Week 7, Article review and critique
The Effect of Strengths-Based Performance Appraisal on Perceived Supervisor Support
and the Motivation to Improve Performance
Introduction
Van Woerkom, M., & Kroon, B. (2020) in their study argued that strengths-based performance
appraisal focuses on identifying, appreciating, and developing employee’s qualities in line with
the company goals. Based on self-determination theory (SDT), we hypothesized that strengths-
based performance appraisals will bring about a stronger motivation to improve (MTI)
performance, by making subordinates feel supported by their supervisor and thereby fulfill their
need for relatedness. Moreover, we hypothesized that strengths-based performance appraisal will
reduce the threat to the relationship between supervisor and subordinate when the performance
rating is relatively low.
They further argued that one of the main goals of performance appraisal is to motivate
employees toward higher levels of performance (Kuvaas, 2007). However, for many workers,
performance appraisal is not a source of motivation (Adler et al., 2016; Murphy, 2019). Some
even argue that performance appraisal may undermine the relationship between the supervisor
and the employee (Culbert, 2010; Kluger and Nir, 2010) and may have a negative impact on
employee motivation (Neville and Roulin, 2016). Traditional performance appraisal tends to
focus on employees’ deficiencies in their job performance, knowledge, and skills, and how to
remediate these deficiencies (Aguinis et al., 2012). As an alternative, strengths-based
performance appraisal focuses on identifying, appreciating, and promoting the future use and
development of employee strengths (Aguinis et al., 2012) and can therefore be seen as a
powerful positive organizational intervention.
Based on self-determination theory (SDT; Deci and Ryan, 2008), we propose that strengths-
based performance appraisals will make subordinates feel supported by their supervisor and
thereby fulfill their psychological need for relatedness. In turn, the satisfaction of their need for
relatedness will bring about a stronger motivation to learn and improve. SDT research often
examines need-satisfaction constructs as mediators that connect particular social contexts to the
outcomes that result from those contexts (Sheldon et al., 2011). A strengths-based performance
appraisal may serve as a social context in which an authority (the supervisor) supports the need
satisfaction of a subordinate. Although SDT posits three basic psychological needs, i.e., the need
for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, in this study, we focused in particular on the need
for relatedness, given the strongly interpersonal nature of the performance appraisal (Reinke,
2003).
Strengths-based performance appraisals foster the need for relatedness by encouraging
subordinates to express their authentic self (Roberts et al., 2005; Cable et al., 2013), thereby
making them more identified and socially integrated (Swann et al., 2000; Polzer et al., 2002;
Cable et al., 2015). This increases the chance that their supervisor will see them as they see
themselves, leading to positive relationships and higher levels of perceived supervisor support
(PSS; Cable et al., 2013). In turn, the fulfillment of the need for relatedness in the form of PSS
may provide a safe and secure environment that stimulates subordinates toward higher levels of
intrinsic motivation, thereby making them more inclined to seek challenges, extend their
capacities, explore, and learn (Ryan and Deci, 2000).
Methodology
To investigate their hypotheses, the authors distributed a questionnaire to employees working for
a large Dutch consultancy firm right after their yearly appraisal (N = 422) and linked the
questionnaire data to their official performance ratings. Conditional process analysis indicated
that strengths-based performance appraisal had a positive effect on perceived supervisor support
(PSS), and in turn on MTI performance. Furthermore, the effect of strengths-based performance
appraisal was particularly strong, when the performance rating was relatively low.
This study was conducted among consultants of a strategic business unit of a Dutch IT
consultancy firm. After the study was approved by the works council, the HR director of the
strategic business unit sent an e-mail to all consultants to inform them about the purpose of the
study. The same day, the researchers sent an e-mail to the employees with a link to the
questionnaire and an accompanying introduction letter. In the introduction letter, the objectives
of the study were briefly outlined, and it was stressed that participation was completely
voluntary, and the anonymity of the participants was guaranteed. Furthermore, employees were
asked to fill out the questionnaire as soon as possible after their yearly performance appraisal.
The data that we collected for this study are unique and have not been used in another paper.
In total, 422 of the 1,675 consultants responded (response rate of 25.2%). The sample included
355 men (84.1%) and 67 women (15.9%). The average age was 42.7 years old (SD = 12.13).
Most of the respondents had either a master’s (43.8%) or a bachelor’s degree (47.9%). On
average, respondents had an organizational tenure of 11.11 years (SD = 9.62). In total, 422 of the
1,675 employees filled out the questionnaire. A comparison of the performance ratings between
respondents and non-respondents revealed that the performance ratings of respondents (M =
3.34, SD = 0.746) were significantly higher than the ratings of the non-respondents [(M = 3.18,
SD = 0.73); t(711.918) = 3.3834, p = 0.000].
Results
The average and standard deviation of the performance ratings (M = 3.337, SD = 0.746)
indicated a slightly skewed distribution of this variable, with the majority of ratings being 3
(meets expectations) or 4 (above/exceeding expectations). The correlations show that strengths-
based performance appraisal, performance rating, and PSS were all associated with MTI
(respectively, r = 0.567, p < 0.01, r = 0.257, p < 0.01, and r = 0.478, p < 0.01). Results also
indicates that strengths-based performance appraisal and performance rating were positively
related to PSS (respectively, r = 0.572, p < 0.01, and r = 0.257, p < 0.01). Also, strengths-based
performance appraisal was associated with the performance rating (r = 0.342, p < 0.01).
Moreover, age was negatively associated with strengths-based performance appraisal, the
performance rating, PSS, and the MTI (respectively, r = −0.123, p < 0.05, r = −0.468, p < 0.01, r
= −0.106, p < 0.05, and r = −0.217, p < 0.01).
Discussion
This study is an answer to the call of Asplund and Blacksmith (2012) for research that explores
the ways in which specific applications of strength-based interventions boost positive outcomes
for employees. Based on SDT (Deci and Ryan, 2008), we investigated whether supervisors who
focus on subordinates’ strengths in the yearly performance appraisal are perceived as more
supportive, and if this perception of supervisor support is in turn associated with a stronger MTI
performance. We found that strengths-based performance appraisal contributes to employees’
MTI, partly because it is associated with higher levels of PSS. This is in line with the results of a
qualitative study (Bouskila-Yam and Kluger, 2011) and a field experiment (Budworth et al.,
2015) that investigated the effectiveness of strengths-based performance appraisal. Our results
are also in line with previous research that suggests that social aspects of the performance
appraisal sessions have an impact on the evaluation that employees make of their supervisor
(Levy and Williams, 2004). By discussing employee’s unique qualities, and how these can be
furthered, the employee is invited to participate actively in the conversation, thereby stressing the
developmental purpose (versus the evaluative purpose) of the review, leading to more positive
evaluations of the supervisor (Cawley et al., 1998).
Moreover, we found that the effect of strengths-based performance appraisal on MTI, mediated
by PSS, was even stronger for employees who received a relatively low performance rating.
Employees, as receivers of performance evaluations, use the performance appraisal procedure to
understand what their supervisor is signaling to them (Connelly et al., 2011). The performance
rating usually signals the value of an employee relative to the organization’s standards and other
employees (Adler et al., 2016). When the performance rating is relatively high, this gives a
powerful signal to the employee that he or she is valued and appreciated. When the performance
rating is relatively low, employees are signaled that they are of limited value to the organization,
leading to self-protective psychological processes (Green et al., 2017) such as disqualifying the
relationship with the supervisor, who is seen as a representative of the organization (Eisenberger
et al., 1986). By focusing the appraisal interview on a within-person analysis regarding the
situations when this person is at his or her best (Roberts et al., 2005), supervisors can convey
positive competence information that may empower employees in coping with a disappointing
performance rating, and may be able to successfully address and manage their negative
emotions. As a result, employees may give less weight to their relative organizational value, and
give more weight to the support offered by their supervisor to build on their personal strengths
(Connelly et al., 2011). Also, previous research has indicated that performance feedback is most
likely to lead to performance improvement when feedback recipients perceive a need to change
their behavior, believe that change is feasible, and have a positive reaction to the feedback
(Smither et al., 2005). Whereas a relatively low rating might signal the need for behavior change,
strengths-based performance appraisal might contribute to a positive feedback orientation, and
the belief that change is possible by formulating an action plan that is based on the unique
qualities of employees (Hiemstra and Van Yperen, 2015).
This study contributes to SDT by investigating the performance appraisal as a social context that
may have implications for the need satisfaction of subordinates. Even though research on the job
characteristics, types of justice, managerial styles, and types of leadership that support the basic
psychological needs has burgeoned (Deci et al., 2017), only very few studies have focused on the
performance appraisal interview as a context, which may facilitate or thwart the support of basic
psychological needs. Of course, the performance appraisal can be seen as a form of feedback,
and several SDT studies have investigated the impact of feedback on need satisfaction. For
example, a previous study pointed out that in general positive feedback satisfies the recipient’s
basic psychological need for competence and enhances intrinsic motivation by conveying
positive competence information (Deci, 1971; Deci et al., 2017). Another study showed that
managers who give behavior specific and positive feedback are perceived as more autonomy
supportive (Deci, 1989). However, the effect of the interplay between different types of feedback
as part of the performance appraisal, which is a very realistic scenario in today’s organizations,
has to the best of our knowledge never been investigated.
Our study also contributes to the knowledge about the effectiveness of positive organizational
interventions. Based on a systematic review of the literature, Meyers et al. (2013) conclude that
these interventions are promising for enhancing employee well-being and performance, and
diminishing job stress and burnout. However, they call for more research on the operating
mechanisms that link positive psychology interventions to specific outcomes. Moreover, they
also conclude that there is a predominance of interventions that focus on the enhancement of
positive subjective experiences, and that more research is needed to test the effects of
interventions that are focused on leveraging positive resources such as employee talents and
strengths. By providing insight in the mechanisms and conditions that make strengths-based
performance appraisals effective, we answer to this call.
One unexpected finding in our study was that age was negatively associated with the
performance rating and the MTI performance. This finding is in line with a meta-analysis by
Gordon and Arvey (2004), who revealed a significant overall effect of age on performance
evaluations, with younger workers being evaluated more positively than older applicants and
workers. However, research also indicates that the association between age and performance may
be based on stereotypical beliefs about older workers and does not correspond with their actual
performance (Ng and Feldman, 2012). The fact that this study was conducted within an IT
company may also be relevant here. Even though, some mental capacities that are based on
experience and creativity such as general knowledge, vocabulary, verbal comprehension, and
arithmetic (crystalized intelligence) improve with age, mental capacities such as information
processing speed, working memory, abstract reasoning, and processing new information (fluid
intelligence) are known to decline with age (Kanfer and Ackerman, 2004). Given the fast
developments in the IT sector, especially capacities that are based on fluid intelligence may be
seen as essential for a good job performance. The fact that age was also negatively related to
perceptions of strengths-based performance appraisal and PSS however signals that there is
probably room for improvement in the support of older workers. This was also shown by a study
by Kooij et al. (2017), that indicated that especially older workers benefited from an intervention
that was aimed at crafting the job toward the strengths of the worker.
References
Adler, S., Campion, M., Colquitt, A., Grubb, A., Murphy, K., Ollander-Krane, R., et al. (2016).
Getting rid of performance ratings: genius or folly? A debate. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 9, 219–252.
doi: 10.1017/iop.2015.106
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., and Joo, H. (2012). Delivering effective performance feedback:
the strengths-based approach. Bus. Horiz. 55, 105–111. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2011.10.004
Asmuß, B. (2013). The emergence of symmetries and asymmetries in performance appraisal
interviews: an interactional perspective. Econ. Ind. Democr. 34, 553–570. doi:
10.1177/0143831X13489045
Asplund, J., and Blacksmith, N. (2012). “Leveraging strengths” in The oxford handbook of
positive organizational scholarship. eds. K. S. Cameron and G. M. Spreitzer (New York, NY:
Oxford University Press), 353–365.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., and Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than
good. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 5, 323–370. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323
Borowa, D., Robitschek, C., Harmon, K. A., and Shigemoto, Y. (2016). Posttraumatic stress and
growth in student service members and veterans: the role of personal growth initiative. J. Am.
Coll. Heal. 64, 527–534. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2016.1188395
Boswell, W. R., and Boudreau, J. W. (2000). Employee satisfaction with performance appraisals
and appraisers: the role of perceived appraisal use. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 11, 283–299. doi:
10.1002/1532-1096
Bouskila-Yam, O., and Kluger, A. N. (2011). Strength-based performance appraisal and goal
setting. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 21, 137–147. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.001
Buckingham, M., and Clifton, D. O. (2001). Now, discover your strengths. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Budworth, M. H., Harrison, J. A., and Chummar, S. (2019). Beyond feedback: understanding
how feedforward can support employee development. J. Manag. Dev. 38, 46–57. doi:
10.1108/JMD-12-2017-0402
Budworth, M. H., Latham, G. P., and Manroop, L. (2015). Looking forward to performance
improvement: a field test of the feedforward interview for performance management. Hum.
Resour. Manag. 54, 45–54. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21618
Cable, D. M., Gino, F., and Staats, B. R. (2013). Breaking them in or eliciting their best?
Reframing socialization around newcomers’ authentic self-expression. Adm. Sci. Q. 58, 1–36.
doi: 10.1177/0001839213477098
Cable, D., Lee, J. L., Gino, F., and Staats, B. R. (2015). How best-self activation ifluences
emotions, physiology and employment relationships. Harvard Business School NOM Unit
Working Paper (16-029).
van Woerkom, M., & Kroon, B. (2020). The effect of strengths-based performance appraisal on
perceived supervisor support and the motivation to improve performance. Frontiers in
Psychology, 1883.
