artikel internasional

1. Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Public Administration Review.
http://www.jstor.org
Performance Appraisal Practices for Upper Management in City Governments
Author(s): David N. Ammons and Arnold Rodriguez
Source: Public Administration Review, Vol. 46, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 1986), pp. 460-467
Published by: on behalf of theWiley American Society for Public Administration
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/975786
Accessed: 31-08-2015 07:15 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/975786?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 07:15:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2. 460 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW
lems and Prospects(Columbia: Universityof South Carolina,
Bureauof GovernmentResearchand Service),pp. 260-274.
18. FrankThompson,"MinorityGroupsinPublicBureaucracies,"
Administrationand Society,vol. 7 (August1976),pp. 201-226.
19. David Rosenbloom, "The Declining Salience of Affirmative
Action in Federal PersonnelManagement,"Review of Public
PersonnelAdministration,vol. 4 (Summer1984),pp. 31-40.
20. Meierand Nigro,op. cit.
21. David Garnham, "Foreign ServiceElitismand U.S. Foreign
Affairs," Public AdministrationReview, vol. 35 (January/
February1975),pp. 44-51.
22. Jeff Rinehart and Lee Bernick, "Political Attitudes and
BehaviorPatternsof Federal Civil Servants,"Public Admin-
istrationReview, vol. 35 (November/December1975), pp.
603-611.
23. Bob Wynia,"Federal Bureaucrats'AttitudesToward a Demo-
cratic Ideology," Public AdministrationReview, vol. 34
(March/April1974),pp. 156-162.
24. H. 0. Waldbyand AnnieHartsfield,"The SeniorManagement
ServiceintheStates,"ReviewofPublicPersonnelAdministra-
tion,vol. 4 (Spring1984),pp. 28-39.
25. See, for example, Pat Ingraham and Charles Barrilleaux,
"MotivatingGovernmentManagers for Retrenchment:Some
Possible Lessons fromthe Senior ExecutiveService," Public
AdministrationReview,vol. 33 (September/October1983),pp.
393-402, particularlythe bibliography;and "Symposium on
CivilServiceReform,"ReviewofPublicPersonnelAdministra-
tion,vol. 2 (Spring1982).
26. John Rehfussand Debra Furtado, "BureaucratizedManage-
mentReform-The Case ofCalifornia,"StateGovernment,vol.
55 (August1982),pp. 43-50.
27. UnitedStatesMeritSystemsProtectionBoard, The1984Annual
Reporton theSeniorExecutiveService(Washington:Govern-
mentPrintingOffice,December1984),p. 2.
PerformanceAppraisalPracticesfor
UpperManagementinCityGovernments
DavidN.Ammons,NorthTexas StateUniversity
ArnoldRodriguez,CityofPlano,Texas
The extensiveliteratureon performanceappraisal
indicatestheimportanceofthattopicin themanage-
mentoforganizations-publicsectorandprivate.Much
oftheliterature,however,isdevotedtoessaysextolling
thevirtuesof"good" performanceappraisal,descrip-
tionsof innovativeand not-so-innovativeappraisal
techniques,andcasestudiesdescribingtheexperiences
ofselectedorganizationsintheapplicationofparticular
performanceappraisalpractices.
Relativelylittleattentionhas beendirectedtoward
documentingthelevelof use of presumablypopular
performanceappraisaltechniques,theobjectivesfor
whichtheyhavebeenimplemented,andtheirperceived
effectivenessin the publicsectorin generalor city
governmentin particular.Stilllessattentionhas been
directedtowardthemethods,objectives,andeffective-
nessofappraisaloftheperformanceofuppermanage-
mentincitygovernment-departmentheads,mayoral
assistants,andassistantcitymanagers.Thepurposeof
thisarticleis to addressthisdeficiencythroughthe
examinationof appraisalpracticesforevaluatingthe
performanceof uppermanagementemployeesin 122
mediumandlargeU.S. cities.
Data forthestudywereobtainedfroma mailsurvey
ofchiefadministratorsin 170selectedU.S. citieswith
1980populationsof65,000ormore.'Thesurvey,which
was conductedin thespringof 1984,produced122
responsesfora responserateof72 percent.
The questionnaire,addressedto municipalgovern-
mentchiefexecutives,requestedinformationon the
natureof performanceappraisalforuppermanage-
ment,thedegreeof formalityof anysuchpractices,
* Performanceappraisalis generallyacceptedas an
importantelementofhumanresourcemanagement,a
meansnotonlyof evaluatingperformancebutalso,
ideally,of achievingperformanceimprovement.Yet,
littlesystematicresearchhasbeendevotedtotheexam-
inationof performanceappraisalpracticesin local
governments-andlessstilltothepracticesapplicableto
upper-levelmanagementinthosegovernments.In this
study,theauthorsusethesurveyresponsesofofficials
in 122majorU.S. citiesto examinethemethodsand
objectivesof,andsatisfactionwith,appraisalpractices
affectingmunicipaldepartmentheads,mayoralassis-
tants,andassistantcitymanagers.
techniquesused,objectivesof theappraisalprocess,
levelofsubordinateparticipation,theamountofstaff
timecommittedtotheprocess,andthelevelofsatisfac-
tionwithcurrentpractices.Mostrespondentsaddressed
all ofthesematters.
Respondents'Characteristics
Onlyoneofthequestionnaireswasreturnedanony-
mously.Of theremaining121cities,80 operateunder
thecouncil-managerformof government(66.1 per-
cent),36aremayor-councilform(29.8percent),and5
arecommissionform(4.1 percent).The 1980popula-
tionsoftherespondingcitiesrangedfrom65,047to2.97
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1986
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 07:15:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

3. PUBLICMANAGEMENTFORUM 461
millionpeople.The meanpopulationamongrespon-
dentswas224,402.Municipalemploymentrangedfrom
350to35,000,witha meanof2,737employees.
Respondentswereaskedto identifythemselvesby
titleonthequestionnaire.Chiefexecutives(i.e.,mayor
orcitymanager)constituted41.3percentoftherespon-
dents;chiefadministrators(e.g., chiefadministrative
officer,cityadministrator,etc.),11.6percent;principal
assistants(e.g.,assistantcitymanager,assistanttothe
mayor,etc.),23.1 percent;personneldepartmentoffi-
cials,20.7percent;andothercityofficials,3.3percent.
FormalityofAppraisal
Previousstudieshavereportedthewidespreadexis-
tenceof formalappraisalsystems.Two often-cited
privatesectorstudiesindicatethatbetween80 and 89
percentofall privatecompanieshaveformalappraisal
systems.2In thepublicsector,a surveyof50largecity
governmentsinthelate1970sindicatedtheexistenceof
formalappraisalsystemsin74percentofthecases,and
a 1981-82reviewofstategovernmentappraisalpractices
revealedtheexistenceofformalsystemsin94percentof
thestates.3
Each of theabove-mentionedstudiesreportedthe
incidenceofformalappraisalsystemsforemployeesin
general.In contrast,lowerpercentagesofprivatecor-
porationshavereportedtheuseofformalsystemsfor
appraisingtheperformanceofmanagerialemployees.A
studyof293privatecompaniesbyLazerandWikstrom
producedfindingssuggestinga lowerlikelihoodoffor-
mal appraisalas one climbsthecorporateladder:74
percentof thecompaniesreportedtheuse of formal
appraisalsystemsforlowermanagement(supervisors,
foremen,etc.),71percentreporteduseofsuchsystems
formiddlemanagement,and55 percentreportedfor-
malappraisalsystemsfortopmanagement(chiefexecu-
tiveor presidentand thosereportingimmediatelyto
them).4
In generalconcurrencewithLazerand Wikstrom's
privatesectorfindings,only59percentofthecitygov-
ernmentsrespondingtothesurveyuponwhichthisarti-
cleisbasedreportedformalsystemsfortheappraisalof
theperformanceof upperlevelmanagers(Table 1).
Informalappraisalwasreportedby28.7percent,while
12.3percentofthecitiesreportedno appraisalsystem
whatsoeverforuppermanagement.
AppraisalObjectives
Manymanagersand academicproponentsof per-
formanceappraisalexpecta greatdealfromtheprocess.
The sweepingnatureof suchexpectationsis demon-
stratedatthefederallevelinthelanguageoftheUnited
StatesCivilServiceReformActof1978:"Each agency
shall developone or more performanceappraisal
systemswhich(1) provideforperiodicappraisalsofjob
performanceofemployees;(2)encourageemployeepar-
ticipationin establishingperformanceobjectives;and
(3) usetheresultsofperformanceappraisalas a basis
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1986
TABLE 1
FormalityofPerformanceAppraisalProcess
forUpperManagementinMajorU.S. Cities
(N= 122)
N o
Formal,documentedappraisal 72 59.0
Informalappraisal,withperson-to-
personinteraction 34 27.9
Informalappraisal,withoutperson-to-
personinteraction 1 0.8
No appraisal 15 12.3
122 100.0
fortraining,rewarding,reassigning,promoting,demot-
ing,retraining,andseparatingemployees."
Atthestatelevel,FeildandHolleysurveyedperson-
neldirectorswithstatewideperformanceappraisalsys-
temsand foundsupportforthefollowingpurposesin
descendingorder:promotions,demotionsand/orlay-
offs;manpowerplanningandutilization;salaryadjust-
ments;communicationbetweensupervisorsand sub-
ordinates;determinationof managementdevelopment
needs; validationof selectionand promotionpro-
cedures;and updatingpositiondescriptions.5More
recently,Tyerfoundstatepersonneldirectorsupport
forthefollowingpurposesofappraisalinstategovern-
ment,againin descendingorder:communicationbe-
tweensupervisorandsubordinates;salaryadjustments;
manpowerplanning;promotions,demotions,layoffs;
updatingpositiondescriptions;validationof selection
and promotionprocedures;and determinationof
managementdevelopmentneeds.6
LazerandWikstromfounddiscrepancybetweenthe
statedobjectivesofperformanceappraisalsystemsfor
corporateexecutivesandthereportedusesofappraisal
information.Based upon frequencyof mention,the
apparentobjectivesof uppercorporatemanagement
appraisalsystems,in descendingorder,were per-
formancemeasurement,managementdevelopment,
performanceimprovement,compensationadministra-
tion,feedback,identifyingpotential,manpowerplan-
ning,and communications.In termsof actualusage,
however,performancefeedbackand compensation
administrationwerethemostfrequentlycitedusesof
uppermanagementappraisalinformation(73 percent
and63 percentoftherespondingcompaniesreporting
thoseusages,respectively),followedbyidentificationof
managementdevelopmentneeds(54 percent),promo-
tiondecisions(50 percent),manpowerplanning(34
percent),and validationof selectionprocedures(13
percent).7
Participantsinthesurveyofcitygovernmentswere
askedto indicatewhetheranyof fivecommonobjec-
tives for performanceappraisalor an open-ended
"other"responsewereconsideredto be theprimary
objectiveof theirmanagementappraisalsystem,the
secondaryobjective,and so forth.Among those
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 07:15:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

4. 462 PUBLICADMINISTRATIONREVIEW
TABLE 2
ManagementPerformanceAppraisalObjectivesinMajorU.S. Cities
Percentages(N)
Primary Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth
Objective Objective Objective Objective Objective Objective Objective Total
Allocationof Rewards 23.9 28.4 15.9 5.7 0.0 0.0 73.9
(21) (25) (14) (5) (0) (0) (65)
Identificationof SkillDeficiencies 8.0 25.0 17.0 3.4 1.1 0.0 54.5
(7) (22) (15) (3) (1) (0) (48)
Feedback 60.2 22.7 4.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 88.6
(53) (20) (4) (1) (0) (0) (78)
PromotionPotential 0.0 2.3 11.4 6.8 0.0 0.0 20.5
(0) (2) (10) (6) (0) (0) (18)
WorkforcePlanning 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.1 3.4
(0) (0) (0) (0) (2) (1) (3)
Other 8.0 0.0 2.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 11.4
(7) (0) (2) (1) (0) (0) (10)
100.0 78.4 51.1 18.2 3.4 1.1
(88) (69) (45) (16) (3) (1)
respondingtothisquestion,60.2percentindicatedthat
performancefeedbackwastheirprimaryobjective,and
23.9 percentindicatedthattheproperallocationof
rewardswasthemainpurposeoftheirsystem(Table2).
Infact,82.9percentand52.3percentregardedfeedback
andrewardallocation,respectively,to be amongtheir
toptwoobjectives,parallelingto a remarkabledegree
theprivatesectorfindingsof Lazer and Wikstrom.
Despite recurringwarningsby manyauthorsthat
rewardand developmentobjectivesconflictwithone
anotherintheappraisalprocess,'almostthree-fourths
of the respondingcitiesplaced rewardsallocation
amongtheirtop fourappraisalobjectivesalongwith
suchdevelopmentobjectivesas performancefeedback
anddeterminationofpromotionpotential.
TechniquesUtilized
Variousappraisaltechniqueshavebeenadoptedin
publicand privatesectororganizationsin hopesof
achievingappraisalobjectiveswhileaddressingconcern
overraterbias.Thetraditionalappealofadjectivaland
numericratingscales,madepopularnodoubtbytheir
simplicity,has begunto givewayto seeminglymore
objective,performance-basedtechniquesused either
solelyorincombinationwithratingscales.
Studiesofgeneralemployeeappraisalpracticesinthe
privatesectorsuggestthatheavyrelianceontrait-based
ratingscaleshasdippedsharplyduringthepastdecade
fromoneoutofeverytwocompaniestooneoutoffive
-thoughmanymorecontinuetoappraiseperformance
based upon traitsin combinationwithbehavioror
results.'Findingsinthepublicsectorhavebeensimilar.
Inthemid-1970s,FeildandHolleyreportedthat62per-
centofthestategovernmentswithstatewideperform-
ance appraisalsystemswererelyingexclusivelyon
numericratingscales,5 percententirelyon graphic
ratingscales, 16 percenton combinationsof rating
scaleswithothersystems,13percenton essayevalua-
tion,and 5 percenton checklistsof job behaviors.10
Amonglargecitygovernmentsinthelate1970s,Lacho,
Stearns,andVillerefound18percentrelyingexclusively
ongraphicratingscales,68percentusinggraphicrating
scalesincombinatiaonwithessayappraisals,7 percent
usinga goal-settingsystem,5 percentusingessay
appraisals,and2 percentusinga combinationofessay
andcriticalincident."
Privatecorporationsreportextensiveuseofobjective-
settingor ManagementByObjectives(MBO) systems
forappraisinguppermanagementperformance.While
suchsystemswerereportedlyusedby63percentofthe
respondentsintheLazer-Wikstromstudy,sometimesin
combinationwithothersystems,lessextensiveusage
was reportedforessayappraisals(36 percent),rating
systems(conventionalorgraphic:10percent;behavior-
allyanchored:9 percent),criticalincidentsystems(11
percent),checklists(behavioral:8 percent;trait:9 per-
cent;forcedchoice:2 percent),andforceddistribution
(10percent)andotherrankingorcomparisonsystems.'2
Amongmunicipalitiesrespondingtothe1984survey,
35.1 percentreportedusingMBO aloneandreporting
theexistenceofa managerialappraisalsystemofsome
kindintheirorganization(Table3). Almost65percent
reportedusingMBOeitheraloneorincombinationwith
othertechniques,onceagainparallelingthefindingsfor
corporateexecutiveappraisalsystems.Thesecondmost
frequentlyused appraisaltechniquefor managerial
employeeswastheratingscale,with16.2percentofthe
municipalrespondentsreportinguseofthattechnique
aloneand33.8percentreportingitsuseinsomeform.
Thethirdmostfrequentlycitedmanagementappraisal
systemwasbehaviorallyanchoredratingscales(BARS).
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1986
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 07:15:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

5. PUBLICMANAGEMENTFORUM 463
TABLE3
TechniquesUsedinManagerialPerformanceAppraisalinMediumandLargeU.S.Municipalities
Percentages(N = 74)
Employee
Comparison/ Direct Rating Critical
Ratings MBO Indexes Scale BARS Incident
SystemUsedAlone 35.1 16.2 12.2 2.7
(26) (12) (9) (2)
UsedinCombinationwith...
* EmployeeComparisonRatingsOnly 1.4
(1)
* MBOOnly 8.1 6.8 4.1
(6) (5) (3)
* DirectIndexesOnly 1.4
(1)
* RatingScaleOnly 1.4 8.1 1.4
(1) (6) (1)
* BARSOnly 6.8
(5)
* CriticalIncidentOnly 4.1
(3)
* MultipleTechniques 2.7 10.8 1.4 6.8 9.5 6.8
(2) (8) (1) (5) (7) (5)
TOTAL 4.1 64.9 2.7 33.8 28.4 13.5
(3) (48) (2) (25) (21) (10)
Notes.(1) Thistableincludesonlythe74 citiesreportingtheuseofspecificperformanceappraisaltechniques.Citiesfailingtoprovidesuch
informationorreportingthatnomanagerialappraisalsystemexistsintheirorganizationwereexcludedfromallcomputations.(2) Percent-
agessumtomorethan100.0,sincea givencombinationofappraisaltechniquesiscreditedtothecolumnofeachtechnique.
DESCRIPTIONS:
EmployeeComparison/Ratings-Themanager(orchiefadministrator,ormayor)listsandranksassistantsand/ordepartmentheadsaccording
toperformance.
ManagementbyObjectives(MBO)orGoals/ResultsApproach-Themanagerandassistants/departmentheadsjointlysetobjectives,andthe
employee'sperformanceisratedbaseduponachievementofobjectives.
DirectIndexes-Themanagersetsspecific,quantifiablemeasuresor standards,andassistants/departmentheadsareevaluatedagainstthe
standards.
RatingScale-Appraisalisbasedona setoftraitsandthedegreetowhichtheydescribetheassistantordepartmenthead.
BehaviorallyAnchoredRatingScale(BARS)-Appraisalisbasedona setofbehavioralstatementsandthedegreetowhichtheydescribethe
assistantordepartmenthead'sperformance.
CriticalIncident-Themanagerdocumentspositiveand/ornegativeevents.
BARSwasreportedlyusedaloneby12.2percentofthe
respondentsand usedin combinationwithotherap-
praisalsystemsbyanother16.3percent.
AppraisalFrequency
Thefrequencyofperformanceappraisaldiffersfrom
organizationto organization,butmostconductper-
formanceappraisalson an annualbasis."3More fre-
quentperformanceappraisalor reviewsessionshave
been foundto be associatedwithseveraldesirable
organizationalcharacteristics,includinggoalclarityand
favorableattitudes.'4Greaterfeedbackfrequencyseems
especiallyimportantfor organizationsusingMBO.
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1986
Surveyresponsesfrom30citiesusingMBOin1979indi-
catedthat14 (46.7 percent)had annualperformance
reviews,while16(53.3percent)conductedreviewsona
morefrequentbasis-10 (33.3percent)twiceyearlyand
six(20 percent)quarterly.1I
The1984surveyrespondents,onlypartofwhomwere
associatedwithorganizationsusingMBO systemsfor
managementappraisal,reportedsomewhatless fre-
quentappraisalsthanthoserespondingtothestudyof
30MBO cities,buthigherfrequenciesthanreportedfor
employeeperformanceappraisalsin organizationsin
general-especiallypublicsectororganizations.While
majorstudieshaveindicatedthat52 to 92 percentof
privatefirmsand 80 to 91 percentof stateand local
governmentorganizationshave annual performance
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 07:15:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

6. 464 PUBLICADMINISTRATIONREVIEW
appraisals,'only58.9 percentof the1984municipal
respondentsreportedlimitingappraisalsof upper
managementassistantsanddepartmentheadstoa once-
a-yearbasis.Othercommonlycitedfrequencieswere
"twiceyearly"(24.3 percent),"quarterly"(7.5 per-
cent),"monthly"(3.7 percent),and"other"(5.6 per-
cent).Presumably,contributingto thisrelativelyhigh
frequencyofreviewsessions,atleastincomparisonto
othersurveysof publicsectororganizations,werethe
relativelyextensiveuse of MBO systemsamongthe
respondingjurisdictionsandthefocusofthisstudyon
appraisalpracticesforuppermanagementemployeesas
opposedtoemployeesingeneral.
SatisfactionwithAppraisalSystem
Severalpreviousstudieshaveexaminedthelevelof
satisfactionwithappraisalsystems,oftengaugedin
termsof perceivedeffectiveness.A reviewof assess-
ments,however,suggestsonlymodestlevelsof un-
equivocalsatisfaction,butatleastenoughgeneralsatis-
factionto sustainthenotionthatregularperformance
appraisalis important.Forexample,28 percentofthe
respondentsto a surveyofAmericanSocietyforPer-
sonnel Administrationmembersin three regions
reportedthattheirappraisalsystemswereworking
''verywell'';'722percentoftherespondentsina survey
ofkeyindustrialfirmsindicatedthattheywere"highly
satisfied"withtheirappraisalsystems,while69percent
weremerelysatisfiedand9 percentwereunsatisfied;'
140personneladministratorsattendingtwoconferences
oftheAmericanSocietyforPersonnelAdministration
producedan average ratingof their managerial
appraisalsystems'effectivenessof3.6ona 7-pointscale
rangingfrom0 for"noteffectiveatall" to6 for"effec-
tivetoa verygreatextent";'971 percentof123survey
respondentsthoughttheircorporateexecutiveappraisal
systemswereeffective,and 29 percentthoughtthey
wereineffective;2013 percentof therespondentsto a
1979surveyof municipalpersonneldirectorsstrongly
agreedwiththestatementthat"thereisa performance
evaluationsystemthatfairlyandthoroughlymeasures
thequalityofemployees'work"intheirorganization,
while42 percentmerelyagreed,23 percentdisagreed,6
percentstronglydisagreed,and 16 percentwereun-
decided;2"and 21.1 percentof therespondentsto a
1981-82surveyof statepersonneldirectorsevaluated
theirappraisalsystemsas veryeffective,while63.2per-
centthoughttheyweresomewhateffectiveand15.8per-
centthoughttheywerenotveryeffective.22
A slimmajorityofourmunicipalrespondentswere
eithergenerallysatisfied(44.6percent)orverysatisfied
(11.6percent)withtheirmanagementappraisalsystems.
Verynearlyone-third(32.2 percent)reportedmixed
feelingsregardingtheirlevelofsatisfaction.Relatively
fewreportedbeinggenerallydissatisfied(9.9percent)or
verydissatisfied(1.7 percent)withcurrentappraisal
practices.
Respondentstendedto perceivesomewhathigher
levelsofsatisfactionamongassistantsanddepartment
headswhowerethesubjectsoftheappraisalsystems
thantheyfeltthemselves.Theyperceivedmorethan70
percentofthesubordinatemanagerstobeeither"gen-
erallysatisfied"(61.9percent)or"verysatisfied"(8.8
percent),22.1 percentto be "indifferentor neutral,"
7.1percenttobe"generallydissatisfied,"andnogroup
of assistantsand departmentheadsto be "verydis-
satisfied"withcurrentappraisalpractices.Whileitis
possiblethatsuchperceptionsareinflated,respondents
reporta generallyhighlevelofparticipationbyassis-
tantsand departmentheadsin theidentificationand
developmentofperformancestandards,measurements,
andobjectivesfortheirjobs-the kindofparticipation
thatmaybe expectedto producegreatersatisfaction
withmanagementsystemsin general.23Morethan86
percentoftherespondentsindicatedthatassistantsand
departmentheadsprovide"considerable"(53.8 per-
cent)or"full"(32.7percent)assistanceinthedevelop-
mentof moststandards,measurements,or objectives
fortheirjob. Muchsmallerpercentagesoftherespon-
dentsindicatedverylittleparticipation(9.6 percent)or
noparticipationatall(3.8 percent).
OrganizationSize,FormofGovernment,
andAppraisalTechniques
Littlevariationinmanagerialappraisaltechniquesis
evidentincomparisonacrossvaryingorganizationsizes
(Table4). MBO, eitherusedaloneor incombination
withothersystems,is thefavoredtechniqueineachof
the surveyedorganizationsize categories,thoughit
shouldbenotedthatsmallcitieswereexcludedfromthis
study.RatingscalesandBARS competefora distant
secondandthird,eachbeingfavoredovertheotherin
twoorganizationsizecategories.
Muchgreatervariationin appraisaltechniqueswas
foundamongdifferentformsof local government.
MBO was reportedlyusedalone by40.4 percentof
council-managercitiesand in combinationwithother
systemsbyanother36.5percent(Table4). Incontrast,
17.6percentofthemayor-councilcitiesreportedusing
MBO alone,and 11.8percentreporteduseofMBO in
combinationwithothersystems.
Ratingscaleswerefoundtobemorepopularamong
mayor-councilcities,with41.2percentreportingtheuse
of ratingscalesaloneformanagementappraisalsand
11.8percentreportinguseofratingscalesincombina-
tionwithothersystems.Only9.6 percentof council-
managercitiesreportedusingratingscalesalone,while
21.2percentuseratingscalesincombinationwithother
systems.
TimeAllocation
-Respondentswereaskedto estimatetheaggregate
amountoftimein"person-years"devotedbythemand
bymembersoftheirstaffstotheevaluationprocessfor
uppermanagementduringa typicalyear.(One"person-
year" or "staff-year"is equivalentto thetimethat
wouldbedevotedbyonepersonworkingfulltimeona
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1986
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 07:15:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7. PUBLIC MANAGEMENT FORUM 465
TABLE4
UseofSelectedAppraisalTechniquesforUpperManagementinMediumandLargeU.S.Municipalities,
byOrganizationSizeandFormofGovernment
LessThan 7,500 Council- Mayor.
1,000 1,000-2,499 2,500-7,499 Employees Manager Council Commission
Employees Employees Employees orMore Form Form Form
N 25 27 15 7 52 17 4
EmployeeComparison/Ratings
Alone 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%)
Combination 0 2 1 0 1 2 0
(0%) (7.4%) (6.7%) (0%) (1.9%) (11.8%) (0%)
MBO
Alone 10 6 7 3 21 3 1
(407o) (22.2%) (46.7%) (42.9%) (40.4%) (17.6%) (25%)
Combination 8 9 4 1 19 2 1
(32%) (33.3%) (26.7%) (14.3%) (36.5%) (11.8%) (25%)
DirectIndexes
Alone 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%)
Combination 0 1 0 1 2 0 0
(0%) (3.7%) (0%) (14.3%) (3.8%) (0%) (0%)
RatingScale
Alone 6 4 1 1 5 7 0
(24%) (14.8%) (6.7%) (14.3%) (9.6%) (41.2%) (0%)
Combination 4 6 2 1 11 2 0
(16%) (22.2%) (13.3%) (14.3%) (21.2%) (11.8%) (0%)
BARS
Alone 1 5 2 1 4 3 2
(4%) (18.5%) (13.3%) (14.3%) (7.7%) (17.6%) (50%)
Combination 4 6 2 0 10 1 1
(16%) (22.2%) (13.3%) (0%) (19.2%) (5.9%) (25%)
CriticalIncident
Alone 0 1 1 0 2 0 0
(0%) (3.7%) (6.7%) (0%) (3.8%) (0%) (0%)
Combination 1 4 2 1 5 3 0
(4%) (14.8%) (13.3%) (14.3%) (9.6%) (17.6%) (0%)
givenassignment.)Theywereaskedtoincludetimefor
informationgathering,reviewsessions,goalplanning,
andrelatedactivities.
More thanhalf(55.6 percent)of therespondents
reportedthattheyandtheirstaffsspendlessthan5 per-
centofa person-yearontheappraisalofuppermanage-
mentperformance(Table5). Forty-onepercentreported
spendingbetween5 and 15 percentof a person-year,
and2.6 percentreportedspendingbetween15and25
percentofa person-year.Lessthanonepercentofthe
respondentsreportedspendingmorethan25percentof
a person-yearin aggregateon theappraisalof upper
managementperformance.
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1986
Conclusion
Researchersreportingthe resultsof performance
appraisalsurveysof a different,oftenmoregeneral,
naturethantheonereportedherehaveobservedtrends
towardattemptingtotiebothappraisalandpaymore
closelytomeasurableperformance,24towardmorecol-
laborativeappraisalsystemsandgreateremployeepar-
ticipationintheestablishmentofperformancetargets,25
andawayfrom"person-based"or"trait-based"rating
systems.26Partoftheincentiveforchangeisa desireto
improveorganizationalperformance;muchof it is a
desiretoavoidpotentiallegalproblemsresultingfroma
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 07:15:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

8. 466 PUBLICADMINISTRATIONREVIEW
TABLE 5
AggregateTimeAllocatedtothe
ManagerialAppraisalProcessbyAllPersonsInvolved
N o
Less than5 percentof a "person-year" 65 55.6
Between5 and 15 percentof a
"person-year"a 48 41.0
Between15 and 25 percentof a
"person-year"I 3 2.6
More than25 percentof a "person-
year"i' 1 0.9
117 100.1
'One "person-year"(or "staff-year")is theequivalentofone person
workingfulltimeforone year,whetheractuallyattributableto one
personor to more(e.g., one "person-year"would be allocatedto a
projectwhentwo personswereassignedto thatproject,each on a
half-timebasis).
legallyindefensiblesystem.27Thesecharacteristicsare
reflectedinthisstudy'sfindingsregardingtherelative
favorin whichMBO appraisalsystemsare evidently
heldforuppermanagementreviewinmediumandlarge
citiesandinthereportedlevelofsubordinateparticipa-
tionintheappraisalprocessandrelatedactivities.
Theappraisalprocessforuppermanagementtakesa
varietyofformsinmajorU.S. cities.No singleformat
canbeconsideredtypical,thoughMBOasa solesystem
orincombinationwithothersisreportedlyinwideuse
amongthosecitieshavingformal,documentedap-
praisalsystems.A highlevelofsatisfactionwithcurrent
appraisalpracticesis perceivedfortheassistantsand
departmentheads affectedby thosepractices,with
greaterreservations,thoughstillgenerallyfavorable
attitudes,reportedbytherespondentsthemselves.
Despitethegenerallyoptimistictoneevidentinrela-
tivelyhighlevelsofreportedsatisfactionwithcurrent
managementappraisalpractices,a fewtroublesome
aspectsofthesurveyfindingssuggestseriousdeficien-
ciesinthestateofmanagerialperformanceappraisalin
majorU.S. cities.First,only59 percentof the 122
respondingcitiesreportthatmanagerialassistantsand
majordepartmentheadsare evaluatedon a formal,
documentedbasis.While29 percentreportthatsuch
evaluationoccurson an informalbasis,morethan12
percentindicatethatno formalor informalmodeof
performanceappraisalforuppermanagementexistsin
theirorganization.In an era of publicconcernover
valuereceivedfortaxdollars,a systematicmeansof
appraisingand improvingmanagerialperformance
wouldseeman integralpartof seriousperformance
management.
Second,approximately16percentofthosejurisdic-
tionsreportingtheuseofspecificmanagerialappraisal
techniquesreportedfull relianceon ratingscales.
Althoughsuchscalesofferadministrativeconvenience,
theirtendencytobetrait-centeredandhighlysubjective
ratherthanperformance-basedmakessuchheavyreli-
ancequestionableatbest.
Third,perhapsthemostrevealingindicationofthe
stateof managerialperformanceappraisalis theex-
tremelymodestamountof executiveand stafftime
devotedto theprocess.Nalbandianhasobservedthat
"the basic impedimentto effectiveperformanceap-
praisalisnotthetechniqueused,butthemotivationof
thosecalledupontoevaluateothers."28Whena major-
ityofexecutivesreportthattheyandtheirstaffsspend
less than5 percentof a person-yearon the upper
managementappraisalprocessand morethan96 per-
centreportspending15percentofa person-yearorless,
the depthof such motivationmay be called into
question.
DavidN. Ammonsis an assistantprofessorof public
administrationat NorthTexasStateUniversity.He is
theauthorofMunicipalProductivity(Praeger,1984)
and severalarticleson topicspertainingto citygov-
ernment.
ArnoldRodriguezis theassistantpersonneldirectorof
theCityofPlano,Texas.He haspreviouslyservedin
administrativepositionsinthepersonneldepartmentsof
theTexascitiesofVictoria,Austin,andArlington.
Notes
1. The cityof Arlington,Texas, whileexaminingitsown manage-
mentappraisalsystemin1984,conductedthesurveyuponwhich
this articleis based and made the raw data available to the
authors.Althoughthesamplereceivingquestionnaireswas not
selectedrandomlyin thetechnicalsense,samplebias is thought
tobemodestsincetherewasnoapparentefforttoinfluencefind-
ingsthroughselectionor exclusionand since the sample con-
stitutesmorethanhalfof theentireuniverseof citiesabove the
chosen populationthreshold.Of the 302 U.S. citiesof 65,000
populationorgreaterin1980,170(56 percent)weremailedques-
tionnaires.Responseswerereceivedfrom72 percentof thesam-
ple (or 40 percentof all citiesof65,000 populationor greater).
The authorsgratefullyacknowledgethecooperationof thecity
of Arlingtonin makingthesedata available.
2. Glen H. Varney,"PerformanceAppraisal-Inside and Out,"
The Personnel Administrator,vol. 17 (November-December
1972), pp. 15-17;Alan H. Locher and KennethS. Teel, "Per-
formanceAppraisal-A Surveyof CurrentPractices,"Person-
nelJournal,vol. 56 (May 1977),pp. 245-254.
3. KennethJ.Lacho, G. KentStearns,and MauriceF. Villere,"A
Studyof EmployeeAppraisal Systemsof Major Cities in the
UnitedStates," Public PersonnelManagement,vol. 8 (March-
April1979),pp. 111-125;and CharlieB. Tyer,"EmployeePer-
formanceAppraisal in AmericanState Governments,"Public
PersonnelManagement,vol. 11 (Fall 1982),pp. 199-212."For-
mal system"includesthe one cityin the Lacho, Stearns,and
Villerestudyreportingdepartment-levelappraisalsystems,and
"no formalsystem"includesthethreecitiesawaitingapproval
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1986
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 07:15:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

9. PUBLIC MANAGEMENT FORUM 467
of a systemat thetimeof thesurvey."Formal system"includes
statewideand decentralizedsystemsnotedin theTyerstudy.
4. RobertI. LazerandWalterS. Wikstrom,AppraisingManagerial
Performance:CurrentPracticesand FutureDirections(New
York: The ConferenceBoard, 1977),p. 6.
5. Hubert S. Feild and William H. Holley, "PerformanceAp-
praisal:An AnalysisofState-WidePractices,"PublicPersonnel
Management,vol. 4 (May-June1975),pp. 145-150.
6. Tyer,"Employee PerformanceAppraisal."
7. Lazer and Wikstrom,Appraising Managerial Performance,
P. 11.
8. See, for example, Michael Beer, "Performance Appraisal:
Dilemmas and Possibilities,"OrganizationalDynamics,vol. 9
(Winter1981),pp. 24-36.
9. KennethS. Teel, "PerformanceAppraisal:CurrentTrends,Per-
sistentProgress,"PersonnelJournal,vol. 59 (April 1980), pp.
296-316; Locher and Teel, "PerformanceAppraisal: A Survey
ofCurrentPractices"; and H. JohnBernardinand LawrenceA.
Klatt,"Managerial AppraisalSystems:Has PracticeCaughtUp
to the State of the Art?" PersonnelAdministrator,vol. 30
(November1985),pp. 79-86.
10. Feild and Holley, "PerformanceAppraisal."
11. Lacho, Stearns,and Villere,"A Studyof EmployeeAppraisal
Systemsof Major Cities."
12. Lazer and Wikstrom,AppraisingManagerialPerformance,p.
22. Percentagessumto morethan100 percentdue to combina-
tionusage of varioussystems.
13. RobertA. Zawacki and RobertL. Taylor, "A View of Per-
formanceAppraisal fromOrganizationsUsing It," Personnel
Journal,vol. 55 (June1976),pp. 290-292and 299; Tyer,"Em-
ployee PerformanceAppraisal"; and Lazer and Wikstrom,
AppraisingManagerialPerformance,pp.23-24.
14. JohnM. Ivancevich,JamesH. Donnelly,and HerbertL. Lyon,
"A Studyof theImpactof ManagementbyObjectiveson Per-
ceivedNeed Satisfaction,"PersonnelPsychology,vol. 23 (Sum-
mer1970),pp. 139-151;P. P. Fay and D. N. Beach, "Manage-
ment by Objectives Evaluated," Personnel Journal, vol. 53
(October1974),pp. 767-769;StephenJ.Carroll,Jr.,and Henry
L. Tosi, "The Relationshipof Characteristicsof the Review
Process to theSuccess of the'ManagementbyObjectives'Ap-
proach," The Journalof Business, vol. 44 (July 1971), pp.
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1986
299-305;JohnC. Aplin,Jr.,CharlesG. Schoderbek,and Peter
P. Schoderbek,"Tough-MindedManagementby Objectives,"
Human Resource Management,vol. 18 (Summer 1979), pp.
9-13.
15. PerryD. Moore and Ted Staton,"ManagementbyObjectivesin
AmericanCities," PublicPersonnelManagement,vol. 10(Sum-
mer1981),pp. 223-232.
16. Zawacki and Taylor, "A View of PerformanceAppraisal";
Locherand Teel, "PerformanceAppraisal:A SurveyofCurrent
Practices"; Lazer and Wikstrom, Appraising Managerial
Employees,p. 24; Lacho, Stearns,and Villere,"A Studyof
Employee Appraisal Systemsof Major Cities"; and Tyer,
"Employee PerformanceAppraisal."
17. Varney,"PerformanceAppraisal," supra.
18. Zawacki and Taylor,"A Viewof PerformanceAppraisal."
19. Bernardinand Klatt,"Managerial AppraisalSystems."
20. Lazer and Wikstrom,AppraisingManagerialEmployees,p. 43.
21. JonathanP. West, "City PersonnelManagement:Issues and
Reforms,"Public PersonnelManagement,vol. 13 (Fall 1984),
pp. 317-334.
22. Tyer,"Employee PerformanceAppraisal."
23. See, forexample,Nicholas P. Lovrich,Jr.,Paul L. Shaffer,
Ronald H. Hopkins,and Donald A. Yale, "Do PublicServants
Welcome or Fear Merit Evaluation of Their Performance?"
Public AdministrationReview, vol. 40 (May/June1980), pp.
214-222.
24. Teel, "PerformanceAppraisal:CurrentTrends,PersistentProg-
ress"; and Tyer,"Employee PerformanceAppraisal."
25. Zawacki and Taylor,"A Viewof PerformanceAppraisal"; and
West,"City PersonnelManagement,"p. 332.
26. Tyer,"Employee PerformanceAppraisal."
27. For recommendationsregardingtheadoptionof legallydefen-
sible appraisal systems,see, forexample,Ronald W. Clement
and Eileen K. Aranda, "PerformanceAppraisal in thePublic
Sector: Truthor Consequences?" Reviewof Public Personnel
Administration,vol. 5 (Fall 1984), pp. 34-42, and ShelleyR.
Burchettand KennethP. De Meuse, "PerformanceAppraisal
and theLaw," Personnel,vol. 62 (July1985), pp. 29-37.
28. John Nalbandian, "PerformanceAppraisal: If Only People
Were Not Involved," Public AdministrationReview, vol. 41
(May/June1981),p. 394.
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 07:15:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions