There is an opportunity for the organization to redesign the performance appraisal system with manager buy-in. Successful implementation of a PMS requires leadership support and employee buy-in (Rodgers, Hunter, & Rodgers, 1993). This study highlighted flaws in the rating system, the frequency of appraisals and system glitches that prevented the managers from documenting performance measures. Alongside the internal
stakeholders, the HR department can redesign a system that captures the best practices of the Student Affairs division and removes doubt of the employees at the organization of the appraisal purpose.
LIMITATIONS
There are several noteworthy limitations to this study. The data collection was conducted over the summer, which is a quiet time for college campuses. The response rate to both the electronic survey and the interviews may have been improved if
conducted during the semester. Another limitation to this study was the amount of managers that responded to the electronic survey. The survey was sent to the entire
division except for the Vice President of Student Affairs. The individuals that responded to the survey remained anonymous and therefore it was not disclosed if the nine managers were similar to the managers that participated in the interviews.
CONCLUSION
The experiences of employees within the Stevens are not unlike the experiences of many other university employees during the pandemic. As college campuses across the United States transitioned operations online, many college campus staff had to learn new ways of conducting business. The Student Affairs division was impacted tremendously as dining services were cancelled, housing was evacuated and the number of students needing psychological services increased. Staff members also felt the impact of the pandemic in their personal lives. These are issues managers grappled with, without clear answers. How were they to manage and measure performance in an unprecedented year?
How do you add humanity back into managing performance when people’s personal lives may have taken priority?
The findings from this study demonstrate the strength of the Student Affairs division at Stevens. The answer is: they figure it out. The managers set their own pace, their own performance measures and operated with their best efforts. Student Affairs at Stevens serves as a great example for the rest of Stevens campus. Perhaps other divisions did the same, perhaps they struggled. The scale of this project could be expanded to other high- touch student divisions to understand the possibilities of effective remote performance management. The training suggested in the recommendations will set a baseline of performance management expectations and outline behaviors that impact performance.
The re-design of the performance appraisal will improve operations at Stevens as the organization prepares for a long-term transition to a hybrid workforce environment.
REFERENCES
Aguinis, H. (2019). Performance management for dummies. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bornay-Barrachina, M., & Guerrero-Villegas, J. (2014). Diversity role on LMX relationships [Working paper]. Department of Business Administration, Universidad Pablo de Olavide de Sevilla. http://www.upo.es/serv/bib/wpboam/wpboam1402.pdf Caliskan, G. (2015). An examination of coach and player relationships according to the
adapted LMX 7 scale: A validity and reliability study. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 19(1), 22−33.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2014.977996
Campbell, J. P., & Wiernik, B. M. (2015). The modeling and assessment of work performance. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology & Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 47−74. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111427 Cascio, W. F. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace. The Academy of Management
Executive, 14(3), 81−90. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2000.4468068
Cascio, W. F. (2014). Leveraging employer branding, performance management and human resource development to enhance employee retention. Human Resource Development International, 17(2), 121−128.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2014.886443
Cune, B. S., & Fogelberg, F. (2012, February 10). Managing performance remotely.
Nomadic international business psychology. https://nomadicibp.com/wp- content/uploads/2020/05/Managing-Performance-Remotely.pdf
de Menezes, L., & Kelliher, C. (2011). Flexible working and performance: A systematic review of the evidence for a business case. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(4), 452–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00301.x
DuBois, C. L., Sackett, P. R., Zedeck, S., & Fogli, L. (1993). Further exploration of typical and maximum performance criteria: Definitional issues, prediction, and white- black differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 205–211.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.205
Ferreira, A., & Otley, D. (2009). The design and use of performance management systems:
An extended framework for analysis. Management Accounting Research, 20(4), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2009.07.003
Giles, W. F., Findley, H. M., & Feild, H. S. (1997). Procedural fairness in performance appraisal: Beyond the review session. Journal of Business and Psychology, 11(4), 493–506. https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF02195894
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:
Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219−247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
Harrington, J. R., & Lee, J. H. (2015). What drives perceived fairness of performance appraisal?: Exploring the effects of psychological contract fulfillment on employees’
perceived fairness of performance appraisal in U.S. federal agencies. Public Personnel Management, 44(2), 214−238.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026014564071
Hartenian, L. S., Koppes, L. L., & Hartman, E. A. (2016). Performance feedback in a virtual team setting. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 4(1), 10−59.
https://jbam.scholasticahq.com/article/1059.pdf
Kossek E. E., & Hannum K. (2011, June 29). How flexibility can boost employee
productivity. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ccl/2011/06/29/flexibility-can- boost-employee-productivity/?sh=3180d543c08a
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Enhancing the benefits and overcoming the pitfalls of goal setting. Organizational Dynamics, 35, 332−340.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2006.08.008
Merkel, S., Chan, H. F., Schmidt, S. L., & Torgler, B. (2021). Optimism and positivity biases in performance appraisal ratings: Empirical evidence from professional soccer. Applied Psychology, 70(3), 1100–1127. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12266
Park, J. H. (2018). Influence of patient-related stressor and the relationship with supervisor on burnout in hospital nurses. International Journal of Pure and Applied
Mathematics, 118(19), 2549–2561.
https://www.acadpubl.eu/jsi/2018-118-19/articles/19b/69.pdf
Rodgers, R., Hunter, J. E., & Rogers, D. L. (1993). Influence of top management
commitment on management program success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 151–155. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.151
Skowronski, J.J. (2011). The positivity bias and the fading affect bias in autobiographical memory: A self-motives perspective. (Alicke, M. D., & Sedikides C., Eds.).
Handbook of self enhancement and self-protection (pp.211-233). Guilford Press.
Stewart, G. L., & Nandkeolyar, A. K. (2007). Exploring how constraints created by other people influence intraindividual variation in objective performance
measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1149–1158.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1149
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193−210.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193
Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams:
Technology and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1998.1109047
Ye, L. R. (2012). Telecommuting: Implementation for success. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(15), 20–29.
http://www.ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_15_August_2012/4.pdf
APPENDICES Appendix A: Recruitment Language Interviews
Manager Interviews – Informed consent for Participation in Research Activities Due to your manager position at Stevens Institute of Technology, you are invited to participate in a research project about Performance Management in support of my role as a doctoral student at Vanderbilt University. You may have already received an email about an online survey.
This email is to request an interview that should take about 20-40 minutes to complete. If you are available to participate, please let me know your availability July 7 – July 16.
Thank you for your time supporting this study.
Nicole Malantchouk
Participation is voluntary, and responses will be kept anonymous to the degree permitted by the technology being used. You have the option to not respond to any questions that you choose. Participation or nonparticipation will not impact your relationship with Stevens Institute of Technology. Confirmation to schedule an interview will be interpreted as your informed consent to participate and that you affirm you are at least 18 years of age.
If you have any questions about the research, please contact me, the Principal
Investigator, via email at nicole.p.malantchouk@vanderbilt.edu or the faculty advisor, Dr.
Christine Quinn Trank at chris.quinn.trank@vanderbilt.edu. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the Vanderbilt Institutional Review Board (IRB) at (615) 322-2918
Appendix B: Interview Script
[First Name], Thank you for your participation in this research project about Performance Management.
Disclosures: Today’s session will be recorded for purposes of transcribing the
conversation. Your responses will be kept anonymous to the degree permitted by the technology being used. You have the option to not respond to any questions you choose.
Your participation will not impact your relationship with Stevens. By attending today’s session it will be interpreted as your informed consent.
A little bit about the research….This capstone project seeks to understand the
performance management practices at Stevens Institute of Technology and adaptations that need to be made for managers as campus adopts a flexible work arrangement.
Basically “how do we help manager’s assess performance of employees they cannot physically see?”
This project is a quality improvement assessment and is part of my culminating capstone project, the final step to my doctorate.
Any questions before we begin?
Manager Interview Questions
1. It’s about that time of year again for the annual performance reviews, what are your goals as the manager?
2. What do you rely on as evidence that goals are achieved? And how about not achieved?
3. Tell me about your process in providing feedback to staff on goals achieved? Is that different from when goals are not achieved?
4. Tell me about how you think performance should be evaluated?
5. Do you have adequate information to make an assessment virtually?
6. What are indicators for additional training needs?
Appendix C: Recruitment Language Survey Performance Management Survey
You are invited to participate in a research project about Performance Management.
This electronic survey is 11 questions and should take less than 3 minutes to complete.
Participation is voluntary and responses will be kept anonymous to the degree permitted by the technology being used. You have the option to not respond to any questions that you choose. Participation or nonparticipation will not impact your relationship with Stevens Institute of Technology. Submission of the survey will be interpreted as your informed consent to participate and that you affirm you are at least 18 years of age.
If you have any questions about the research, please contact the Principal Investigator, Nicole Malantchouk, via email at nicole.p.malantchouk@vanderbilt.edu or the faculty advisor, Dr. Christine Quinn Trank at chris.quinn.trank@vanderbilt.edu. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the Vanderbilt Institutional Review Board (IRB) at (615) 322-2918.
Appendix D: Survey Instrument
Q1 Do you currently work remotely or on-campus?
Response should be based on majority of days per week. For example, if you work 3 days from home but are on-campus 2 days per week, select remote.
Remote On-Campus
Q2 Do you expect to continue to work remotely or on-campus for Fall 2021 term?
Response should be based on majority of days per week. For example, if you work 3 days from home but are on-campus 2 days per week, select remote.
Remote On-Campus
Q3 How many years have you worked for STEVENS?
0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16 years and up
Q4 Do you currently manage non-student staff?
Yes No
Q5 Do you know where you stand with your manager [and] do you usually know how satisfied your manager is with what you do?
Rarely
Occasionally Sometimes Fairly often Very often
Q6 How well does your manager understand your job problems and needs?
Not a bit A little
A fair amount Quite a bit Fully
Q7 How well does your manager recognize your potential?
Not at all A little Moderately Mostly Fully
Q8 Regardless of how much formal authority your manager has built into his/her/their position, what are the changes that your manager would use his/her/their power to help you solve problems in your work?
None Small Moderate High Very high
Q9 Regardless of the amount of formal authority your manager has, what are the chances that he/she/they would “bail you out” at his/her/their expense?
None Small Moderate High Very high