. (2014). Desirable system requirements for employee
performance evaluation to establishment of meritocracy and continuous improvement by
using TQMPE and AHP model. Science, Technology and Arts Research Journal, 3(3),
185-190.
Roch, S. G., Sternburgh, Α. Μ. & Caputo, P. M. (2007). Absolute vs. relative performance
rating formats: Implications for Fairness and Organizational Justice. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 302-316.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 128

Classified - Confidential
Sears, D., & McDermott, D. 2003. The rise and fall of rank and yank. Information Strategy: The
Executive’s Journal, 19: 6-11.
Schein, E.H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey & Bass,
Chapters 1 through 4.
Schleicher D. J., Bull R. A., & Green S. G. (2008) Rater reactions to forced distribution rating
systems, Journal of Management, 35(4), 899-927.
Scullen, S. E., Bergey, P. K., & Aiman-Smith, L. (2005). Forced Distribution Rating Systems
and the Improvements of Workforce Potential: A Baseline Simulation. Personnel
Psychology, 58(1), 1-1.
Selden, S., Sherrier, T., & Wooters, R. (2012). Experimental study comparing a traditional
approach to performance appraisal training to a whole‐brain training method at C.B. Fleet
Laboratories. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23(1), 9-34.
Sirkin, H. L., Keenan, P., & Jackson, A. (2005, October). The hard side of change management.
Harvard Business Review, 83(10), 108-118.
Stevens, F. G., Plaut, V. C., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2008). Unlocking the benefits of diversity:
All-inclusive multiculturalism and positive organizational change. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 44(1), 116–133.
Stewart, S. M., Gruys, M. L., & Storm, M. (2010). Forced distribution performance
evaluation systems: Advantages, Disadvantages and Keys to Implementation. Journal
of Management and Organization, 16(1), 168-179.
Trenerry, B., & Paradies, Y. (2012). Organizational assessment: An overlooked approach to
managing diversity and addressing racism in the workplace. Journal of Diversity
Management (JDM), 7(1), 11–26.
GETTING AHEAD: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 129

Classified - Confidential
Tziner, A., Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (2005). Contextual and rater factors affecting
rating behavior. Group & Organization Management, 30(1), 89-98.
US Census Data retrieved from: http://US quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
Wheeler, D., & Sillanpa'a, M. (1998). Including the stakeholders: The business case. Long Range
Planning, 31(2), 201–210.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Organizations are continuously looking for a way to improve the development of their employees and the results of their work. Many organizations rely on performance reviews as the means of evaluating their employees. However, with every perceived improvement in the process of performance evaluations, there tends to be a downside. This paper examines the impact of performance evaluations on organizations. In particular the paper sought to understand how the results of a performance evaluation within a technology company helped or hindered opportunity within the organization. The study surveyed managers within the organization and conducted focus groups with their direct reports. The goal was to identify similarities and differences between each group’s perception of the performance evaluation process and how fair it was.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Performance management in government: the importance of goal clarity

PDF

Impact of performance appraisals on double-hatting employees

PDF

Factors that facilitate or hinder staff performance during management turnover

PDF

Partnerships and nonprofit leadership: the influence of nonprofit managers on community partnerships

PDF

Lack of diversity in leadership: An organizational problem

PDF

Improving Hispanic student performance in English language arts and math: a small California school case study

PDF

Modern corporate learning requires a modern design methodology: an innovation study

PDF

Manager leadership skills in the context of a new business strategy initiative: an evaluative study

PDF

Preparing university faculty for distance education: an evaluation study

PDF

Employee engagement and leadership collaboration: a gap analysis of performance improvement teams in healthcare

PDF

Analyzing the implementation of a learning management system into a post-merger & acquisition organization and its effects on sales performance (improvement model)

PDF

Building employers’ capacity to support competitive employment for adults with autism: a promising practice study

PDF

Strengths-based pedagogy for culturally marginalized groups

PDF

Inclusion of adjunct faculty in the community college culture

PDF

Causes for a lack of gender diversity in leadership

PDF

Bridging the gap: a formative evaluation of the productivity-based funding model’s support for academically underserved students

PDF

Overcoming the cultural teaching gap: an evaluative study of urban teachers’ implementation of culturally relevant instruction

PDF

Mitigating low employee engagement through improved performance management: an evaluation study

PDF

An evaluative study on implementing customer relationship management software through the perspective of first level managers

PDF

E-commerce marketing strategies: targeting online consumer markets

Asset Metadata

Creator Landis, Matthew Nicholas (author)

Core Title Getting ahead: performance management

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 08/07/2018

Defense Date 06/05/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,performance management,performance review

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence (committee chair), Datta, Monique (committee member), Stowe, Kathy (committee member)

Creator Email mlandis@usc.edu,mnlandis3@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-58076

Unique identifier UC11668768

Identifier etd-LandisMatt-6686.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-58076 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LandisMatt-6686.pdf

Dmrecord 58076

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Landis, Matthew Nicholas

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA