Performance appraisal

Christine Sipher

INTRODUCTION

Schein (1990) describes organizational culture as a phenomenon that surrounds everyone, that helps them define and understand how it is created, developed and manipulated, managed and changed, which leads to culture being perhaps influenced by leadership and thus, through leadership, understanding organizational culture.
Before one though can fully acknowledge what culture is in the organizational context, a clear understanding has to be given on the components of historical, employee, national and global background of an organization (e.g. corporate) and in turn, moving down to the mechanisms that make this corporate culture tick. Through these components, performance appraisals and the way conducted may be understood.
Eisenberg and Goodall (2001) described how there are five areas of study that focuses on organizational culture, viewing that these are: Comparative Management, Corporate Culture, Organizational Symbolism, Postmodern Perspective and Organizational Cognition.
Comparative management views of organization culture see cultures as something almost concrete that is brought into an organization through societal applications of its employees. This particular approach can be seen and compared on how differences in national and local cultures are displayed in the workplace. The second part studies areas in the corporate culture where culture is viewed as something the organization possess, and with managers enhancing productivity (Eisenberg and Goodall 2001, p. 126). The third approach is organizational symbolism which asserts that culture is revealed in an indirect manner through language, stories, nonverbal messages and communicative interactions (Eisenberg and Goodall, 2001). The postmodern views of the organizational culture show that an organization’s culture is exemplified by numerous differences in connotation and a continual struggle for interpretive control (Eisenberg and Goodall, 2001). Lastly, according to Sackmann (1991), organizational culture predominantly focuses on the organizational cognition perspective with several researchers having guided their work by using organizational cognition views of culture.
Thus, according to Schein (1990), organizational culture is the pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration and that have worked well enough to be considered valid and therefore to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. Schein (1990) described three key factors identified as three key levels crucial to what culture reveals. These are: Artifacts, Values and Basic Assumptions. Artifacts can simply be viewed as being an organization’s record, office layout, company products as well as emotional intensity within the organization and the ways employees speak to one another. The second is the organization’s values meaning that values are obvious and apparent in the organization’s norms, ideologies and philosophies. Schein (1990) maintains that how people think and feel is revealed in this level. The last level maintains underlying assumptions which is held by a company determining the perceptions, thought process, feelings and behavior of organizational employees. Assumptions can be though of as values that become taken for granted and as time goes by, there is no longer discussions or questions and end up deeply rooted within the organizational culture (Schein, 1990).
LITERATURE REVIEW
Corporate Culture
Several factors contribute to the rise of theories of organizational culture which in many cases lead to world history. Eisenberg and Goodall (2001) stated that the Post War II climate was greatly influenced by social, ethnic, racial, political, sexual and economic factors and tensions. By the mid-1960’s, the European countries had given up their colonies, re-defining the role of Western interest in the political and economic assistance of Third World Countries (Eisenberg and Goodall, 2001). Due to the globalization for firms to expand, the emergence of multi-national firms and world economy became dominated by capitalism and cheap labor, mostly dominant in these Third World Countries. Thus, this whole process led to organizations paying major attention with how cross-cultural communication could be improved and ways for the organization to develop a better understanding of the cultures in other countries parallel to the cross-cultural and diversity of its employees. This in return led to organizations becoming focusing on ways to improve communication, and the understanding of why employees behave and act as they do (Eisenberg and Goodall, 2001).
Organizational culture can also be viewed as how culture can be used to guide and shape climate. Interrelated, culture and climate are often used to describe the circumstances that can influence behavior of an employee (Tesluk, Farr and Klein 1997). Climate can be referred to the organization members sharing perceptions of policies and procedures and looking at how organizational culture and climate influence individual creativity (Tesluk, Farr and Klein 1997). What is being examined is how organizations’ environments and top management influence the organizational culture in terms of creativity, assumptions and values that support creativity. Wilkins and Ouchi (1983) viewed that there are certain conditions which encourage the development of cohesive and productive cultures, being a long history, stable membership, absence of institutional alternatives and interaction among organizational members are imperative for a strong culture to develop, leading to performance.
Climate & Culture
One could say that culture and climate go hand-in-hand. Whereas culture refers to an evolved context and is rooted in history, it is collectively held and complex to resist many attempts at direct manipulation. Climate refers to a situation and is linked to thoughts, feelings and behaviors of an organization’s members; it is also temporal, subjective and subject many times to direct manipulation by people with power and influence (Denison, 1984).
Denison (1984) argues that one of the most enduring differences between culture and climate stem from their respective theoretical foundations; Culture grew out of research growing out of social construction framework (Berger and Luckman, 1966; Mead, 1934). Climate grew out of the Lewinian field theory (Lewin, 1951). Denison (1984) concludes that culture and climate should be viewed as differences in interpretation rather than differences in the phenomenon. Literature on culture and climate quite often address the creation and influence of social contexts in organizations.

Symbolism
Symbolism is informed by a wide range of theoretical traditions (Schultz 1995, pg. 75). Organizational symbolism views that there is no consensus about what culture is or what the study of organizational culture can reasonably expect to accomplish (Ott, 1984). Symbolism is associated with the view of social theorists (Geertz, 1993; Giddens, 1986) where one has to fully understand the employees’ meanings and interpretations because they are the ones that help constitute the social phenomena of organizations. But, symbolism is definitely not the key to predicting success (Trice and Beyer, 1993, p. 21). Organizations can be seen as sub-cultures reflecting cross-cutting national, regional, occupational or industrial which are more extensive and enduring than corporate culture itself and can be manipulated by management (Alvesson, 1995; Sorge, 1982, p. 108), and where according to Martin et al., (1985, pg. 99), a founder can create a culture (of the organization) built in the founders own image and reflecting the founder’s own values, priorities and future vision.
Impressions
Post-modernism is greatly associated with the introduction into cultural studies being the discipline of linguistics, anthropology, psychoanalysis and literacy criticism and history (Turner, 1990b). Just like culture, it is very difficult to define because of the vast meanings (Gephart et al., 1996). However, it is associated with language culture, subjects, rationality and writing (Alvesson, 1995, pg. 1048).
As brought up before, sub-cultures are a creation of a major culture, being the organization itself, which could be viewed in terms of demographics regarding the different make-up of people within an organization. It is assumed that increased contact between various members of different groups could improve inter-group relations because in-group members will learn that “out” group members do not fit their negative stereotypes (Alvesson, 1995). It could be presumed that when demographically different people offer individuating information, they increase one’s idiosyncratic knowledge about them. This knowledge reduces a perceiver’s propensity to assign demographically different people to stereotype categories (Miller, 2001), leading to a perceiver lessening reliance on surface level demographic differences as a bases of categorization. A perceiver’s focus could be shifted to social categories that emerge from the work environment and resulting that different people build around common stereotypes which are likely to be revised to reflect new information that one has presented. Psychologists Rothbart and John, (1985) have suggested that an individual who is different from the pro-type could be rejected from the salient category and placed into a sub-category; In other words, be re-categorized without any modification of the group stereotype, thus leading to in-group members perceiving out-group members as being ‘unique individuals’ (Gaertner et al., 1989) and viewed positively versus typical out-group representatives that could be continuously viewed negatively.
The reasons why group members are viewed positively or negatively has to do with the impressions formed of individual out-group members, such as stereotype disconfirming information versus generic impressions. Johnson and Johnson, (1994) suggested that contextual factors are key players such as status, self-revealing interactions, egalitarian norms and a focus on tasks that require cooperative interdependence, influencing the way demographically different people are viewed (Diehl and Goetz, 1991; Brewer, 1991). Thus, personality traits are very often perceived more positively. An example offered by Le Pine, Colquitt and Erez (2000) showed that people who are more open have been viewed as adapting more quickly and effectively to unexpected change, while other personality dimensions such as self monitoring and conscientiousness have shown to influence success in organizations in terms of performance and promotions (Barrick and Mount, 1991; Kilduff and Day, 1994; O’Reilly et al., 1989; Mehra, Kilduff and Brass, 2001). By showing that certain individuals influence how different, demographically-speaking individuals are perceived could help reconcile the inconsistencies characterizing previous research with regards to demography (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998).
Snyder and Swann (1978) found that people form impressions of others in social environments by interpreting information gathered from observation and interpersonal interaction. These impressions focus on individual attributes that are relevant to the perceiver (Simon, Hastedt and Aufderheide, 1997). In an organizational environment, attributes are shaped and associated with the role of an employee, forming the basis for impressions. In interdependent work teams, impressions are formed by members based on the set of valued attributes associated with the role of a team member. The process and formation of impressions among team members influence the social categories that become salient for perceivers and targets. Self concepts in social situations can be defined as the way people categorize themselves to being either similar or different, based on their “membership’ in social groups. Self-categorization relies on the activation of salient social categories functioning on psychological factors to influence a person’s perception and behavior as well as others’ behavior toward that individual (Turner et al., 1987). In an organization, demographic characteristics such as sex, race and citizenship emerge as salient social categories because of the already apparent bases of distinction among coworkers, signaling the likelihood that ‘similar people’ share common backgrounds and experiences and expecting in return, one another to react the same in the event of similar situations (Pfeffer, 1983). Demographic categorizations occur when formal organizations work group categories are already existent, especially if in-group and out-group distinctions are drawn around salient social categories whether based on work group boundaries, demographic categories or other types of classification (Pfeffer, 1983).
Tajfel and Turner (1986) viewed that people see colleagues more positively when race, sex or nationality are similar to their individual or group identity because of the positive stereotypes associated with the interpretation of information. Parallel to this, negative impressions are formed on people who are demographically different from others in the organization or work groups again, because of the interpretation of information.
Interpersonal Congruence in Small Groups
Categorizing other work group members into an in-group (e.g. attitude of those who are like me) and out-group (e.g. those who are different from me) causes people to accentuate perceptions of their similarities with in-group members as well as their differences from out-group members (Tajfel, 1982; Brewer, 1979). Intergroup categorizations among workgroup members increase dysfunctional conflict and turnover while undermining cohesion, social integration, informal communication and consequently group performance (Tsui, Egan and O’Reilly, 1992; Smith et al., 1994; Pelled, Eisenhardt and Xin, 1999).
How social integration between diverse people occurs is unknown. Ely et al., (2001) proposed that a group’s ‘diversity perspective’, group members ‘normative beliefs and expectations’ about cultural diversity and ‘its role’ in their work group moderates the effect of cultural identity diversity (e.g. sex, race) on workgroup functioning. The self categorization theory suggests that people should surrender their personal identities to achieve group harmony, whereas the identity negotiation framework, in general, and the self verification perspective suggests that people should externalize their self views to bring others to see them as they see themselves being for instance congruently (Ely et al., 2001). The identity negotiation framework thus identifies processes that increase congruence as those through which diverse group members can work together harmoniously and effectively without requiring them to suppress the individuating characteristics that make them unique (Swann et al., 2000). In homogeneous groups, social categorization processes and the tendency for similar people to be attracted to each other could smooth members’ social interactions (Swann, et al., 2000). Thus, the greater diversity on group functioning is likely to depend on the level of interpersonal congruence in the group. When interpersonal congruence is low, the negative effects of increased diversity on group functioning could go unchecked and when congruence is high, the mutual understanding and appreciation for one another’s perspectives could buffer the group from the potentially disruptive effects of diversity.
Conflict & Performance
Conflict on the intra-group level can be broken down into two categories: Relationship conflict and task conflict. Whereas relationship conflict is defined as the interpersonal incompatibility accompanied by tension, annoyance and frustration (Jehn 1995; Pelled, Eisenhardt and Xin, 1999) this type holds a few redeeming qualities and tends to have a negative impact on performance (Jehn, 1997). Members embroiled in relationship conflict could be unreceptive to others’ ideas and unwilling to share their own ideas (Pelled, 1996) leading to a psychological or physical disengagement from the group (Ross, 1989). On the other hand, task conflict is the disagreement about tasks being performed which include issues such as: prioritizing, goals, alternatives, appropriate choices for action (Jehn, 1995; 1997; Pelled, Eisenhardt and Xin, 1999). Parallel to task conflict, moderate task conflict exists, associated with an exchange of ideas and opinions, that lead to a more complete understanding of issues and alternatives solutions (Tjosvold, 1986; Schweiger et al., 1989; Amason, 1996).
Multi-Cultural Corporations: Behavior versus Professional Identities
Due to the vast globalization of corporations, organizations are finding that they need to expand to other parts of the world, excluding their home base country. Culture is viewed in a symbolic traditional sense, and as a pattern of socially constructed symbols and meanings (Geertz, 1993; Turner, 1990a). However, the concern is not about organizational culture, the beliefs and values and meanings that members of an organization use to grasp the uniqueness of their organization (Hofstede, 1991; Schultz, 1995), but about more widely shared cultural differences in sentiments that, independent from the organization have an effect on behavior in organizations.
In international corporations, with multiple languages, culture-centrism is not the only problem. In most contemporary organizations, strategies are presented in the form of written guidelines or polices that either explicitly or implicitly convey behavior prescription for employees. If multinational corporations use multiple languages, translation of strategies add another potential for cultural misunderstandings. Although two cultures could agree on a lexical categorization, the language translations or denotation of identities and behaviors describe an event and the connotation or affective meaning of these identities and behaviors that might still differ (Hofstede, 1986). Classifications of places, people, objects and behaviors get transformed into a domain of feelings where things lose their qualitative uniqueness and become comparable to one another.
Affect Control Theory (ACT)
Cultural differences in the affective meaning of professional identities and behaviors are critical factors when top managers have to decide on the global implementation of management strategies. The Affective Control Theory (ACT) adds a quantitative focus to the affective representation of meaning (Osgood, 1962, 1974 and Heider, 1967) and the processing of meaning (McPhail et al., 1992; Powers, 1980). This basically allows ACT to operationalize the symbolic interactionist approach to an extent that enables computer simulations of human interactions (McPhail et al., 1992). Interactions change the affective states of the participants who will account for this.

Charismatic Leadership
The vertical dyad linkage model (Danserau et al., 1975; Veccio and Gobdel, 1984) view leadership as an exchange process between superior and subordinate. Burns (1987) points out that leaders are highly dependent on their followers with both superior and subordinate being viewed as a transformational relationship. The status enhancement of both interactants is also critical for the four-factor theory of leadership (Parker, 1989). Parker (1989) studied successful leaders and isolated factors of leadership behavior in which the positive influence of leaders produced positive results from followers. The four-factors originate from the four empirically generated factors being: climate, feedback, input and output. Thus, a successful leadership is suppose to create a positive climate, give stimulating feedback, determine the resource input of the superior and reward the output of the subordinate (Parker, 1989). Leaders are suppose to create a supportive, warm and friendly climate for their professional interaction. In the four-factor theory, feedback from the superior should be stimulating, helping to create success and self-confidence. The input factor is determined by resources contributed by the superior (Parker, 1989). Time contribution coaching and training are seen as interpersonal resources of the superior that can help the subordinate to accomplish the tasks sufficiently. The output factor is made up of behavior that rewards the creative approaches of the subordinate and supports less than superior results while the subordinate is experimenting. The endorsement of the output factor cannot be seen directly in the short simulation of the four events with none of the interactions appearing to hamper the successful leadership of the output factor (Parket, 1989).
Job Performance Appraisals & Schools of Thought
For the last fifty years or so, the performance appraisal has significantly been used to increase worker productivity. The aim of reviewing the subordinates’ performance is to increase effectiveness and not to punish him or her with the performance appraisal holding various forms of means for conducting them
Two schools of thought exist on how effective upward feedback is on employee performance, with some saying that subordinate feedback can facilitate improvement in performance whereas others say that it does not necessarily provide performance improvement (McCarthy and Garavan, 2001).
One of the first studies conducted was by Hegarty (1974) in the search of whether upward feedback led to positive changes by a supervisor in his/her performance. The research did in fact show evidence of improvement in the way subordinates viewed their supervisor. In continuation to Hegarty’s (1974) research, Atwater et al., (1997) set out to prove the same concept and also reported an overall improvement in the behavior of managers, but when no feedback was offered, improvement of behavior was not seen. The conclusion reached by Atwater et al., (1997) was that if feedback was not given by subordinates, behavior change did not occur and vice-a-versa. Thus, feedback does in deed facilitate behavior change. The view held is that upward feedback is helpful when superiors are unaware of how their performance is perceived.
Reilly et al., (1990) found that when superiors were rated low initially, by their subordinates, they were rated higher subsequently. Parallel to this, when superiors were rated high initially they were rated lower subsequently. It can be concluded that superiors did improve their performance when rated initially low.
Although the upward feedback component differs extensively from the traditional top down model, many supervisors and managers hold reservations against this model because of the following reasons: Some supervisors may please their subordinates in order to receive high ratings; Subordinates could lack the appropriate training and skills to be able to objectively appraisee their supervisor; Subordinates could fear giving a low score that could result in the fear of consequences later; Subordinates pushed by their supervisor could possibly rate low (Bernardin et al., 1995).
A Brief History-Performance Appraisals
Having originated form the Unites States Military, and branching out to other industries, performance appraisals have become a necessity to any organization. In the historical context, appraisals were used for retention, discharges, promotions and salary decisions with the first tools used for these types of decisions, being global ratings and essays. Global ratings were constructed in a way that a rater provided an overall estimate of performance without distinctions among any performance dimension (DeVries and Miller, 1986) with the scale being outstanding, satisfactory, and improvement needed. In the global essays, a narrative response was required with a question asking for one’s overall performance/evaluation over a one year period, presuming that it was held at the beginning of the year. From these two tools, the development continued to a ranking procedure, again developed by the U.S. military in the beginning of the nineteen hundreds were a five scale process composed of the following qualities for its officers: physical, intelligence, leadership, personal, general value to the service (DeVries and Miller, 1986). The same rank applied for officers in the same rank and with a maximum number being twenty five servicemen. The rater would rank the officers from the highest to the lowest-based on one of the just described scales and in continuation, would select five ratings for five officers that represented the standard judgment. The ratings were compose of: (a) highest (b) middle (c) lowest (d) between highest and middle, and (e) between middle and lowest.
After this man-to-man appraisal system came into process, the judgmental rank order procedure was developed (DeVries and Miller, 1986). Raters would provide an overall evaluation of ones performance by checking a box that would place each rate in a certain percentage of all the rates (e.g. percentiles). Lastly, the graphic or trait rating scales came into effect. The rater would indicate on a numerical scale the degree to which one would hold certain personality traits, being leadership and cooperation as just a couple of examples. Although this type of rating exists today, this just like the rest, excluded top management.
Over the past sixty years, performance appraisals have become such commonplace in organizational life that virtually every company has an appraisal system (Longenecker and Giola, 1987). Performance appraisals are one of the most complicated and most studied subjects in human resource management. It is complicated because its application varies among its users. Managers and organizations use appraisals to do everything, from promotion to lay-offs and because of the legal issues surrounding performance appraisals; they are usually watered down from their original intent (Milkovich and Bourdreau, 1997). Due to varying applications, there are many theories to build upon which have brought many studies dissecting appraisal usage and suggesting new uses in organizations. Literature on appraisals has evolved from one that is characterized as a movement from an early emphasis on the person, through focus on the job, to a recent return to the person (Milkovich and Bourdreau, 1997). Early performance appraisal methods were fairly simplistic and involved ranking and comparing individuals with other people. However, these early person based measurement systems often exhibited a number of problems and as a result, research made a transition to job related performance assessments. Thus, performance measurement was modified from being person oriented to behavior oriented; the emphasis being on those tasks or behaviors that were associated with a given job (Welbourne and Cable, 1995).
Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS)
BARS, a behaviorally based performance appraisal tool, is designed to objectively measure employee behaviors and requires observers (raters) to select from a prescribed set of behaviors that best fit behaviors exhibited by the person being evaluated. An integral part of BARS is that both those working in the job(s), along with the supervisor, determine which job dimensions should be evaluated and which behaviors are least and most desirable (Schneider and Beatty, 1982).
360-Degree Feedback
Typically, performance appraisals have been limited to a feedback process between employees and supervisors. But, with the increased focus on teamwork, employee development and customer service, the emphasis has shifted to employee feedback form the full circle of sources such as superior, peer, self, subordinates, and customers. The multiple-input approach to performance feedback is sometimes called the 360-degree assessment. It is not always necessary to include all of the feedback sources in a particular appraisal program. The organization culture and mission should be considered and the purpose of the feedback will differ with each source (Antonioni, 1996). For example, subordinate assessments of a supervisor’s performance can provide valuable development guidance; peer feedback can be the core of excellence in teamwork and customer service feedback can focus on the quality of the team’s results. The objectives of performance appraisal and in particular aspects of performance that are assessed should be established before determining which sources are appropriate. Below, are short descriptions of the sources:
Superiors: Evaluation by supervisors are the most traditional source of employee feedback with this type of evaluation including both the ratings of individuals by superiors on elements in an employee’s performance plan and evaluation programs and teams by senior managers. This rating source contributes to several aspects such as first line supervisors being in the best position to effectively carry out the full cycle of performance management being planning; monitoring; appraising; and rewarding. The supervisor can also have the broadest perspective on the work requirements and be able to take into account shifts in these requirements. The superiors being both first line supervisors and the senior managers have the authority to redesign and reassign the employee’s work based on their assessment of individual and team performance.
However, research has demonstrated (Antoinioni, 1996) that appraisal programs that rely solely on the rating of superiors are less reliable and valid than programs that use a variety of other rating sources to supplement the supervisor’s evaluation. Secondly, superiors should be able to observe and measure facets of the work to make a fair evaluation (Antoinioni, 1996). In some work situations, the supervisor or rating official is not in the same location or is supervising very large numbers of employees and does not have detailed knowledge of each employee’s performance. Lastly, supervisors need training on how to conduct performance appraisals. They should be capable of coaching and developing employees as well as planning and evaluating their performance (London and Smither, 1955).
Self-Assessment: This form of performance information is the most common but usually used only as an informal part of the supervisor-employee appraisal feedback session. Supervisors frequently open with the discussion on questioning the employee on how he/she feels they have performed. In a somewhat more formal approach, supervisors ask employees to identify the key accomplishments they feel best represent their performance in critical and non-critical performance elements (Antonioni, 1996). In the 360-degree feedback, if self ratings are to be used, structured forms and formal procedures are usually recommended.
The most significant contribution of self-ratings is the improved communication between supervisor and subordinate results with it being useful if the entire cycle of performance management involves the employee in self-assessment. Secondly, the development focus of self-assessment is a key factor in that the self assessment instrument should be structured around the performance plan, but can emphasize training needs and the potential for the employee to advance in the organization (London and Smither, 1955). Parallel to this, the value of self-ratings is widely accepted and self-appraisals should not be simply viewed as comparative or validation process, but as a critical source of performance information (Antoinioni, 1996). This type of appraisal is valuable in situations where the supervisor cannot readily observe the work behaviors and task outcomes.
A drawback to this is that research has shown low correlations between self-ratings and all other sources or ratings, particularly supervisor rating (London and Smither, 1955; Antonioni, 1996). The self-ratings tend to be consistently higher leading to discrepancy that can lead to defensive and alienation if supervisors do not use good feedback skills. On the other hand, self-ratings could be lower than others whereas in these types of situations, employees tend to be self-demeaning feeling intimidated and “put on the spot.” Thus, self-ratings should focus on the appraisal of performance elements and not on the summary level determination with a range of rating sources, including the self-assessment helping to round out the information for the summary rating.
Peer-Assessment: With downsizing and reduced hierarchies in organizations, including the increasing use of teams and group accountability. Peers are often the most relevant evaluators of their colleagues’ performance because they have the unique perspective on a co-worker’s job performance and employees are generally very receptive to the concept of rating each other (Antonio, 1996). Peer ratings can be used when the employee’s expertise is known or the performance and results can be observed. There are both significant contributions and pitfalls that must be carefully considered before including this type of feedback in a multifaceted appraisal system.
The contributions though are many with peer influence through peer approval and pressure being quite often effective than the traditional emphasis to please the boss. Employees report resentment when they believe that their extra efforts are required to “make the boss look good” as opposed to meeting the unit’s goals. Secondly, peer ratings have proven to be excellent predictors of future performance (Antonio, 1996). Therefore, they are particularly useful as input of employee development. Thirdly, ratings of this type are valid and reliable in rating behaviors and “manner of performance” but could be limited in rating outcomes that often require the perspective of the supervisor (Antonio, 1996). The use of multiple raters in the peer dimension of a 360-degree assessment program tends to average out the possible biases of any one member of the group raters. Fourthly, the increased used of self-directed teams makes the contribution of peer evaluations the central input to the formal appraisal because by definition the supervisor is not directly involved in the day-to-day activities of the team and peer feedback can also contribute to helping move the supervisor into a coaching role rather than a judging role (Antonio, 1996).
Again, various drawbacks should be considered in this type of appraisal because peer evaluations are almost appropriate for development purposes but attempt to emphasize the purpose as being pay, promotion or job retention. The possible exception is in an award program as opposed to performance appraisal. Peer input can be effectively used for recognition and awards. There is also a difference of opinion about the need for anonymity of the peer evaluators. Generally, it is advised that the identities of the raters be kept confidential to assure honest feedback. However, in close-knit teams that have matured to a point where open communication is part of the culture, the development potential of the feedback is enhanced when the evaluator is identified and can perform a coaching or continuing feedback role (Bernardino and Buckley, 1981). It is also important that the peer evaluators be familiar with the team member’s tasks and responsibilities. In cross-functional teams, this knowledge requirement could be a possible problem and in these types of situations, the greatest contribution the peers can make pertain to the behaviors and effort (input) the employee invests in the team process.
The use of peer evaluations can be very time consuming and when used in performance ratings, the data would have to be collected many times, several times during a year in order to include the results in progress reviews. Depending on the organizational culture, peer ratings can also have the potential for creating tension and breakdowns rather than fostering cooperation and support. It is also crucial that employees be involved in the aspect of the design of appraisal systems that involve peer ratings.
Subordinate Feedback: An upward appraisal process or feedback survey is among the most significant and yet controversial features of the full circle performance evaluation program. Both managers being appraised and their own superiors agree that subordinates have a unique and often essential perspective (Roberts and Reed, 1996). The subordinate ratings provide particularly valuable data on performance elements concerning managerial and supervisory behaviors. However, there is usually great reluctance and fear concerning implementation of this rating dimension.
This form of feedback can contribute to many aspects. A formalized subordinate feedback program can provide supervisors with a more comprehensive picture of employee issues and needs. Managers and supervisors who assume they will sufficiently stay in touch with their employees’ needs by relying on “open door policies” usually receive inconsistent feedback (Roberts and Reed, 1996). Employees also feel that they have a greater voice in organizational decision-making and in fact, they do; through managerial action plans and changes in work processes, the employees can see the direct results of the feedback they have provided. Feedback from subordinates is effective in evaluating the supervisor’s interpersonal skills but may not be as appropriate or valid for evaluating task-oriented skills. Lastly, combining subordinate ratings just like peer ratings can provide the advantages of creating a composite appraisal from the averaged ratings of several subordinates (Roberts and Reed, 1996). This advantage adds validity and reliability to the feedback because the aberrant ratings get averaged out and/or the high and low ratings are dropped from the summary calculations.
Just like all the other ratings, drawbacks to this should be addressed. The need for anonymity is essential when using subordinate ratings as a source of performance feedback data. Subordinates simply will not participate or they will give gratuitous, dishonest feedback if they fear reprisal from their supervisors. If there are few than four subordinates in the rating pool for a particular manager, the ratings should not be given to the supervisor. Subordinates also feel threatened and perceive that their authority has been undermined when they must take into consideration that their subordinates will be formally evaluating them with research indicating (Roberts and Reed, 1996) that supervisors who are more responsive to their subordinates based on their feedback they receive, are more effective managers. Subordinate feedback is also beneficial when used for developmental purposes and can be sued in arriving at the performance rating of record, but precautions should be taken to ensure that subordinates are appraising elements of which they have knowledge. For example, if a supervisor’s performance plan contains elements that address effective leadership behaviors, subordinate input would be appropriate.
Only subordinates with a sufficient length of assignment under the manager should be included in the pool of assessors. Subordinates currently involved in a disciplinary action or a formal performance improvement period should be excluded from the rating group. And lastly, organizations currently undergoing a downsizing and/or reorganization should carefully balance the benefits of subordinate appraisals against the likelihood of fueling an already tense situation with distrust and paranoia (Roberts and Reed, 1996).
Customer Based Feedback
Customer feedback should serve as an “anchor” for almost all other performance factors. Combined with peer evaluation, these data literally “round out” the performance feedback program and focus attention beyond what could be a somewhat self-serving hierarchy of feedback limited to the formal “chain of command.” Including a range of customers in the 360-degree performance assessment program expands the focus of performance feedback in a manner considered absolutely critical. Employees typically only concentrate on satisfying the standards and expectations of the person who has the most control over their work conditions and compensation, with this person generally being the supervisor (Schneider and Beatty, 1982). Carefulness should be noted that customers should not be asked to assess the individual employee’s performance and the value of customer service feedback is most appropriate for evaluating team or organizational output and outcomes. This feedback can be sued as part of the appraisal for each member of the team. Customers are better at evaluating outputs (products and services) as opposed to processes and working relationships. They generally do not see or particularly care about the work processes and often do not have knowledge of how the actions of employees are limited by regulations, policies and resources (Pettijohn et al., 2001).
Designing and validating customer surveys is an expensive and time-consuming process and the time and money are best spent on developing customer feedback systems that focus on the organization or work unit as a whole.
Legal Issues
It should be noted, that there is really no prohibitions in law or regulation against using a variety of rating sources, in addition to the employee’s supervisor for assessing performance. Research has shown assessment approaches with multiple rating sources provide more accurate, reliable and credible information (Schneider and Beatty, 1982).
Performance Distribution Assessment (PDA)
The PDA was developed as a way of identifying and analyzing variability in employee performance over time fitting into the TQM goals and practices. The scope of this method are (a) the use of feasible ranges of performance outcomes that account for system constraints on employee performance. This is done by separating the system from the person allowing for more accurate ratings because raters do not have the opportunity to distort (on purpose or not) their ratings (Kane, 1986). (b). This method also utilizes the participation of managers and employees with major emphasis put on teamwork and problem solving activities, allowing for quality improvement efforts to flow on a continuous basis.
This method redefines the concept of measurement of employee performance (Kane, 1986) The method is broken down into three parts being, (a) the pre-appraisal stage where job experts such as managers and employees establish the frame of reference and rating form for later ratings. (b) appraisal stage involving that raters estimate the percentage (or frequency) of time that employees achieved each outcome level associated with the particular job function and later used for the performance distribution for each employee over a specified time period. (c) At the post appraisal stage, performance measures are calculated which are based on the raters’ distributional estimates (Kane, 1986).
Similarities do exist with those of traditional systems. Job functions as traditional systems are identified and weighted and the job function is viewed in terms of achievable outcome levels defined in qualitative or quantitative terms.
Variances occur though with the additional feature being the development of feasible range of performance where outcome levels are defined in how often employees can realistically be expected to perform at that level (Kane, 1986). In other words, the least effective outcome level indicates the minimum tolerable level of performance that could occur without removing the employee from his/her job. The maximum achievable levels of performance would be expected to be ten percent of the time and under poor conditions, the level again would reach 0 percent. All this depends on the current working conditions which many times are unforeseeable; thus, it is feasible to say that an employee can perform at that level as much as five percent of the time if conditions are poor and as much as zero percent if conditions are good. Thus, there is a feasibility range that differs from the traditional system allowing for one to question the reasons if the tolerable level varies throughout a given time frame.
A second feature is utility values that are assigned to different outcome levels. Instead of labeling the outcome levels adjectival terms like good, poor and average, the levels are measured in terms of point values (e.g. 100 points being the total).
The actual appraisal stage hold that raters make estimates about the percentage of time employees achieved each outcome level for each job function which total to 100 points used for analyzing each employee’s performance distribution. The last stage is the post-appraisal with efforts focused on improving the measurement processes as required for “true” performance management. (Kane, 1986).
The usage for this type of system is that it provides a means of developing performance improvement plans targeted to specific causes of performance problems such average levels of performance which indicate that focus needs to be put into improving an employee’s ability and is helpful for training and development purposes.


Total Quality Management (TQM)
TQM deals with performance management and is based on identifying and separating various sources of performance variations such as poor defective equipment. TQM deals with system improvement and development versus than the employee. TQM environments focus on prevention orientation implying that quality problems should be identified before they actually occur (Deadrick and Gardner, 1999).
Statement of Purpose
The organization used for this study on performance appraisals and culture is a Middle East financial firm located in Athens for more than 25 years. The cultural makeup of the employees is of mixed cultural background. However, the managerial positions held are Middle East managers. Performance appraisals are seen as “performance reviews” and are conducted once a year but done so on a verbal basis, all dependent on and if the supervisor and the department would like to conduct this. Performance appraisals are usually used in this particular corporation as a means of determining financial increases and bonuses as well as a form of punishment. The purpose of this study is to view how employees and subordinates view performance appraisals and organization culture. The participants interviewed belong to the IT department of the organization and the culture make up of these participants in this particular department are of Greek culture and/or a mixture of another cultural background (e.g. Canadian). The hypothesis is that the majority of the participants of this organization feel that organizational culture plays a tremendous role in the way the organization and participants perceive performance appraisals and that the organizational culture holds strong control in the way the participants behave within their daily tasks and duties.
Method
Sample
The samples were generated from two sources. The first source consisted of 4 employees from a financial company in Greece, and in particular coming from the IT Department. At this company, informal yearly appraisals are conducted between supervisor and employees with the appraisal results used mostly for pay decisions and for punishment purposes.
The sample was predominantly male (75%) versus females (25%). The average age was 35 years and the average tenure at the organization was 10 years. The number of supervisory employees was 1 and the rest were non-supervisory.
The second sample consisted of 15 employees coming from five different areas of industry and included the first sample. This sample was combined with data that was gathered from classmates.
The second sample was predominantly male (73%) versus females (26%). The average age of all 15 respondents was 37 years, with 60% coming from the finance industry, 20% coming from the confectionary industry, and 20% coming from the technical industry.
Material
The questionnaire and interview questions were conducted in the English language for Sample 1 and a translator was used to translate the material from the Greek language. There were three types of performance appraisal questionnaires given to each of the respondents, consisting of a Performance Evaluation Questionnaire, a PDA and a Culture Questionnaire. Parallel to this, a face-to-face interview was conducted separately for all 4 respondents. For Sample 2, the same applied with the exception that the interviews were conducted in the Greek language excluding the Finance Industry.
Procedure
Data was collected using two different methods. The first method consisted of subordinates and the supervisor answering three different questionnaires and the second method consisted of an interview session for each respondent separately.
The supervisor was asked in the first questionnaire to rate the three subordinates on their job performance using a Likert rating scale from 1 to 7 with 1 being the lowest and 7 being the highest (Appendix 1). The total number of questions asked was 69 and were broken down into 9 sections.
The second questionnaire was the Performance Distribution Assessment (PDA) and was given to the supervisor who instructed to recall each subordinate’s behavior in terms of responsibility and performance, with the frequency ranges of behavior totaling up to 100% for each employee. The PDA was broken down into 2 sections and each section consisted of 6 questions. (Appendix 2).
The supervisor was also asked to answer a questionnaire measuring the organizational climate, and was broken down into 5 sections and for each section totaling to 100 points. Each section consisted of 4 questions describing 4 organizational climates (Appendix 3). The supervisor was asked to rate each section according to the similarities of his organization.
A verbal interview was also conducted with a total number of 6 questions being asked and was mostly open ended questions. (Appendix 4)
The three subordinates were asked in return, to fill in 3 performance evaluation questionnaires consisting of 68 questions and broken down into 9 sections using 1 to 7 rating scales with 1 being the lowest and 7 being the highest. Each subordinate was asked to rate himself/herself on his/her performance and then in return, to rate their 2 colleagues’ performance. (Appendix 5 and Appendix 6)
PDA questionnaires were also given to the subordinates and were asked again, to rate themselves and their colleagues in terms of how they view their behavior and performance. The questionnaire was divided into 2 sections and each section consisted of 6 questions. Frequency ranges for each question added up to 100%. (Appendix 7 and Appendix 8)
Again, the three subordinates were asked to answer the same questionnaire as their supervisor, on how each perceives their organizational climate based on the examples provided of the 4 enterprises used. (Appendix 3)
Verbal interviews were conducted individually for all 3 subordinates on how they each view their current job and their organization. The total number of questions asked was 14 and the interviews were open ended mostly. (Appendix 8)
Data was also collected using combined information from classmates who also used the same questionnaires in order to conduct the data collection.
Results
On the culture questionnaire, the total points for all respondents in Sample 1 showed the following, which was counted in total points and not in percentages:
Enterprise A
(Big Family) Enterprise B
(Entrepreneurship) Enterprise C
(Bureaucracy) Enterprise D
(Competitive)
570 200 640 590

Thus, it can be seen, that the supervisor including the three subordinates view their organization as being a bureaucratic organization. Most of the points came from the female respondent, who felt that the organization discriminates against females and that it was difficult for a female to progress. Details showed the following for each respondent:
Supervisor’s response on culture:
Enterprise A
(Big Family) Enterprise B
(Entrepreneurship) Enterprise C
(Bureaucracy) Enterprise D
(Competitive)
210 100 100 90

Employee 1 response was as follows:
Enterprise A
(Big Family) Enterprise B
(Entrepreneurship) Enterprise C
(Bureaucracy) Enterprise D
(Competitive)
100 60 220 120



Employee 2 response was as follows:
Enterprise A
(Big Family) Enterprise B
(Entrepreneurship) Enterprise C
(Bureaucracy) Enterprise D
(Competitive)
180 30 165 125

Employee 3 response was as follows:
Enterprise A
(Big Family) Enterprise B
(Entrepreneurship) Enterprise C
(Bureaucracy) Enterprise D
(Competitive)
80 10 155 255

The Supervisor’s (Respondent 4) response on PDA for each employee on responsibility and performance was as follows:















The assumptions that can be made are the following from each question which was asked during the personal interview by each of the three subordinates.
Question 1: Holding a clear and concise knowledge of duties/tasks. All three respondents replied that their job duties and tasks were very clear to them.
Question 2: Gaining new work knowledge at work. Initiative had been taken by Respondent 1 to obtain the latest updated information on technological and program material. Respondent 2 and Respondent 3 felt that they gained work knowledge through their job and that training was sufficient for them.
Question 3: Consistency and Effectiveness at Work. All 3 respondents felt that if, most of the time, there was effectiveness in the work that was produced.
Question 4: Dealing with excess workload regarding priorities and organizational skills. Sometimes, Respondent 1 felt side-trapped and could get pulled off in dealing with priorities and organizational skills. However, the respondent felt that it was a matter of being self-disciplined and the side-trapping only lasted for a very short period of time. Respondent 2 and Respondent 3 were very broad in answering this question with both feeling that the setting of priorities and organizational skills were very good from their side.
Question 5: Personality traits contributing to negative and/or positive job performance. Respondent 1 felt that a negative trait held was that criticism from colleagues and/or supervisor was often taken at the personal level. The respondent expected colleagues, as an example which was offered, to be punctual and became upset if not so. A positive trait was that the respondent held an open perspective and was very straight-forward approximately 80% of the time. Respondent 2 felt that a negative trait held was working under pressure because many times it affected communication with other colleagues. Lose of calmness took over when under pressure. A positive trait was that the respondent was well organized. Respondent 3 felt that a negative trait was aggressiveness at times, but would not specify when and under which conditions this occurred. A positive trait was very good cooperation and team spirit with colleagues and very good knowledge of the IT field as well as always being open to new ideas and ways of doing things.
Question 6: Communicating with colleagues and supervisor in the department. Respondent 1 felt that communication with colleagues required improvement because the respondent did not like to repeat things to colleagues, required on the job. On communicating with the supervisor, the respondent felt that overall, communication was good but stressed that there was some room for improvement. The respondent explained that although the supervisor was attentive to new suggestions and/or ideas, no action was taken from the supervisor, which eventually lead to things being done the way the supervisor had anticipated in the first place. The respondent also described communication within the organization as being non-existent because most things said by colleagues were taken at a personal level by the respondent. The respondent felt that because most employees within the specific organization have been with the organization for decades, many things are utilized to the fullest and are taken advantage of. This led to the respondent’s belief that employees within this organization are “spoiled”.
Respondent 2 felt that communication within the department level was dependent on the situation. In other words, sometimes communication was very good and at other times, extremely poor and hostile. Communication with the respondent’s supervisor was fair and with other colleagues within the organization, it was good. The respondent preferred not to elaborate on the circumstances that influenced the communication level.
Respondent 3 felt that departmental communication was satisfactory and communication with the supervisor and colleagues within the organization was very good.
Question 7: Expression of Ideas at the Group or individual level. Respondent 1 replied that as a department, expressing ideas was usually done at a group level, but on a personal basis, the respondent said that when it had been done in the past, extreme difficulty existed in reaching compromises. However, most of the time compromising was not existent.
Respondent 2 replied that expression of ideas was much stronger as a group than on an individual basis and preferred to do so at a group level. Respondent 3 replied that there was no difficulty at the group level or on an individual level.
Question 8: Holding friendships with colleagues (within and/or without the department). Respondent 1 expressed that on an overall basis, colleagues within the organization especially in this “particular” organization could not be trusted and only professional ties existed. When comparing past work environments to the current organization, the respondent expressed sadness and disappointment that friendship was impossible in the organization.
Respondent 2 held friendship ties within the organization but expressed that this did have a negative aspect because of the company politics. However, the respondent felt that these friendships developed within the environment, made work more pleasant. Respondent 3 held friendships with departmental colleagues only and viewed that because of those ties, the department was affected in a positive way towards getting things done.
Question 9: Holding a friendly relationship parallel to a professional relationship with supervisor. Respondent 1 felt that friendship does exist with the supervisor because of the cultural similarities (Greek). Respondent 2 was absolute with the response offered which was, that it was not possible to hold a friendship with the supervisor. Respondent 3 expressed that a friendship with the respondent’s supervisor would be difficult because the supervisor could be biased and be influenced by the judgment made on the respondent’s job skills.
Question 10: Training programs towards improvement of job performance. Respondent 1 replied satisfied with the degree of programs offered. However, the respondent did stress that the organization viewed the respondent differently because of gender (female) while training programs conducted varied for males. Respondent 2 and Respondent 3 both answered the same. Both welcomed training programs and attended them when the opportunity occurred. However, both felt that training programs were not frequently conducted as they would like.
Question 11: Holding the choice and possibility of implementation towards doing things “better”. Respondent 1 replied that due to the heavy bureaucracy, the implementation of new ideas and ways of doing things was very limited. The respondent stressed, that this possibility only happened within the respondent’s department and not within the organization. Respondent 2 answered that the implementation of new ideas was a loss of time and Respondent 3 was willing to be given the choice of implementing new ways and has done so in the past.
Question 12: Holding satisfaction and motivation in the present position. Respondent 1 replied that no motivation existed to excel and no recognition existed. The respondent again mentioned the gender issue (male versus female) and that the organization did not encourage employees because of the heavy bureaucratic system. Respondent 2 and Respondent 3 gave the same answer that motivation did not exist. No elaboration was given as to how.
Question 13: Assuming more responsibility. Respondent 1 had requested for more responsibility in the past but had been denied because of the gender issue again. The general feeling that the respondent sensed from superiors, was that the respondent should request for more responsibility and should only be grateful to the current position that the respondent held. Respondent 2 and Respondent 3 replied that both were assuming to obtain more responsibility and respondent 3 stressed in particular, if the efforts were appreciated.
Question 14: Employee advancement in the organization. Respondent 1 replied that advancement especially at the individual level was non-existent and that a male colleague had more advancement prospects over a female.
Respondent 2 viewed that very few advanced and those individuals who did so, belonged to the “elite” group and that a corporate ladder was not feasible. Respondent 3 held the view that only the hard-working moved up in the organization.
Question 15: High goal setting which could lead to personal development. Respondent 1 and Respondent 3 replied that they do set high goals while Respondent 2 has stopped doing so because of being let down in the past, by the organization.
Question 16: Rules/Regulations: Accepting/Agreeing and the Promotion of Ideas which could lead to change. Respondent 1 viewed that there was no promotion of ideas and as a department, the rules and regulations tended to be more flexible than the rest of the organization. Respondent 2 and Respondent 3 felt that the promotion of new ideas were overall accepted within the department, but not the organization as a whole.
Question 17: With respect to work, if the respondents categorize themselves as being optimistic and/or pessimistic. Respondent 1 replied that on a personal basis, the respondent was positive. Regarding work related issues, the respondent was pessimistic. Respondent 2 replied that on a work level basis, the organization did not allow for optimism, but on a personal level, the respondent categorizes self as being optimistic. Respondent 3 based optimism on the outcome and work efforts produced at work.
The interview with the supervisor (Respondent 4) will be characterized on a general level based on the response offered regarding a general characterization of Respondent 1, Respondent 2 and Respondent 3 which are the subordinates.
Respondent 1 was characterized as holding a very strong character and dedicated to getting the job done. However, the respondent’s drawback was the constant nagging which many times, along with the strong character, created friction in the department among the respondent’s subordinates. Respondent 4 felt that the subordinate could hold further responsibilities and that a great deal of training was done on the job through day-to-day activities.
Respondent 2 was characterized as holding knowledge, but due to the unstable character, the respondent fell behind respondent 1 and respondent 3. Sometimes, the subordinate was absent minded and when given the chance for training, the respondent showed no effort in pursuing to practice what was learnt.
Respondent 3 was viewed as a hard worker and a “die-hard guru”. However, not punctual in the morning but makes it up by staying over time in the evening. Thus, Respondent 4 stated that the morning punctuality was overlooked. A very steady character and holding a positive mind set the subordinate held no clashes from other colleagues. The only drawback was that the subordinate could not attain full responsibility and required guidance. Once guidance was offered, then full responsibility was handled to the fullest. Respondent 4 felt that training courses were required, but for time management along with some form of management seminar, as a means for the subordinate to gain more self confidence and be able to take own initiative on the job.
The finds for the combined data with classmates showed a significant and positive correlation analysis of employee ratings to their colleagues, being r=0.902, p< 0.01 and in continuation, one variable was used which was the colleague ratings:
The mean average and S.D. for supervisor ratings, self ratings and colleague ratings were as follows:
Supervisor Ratings
Self Ratings Colleague Ratings
M=307.2, S.D.=65.6 M=385, S.D.=59.5 M=350.1, S.D.=52

The mean average and S.D. for the sample on bureaucratic, market, and adhocracy cultures were as follows:
Enterprise A
(Big Family) Enterprise B
(Entrepreneurship) Enterprise C
(Bureaucracy) Enterprise D
(Competitive)
M=127 S.D.=90.16 M= 80, S.D.=53.32 M=182, S.D=75.73 M=111,S.D.=77.89

The correlation between supervisor ratings, self ratings and colleague ratings were found to be positively and statistically significant and were as follows:
Supervisor Ratings
Self Ratings r=0.68, p<0.01

Supervisor Ratings
Colleague Ratings r=0.69, p<0.01
Self Ratings
Colleague Ratings r=0.57, p<0.05

Using Analysis of Variance (One-Way Anova), the following were shown to be significantly different between the participants that belonged to the four different company types described in the questionnaire.

Enterprise A
(Big Family) Enterprise B
(Entrepreneurship) Enterprise C
(Bureaucracy) Enterprise D
(Competitive)
F (2,14)=9.82, p<0.01 F (2,14)=12.37, p<0.01 F(2,14)+33.9, P<0.01 No Significance


Limitations
The particular finance organization interviewed would not allow for job descriptions to be given to the interviewer who worked in the same organization, as the supervisor felt that it could create friction within the system. Secondly, some of the answers obtained for half of the employees in the first sample could have been biased because the interviewer worked in the same organization. In order for a significance to be shown in the outcome, a periodical interview (every quarter) along with the three questionnaires would have to be administered to the four respondents to determine any changes in the way the respondents rated themselves, their colleagues and the way the supervisor rated the subordinates.
It should also be noted that the sample was quite small and it would have been much better if the whole organization was interviewed on the topic of job appraisals and culture. In order for one to determine who valid the responses were, the same procedure would have to be applied to determine the way all respondents truly felt about their organizational culture.
Parallel to this, it would be of great interest if, in the future, a researcher could interview various Middle Eastern companies in Greece to determine exactly and after continuous surveying, on the way the employees feel about their company culture and the effect it has on their job performance and in return their job appraisals.
Discussion
Culture Theories
Research on organizational culture is quite limited with a great deal of discussion taking place on how terms and ideas relating to organizational culture theories should be interpreted. Pettigrew (1979) discerned that employees need to have a strong sense of what a company is about in order to properly function within that setting and a way for employees to get this information, is through ideologies. Beyer (1981) defined ideologies as being a shared set of beliefs providing an explanation of reality in terms of cause and effect relations, with the message transmitted to employees about the correctness of the organizational values and norms over other possible practices attempting to promote strong and healthy organizational culture (Trice and Beyer 1984).
Values and Personality
Characteristics are most frequently associated with person – organization fit are values and personality traits (Kristof-Brown 2000). In a study conducted by Judge and Cable (1997) it was found that significance relationships existed between personality traits and vocational interests. It is quite often that employees are attracted to an organization which they believe is compatible to their own values (O’Reilley,1991). Parallel to this, it has been viewed (O’Reilley ,1991) that the psychological process of identify formation, where individuals tend to look for societal identity providing them with meaningful and connectedness, accounting for the importance of values and organizational culture. Thus, organizations search for recruits that give the impression of sharing the organizational values. Many feel that how well a person fits into the organization’s culture could be as important as how well a person fits the requirements of a specific job. Kristof-Brown (2000) suggested that from the earliest stages of hiring, recruiters do consider an applicant’s potential ‘organizational fit’.
Sub Cultures
Studies by Johnson et al., (1981) showed that there was some evidence that increased contact could improve in-group members’ impressions of out-group members and reduce inter-group conflict in return. On the other hand, interpersonal contact failed to reduce inter-group conflict and contact between different people did not necessarily improve attitudes towards one another Johnson et al., (1981).
Harrison, Price and Bell (1998) found that group longevity diminished the negative effect on group cohesion of surface-level diversity (e.g. sex diversity) but strengthened the negative effect on group cohesion of deep-level diversity (e.g. diversity of overall work satisfaction). Chatman (1991) found that compared with an individuals organizational culture, a collectivistic culture enhanced social interaction and creative performance to a greater degree in diverse groups than in homogeneous groups.
Group Identification & Social Integration
Interpersonal congruence could moderate the consequences of diversity on several potent indicators of group functioning, including social integration, group identification and intra-group conflict. In social integration, it is the degree to which the group members are attracted to the group, feel satisfied with each other, interact socially and hold a psychological link to one another (O’Reilly et al., 1989; Smith et al., 1994). Group identification is the perception of oneness with or belonging to the group involving cognitive, affective and evaluative dimensions (Tajfel, 1982).








References

Alvesson, M. (1995). The Meaning and Meaninglessness of Post-Modernism. Organizational Studies. 16(6), 1047-1075.

Amason, A.C. (1996). Distinguishing the Effects of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict on Strategic Decision Making: Resolving a Paradox for Top Management Teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123-148.

Antonioni, A. (1996). Designing an Effective 360-Degree Appraisal Feedback Process. Organizational Dynamics, Autumn,24-38.

Atwater, L.E. and Yammarino, F.Y. (1997). Do Managers See Themselves as Others See Them? Organizational Dynamics, Spring, 35-44.

Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta Analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Penguin.

Bernardin, H.J. and Buckley, M.R. (1981). Strategies in Rater Training. Academy of Management Review, 6,205-212.

Bernardin, H.J., Hagan, C, Kane, J.S. (1995). The Effects of a 360-Degree Appraisal System on Managerial Performance: No Matter How Cynical I Get. I Can’t Keep Up. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, Florida.

Beyer, Janice M. (1981). Ideologies, Values, and Decision Making in Organizations. In P.C. Nystrom and W.H. Starbuck (Eds.). Handbook of Organizational Design, Vol. 2. (pp. 167-202). New York: Oxford University.

Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology, Bulletin, 17, 475-482.

Brewer, M.B. (1979). In-Group Bias in the Minimal Inter-Group Situation: A Cognitive-Motivational Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324.

Burns, P. (1987). The Empowered Manager. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Campbell, D.I. and Lee, C. (1988). Self-Appraisal in Performance Evaluation: Development versus Evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 302-314.

Chatman, J. (1991). Matching People and Organizations: Selection and Socialization in Public Accounting Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459-484.

Chatman, J.A. and Jehn, K.A. (1994). Assessing the Relationship Between Industry Characteristics and Organizational Culture: How Different Can You Be? Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 522-553.

Danserau, F., Graen, G. and Haga, W.J. (1975). The Vertical Dyad Linkage Approach to Leadership Within Formal Organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 13, 46-78.

Deadrick, D. and Gardner, D.B. (1999). Performance Distribution: Measuring Employee Performance Using Total Quality Management Principles. Journal of Quality Management, 4(2).

Denison, D. (1984). Bringing Corporate Culture to the Bottom Line. Organizational Dynamics, 13(2), 4-22.

Diehl. Paul and Gary Goertz. (1991). Territorial Changes and Future International Conflict. Relazioni Internazionali, 55, 22-33.

DeVries, K and Miller, D. (1986). Personality Culture and Organization. Academy of Management Review, 11(2), 266-267.

Eisenberg, E.M. and Goodall, Jr, H.L. (2001). Cultural Studies of Organizations and Communication. Organizational Communication: Balancing Creativity and Constraint, 3rd Edition. (pg. 113-137). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Ely, R.J., Thomas, D.A. and Floyd, K. (2001). Cultural Diversity at Work: The Effects of Diversity Perspectives on Work Group Processes and Outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 229-273.

Gaertner, S.L., Mann, J., Murrele, A. and Dovidio, J.F. (1989). Reducing Inter-Group Bias: The Benefits of Re-categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 57, 239-249.

Geertz, C. (1993). The Inter-Presentation of Cultures. London: Fontana.

Gephart, R.P, Boje, D.M. and Thatchenkery, T.J. (1996). Postmodern Management and the Coming Crisis of Organizational Analysis in Post Modern Management and Organizational Theory.( p. 1-20) London: Sage.

Giddens, A. (1986). The Constitution of Society. Cambridge.

Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H. and Bell, M.P. (1998). Beyond Relational Demography: Time and the Effects of Surface and Deep Level Diversity on Work Group Cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 95-107.

Hegarty, W.H. (1974). Using Subordinate Ratings to Elicit Behavioral Changes in Supervisors. Journal of Applied Psychology. 56(6), 764-766.

Heider, F. (1967). On Social Cognition. American Psychologist. 22, 25-31.

Herold, D.M. and Parsons, C.K. (1985). Assessing the Feedback Environment in Work Organizations. Development of the Job Feedback Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(2), 290-305.

Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural Differences in Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 301-320.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw Hill, London.

Jehn, K.A. (1995). A Multi-method Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Inter-Group Conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 255-282.

Jehn, K.A. (1997). A Qualitative Analysis of Conflict Types and Dimensions in Organizational Groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530-557.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Maruyama, G., Nelson, D., and Skon, L. (1981). Effects of Cooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Goal Structures on Achievement: A Meta Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 189, 47-62.

Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, F.P. (1994). Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills. Boston, M.A.: Allyn and Bacon.

Judge, T.A and Cable, D.M. (1997). Applicant Personality, Organizational Culture and Organizational Attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50 (2), 359-395.

Kane. J.S. (1986). Performance Distribution Assessment. In R.A. Berk (Ed), Performance Assessment: Methods and Applicants: 237-273. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Kilduff, M. and Day, D. (1994). Do Chameleons Get Ahead? The Effects of Self-Monitoring on Managerial Careers. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1047-1060.

Kristoff-Brown, A.L. (2000). Perceived Applicant Fit: Distinguishing Between Recruiters’ Perceptions of Person-Job and Person-Organization Fit. Personnel and Psychology, 53(2), 643-672.

Le Pine, J.A., Colquitt, J.A. and Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to Changing Task Contexts: Effects of General Cognitive Ability, Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience. Personnel Psychology, 53, 563-595.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper and Row.

London, M. and Smither, J. (1955). Can Multi Source Feedback Change Perceptions of Goal Accomplishment, Self-Evaluations and Performance Related Outcomes? Personnel Psychology. 48, 803-839.

London, M. and Smither, J.W. (1995). Can Multi-Source Feedback Change Perceptions of Goal Accomplishments, Self-Evaluations and Performance Related Outcomes? Theory-Based Applications and Directions for Research. Personnel Psychology, 48, 803-839.

Longenecker, C.O., Sums, H.P. and Giola, D.A. (1987). Behind the Mask: The Politics of Employee Appraisal. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(2),84-86.

Martin, J. (1985). Can Organizational Culture be Managed in Organizational Cultures. In P.J. Frost, L.F. Moore, M.R. Louis, C.C. Lundberg and J. Martin, (Eds).( pg. 95-98). London: Sage.

McCarthy, A.M. and Garavan, T.N. (2001). 360 Feedback Process: Performance, Improvement and Employee Career Development. Journal of European Industrial Training.

McPhail, C., Powers, W. and Tucker, C. (1992). Stimulating Individual and Collective Action in Temporary Gatherings. Social Science Computer Review.10, 1-28.

Mead, G. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mehra, A., Kilduff, M. and Brass, D.J. (2001). The Social Networks of High and Low Self Monitors: Implications for Workplace Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 121-146.

Milkovich, G.M. and Boudreau, J.W. (1997). Human Resource Management, Irwin, Chicago.

Miller, J. (2001). Self-Monitoring and Appraisal Satisfaction: An Exploratory Field Study. Human Resource Management. 40(4), 321-333.

O’Reilly, C., Charles, A., Caldwell, D., and Barnett, W. (1989). Working Demography, Social Integration, and Turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21-37.

O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D. (1991). People and Organizational Culture. A Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Peron-Organization Fit. Academy Management Journal, 34(3), 487-516.

Osgood, C. (1962). Studies of the Generality of Affective Meaning. American Psychologist. 17,10-28.

Osgood, C. (1974). Probing Subjective Culture. Journal of Communication. 24(1), 21-35.

Ott, K. (1984). Two Problems that Threaten Organizational Culture Research. Unpublished paper presented to the First International Conference on Organizational Symbolism and Corporate Culture. Lund, Sweden, June.

Parker, J.C. (1989). The Effects of Situational Leadership Training on Leadership Style. Thesis. South Carolina State College.

Pelled, L.H, Eisenhardt, K.M. and Xin, K.R. (1999). Exploring the Black Box: An Analysis of Work Group Diversity Conflict and Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1-28.

Pelled, L.H. (1996). Demographic Diversity, Conflict and Work Group Outcomes: An Intervening Process Theory. Organization Science, 7, 615-631.

Pettigrew, A.M. (1979). On Studying Organizational Culture. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 570-581.

Pettijohn, C., Pettijohn, L, Taylor, A. and Keillor, B. (2001). Are Performance Appraisals a Bureaucratic Exercise or Can They Be Used to Enhance Sales-Force Satisfaction and Commitment? Psychology and Marketing. 14(4), 337-364.

Powers, W. (1980). The Systems Approach to Consciousness in Psychobiology of Consciousness. New York: Plenum.

Preffer, J. (1983). Organizational Demography. Research in Organizational Behavior, (pg.1-52). Greenwhich, CT: JAI Press.

Reilly, R.R., Henry, S. and Smither, J.W. (1990). An Examination of the Effects of Using Behavior Checklist on the Construct Validity of Assessment Center Dimensions. Personnel Psychology, 43, 71-84.

Roberts, G. and Reed, T. (1996). Performance Appraisal Participation, Goal Setting and Feedback: The Influence of Supervisory Style. Review of Public Personnel Administration. 16(4).

Ross, R. (1989). Conflict. In Ross, R. and Ross, J. (Eds). Small Groups in Organizational Settings. (pg.139-178). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Rothbart, M. and John, O.P. (1985). Social Categorization and Behavioral Episodes. A Cognitive Analysis of the Effects of Intergroup Contact. Journal of Social Sciences. 41(3), 81-104.

Sackmann, S.A. (1991). Uncovering Culture in Organizations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(3), 295-318.

Sandberg, W.R., Rechner, P.L. and Schweiger, D.M. (1989). Experimental Effects of Dialectical Inquiry, Devil’s Advocacy and Consensus Approaches to Strategic Decision-Making. Academy of Management Journal, 32(4),. 745-772.

Schein, E.H. (1990). Organizational Culture. American Psychologist. 45(2), 109- 119.

Schneider, C. and , Beatty, R.(1982). The Performance Appraisal Sourcebook. Human Resource Development Press.

Schultz, M. (1995). On Studying Organizational Cultures. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Schweiger, D.M., Sandberg, W.R. and Rechner, P.L.(1989). Experential Effects of Dialectical Inquiry, Devil’s Advocacy and Consensus Approaches to Strategic Decision-Making. Academy of Management Journal, 32,745-772.

Simon, B, Hastedt, C., and Aufderheide, B. 91997). When Self Realization Makes Sense: The Role of Meaningful Social Categorization in Minority and Majority Members’ Self-Perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 73(2), 310-320.

Smith, K.G., Smith, K.A., Olian, J.D., Sims, H.P., O’Brannon, D.P. and Scully, J.A. (1994). Top Management Team Demography and Process: The Role of Social Integration and Communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 412-438.

Snyder, M. and Swann, W.B. (1978). On the Self-Perpetuating Nature of Social Stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Pscyhology, 14, 148-162.

Sorge, A. (1982/3). Cultured Organizational. International Studies of Management and Organizational, 106-138.

Swann, W.B., Milton, L.P. and Polzer, J.T.(2000). Should We Create a Niche or Fall in Line? Identity Negotiation and Small Group- Effectiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 283-250.

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social Psychology of Inter-Group Relations. Annual Review of Psychology. 33, 1-39.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Tesluk, P.E., Farr, J.L. and Klein, S.R. (1997). Influences of Organizational Culture and Climate on Individual Creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31(1), 27-41.

Tjosvold, D. (1986). Constructive Controversy: A Key Strategy for Groups. Personnel, 63,39-44.

Trice, H.M. and Beyer, J.M. (1984). Studying Organizational Culture Through Rites and Ceremonials. Academy of Management Review, 9(4), 653-669.

Trice, H.M. and Beyer, J.M. (1993). The Cultures of Work Organizations. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Tsui, S.A., Egan, T.D. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1992). Being Different: Relational Demography and Organizational Attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549-579.

Turner, B. (1990a). Organizational Symbolism. New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Turner, B. (1990b). The Rise of Organizational Symbolism in the Theory and Philosophy of Organizations. London: Routledge, p. 83-86.

Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D. and Wetherell, M.S. (1987). Rediscovering the Social Group: Self Categorization Theory. New York Blackwell.

Veccio, R. and Gobdel, B. (1984). The Vertical Dyad Linkage Model of Leadership: Problems and Prospects. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance.13, 5-20.

Welbourne, T. & Cable, D. (1995) ‘Group incentives and pay satisfaction: Understanding the relationship through an identity theory perspective’. Human Relations, 48, 711-726

Wilkins, A.L. and Ouchi, W.G. (1983). Efficient Cultures and Exploring the Relationships Between Culture and Organizational Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 468-481.

Williams, K.Y. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1998). Demography and Diversity in Organizations: A Review of 40-Years of Research. In B.M. Staw, and L.L Cummings. (Eds). Research in Organizational Behavior, (pg.77-140). Greenwich: JAI Press.

























APPENDIX


































(APPENDIX 1)

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The following evaluation system aims at a qualitative, as well as quantitative analysis of each employee’s performance. For the purposes of the evaluation, a scale that goes from 1 to 7 is applied as follows:

1 = Inadequate
2 = Needs more effort
3 = Average
4 = Satisfactory
5 = Good
6 = Very good
7 = Excellent


Please circle the grade that you consider representative of the employee's performance
in each category of professional abilities


KNOWLEDGE OF OBJECT OF WORK EMPLOYEE'S EVALUATION

KNOWLEDGE OF DUTIES

Knowledge of duties deriving from the specific position 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ability to carry out the required duties successfully 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

EXPERIENCE

Implementation of prior knowledge and skills in new working conditions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Avoidance of situations that had proved problematic in the past 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

KNOW-HOW

Ability to handle effectively all the available means, equipment and procedures that are considered a prerequisite for efficiency in one's job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

QUALITY OF WORK

Absence of errors in one's work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Attainment of objectives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

CONSISTENCY

Consistency in the quality of work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reliability and formality in one's professional obligations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

EFFECTIVENESS

Accuracy in the completion of tasks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Attainment of objectives within specific time frames 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Effectiveness when working under pressure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ORGANIZING ABILITIES

Wise time management and priority assignment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Proper allocation of the required duties and activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Planning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

MOTIVATION

WILLINGNESS

Willingness to carry out the required duties 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

EVOLUTION

S/he sets high targets for professional and personal development 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Willingness to view the working environment in a wider sense 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Willingness for constant updating on one's professional field 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Negative incidents do not prohibit one's evolution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

INITIATIVE

Willingness to assume wider responsibilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ability to encourage colleagues and subordinates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

DEDICATION

Investment of personal time for the benefit of the company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

COMMUNICATION

ORAL & WRITTEN SPEECH

Proper use of oral and written speech 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ability to comprehend oral and written speech 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

COMMUNICATION WITH OTHERS

Ability to communicate with personnel and clients 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ability to express oneself and impart ideas at an individual, as well as group level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Receptiveness in any form of communication 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Willingness to hear other people's views 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ability in negotiations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Politeness and good manners when communicating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ability to promote dialogue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7



HUMAN RELATIONS - COLLABORATION

TEAM SPIRIT

Ability to collaborate effectively 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Priority to collective success 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SOLIDARITY

Ability to maintain good professional relations with one’s colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Expression of interest and respect to others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Solidarity towards colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pleasant personality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

INFLUENCE

Persuasion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Recognition and settlement of conflicts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Positive influence on one's colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

RECEPTIVENESS AND ADJUSTABILITY TO CHANGES

FLEXIBILITY

Adjustability to changes in working conditions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ability to perform at an individual, as well as group level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

RECEPTIVENESS

Ability to cope with changes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ability to be highly productive with the available means 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Acknowledgement of the company's culture and values 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ability to accept criticism and admit errors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

LEARNING ABILITIES

KNOWLEDGE

Wider knowledge of the object of work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Participation in training activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

COMPREHENSION

Full comprehension of the particular details that a job entails 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Knowledge of the objectives of each separate job procedure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

APPLICATION

Ability to implement knowledge and techniques at work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ability to improve performance through learning opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

RESEARCH

Personal quest for new knowledge that can find direct implementation in one’s workplace 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ANALYSIS

Knowledge of all the separate parameters that make up the total of the tasks that need to be carried out 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SYNTHESIS

Spherical perception of his/her role in carrying out tasks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

CREATIVITY

INNOVATION

Ability to provide alternative solutions to possible problems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Inventiveness / new ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Creativity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

QUALITIES OF A LEADER

Sets a good example to his/her colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Has a distinct personal style, which inspires his/her colleagues or/and subordinates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Calls his/her colleagues and subordinates into action 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Interacts efficiently with others taking into consideration the individual needs and feelings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sets targets and motivates other people for their attainment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

Fulfilment of duties with a sense of responsibility 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Avoidance of actions that contradict the collective interest of the company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Adoption of the company's policy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Willingness to abide by the company's rules/regulations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

GENDER:
AGE:
TYPE OF COMPANY:
POSITION IN THE COMPANY:


Please circle: Employee 1 Employee 2 Employee 3
(APPENDIX 2)
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
In the following evaluation system, you are asked to recall each of your employee’s behaviour in terms of assuming responsibility and performance. Then, distribute the frequency range of those behaviours (0% - 100%) in such a way, so that the corresponding percentages add up to 100% in total.
RESPONSIBILITIES
The employee never assumes responsibilities The employee assumes responsibilities only when s/he is asked to The employee assumes his/her own responsibilities The employee assumes all the necessary responsibilities deriving from the nature of his/her job and assists other people to their job The employee assumes responsibilities without being asked to The employee is regarded as a model for the others
Employee 1
Employee 2

Employee 3


PERFORMANCE
The quantity and quality of the employee's work are never satisfactory Your peer produces an average volume of work and low quality Your peer produces an average volume of work and average quality Your peer produces a satisfactory volume of work and average quality Your peer produces a huge volume of work and satisfactory quality Yoru peer presents an excellent performance in both the quantity and quality of his/her work
Employee 1

Employee 2
Employee 3




(APPENDIX 3)
QUESTIONNAIRE
DIAGNOSIS OF THE ENTERPRISE CLIMATE
Four enterprises (A, B, C, D) are being described in each one of the following tables. Their descriptions differ in one feature each time. Please divide 100 points among the four enterprises under description according to the degree of similarity between the descriptions and your enterprise. For each question a total of 100 points needs to be divided. For example, if in one question enterprise A is very similar to mine, enterprise B is a little similar, while C and D are very different, I can give 70 points to A, 30 points to B, while I can give 0 points to C and D.
This questionnaire will attempt to diagnose the climate of the enterprise you work for.
Thank you very much for your time and effort and I would also like to assure you that your answers will be confidential.
1. Main characteristics of the enterprise (Divide 100 points)
a. A warm, human climate is evident in enterprise A. It is like a big family. The employees have a lot in common.
b. Entrepreneurship and dynamism (frequent changes) prevail in enterprise B. The employees do not hesitate to take innovative decisions.
c. Regulations and standardized procedures seem to override anything else in enterprise C. The activities of the personnel are generally dictated by bureaucratic procedures.
d. Enterprise D is characterized by a competitive climate, where everybody’s main interest is to “get the job done”, whereas human relations become of secondary importance. The employees are orientated towards the attainment of objectives and the increase in production.
TOTAL 100




















2. Head of the enterprise (Divide 100 points)
a. The head of enterprise A is generally regarded as an adviser and behaves in a fatherly manner.
b. The head of enterprise B generally conducts himself/herself as an innovator and takes initiatives.
c. The head of enterprise C is generally viewed as an expert in the organization and co-ordination of different tasks and is mainly interested in productivity.
d. The head of enterprise D is generally considered a hard-worker, is efficient and places great emphasis on the competitiveness of the enterprise.
TOTAL 100

3. The key-element that binds the employees together (Divide 100 points)
a. In enterprise A, the key-element is coherence and team spirit at work.
b. In enterprise B, the key-element is the emphasis on innovation and development.
c. In enterprise C, the key-element is the formal procedures, regulations and policy. It is important for the enterprise to run as smoothly as a well-adjusted machine.
d. In enterprise D, the key-element is the orientation towards production and the attainment of objectives by constantly applying an aggressive strategy in the market.
TOTAL 100

4. Work climate (Divide 100 points)
a. In enterprise A, there is a high degree of trust and friendly relations among the employees.
b. Dynamism and readiness to cope with new challenges are the predominant elements of the climate in enterprise B. Venturing on new ideas and experimentation is also common.
c. The climate in enterprise C is characterized by stability and unaltered conditions. The expectations concerning the procedures are clear to everybody and strictly followed.
d. The climate in enterprise D is competitive, while it promotes the constructive position of different ideas. Particular emphasis is placed upon surpassing competition.
TOTAL 100

5. Success criteria (Divide 100 points)
a. In enterprise A, success is determined by human resource development, team spirit and consideration of the human factor.
b. In enterprise B, success is associated with providing the client with new services/products. It is considered a pioneer, innovative enterprise.
c. In enterprise C, success is defined in terms of productivity, low cost of operation, reliability when dealing with the client and good planning.
d. Enterprise D defines success in terms of market penetration and its market share. The main objective lies in being No 1 in the market.
TOTAL 100
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
GENDER:
AGE:
JOB TITLE:
NUMBER OF SUBORDINATES (IF THERE ARE):
DEPARTMENT:
NAME OF THE ENTERPRISE:

















Supervisor-Interview (APPENDIX 4)

1. How would you generally characterize the following employees on the job:

Employee 1:_____________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Employee 2:______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Employee 3: ______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. How would you assess the personality traits (e.g. positive and/or negative) of:

Employee 1:_____________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Employee 2:______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Employee 3: ______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. How would you evaluate the performance of:

Employee 1 in comparison to Employee 2 and 3:_______________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Employee 2 in comparison to Employee 1 and 3:_______________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Employee 3 in comparison to Employee 1 and 2:_______________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. In your opinion, what are the possibilities of advancement for the following 3 employees (within the organizational culture context):

Employee 1:

Employee 2:

Employee 3:

5. If you were the one who had to take the decision, how would you promote/advance (e.g. more responsibilities, training, etc.) for:

Employee 1:

Employee 2:

Employee 3:



6. What is your opinion on performance appraisals? Why?












































(APPENDIX 5)

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The following evaluation system aims at a qualitative, as well as quantitative analysis of your performance. For the purposes of the evaluation, a scale that goes from 1 to 7 is applied as follows:

1 = Inadequate
2 = Needs more effort
3 = Average
4 = Satisfactory
5 = Good
6 = Very good
7 = Excellent


Please circle the grade that you consider representative of your performance
in each category of professional abilities


KNOWLEDGE OF OBJECT OF WORK EMPLOYEE'S EVALUATION

KNOWLEDGE OF DUTIES

Knowledge of duties deriving from the specific position 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ability to carry out the required duties successfully 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

EXPERIENCE

Implementation of prior knowledge and skills in new working conditions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Avoidance of situations that had proved problematic in the past 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

KNOW-HOW

Ability to handle effectively all the available means, equipment and procedures that are considered a prerequisite for efficiency in your job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

QUALITY OF WORK

Absence of errors in your work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Attainment of objectives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

CONSISTENCY

Consistency in the quality of work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reliability and formality in your professional obligations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7



EFFECTIVENESS

Accuracy in the completion of tasks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Attainment of objectives within specific time frames 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Effectiveness when working under pressure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ORGANIZING ABILITIES

Wise time management and priority assignment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Proper allocation of the required duties and activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Planning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

MOTIVATION

WILLINGNESS

Willingness to carry out the required duties 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

EVOLUTION

You set high targets for professional and personal development 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Willingness to view the working environment in a wider sense 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Willingness for constant updating on one's professional field 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Negative incidents do not prohibit your evolution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

INITIATIVE

Willingness to assume wider responsibilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ability to encourage colleagues and subordinates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

DEDICATION

Investment of personal time for the benefit of the company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

COMMUNICATION

ORAL & WRITTEN SPEECH

Proper use of oral and written speech 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ability to comprehend oral and written speech 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

COMMUNICATION WITH OTHERS

Ability to communicate with personnel and clients 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ability to express yourself and impart ideas to an individual, as well as group level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Receptiveness in any form of communication 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Willingness to hear other people's views 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ability in negotiations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Politeness and good manners when communicating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ability to promote dialogue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

HUMAN RELATIONS - COLLABORATION

TEAM SPIRIT

You hold an ability to collaborate effectively 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You hold a priority to collective success 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SOLIDARITY

You hold an ability to maintain good professional relations with your colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You hold an expression of interest and respect to others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You hold a solidarity towards colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You hold a pleasant personality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

INFLUENCE

You are able to pursued 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You are able to recognize and settle conflicts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You are able to positively influence your colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

RECEPTIVENESS AND ADJUSTABILITY TO CHANGES

FLEXIBILITY

You are able to adjust to changes in working conditions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You are able to perform as an individual, as well at group level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

RECEPTIVENESS

Your are able to cope with changes
Your Ability to be highly productive with the available means 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
you are able to acknowledge the company's culture and values 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You are able to accept criticism and admit errors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

LEARNING ABILITIES

KNOWLEDGE

You feel that you hold wide job knowledge off the object of work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You participate in training activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

COMPREHENSION

You feel that you fulfill your comprehension of the particular details (e.g. job description) \that a job entails 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You hold the knowledge of Your objectives of your own individual separate job procedure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7



APPLICATION

You hold the ability to improve your performance through learning opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You hold the ability to improve your performance through learning opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

RESEARCH

You hold personal quest for new knowledge that can find direct implementation in your workplace 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ANALYSIS

You hold knowledge of all the separate parameters that make up the total of the tasks that need to be carried out 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SYNTHESIS

You hold a spherical perception of your role in carrying out tasks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


CREATIVITY

INNOVATION

You show ability to provide alternative solutions to possible problems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
you invent or come up with new ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You are Creativity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

QUALITIES OF A LEADER

You set a good example to your colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You have a distinct personal style, which inspires your colleagues or/and subordinates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Your Call for your colleagues and subordinates into action 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You Interact efficiently with others taking into consideration the individual needs and feelings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You sets targets and motivate other people for their attainment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

You Fulfill your duties with a sense of responsibility 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You Avoid actions that contradict the collective interest of the company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You Adopt the company's policy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You are willing to abide by the company's rules/regulations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7






GENDER:

TYPE OF COMPANY:
POSITION IN THE COMPANY:
































(APPENDIX 6)

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The following evaluation system aims at a qualitative, as well as quantitative analysis of your colleague’s' performance. For the purposes of the evaluation, a scale that goes from 1 to 7 is applied as follows:

1 = Inadequate
2 = Needs more effort
3 = Average
4 = Satisfactory
5 = Good
6 = Very good
7 = Excellent


Please circle the grade that you consider representative of your performance
in each category of professional abilities


KNOWLEDGE OF OBJECT OF WORK EMPLOYEE'S EVALUATION

KNOWLEDGE OF DUTIES

He/she has the knowledge of duties deriving from the specific position 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She has the ability to carry out the required duties successfully 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

EXPERIENCE

He/She: Implementation of prior knowledge and skills in new working conditions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She: Avoidance of situations that had proved problematic in the past 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

KNOW-HOW

He/She hold the ability to handle effectively all the available means, equipment and procedures that are considered a prerequisite for efficiency in your job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

QUALITY OF WORK

He/She has the absence of errors in their work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
H/She hold the attainment of objectives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

CONSISTENCY

He/she hold the consistency in the quality of work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She is reliable and formal in their professional obligations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

EFFECTIVENESS

He/She is hold Accuracy in the completion of tasks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She holds the attainment of objectives within specific time frames 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She holds effectiveness when working under pressure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ORGANIZING ABILITIES

He/She holds wise time management and priority assignment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She hold proper allocation of the required duties and activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Planning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

MOTIVATION

WILLINGNESS

He/She shows willingness to carry out the required duties 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

EVOLUTION

He/She sets high targets for professional and personal development 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/she holds willingness to view the working environment in a wider sense 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She holds willingness for constant updating in their professional field 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Negative incidents do not prohibit their evolution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

INITIATIVE

He/She holds willingness to assume wider responsibilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She holds the ability to encourage colleagues and subordinates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

DEDICATION

He/She holds investment of personal time for the benefit of the company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

COMMUNICATION

ORAL & WRITTEN SPEECH

He/She uses proper use of oral and written speech 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She has the ability to comprehend oral and written speech 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

COMMUNICATION WITH OTHERS

He/She holds the ability to communicate with personnel and clients 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She holds the ability to express themselves and impart ideas to an individual, as well as group level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She is receptive in any form of communication 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She shows willingness to hear other people's views 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She holds the ability in negotiations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She holds politeness and good manners when communicating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She has the ability to promote dialogue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

HUMAN RELATIONS - COLLABORATION

TEAM SPIRIT

He/She holds the ability to collaborate effectively 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She holds a priority to collective success 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SOLIDARITY

He/She holds an ability to maintain good professional relations with yourself and other colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She holds an expression of interest and respect to others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She holds a solidarity towards colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She holds a pleasant personality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

INFLUENCE

He/She is able to persuade 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She is able to recognize and settle conflicts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She is able to positively influence yourself and other colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

RECEPTIVENESS AND ADJUSTABILITY TO CHANGES

FLEXIBILITY

He/She is able to adjust to changes in working conditions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She is able to perform as an individual, as well at group level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

RECEPTIVENESS

He/She is able to cope with changes
He /she is able to hold the ability to being highly productive with the available means 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She is able to acknowledge the company's culture and values 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She is able to accept criticism and admit errors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

LEARNING ABILITIES

KNOWLEDGE

He/She feels that they hold wide job knowledge off the object of work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She participates in training activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

COMPREHENSION

He/She feels that he/she fulfills their comprehension of the particular details (e.g. job description) \that a job entails 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She holds the knowledge of their objectives of their own individual separate job procedure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

APPLICATION

He/She holds the ability to improve their performance through learning opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She holds the ability to improve their performance through learning opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

RESEARCH

He/She holds personal quest for new knowledge that can find direct implementation in your workplace 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ANALYSIS

He/She holds knowledge of all the separate parameters that make up the total of the tasks that need to be carried out 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SYNTHESIS

He/She holds a spherical perception of your role in carrying out tasks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


CREATIVITY

INNOVATION

He/She shows ability to provide alternative solutions to possible problems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She invents or comes up with new ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She is Creative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

QUALITIES OF A LEADER

He/She sets a good example to yourself and other colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She has a distinct personal style, which inspires yourself and other colleagues and/or subordinates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She calls for yourself and other colleagues and subordinates into action 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She interacts efficiently with others taking into consideration the individual needs and feelings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She sets targets and motivates other people for their attainment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

He/She fulfills his/her duties with a sense of responsibility 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She avoids actions that contradict the collective interest of the company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She adopts to the company's policy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
He/She is willing to abide by the company's rules/regulations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

GENDER:

TYPE OF COMPANY:
POSITION IN THE COMPANY:




























(APPENDIX 7)
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

In the following evaluation system, you are asked to recall your behaviour in terms of assuming responsibility and performance. Then, distribute the frequency range of those behaviours (0% - 100%) in such a way, so that the corresponding percentages add up to 100% in total.
RESPONSIBILITIES
I never assume responsibilities I assume responsibilities only when I am asked to I assumes my own responsibilities I assumes all the necessary responsibilities deriving from the nature of my job and assist other people to their job I assume responsibilities without being asked to I am regarded as a model for the others


PERFORMANCE
The quantity and quality of my work are never satisfactory I produce an average volume of work and low quality I produce an average volume of work and average quality I produce a satisfactory volume of work and average quality I produce a huge volume of work and satisfactory quality I present an excellent performance in both the quantity and quality of my work











(Appendix 8)
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
In the following evaluation system, you are asked to recall each of your two colleague's behaviour in terms of assuming responsibility and performance. Then, distribute the frequency range of those behaviours (0% - 100%) in such a way, so that the corresponding percentages add up to 100% in total.

RESPONSIBILITIES
The employee never assumes responsibilities The employee assumes responsibilities only when s/he is asked to The employee assumes his/her own responsibilities The employee assumes all the necessary responsibilities deriving from the nature of his/her job and assists other people to their job The employee assumes responsibilities without being asked to The employee is regarded as a model for the others
Colleague 1
Colleague 2
PERFORMANCE
The quantity and quality of the employee's work are never satisfactory The employee produces an average volume of work and low quality The employee produces an average volume of work and average quality The employee produces a satisfactory volume of work and average quality The employee produces a huge volume of work and satisfactory quality The employee presents an excellent performance in both the quantity and quality of his/her work
Colleague 1
Colleague 2

(APPENDIX 9)

1. Given the number of years that you have been with your current employer, how would you characterize yourself (e.g. behavior, etc.) in the organization cultural context:

(a). Holding a clear and concise knowledge of your duties/tasks:

(b.) Gaining new work knowledge whether it is done so on the job or through other means (e.g. training, reading, etc.):

( c). you are always consistent and effective in your work:

(d). When you are under pressure, how would you characterize yourself as dealing with this:

(e). When you have an excessive workload how would you characterize yourself on dealing with priorities/ organizational skills:

2. What are aspects of your personality that you feel contribute to your positive and/or negative job performance:

3. How well do you communicate with your colleagues in your department:

(a) Your supervisor

(b) Other colleagues in the organization

(c) Do you prefer to express yourself at a group level or at an individual level? Please explain why?

4. Please explain if you feel that it is possible to hold a friendship with colleague(s) (within and/or excluding your department) parallel to holding/maintaining a professional relationship with them.

5. Parallel to a professional relationship with your supervisor, do you feel that it is possible to be on a friendly basis with him/her?

6. How do you feel about training programs geared towards improvement in your job performance:

7. Do you feel that you participate frequently in training programs:

8. If there was a “better way” (e.g. implementation of new methods) of doing things do you feel that you have the choice and possibility of implementing these “better ways” OR do you feel that you would be limited to continue with the “old ways” (e.g. because this is how it should be):

9. Do you feel satisfied and motivated presently with what you do:

10. Are you willing to assume or seek more responsibilities than your own, leading to more time and effort be added by you:

11. How do you view employee advancement in the organization:

12. Do you set high goals for yourself which may lead to your personal development and in return helps the organization:

13. Regarding the rules/regulations of the organization, do you find yourself accepting/agreeing with everything OR do you try to promote some new ideas that may lead to change:

14. With respect to your work, would you characterize yourself as an optimist, pessimist or both depending on the situation. Please explain.