Making objectives common in performance appraisal interviews

Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–108

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Language & Communication journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/langcom

Making objectives common in performance appraisal interviewsq Pekka Pälli a, *, Esa Lehtinen b,1 a b

Aalto University School of Business, Department of Management Studies, P.O. Box 21210, FI-00076 Aalto, Finland University of Vaasa, Faculty of Philosophy, Modern Finnish and Translation, P.O. Box 700, FI-65101 Vaasa, Finland

a b s t r a c t Keywords: Performance appraisal interviews Goal setting Conversation analysis Writing practice Superior–subordinate communication

This paper investigates goal setting in performance appraisal interviews. The data are video-recorded performance appraisal interviews from a Finnish public sector organization. The study focuses on the role of writing in deciding on common goals for future development. Drawing from conversation analytical methods, the empirical analysis highlights three central interactional patterns for the setting of goals: a proposal–approval/ rejection format, a question–answer format, and a summary format. It is shown that they are different in terms of how they allow the employee to participate in the process. Furthermore, the analysis demonstrates that writing practices play a crucial role in these interactional sequences. It is thus argued that goal setting is inextricably connected to the discursive action of completing the appraisal form. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Performance appraisals (hence PAs) serve multiple purposes in organizations, among which the evaluation of performance, the setting of goals for work, and the agreeing on future development are some of the most important and most widely recognized (Meyer et al., 1965; Ivancevich, 1982; Hollenbeck and Klein, 1987; Roberts and Reed, 1996; Pettijohn et al., 2001; Boswell and Boudreau, 2002). Still, despite the attention that the functions have received in the literature, there is little knowledge of how these functions are interactionally accomplished by participants in real-time performance appraisal discussions. Put more generally, there has been an overall emphasis on reported experiences of PAs (e.g. interviews or questionnaires) in past research (Gordon and Steward, 2009), but only a few (for exceptions, see Adams, 1981; Asmub, 2008; Sandlund et al., 2011; Clifton, 2012) have dealt with PAs as situated action, as a lived experience and in real time. In simple terms, e.g. people’s opinions about PAs, their retrospective accounts of their own and their superiors’ or subordinates’ behavior in interview situations, and their attitudes towards the conduct of the interviews have been studied, but we know little about what happens between people in their situated face-to-face encounters. This is unfortunate, since the study of institutional patterns of interaction can shed light on the questions of how people perform and achieve different functions of PA interviews.

q This work was supported by the Finnish Work Environment Fund under Grant 111071, and the Academy of Finland under Grant 253350. * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ358 403538210. E-mail addresses: pekka.palli@aalto.fi (P. Pälli), esa.lehtinen@uva.fi (E. Lehtinen). 1 Tel.: þ358 294498377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2014.09.002 0271-5309/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–108

93

This study focuses on the conversational action of setting goals for employees’ work. Our data are six video-recorded PA interviews (PAIs) in one Finnish public organization. Each interview lasts approximately one hour, and they all contain quite explicit ‘goal setting’ sequences, which play a markedly important role in the interviews. The appraisal form has a title “Agreed Goals”, under which the superior and subordinates write down their agreement in the form of a short list. We will show that this effort of getting the goals into textual form greatly influences the interaction and the way that the discussants jointly make sense of the future objectives. In particular, our study underpins the role of writing as physical action in the interviews. Applying conversation analysis, we examine the goals for future as interactional achievements of the superior and the subordinate. By achievement we mean that the goals and joint understanding of them are something that the participants attend to and construct in interaction and by means of interaction. In our empirical analysis, we will show how goals are set through conversational practices and practices of writing. Firstly, we will show how the activity of goal setting is initiated with three alternative conversational strategies: the superior proposes goals for the subordinate, asks for the subordinate’s suggestions, or summarizes the preceding discussion. These strategies open up different possibilities for the subordinate to participate in the goal setting activity. Secondly, we will show how writing plays an important role in the goal setting sequences. In particular, our analysis suggests that writing is a discursive device that has noticeable power effects. Overall, we argue that writing as action shapes the conduct of the goal setting sequence in appraisal interviews. Our study makes three main contributions. First, it contributes to the research of PAs as organizational leadership practices by adding a perspective of lived experience, as it analyses authentic video-recorded PA interviews, real-time interaction of superior–subordinate dyads. Second, our investigation of talk-in-interaction participates in the discussion of the elements of productive dialogue (e.g. Isaacs, 1999; Tsoukas, 2009), as our empirical analysis contributes to the understanding of how achieving and agreeing on common goals can take a dialogical form and be a joint enterprise. In particular, we will show how writing as situated practice shapes and steers this dialogue. Third, as our analysis provides an example of how written text and talk-in-interaction affect each other, we participate in the discussion about the role of talk-text-dialectics in organizational phenomena, which is of specific interest to scholars who apply insights from sensemaking and coordination theories to organizational communication (Robichaud et al., 2004; Ashcraft et al., 2009; Cooren et al., 2011). The rest of the article is structured as follows: First, we briefly present the theoretical discussion and earlier research regarding traditional perspectives on appraisal interviews and their significance as leadership and management tools. This section paves way for our contention that despite of the various approaches to PAIs, there is little research that views them as discursive practices of talk and text. We end the theoretical section by reviewing studies that have shown the importance of text in social and professional practices in general as well as studies that have concentrated on the use of writing in institutional encounters. Then the next two sections present our data, methods and empirical analysis. The paper ends with a concluding section where we present our main findings and discuss the contributions of the study. 2. PAIs as social and discursive practices Performance appraisal processes and especially the interviews have provoked lively debate and interest ever since the time of the Second World War, when appraisal first emerged as a distinct and formal management procedure in the US. Already some 50 years ago, Meyer et al. (1965) described the topic as being highly interesting and provocative in management circles and in business literature. In their words, “one might almost say that everybody talks and writes about it” (p. 123). In similar vein, Nathan et al. (1991) mention that few topics in personnel research have received as much attention as performance appraisal. Despite the attention given to the topic, there has been and undoubtedly still is ongoing debate regarding what kinds of appraisal practices are effective and what is the usefulness of the interviews (Meyer, 1991). However, empirical research has been able to demonstrate that effective appraisal practices lead to, for example, improved employee productivity, job satisfaction, and commitment (Mayer and Davis, 1999; Pettijohn et al., 2001; Mani, 2002; Jawahar, 2006). The fact still remains that there has been surprisingly little research on what really happens between superiors and subordinates within the institutional encounters of interview situations, as most PAI studies have relied on data gotten from e.g. questionnaires and retrospective interviews. It is also noteworthy that normative and prescriptive approaches have dominated the research. In human resource management and business literature, this has meant providing information and guidelines on how to use appraisals effectively and also how to manage the appraisal process and how to conduct an interview (e.g. Grote, 2000; Losyk, 2002; Caruth and Humphreys, 2008; Hammer, 2007). Similarly, studies related to communicational aspects of PAIs (Laird and Clampitt, 1985; Van der Molen and Kluytmans, 1997) have been preoccupied with what is good and efficient communication. In all, we can conclude that prescriptive research has been managerially-centered: this research has established guidelines on how to conduct PAIs, but neglected the interactive character of the interview (Fletcher, 2001; Asmub, 2008; Clifton, 2012; Gordon and Steward, 2009). Nevertheless, earlier research has brought forth the importance of superior-subordinate relationship with regard to the effects of PAIs. In their study, Nathan et al. (1991) show that the interpersonal relationship between superior and subordinate is significant in that it affects the subordinate’s reactions to the appraisal process. Their findings also suggest the prominence of the subordinate’s possibility to participate in the appraisal. Other studies have also drawn attention to the significance of participation, as they have demonstrated that participation is connected to employee reactions to feedback (Cawley et al., 1998), and that mutual feedback correlates with the effects of PAIs (Jawahar, 2006). It has also been shown that employee

94

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–108

justice perception of the appraisal is related to the interaction during the interviews and more specifically to the interactional style adopted by the superior (Erdogan, 2002), which again underscores the important role of in situ interaction in the institutional practice of performance appraisal. Echoing these observations and findings, some researchers have paid attention to what actually happens in the interviews and how the institutional character of face-to-face interaction affects the conduct and the interview as a face-to-face encounter. In an early conversation analytical study in this area, Adams (1981) investigated the question and answer sequences in PAIs. Her study suggests that by demonstrating their understanding of the expectancy to ask and answer questions, the manager as well as the employee accomplish their institutional roles and thus reconstruct the institutional norms of the face-to-face encounter. In a more recent study, Sandlund et al. (2011) show that the institutional norms that concern being an ideal employee affect the behavior in PAIs as institutional encounters. Their study also indicates that the institutional structure of the interview situation has an effect on the possibilities of employees to raise critical topics related to their wellbeing at work. Also Asmub (2008) studied the “lived experience” of superior-subordinate dyads, and she concentrated on critical feedback given in the interviews. Her study demonstrates that giving critical feedback is socially problematic, and that this specifically affects the way the employees deal with negative assessments. Clifton (2012) elaborates on this theme and shows that facework characterizes the conduct of interviews. Interestingly, some of the above-mentioned interactional studies of PAIs have touched on the role of texts and practices of reading and writing. Clifton (2012) reproduces strips of interaction that show that documents and reading the documents is important in terms of what happens in interaction. Similarly, Adams’s (1981) analysis points toward the fact that texts such as goal sheets and the practice of reading play a highly important role in the interaction. To date, however, no studies have concentrated on the question of how reading or writing is used in PAI interaction or how they facilitate the encounter. Still, it has been demonstrated that texts are important for the practice of PAI in general. Townley’s (1993) analysis that was based on such documents as appraisal forms and notes of guidance is a case in point. Elaborating on the view that texts help to articulate the asymmetry of power, she demonstrates the significance of written documentation in the PA practice: both prior documentation as well as the (needed) subsequent documentation articulate and reconstruct specific managerial roles for the participants. Important for our purposes, Townley (1993) also notes how authoritative and directive texts of PAIs impose a necessity to end up with mutually agreed goals as results from the appraisal. In her words, “some schemes explicitly require the appraiser’s comments to be an agreed record of the appraisal discussion and an agreed statement of objectives” (p. 228, italics original). Taking a linguistic and discourse analytical approach, Fairclough (2006, p. 86–87) draws attention to the relevance of intertextual chain in PAIs. He describes that what he calls ‘staff appraisal’ is constituted as a social practice through a chain of activities, some of which are written and some spoken interactions. In his illustrative example, texts preceding the face-toface interview (such as employee’s CV or appraisal form) have an effect on the face-to-face interaction which in turn affects texts-to-come (such as the appraiser’s evaluation). The point is that in order to understand the practice of PAI and what happens in the individual stages of it, we need to take into account the way in which these linguistic interactions are linked together. More generally, there are studies from other professional settings that investigate the role of writing – or drawing – in interaction, some of which use video-recordings as their data (Nevile, 2004; Komter, 2006; Moore et al., 2010; Mondada, 2012). These studies point out, first of all, that, for the professionals, writing is a way to create a link between different activities in a chain. For example, Moore et al. (2010) show how the order form in a copy shop is a way to transform the client’s wishes into a form that can be understood by other employees later on. Secondly, these studies show how writing can be collaborative: texts are produced together by the participants of an interactional encounter. As Mondada (2012) points out, however, joint writing may also lead to controversies. Thirdly, video recordings reveal that talk and writing are precisely synchronized in relation to each other (e.g., Nevile, 2004). Thus, the timing of the writing with relation to talk is highly important. Building on these views, our study will specifically concentrate on how the coupling of text and talk is done by writing during the interaction. The next section presents the data and method of our study, and it is followed by the empirical analysis.

3. Data and method Our data are six authentic appraisal interviews from Early Learning Services in a Finnish city organization. The data were video-recorded in autumn 2010 in a research project that concentrated on performance appraisal interviews as leadership tools. Each interview lasted approximately one hour. In this data set, there is the same superior in every interview. He is the manager of Early Learning Services, and he originally took interest in our study for the reason of developing his professional skills as a manager. The six subordinates that volunteered and gave permission to videorecord the interview are either managers in their own units (such as kindergartens) or area managers (in charge of more than just their own unit or “house”, as they call the kindergartens). All video-recordings are fully transcribed by using Transana software. In the appraisal interviews an appraisal form is used. In the form there are four main sections with the following titles: “Professional competence”, “Productivity”, “Interactional skills” and “Capability to develop”. Under each of the four sections

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–108

95

there is a blank box that has the title “Agreed goals”. During the interview the participants write in the box. A translation of the appraisal form is in the Appendix. Due to confidential information regarding the evaluation of subordinates’ performance, we were not given access to the completed interview forms. Consequently, we do not know what the conversationalists actually wrote down in the forms, and neither can we say if or how the wordings in the superior’s and subordinates’ copies differed from each other. After the interview, the superior and the subordinates verified the forms with their signatures, suggesting that both participants accepted the content. The interview forms were used in the organization for two main purposes. First, they served as records of performance evaluations and were in that way related to e.g. salary decisions. Second, the completed forms from last year or earlier years were used as the basis for succeeding interviews – for example to evaluate development and to check which of the previous years’ objectives had been met. The methodology of the article is based on conversation analysis (Heritage, 1984; Hutchby and Wooffitt, 1998), which is a specific method for analyzing naturally occurring talk-in-interaction. In conversation analytical research face-to-face interaction is seen as structurally organized. Contributions in interaction are analyzed in their sequential context, and turns of talk are seen as being shaped by the preceding context and simultaneously renewing that context for the next speaker. A particularly important concept is the adjacency pair (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973), i.e. a pair of utterances that are normatively tied to each other. An example of an adjacency pair is a question-answer format: If a question is asked, an answer is normatively expected from the next speaker. In the conversation analytical study of institutional interaction (Drew and Heritage, 1992), the goal of the research is to show how the participants accomplish institutional tasks through the sequential patterns of an institutional encounter. In the context of our study, this means focusing on the institutional task of goal setting, which the participants accomplish through the sequential, turn-by-turn patterns in PAIs as institutional encounters. We follow conversation analytical methodology also in that we analyze sequential patterns to uncover the competences through which participants of the interaction display and construct their understanding of what is going on (Heritage, 1984). In our analysis we first identified all the goal setting sequences and then conducted a detailed analysis of the interactional patterns for goal setting2. We gave specific attention to the multimodality of interaction. In line with Goodwin (2007) we hold the view that social action is constructed not only through talk, but also through other sign systems such as gestures, the bodies of the interactants and through utilizing aspects of the physical environment. In addition to transcribed strips of interaction, we present also pictures from the video-recordings. Although the gaze and facial expressions play an important role in the interaction, we had to – for the sake of our agreement of not revealing their identity – blur the faces of the conversationalists in the pictures. 4. Empirical analysis 4.1. Conversational practices for setting goals In this paper, our purpose is to investigate the role of writing practices in the setting of common goals in appraisal interviews. As, in our data, writing practices are connected to particular kinds of verbal practices, we will first give a brief overview of the kinds of verbal practices that are used in connection with goal setting. More specifically, there are three kinds of interactional patterns for the setting of goals. First, the superior may propose a goal for the subordinate. Earlier studies show that proposals are an important part of decision-making in workplace contexts (Lehtinen and Pälli, 2011; Asmub and Oshima, 2012; Stevanovic, 2012). The proposal is a first pair part of an adjacency pair that calls for an approval or a rejection from the co-participant (Maynard, 1984; Houtkoop, 1987). Approval involves displaying access to, agreement with and commitment to the proposed action. Furthermore, rejection is a dispreferred action that requires an account from the recipient (Stevanovic, 2012). Thus, the subordinate’s participation is quite restricted in the case of a superior’s suggestion. Secondly, goal setting may be performed through a question–answer format. In these cases the superior asks a question in which he inquires about the subordinate’s own thoughts about her goals. This format gives the subordinate a very different space to participate in goal setting. It is now the subordinate, not the superior, who makes suggestions about goals. As Boden (1994) has noted, questions and answers in organizational meetings are driven by organizational issues and agendas. Therefore, the subordinate needs to produce an organizationally relevant answer. And the superior has the right for a third turn, a comment in which he may evaluate the viability of the subordinate’s suggestions. Also, the question itself may include presuppositions that direct the subordinate’s suggestions. Thirdly, at the end of a goal setting sequence the superior usually summarizes the previous discussion. The summary usually concerns both the evaluation and the goal setting part of that discussion. In the following, we will give examples of the different kinds of interactional goal setting patterns and, in particular, show what kind of role writing practices play in them.

2 In our data, goal setting is partly enmeshed with evaluation. This can be seen, for example, in extract 4. In our analysis, however, we concentrated on the goal setting.

96

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–108

4.2. Writing as part of proposals and approvals First, we will give two examples of the superior’s proposals for a goal. In both examples writing has an important role. However, they are different in that in extract 1 the approval of the proposal is treated as more or less taken for granted, while in extract 2 the proposal is treated as more negotiable. As we will show, the writing practices differ accordingly. Before extract 1 the participants have discussed the co-operation of the kindergarten with the local school. On line 1, the subordinate closes this discussion with a statement that looks into the future: “we’ll see how it goes in the future”. From line 4 on, the superior changes the topic and makes a proposal about a goal for the future. In the transcripts, the superior is marked with A and the subordinate with B. The original Finnish is on one line and the English translation below it. Above the line there are, in some cases, descriptions of non-verbal action, particularly those that have to do with writing practices.

The topic of the superior’s suggestion (lines 4–8) concerns integrating two “group day cares”3 administratively under the leadership of the subordinate. The group day cares have been referred to earlier in the discussion, but they have not been talked about in detail. Even here, the talk about them is quite truncated. The superior ends his suggestion with the indexical expression siihen ‘there’ (line 8). And, he does not explain what the group day cares should be integrated into. Thus, the participants treat the issue as given information which does not require further explanation.

3 In the Finnish day care system, there are basically two forms of day care. First, there is the more institutional kindergarten, and then there is so-called “family day care” in which the carer has children in her or his home. The “group day care” is a kind of a middle system, in which two or three “family day carers” are united into one unit. In the city in question, some of the group day cares are now administratively brought under the supervision of kindergarten leaders.

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–108

97

Grammatically, the superior’s expression begins with a jos ’what if’ (line 4). This is clearly a marker of a tentatively presented suggestion that calls for an acceptance or a rejection from the co-participant. Stevanovic (2013) calls this kind of a proposal a ‘declarative conditional’. However, if we look at the verbal response of the subordinate, she only produces an ‘mm’ (line 6). This response particle is usually a very weak acknowledgment token (see Gardner, 1997) that does not signal any kind of agreement. Thus, from the point of view of verbal action, the suggestion is responded to in an ambivalent way. If we look at the writing practices of the participants, the picture changes considerably. Already before the suggestion, during the closing of the previous topic (line 1), the superior picks up his pen and moves it in writing position. He reaches writing position at the beginning of the suggestion and writes during the suggestion (see Fig. 1; the superior is on the left in the figures, the subordinates on the right). Thus, at the same time that he is making the suggestion, he is already observably recording it on the document. The practice of writing makes the action much stronger. The suggestion is not, after all, tentative. Rather, the superior treats his suggestion as self-evidently shareable. We can also look at the non-verbal action of the subordinate. At the end of the suggestion, during the word yhdistetty ‘united’ (line 5), she starts writing as well. This happens before the verbal response on line 6. After the response particle (line 7) there is a long pause, during which both of the participants write (see Fig. 2). The writing turns out to be a more important sign of accepting the suggestion than the verbal response (cf. Asmub and Oshima, 2012).

Fig. 1. 04 A: no jos tähän nyt laittaa näin et et – well what if we put here like this.

Fig. 2. 07 (12.0).

98

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–108

We can conclude from this example that the goals are made common for a large part through the writing practices. Through writing together the participants display to each other that they commit themselves to the goals. It is noteworthy that this kind of a sequence of actions is heavily guided by the superior. Since the superior is already writing during the suggestion, it would be very difficult for the subordinate to resist the suggestion. In this case as in other cases where this interactional strategy is used, the goal seems to be connected to something that has been already decided beforehand and known to both participants. As we showed earlier, both of the participants seem to orient to the issue being known. In extract 2 there is a different kind of proposal from the superior. It is clearly more tentative than the one in extract 1. Extract 2 is part of the discussion on the subordinate’s “capability to develop”. This section usually comprises of talk about possible courses and other kinds of training the subordinate would be interested in attending. This is the case here as well.

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–108

99

On lines 1–2 the superior produces a turn that can be understood as a proposal for a potential goal. It is, however, in the form of a candidate understanding of the subordinate’s thoughts. The superior suggests that the subordinate is “interested” in a particular kind of training. The suggestion is clearly based on some earlier discussion between the superior and the subordinate. This can be seen in the word edelleen ‘still’ (line 1).

100

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–108

This kind of a formulation projects a confirmation or a disconfirmation from the respondent (cf. Heritage and Watson, 1979). The subordinate provides a confirmation on line 7. However, the confirmation does not yet mean that the proposal is accepted, it is only a confirmation of the subordinate’s interest in the matter. After the confirmation, the subordinate asserts her commitment to attending the training at some point (line 8) and accounts for not doing it right away (lines 8–15). Thus she also shows that she has interpreted the subordinates turn on lines 1–2 not only as a candidate understanding of her interest, but also as a proposal for a goal. Then the participants launch into a negotiation about the usefulness of the training (lines 16–36). At the end they seem to reach a joint understanding that the training is indeed useful for the subordinate. All in all, the proposal in extract 2 is presented as much more negotiable that the one in extract 1. Furthermore, this negotiability is also reflected in and partly constituted through the writing practices. In this case, the superior does not write during his proposal on lines 1–2. He begins to move his pen towards writing position after the proposal (line 6). The pen reaches writing position during the subordinate’s display of commitment (line 8), but even then he does not begin writing (Fig. 3). Thus, through his actions, he displays that there is an expectation that something will be written. It is only after a joint

Fig. 3. 08 B: se on ihan mulla ajatuksis käyä mut – I am planning to do it but.

Fig. 4. 37 (3.0).

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–108

101

understanding of the usefulness of the training has been reached that he actually begins writing (Fig. 4). In this case, the subordinate does not write.

4.3. Writing as part of questions and answers The second strategy the superior has for goal setting is to ask the subordinate for her suggestions. Extract 3 is a case of this strategy. The participants are talking about the “professional competence” part of the appraisal form. In the beginning of the extract the superior produces evaluations of the subordinate’s performance (lines 1–4). On lines 4–7 he turns to goals. He asks the subordinate whether she has thought about any goals for the kindergarten she leads.

102

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–108

On lines 9–52 the subordinate gives a long answer to the superior’s question (part of the answer is not shown). She begins it with an explicit reference to the goals: “The goals are.”. Also, she mentions that the goals originate in the strategy of the city (lines 10–11). Through such a beginning she projects that she is going to launch into a carefully thought-out list of goals. And indeed, the answer turns out to be quite structured. First, she gives two general goals: “prevention of social exclusion” and “different needs of the children” (lines 11–13). Then she goes into how these goals will be attained (lines 14–19). This is also done in a list-like fashion. Then she names two concrete methods: “emotional skills program” and “interaction games” (lines 22–23). After that she produces an eli ‘in other words’ (line 23) and sums up her answer. In the end of her turn (not shown), she adds a further aspect, “including the parents” and names a method through which that is attained: “this kind of peer support group”. Thus, in her answer the subordinate names both the goals and the methods through which they can be attained. For our purposes, it is extremely interesting to look at what the superior does during the answer. Verbally, he only produces a few acknowledgment tokens (e.g. line 27), placing himself as a listener of the subordinate’s long answer. It is more important what happens nonverbally – the superior writes during the answer. He writes twice during the answer, but we will

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–108

103

concentrate on the first stretch of writing. He begins to write in the beginning of the answer (line 10) and moves out of writing position on line 25. The section during which he writes includes the subordinate’s listing of the goals and methods for attaining them (see Fig. 5). He stops when the subordinate launches into a summary in which she more or less repeats her main points. Thus, we can say that through his writing the superior legitimates the subordinate’s list of goals and methods. He shows that they are worth writing down and as such, acceptable as agreed goals. A problem with the writing as legitimation is that it may not be totally clear to the subordinate what it is exactly that the superior writes on his copy of the appraisal form. She can monitor when the writing happens, but it is clear that the superior does not have time to write everything down. This inaccuracy can be partly remedied through the third turn of the sequence, i.e. the superior’s comment on the subordinate’s answer. In extract 2, the comment begins on line 53. Interestingly, in his comment the superior picks up a concept from the subordinate’s answer, “emotional skills”, and elaborates on it. Here he shows that at least this part of the subordinate’s answer is relevant. Moreover, when he utters tunnetaidot ‘emotional skills’, he points at the document with his pen (see Fig. 6). Thus, he shows that “emotional skills” is a concept that he has written down during the answer.

Fig. 5. 22–23 B: tunnetaito-ohjelma otetaan käyttöön – we will launch an emotional skills program.

Fig. 6. 53 A: nuo tunnetaidot sitä mä oon – those emotional skills that I have been.

104

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–108

In conclusion, the question–answer–comment sequence gives the subordinate more room to influence the achievement of agreed goals. She can present her view of the goals in her own words. In this sequence, the superior’s role is to legitimate the suggestions of the subordinate. Once again, we could see that writing practices play a crucial role. It is through writing that the superior shows which part of the subordinate’s answer he considers part of the agreed goals. In the comment the superior can verbally explain his interpretation of (some of) the important parts of the answer, but even during the comment the superior displays his orientation for the written record as a vantage point for discussing the agreed goals.

4.4. Summarizing and the practice of writing In this final empirical section, we will look at how the superior summarizes the results of the preceding discussion. The importance and even the normativity of writing becomes especially clear in this part of the sequence. In the analysis of the following example (extract 4) we will concentrate on two recurring aspects of summarizing: how the superior initiates the summary through explicitly stating the importance of writing, and how the summary itself is constructed with regard to writing. First, we will show how the practice of writing is explicitly referred to. It can be noted that in extract 1 both of the participants were engaged in writing on the appraisal form. In 2 and 3 it was only the superior who did the writing. This is representative of the whole data. Sometimes both of them write, but much of the time only the superior writes. What is interesting is that the superior displays that joint writing is important for him. In the context of summarizing he recurrently admonishes the subordinate to write as well. Extract 4 is a case in point. Before the extract the participants have covered both the “professional competence” and “productivity” parts of the appraisal form. The superior has been writing from time to time, the subordinate has not.

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–108

105

On lines 1–2 the superior explicitly asks the subordinate to write as well. Also, when he utters the word kirjotella ‘write, scribble’, he points his finger towards the document in front of the subordinate (see Fig. 7). Through the gesture he shows where the writing should be done. There are, however, also some softeners in this directive. First, the superior uses the verb voit ‘can’ and thus presents the writing task as voluntary. Secondly, he uses the Finnish verb ‘kirjotella’, which includes an affix that denotes a habitual, sporadic nature of the action in question. The meaning of ‘kirjotella’ is thus close to ‘scribble’. These softeners work as markers of the delicacy of the directive. Thus, the superior both orients to the normativity of joint writing and to the delicacy of having to remind the subordinate about it. The subordinate responds both verbally and nonverbally. Verbally, she both produces an acknowledgment token (line 3) and an explicit agreement (Iine 4). Nonverbally, she reaches for her pen (see Fig. 8) and takes it into her hand. Thus, she makes herself observably ready for writing. At this point the superior launches into a summary (lines 6–12). The summary is tightly connected to the document and to writing. First, the superior specifies the “item” and page on the document (lines 6–7). Then he produces a list of writables (lines 7–12). As we mentioned earlier, the superior is doing both evaluation and goal setting. Most of the writables are evaluations, but the last one (lines 11–12) is clearly presented as a goal.

Fig. 7. 01 A: mut näistä sä voit tota (.) kirjotella itte kans – but these you can uhm (.) write yourself also.

Fig. 8. 04 B: se ois hyvä. – that would be good.

106

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–108

Fig. 9. 08 A: ja (.) talous ookoo ja toimintamalli – and (.) finances ok and the operations model.

The superior utters short title-like phrases and sentences: “good evaluations”, “finances ok”, “operations model has been ok” etc. They are separated by connectives like ja ‘and’ and sit ‘then’ and pronouns like tää ‘this’ and toi ‘that’. These phrases and sentences are clearly hearable as something that can be written down in the same exact form that they are uttered. It can also be seen on the video that the superior points at his document with his pen when he utters them and that the subordinate actually writes all through lines 7–12 (see Fig. 9). What is noteworthy in the example is how it epitomizes the norm of joint writing. Not only is it treated as normative that both of the participants do the writing, it is the norm that they write down exactly the same thing. This kind of a norm is powerful in that it stresses the importance of the jointness of the goals. Thus, writing practices are extremely crucial in the accomplishment of common goals. It could even be said that common goals are constituted through writing practices. Their jointness is not only verbalized, it is also embodied.

5. Conclusions While performance appraisal interviews have been widely studied during the past 50 years, the study of real-time interaction between superior and subordinate in the interviews has been limited. Yet, some rare analyses of these interactions (e.g. Adams, 1981; Asmub, 2008; Clifton, 2012; Gioia et al., 1989) have given reason to emphasize the role that the patterns of interaction play in the conduct of the interview. This paper adds to the previous analyses of talk in interaction in PAIs in that we have shown that written documentation and especially the use of writing in talk are important in terms of the outcome of one crucial function of the interview, namely, getting an agreement of the goals for future. It is through writing practices that the jointness of the goals is accomplished. Our empirical analysis showed that writing practices have a systematic relation to the different interactional patterns of goal setting. When goal setting is done through the superior’s proposal and the subordinate’s acceptance, the timing of the writing is contingent on and constitutive of the nature of the proposal. The proposal itself may be accompanied with writing to show that the suggestion is already treated as common to the participants. However, the negotiability of the proposal can be displayed through delaying the writing. In the case of the question–answer pattern writing is used to legitimate parts of the subordinate’s answer as commonly agreed goals. In the summary format the items of the summary are presented as such that they can and should be written down. Writing is oriented to as a normative joint activity. While the superior’s right and responsibility for goal setting is highlighted in the summary format, both the proposal-acceptance and the question-answer format reflect the institutional norms attached to the roles of superior and subordinate. Most importantly, the use of writing underpins the power of the superior and restricts the participation of the subordinate in both formats. In the proposalacceptance format, it clearly makes it very difficult for the subordinate to, for example, reject the proposal or even to discuss it. In the question-answer format, in turn, writing serves as a tool for performing two core discursive functions: legitimating and showing acceptance. All of these practices underline the privileged role of the superior in deciding which goals will be written down as those that are officially agreed on.

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–108

107

In addition to the role of writing in goal setting, our study furthers knowledge of the dialectic between text and talk in organizational settings and in terms of organizational purposes. While this dialectic has been acknowledged as having a pivotal role in situated sense making and in organizational life in general (Weick, 1995; Taylor and van Every, 2000; Robichaud et al., 2004), the interactional patterns through which texts are produced have drawn little attention among the scholars of organizational communication. Thus, we believe that our careful analysis of talk-in-interaction serves as a novel example of how to investigate the text-talk-dialectic in terms of conversational interaction. In particular, our analysis, firstly, points toward the importance of looking at the careful synchronization and timing of talk and textual activities. Secondly, it is crucial to investigate the roles of different organizational actors in collaborative production of texts. Thirdly, and more generally, our analysis highlights the interconnection of situated interactional practices and wider organizational purposes such as goal setting and appraisal. Our analysis of goal setting sequences as interactional accomplishments also contributes to the research that has concerned with the productivity of dialogue in organizations (e.g. Isaacs, 1999; Tsoukas, 2009). In a way writing practices are efficient in dialogue. Writing can be done at the same time as talking, and it is still a powerful way of showing mutual agreement. On the other hand, our analysis suggests that writing may also impede dialogue in that it may be used to convey an idea of a goal being already agreed on before it is actually discussed. Thus, writing is a powerful strategy. We believe that this finding is particularly important in research of PAI efficacy. Future studies in this area could benefit from, for example, comparing different writing practices in regards to factors such as for instance the perceived PAI satisfaction. It should be stressed, however, that it is not only that these textual practices would be utilized strategically by individual interlocutors, especially the manager. Rather, they facilitate the conduct of the interview. On the basis of our analysis we can say that PAI is a truly discursive practice, guided and framed by both reading texts and writing things down. Common goals for future development are agreed on by writing, and written documentation is an end result and achievement of superiorsubordinate interaction.

Appendix. The interview form. (English translation from Finnish original).

108

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–108

References Adams, K.L., 1981. Question/answer adjacency pairs in a performance appraisal interview. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 9, 72–84. Ashcraft, K.L., Kuhn, T.R., Cooren, F., 2009. Constitutional amendments: ‘Materializing’ organizational communication. In: Walsh, J.P., Brief, A.P. (Eds.), The Academy of Management Annals 3. Routledge, London, pp. 1–64. Asmuß, B., 2008. Performance appraisal interviews: preference organization in assessment sequences. J. Bus. Commun. 45, 408–429. Asmuß, B., Oshima, S., 2012. Negotiation of entitlement in proposal sequences. Discourse Stud. 14, 67–86. Boden, D., 1994. The Business of Talk: Organizations in Action. Polity Press, Cambridge. Boswell, W.R., Boudreau, J.W., 2002. Separating the developmental and evaluative performance appraisal uses. J. Bus. Psychol. 16, 391–412. Caruth, D., Humphreys, J., 2008. Performance appraisal: essential characteristics for strategic control. Meas. Bus. Excell. 12 (3), 24–32. Cawley, B.D., Keeping, L.M., Levy, P.E., 1998. Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: a meta-analytic review of field investigations. J. Appl. Psychol. 83, 615–633. Clifton, J., 2012. Conversation analysis in dialogue with stocks of interactional knowledge: facework and appraisal interviews. J. Bus. Commun. 49, 283–311. Cooren, F., Kuhn, T., Cornelissen, J., Clark, T., 2011. Communication, organizing and organization: an overview and introduction to the special issue. Organ. Stud. 32, 1149–1170. Drew, P., Heritage, J., 1992. Analyzing talk at work: an introduction. In: Drew, P., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3–65. Erdogan, B., 2002. Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in performance appraisals. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 12, 555–578. Fairclough, N., 2006. Language and Globalization. Routledge, London. Fletcher, C., 2001. Performance appraisal and management: the developing research agenda. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 74, 473–487. Gardner, R., 1997. The conversation object mm: a weak and variable acknowledging token. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 30, 131–156. Gioia, D., Donnellon, A., Sims, H., 1989. Communication and cognition in appraisal: a tale of two paradigms. Organ. Stud. 10, 503–530. Goodwin, C., 2007. Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse Soc. 18, 53–73. Gordon, M., Steward, L., 2009. Conversing about performance: discursive resources for the appraisal interview. Manag. Commun. Q. 22, 473–501. Grote, D., 2000. The Secrets of Performance Appraisal. Best Practices from the Masters. Across the Board, May, pp. 14–20. Hammer, M., 2007. The 7 deadly sins of performance measurement. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 48, 19–28. Heritage, J.C., 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Polity Press, Cambridge. Heritage, J.C., Watson, D.R., 1979. Formulations as conversational objects. In: Psathas, G. (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. Irvington, New York, pp. 123–162. Hollenbeck, J.R., Klein, H.J., 1987. Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: problems, prospects, and proposals for future research. J. Appl. Psychol. 72, 212–220. Houtkoop, H., 1987. Establishing Agreement. An Analysis of Proposal–acceptance Sequences. Foris Publications, Dordrecht. Hutchby, I., Wooffitt, R., 1998. Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications. Polity Press, Cambridge. Ivancevich, J.M., 1982. Subordinates’ reactions to performance appraisal interviews: a test of feedback and goal-setting techniques. J. Appl. Psychol. 67, 581–587. Isaacs, W., 1999. Dialogue: And the Art of Thinking Together. Currency, New York. Jawahar, I.M., 2006. Correlates of satisfaction with performance appraisal feedback. J. Labor Res. 27, 213–236. Komter, M., 2006. From talk to text: the interactional construction of a police record. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 39, 201–228. Laird, A., Clampitt, P., 1985. Effective performance appraisal: viewpoints from managers. J. Bus. Commun. 22, 49–57. Lehtinen, E., Pälli, P., 2011. Conversational use of genres in managerial meetings. Scand. J. Manag. 27, 287–296. Losyk, B., 2002. How to conduct a performance appraisal. Public Manag. 84, 8–11. Mani, B.G., 2002. Performance appraisal systems, productivity, and motivation: a case study. Public. Pers. Manag. 31, 141–159. Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., 1999. The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: a field quasi-experiment. J. Appl. Psychol. 84, 123–136. Maynard, D.W., 1984. Inside Plea Bargaining: the Language of Negotiation. Plenum, New York. Meyer, H.H., Kay, E., French Jr., J.R.P., 1965. Split roles in performance appraisal. Harv. Bus. Rev. 43, 123–129. Meyer, H.H., 1991. A solution to the performance appraisal feedback enigma. Acad. Manag. Exec. 5, 68–76. Mondada, L., 2012. Video analysis and the temporality of inscriptions within social interaction: the case of architects at work. Qual. Res. 12, 304–333. Moore, R.J., Whalen, J., Cabell Hankinson Gathman, E., 2010. The work of the work order: document practice in face-to-face service encounters. In: Llewellyn, N., Hindmarch, J. (Eds.), Organisation, Interaction and Practice: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 172–197. Nathan, B., Mohrman, A., Millman, J., 1991. Interpersonal relations as a context for the effects of appraisal interviews on performance and satisfaction: a longitudinal study. Acad. Manage. J. 34, 352–369. Nevile, M., 2004. Intergrity in the airline cockpit: embodying claims about progress for the conduct of an approach briefing. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 37, 447–480. Pettijohn, C.E., Pettijohn, L.S., Amico, M., 2001. Characteristics of performance appraisals and their impact on sales force satisfaction. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 12, 127–146. Roberts, G.E., Reed, T., 1996. Performance appraisal participation, goal setting and feedback. Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 16, 29–60. Robichaud, D., Giroux, H., Taylor, J.R., 2004. The meta-conversation: the recursive property of language as the key to organizing. Acad. Manage. Rev. 29, 617–634. Sandlund, E., Olin-Scheller, C., Nyroos, L., Jakobsen, L., Nahnfeldt, C., 2011. The performance appraisal interview – an arena for the reinforcement of norms for employeeship. Nord. J. Work. Life Stud. 1, 59–75. Schegloff, E.A., Sacks, H., 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 7, 289–327. Stevanovic, M., 2012. Establishing joint decisions in a dyad. Discourse Stud. 14, 779–803. Stevanovic, M., 2013. Constructing a proposal as a thought: a way to manage problems in the initiation of joint decision making in Finnish workplace interaction. Pragmatics 23, 519–544. Taylor, J.R., van Every, E.J., 2000. The Emergent Organization: Communication as its Site and Surface. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Townley, B., 1993. Performance appraisal and the emergence of management. J. Manag. Stud. 30, 221–238. Tsoukas, H., 2009. A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations. Organ. Sci. 20, 941–957. Van der Molen, H., Kluytmans, F., 1997. The appraisal interview and the performance evaluation interview. In: Hargie, O. (Ed.), The Handbook of Communication Skills. Routledge, London, pp. 430–451. Weick, K.E., 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.