Editing Performance appraisal (section)

==Employee reactions==

Numerous researchers have reported that many employees are not satisfied with their performance appraisal (PA) systems.<ref name="Sudarsan"/>  Studies have shown that subjectivity as well as appraiser [[bias]] is often a problem perceived by as many as half of employees.<ref name="Sudarsan"/> Appraiser bias, however, appears to be perceived as more of a problem in government and public sector organizations.<ref name="Sudarsan"/> Also, according to some studies, employees wished to see changes in the PA system by making "the system more objective, improving the feedback process, and increasing the frequency of review."<ref name="Sudarsan"/> In light of traditional PA operation defects, "organizations are now increasingly incorporating practices that may improve the system. These changes are particularly concerned with areas such as elimination of subjectivity and bias, training of appraisers, improvement of the feedback process and the performance review discussion."<ref name="Sudarsan"/>     
  
According to a meta-analysis of 27 field studies, general employee participation in his/her own appraisal process was positively correlated with employee reactions to the PA system.<ref name="Cawley" /> More specifically, employee participation in the appraisal process was most strongly related to employee satisfaction with the PA system.<ref name="Cawley"/> Concerning the reliability of employee reaction measures, researchers have found employee reaction scales to be sound with few concerns through using a confirmatory factor analysis that is representative of employee reaction scales.<ref name="Keeping">{{cite journal |last1=Keeping |first1=Lisa M. |last2=Levy |first2=Paul E. |title=Performance appraisal reactions: Measurement, modeling, and method bias. |journal=Journal of Applied Psychology |date=October 2000 |volume=85 |issue=5 |pages=708–723 |doi=10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.708 |pmid=11055144 }}</ref>

Researchers suggest that the study of employees' reactions to PA is important because of two main reasons: employee reactions symbolizes a criterion of interest to practitioners of PAs and employee reactions have been associated through theory to determinants of appraisal acceptance and success.<ref name="Keeping"/>  Researchers translate these reasons into the context of the [[Scientist-practitioner model|scientist-practitioner gap]] or the "lack of alignment between research and practice."<ref name="Keeping"/>

Schultz and Schultz notes that opposition to performance appraisals generally do not receive positive ratings from anyone involved, "so employees that will be directly affected by the Performance Appraisals are less than enthusiastic about participating in them". When an employee knows that their work performance has been less than perfect it is nerve-racking to be evaluated. Employees tend to be hostile knowing they could be given bad news on their performance.{{sfn|Schultz|Schultz|2010|pp=108–109}}

Most managers prefer to begin with positive information and then add bad news or suggestions for improvement at the end. However, employees are most satisfied when bad news is addressed early in the interview and positive information is saved until the end, so that the meeting ends with a positive feeling.<ref name=":4">{{cite book |last1=Pink |first1=Daniel H. |title=When: The Scientific Secrets of Perfect Timing |date=2018 |publisher=Penguin |isbn=978-0-7352-1062-2 |pages=160–165 |oclc=1001431465 }}</ref>

===Hidden cost of control===
While performance appraisals are fundamental in the assessment of employees, frequent testing can result in the deterioration of employee performance, thus impacting overall business operations. The agent's perception of these 'control' devices are that they signal mistrust to the individual and reduce working autonomy. If these management practices are employed without consideration of the emotional response to said devices, then the agent's willingness to engage in the company's ambitions are greatly reduced as suggested in empirical studies.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Falk |first1=Armin |last2=Kosfeld |first2=Michael |title=The Hidden Costs of Control |journal=American Economic Review |date=November 2006 |volume=96 |issue=5 |pages=1611–1630 |doi=10.1257/aer.96.5.1611 |url=https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/2251/9/Falk_Am_Econ_Rev_2006.pdf }}</ref>