Examination of Performance Review Conflict
Examination of Performance Review Conflict
Performance review conflict can create serious problems in the public sector. In reviewing an employee’s performance, the supervisor considers self-reported performance assessment, his/her observations of an employee’s work, and feedback from other supervisors and peers who had the opportunity to oversee or observe the work of the employee. However, ratings for each criterion depends, in part, on the subjective interpretation of the supervisor. Rater bias and favoritism based on gender, race, age, physical appearance or attractiveness, personality, and personal relations or interests may influence supervisor ratings. Evaluation results become the basis of many important employment-related decisions and opportunities. Employees who perceive rater bias and favoritism in the performance reviews experience low morale and job dissatisfaction that manifest in negative attitudes and behaviors at work, low productivity, or even increased employee turnover. The discussion examines performance review conflict and recommendations for potentially preventing or resolving this problem.
Basis and Causes of Performance Review Conflict
Understanding the basis and causes of performance review conflict is the necessary first step in addressing the problem. A clearer understanding of the basis and causes of the conflict can come from analyzing the nature of the conflict, the needs and interests underlying the conflict, and the manner that the parties involved approach the conflict.
Conflict is inevitable in organizations because there will always be competing interests (Chappell, 2007). It is impossible to eliminate conflict in organizations, but effective management of conflict can mitigate the disruptive or destructive effects and transform the conflict into a productive situation (Mayer, 2012). The process of performance review as a source of conflict does not always receive ample attention. Complaints about rater bias, favoritism, and poor handling of the performance review results by a supervisor are not new issues in the public sector. Complaints by different employees about rater bias and favoritism in performance ratings conducted by a supervisor may recur over time. Perceived favoritism often extends to certain individual employees, specifically those hired by the supervisor, based on these employees receiving higher ratings and opportunities for promotion and other performance-based benefits. Most of these complaints do not go past grumbles among coworkers. Filing of formal complaints against a supervisor may lead to animosity and worst conditions for the complaining employee. Complainants may experience blatant to subtle forms of chastisement after the supervisor received notice of the complaint. Employees who lodged complaints remained in a position of disfavor from the supervisor or sought transfer to other departments or agencies. The head of the agency may downplay the complaints as isolated incidents or petty complaints from problem employees. The response of supervisors receiving complaints and the head of the agency indicate little regard for performance review as a source of conflict and non-recognition of the long-term adverse impact of the negative perception of the performance review process by employees. Regardless of whether the complaints are legitimate or whether the perception of favoritism and bias have factual basis, perceived bias, favoritism and poor handling of performance review results have adverse effects on morale and productivity in a department or the organization (Chappell, 2007).
Downplaying the performance review process as a potential source of conflict is a management shortfall (Chappell, 2007). To rectify this management issue, it is important to ensure the full appreciation of performance review as a source of conflict and gain a complete understanding of the performance review problem in a department or the organization.
Conflicts comprise of the dimensions of perception, feeling and action (Mayer, 2012). Perception of differing or conflicting needs, values and interests is one aspect of conflict. Emotions, such as fear, anger and sadness, also comprise an aspect of conflict. Actions, ranging from verbal comments to physical violence, are manifestations of conflict. The performance review process in the public sector can give rise to conflict as indicated by observations of the dimensions of conflict. A difference in the perception of employees and the supervisor over the fairness and objectivity of the supervisor in conducting performance evaluations is an indication of the perception dimension. Expressions of anger towards the supervisor from employees who perceived supervisor bias and favoritism in completing the performance evaluation indicate the feeling or emotion dimension. A supervisor expressing anger towards complaints of bias and favoritism coming from employees also reflects the feeling dimension. Frequent criticisms of the decisions and actions of the supervisor and grudging compliance with the directives of the supervisor by employees who perceive the performance evaluation to be biased and unfair show the action dimension. Action dimension, on the part of the supervisor, manifests in the classification of complaining employees as problem employees by the supervisor and the exclusion of these employees from important meetings or disregard of their feedback on projects. Existence of the perception, feeling and action dimensions indicate a performance review conflict in the organization.
Needs explain the emergence of conflict. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs explains individual motivation as driven by the quest to achieve biological or physiological needs, safety needs, belongingness, esteem, and self-actualization (Myers, 2010). Hindrances to the ability of individuals to meet these needs create conflict. In relation to the conflict on performance review in the public sector, perceived bias and favoritism hinder the ability of the affected employees to address their physiological needs by limiting their qualification for benefits, pay increases and promotions, reducing their job security, threatening their place in the department, reducing their sense of achievement, and impeding their personal growth. As such, the performance review conflict rests on the negative impact of the perceived biased and unfair performance review on all tiers of the hierarchy of needs of the affected employees.
Conflict also emerges from people’s competing or opposing interests. Interests can be short or long term, individual or group, conscious or unconscious, outcome-based or process-based, tangible or intangible, substantive or procedural, and psychological (Myers, 2010). Interests can also fall under task-based or relationship-based (Sonnentag, Unger, & Nagel, 2013). The interests that best explain the performance review conflict are substantive, procedural and psychological. Employees exhibit the interest of wanting a fair performance review, reliable performance review process, and due acknowledgement of individual performance. The conflict also expresses a combination of task-based and relationship-based interests. Complaints about the performance review protest the manner of completing the reviews and the perceived favoritism extended by the supervisor towards employees that he personally hired.
People explain conflict through attributions. Situational attribution explains conflict as resulting from a particular situation and dispositional attribution explains conflict as caused by the personality of the parties involved (Myers, 2010). Based on these concepts, the performance review conflict results from the supervisor being in the situation of having to justify his decision to hire individual employees through their high performance rating and the employees not hired by the supervisor experiencing pressure from competition for pay raises and promotion from employees hired by the supervisor. Moreover, the conflict also results from the disposition of the supervisor towards personal and professional success through the performance ratings of the people he hired as well as the disposition of employees not hired by the supervisor to be jealous and resentful toward the perceived bias and favoritism of the supervisor to their disadvantage.
Actors/Dynamics of the Performance Review Conflict
The next step in gaining a deeper and fuller understanding of the performance review conflict is by considering the actors involved and the dynamics of the conflict. Considering these aspects leads to a better understanding of the roles people play in the conflict and shifts in the conflict for the purpose contemplating prevention, mitigation and resolution.
The concepts of escalation and de-escalation explain shifts in the intensity of conflict. Escalation refers to the shift to or increase in aggressive or even violent actions by the one or all parties in conflict, while de-escalation means the reversal of the aggressive or violent stance of one or all parties in conflict (Myers, 2010). Performance review conflict does not always involve violence. However, escalation may occur in conversations and situations that have something to do with the performance review. Fairness and reliability of the performance review become an issue relative to opportunities for promotion, training seminars, assignment of leadership positions for projects, decision-making, and implementation of decisions and plans. Some employees who consider the performance review to be unfair and biased tend to argue with the supervisor over facts, ideas, decisions, plans and actions. Other employees grudgingly comply with the decisions of the supervisor. De-escalation may occur during situations that affect the entire department, such as reduction in budget or downsizing. In these instances, a common problem may have a unifying, albeit temporary, effect (Tjosvold & Tjosvold, 2015). Different factors also have potential impact on shifts in the intensity of performance review conflict.
People approach conflict differently. Some people try to avoid conflict, while other people willingly engage in conflict. Some people are also more rational and calm, while other people are more emotional and explosive toward conflict. People’s approach to conflict also influence the role they play in it, such as being an advocate, decision maker, conciliator, information provider, or observer (Mayer, 2012). Advocates tend to argue for a particular interest or outcome. Decision makers help in facilitating communication between conflicting parties. Conciliators focus on the emotional aspects of the conflict. Information providers offer ideas and recommendations to help decision makers. Observers watch and react to the conflict. Presence of people playing these roles often affect shifts in the conflict. Downplaying of the performance review process as a source of conflict unfortunately results to more advocates and observers and less decision makers, conciliators and information providers. Other supervisors and employees either advocate for the interest of their fellow supervisors or work peers or assume the position of observer in watching and reacting to developments in the conflict. Even a department head may assume an observer position in considering the conflict as a petty misunderstanding between the supervisor and his subordinates who lodged complaints about the alleged favoritism and bias during the performance review process. Lack of decision makers, conciliators and information providers makes the conflict potentially explosive.
According to the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, people can exhibit competitive, accommodating, avoiding, collaborative or compromising attitude towards conflict (Myers, 2010). A competitive attitude comes from a position of power or rank and manifests through firm support for one’s position and pursuit of interests even at the expense of other people. This is useful when immediate decisions are necessary, but this could also create animosity and resentment. An accommodating attitude reflects cooperation and consideration for other people’s needs. This is useful when achieving peace is more valuable than winning. An avoiding attitude manifests in denial, delegation of key decisions, and concerns over not offending anybody. Trivial conflicts may benefit from this attitude, but it is not always effective. A collaborative attitude involves the intent and effort to address the needs of the parties involved in the conflict based on the recognition of the importance of considering the concerns of conflicting parties. This attitude is useful in looking for the best and creative solution. A compromising attitude centers on the achievement of a middle-ground solution, especially when the conflicting parties are on an even position and time is a concern in resolving the conflict. The supervisor deemed by some employees to be biased and unfair tend to adopt a competitive attitude. This is not surprising since he holds a stronger position of power. The supervisor may insist on the fairness of the performance reviews by arguing that the higher ratings for the employees he hired were due to their performance and not favoritism. Employees who complained about bias and favoritism of the supervisor in conducting the performance review may exhibit different attitudes. Some employees may complain to their coworkers but avoid direct confrontation with the supervisor. Other employees may take a competitive stand by relying on collective power. Other employees may adopt a more compromising attitude by wanting change in the performance review process without needlessly antagonizing the supervisor and the co-employees hired by the supervisor. Differing attitudes of the conflicting parties again make the situation potentially explosive. Actions from any of the parties can escalate the conflict.
Power and culture are two factors that influence people’s approach to conflict and the escalation and de-escalation of conflict. Power within the context of conflict may refer to “the ability to get one’s needs met to further one’s goals” (Mayer, 2012, p. 50). All forms of conflict involve power (Chappell, 2007). Power can be structural or personal (Mayer, 2012). Structural power comes from situations, such as access to organizational resources or position of influence. Personal power comes from individual attributes, such as knowledge, tenacity or communication skills. Power in conflicts is fluid and it leads to productive or destructive ends. Power can influence collaboration or compromise to de-escalate conflict. It can also intensify competition to escalate conflict. The supervisor has structural power by holding a higher position, but the employees also exert power based on collective interest and persistence in opposing the perceived bias and favoritism of the supervisor. The supervisor and employees may also use their respective power to start a dialogue, as the first step in resolving the conflict. Culture comprises belief system and norms, affects perception, builds understanding, and influences behavior (Mayer, 2012). Culture can facilitate communication, ease strong emotions, and provide norms for resolving conflict (Sonnentag et al., 2013). Collectivism may motivate the conflicting parties to communicate in order to ensure the effectiveness of the department in completing tasks and justify the relevance of the department to the organization (Tjosvold & Tjosvold, 2015).
Procedural Recommendations on Addressing the Performance Review Conflict
Addressing the performance review problem before it escalates and in order to mitigate its adverse effects on individuals, the department and the organization appears to be the best course of action (Sonnentag et al., 2013). Using the six faces of conflict model (Mayer, 2010) shows that performance review conflict tends to be latent. The supervisor and employees hold strong differences of opinion about the fairness of the performance review conducted by the supervisor. The conflict can escalate when triggered by work situations that hinge on the performance evaluation.
The alternative dispute resolution continuum provides sound guidance on the possible steps in addressing the performance review conflict (Mayer, 2010). Before starting the first step, the parties may consider any best alternative to a negotiated agreement that may be available (Raines, 2013). If the best alternative is inferior to a negotiated agreement, then proceeding with negotiations is the rational move. Direct negotiation is the first step in the continuum (Mayer, 2010). Employees bring complaints to their supervisor. In doing so, the supervisor might clarify concerns and discuss ways of resolving the issues. In this step, effective communication through the framing and reframing of the issue might help (Mayer, 2009). While the performance review conflict pertains to the perceived bias and favoritism of the supervisor in conducting the performance review, bringing complaints of unfairness to the supervisor might help ease the conflict. The supervisor and employees may engage in effective dialogue by reframing the confrontation as an opportunity for the supervisor to respond to allegations of bias and favoritism and a chance for employees to express their issues with the performance review. If dialogue does not prosper and impasse occurs, the next steps in the continuum may be useful. An impasse does not automatically mean failure (Mayer, 2012). A stalemate may provide the parties with the time to cool down and rethink the conflict. An open door policy is the second step in the continuum (Mayer, 2010). This step involves the option of employees with complaints to approach any manager in the organization to request for assistance. Training of managers in listening to complaints and reframing the issue is useful. If this does not clarify the problem or fail to result to dialogue and negotiations, mediation is the third step in the continuum (Mayer, 2010). A mediator acts as a bridge by motivating the conflicting parties to exert effort in expressing their respective perspectives of the conflict, explore the ways of resolving the conflict, and consider the rebuilding of the continuing work relationship. Mediation has its limitations. Prevention of conflict is not the priority, there is no guarantee of success, and one party may refuse to submit to mediation. The supervisor and complaining employees may not agree on the mediator. The fourth step in the continuum is case evaluation (Mayer, 2010). This tool allows parties to a conflict to receive more information before making a decision to accept a compromise or a settlement offer. Information comes from a neutral expert. A representative of the HR department or a neutral party from outside the organization may serve as neutral expert. Expert information may convince employees that their perceived bias and favoritism of the supervisor may be unfounded and the complaints reflect a different problem. It could also indicate areas for improvement in the performance review process in order to remove perceptions of unfairness. Apart from consulting a neutral expert, the fifth step in the continuum is peer review (Mayer, 2010). This step is useful in addressing internal disputes in the work setting. Employees decide on the allegations of bias and favoritism in the performance review conflict. There is no guarantee of success, especially since the conflict is a divisive issue. Complaining employees are concerned about bias in the performance review conducted by the supervisor in favor of employees that he hired. If all fails and the conflict escalates, the parties may submit to arbitration (Mayer, 2010). A neutral third party acting as a judge will hear the arguments of the parties and issue a decision. The process concludes a conflict when the parties recognize the decision to be binding (Raines, 2013). Moreover, the parties may also consider combining these steps with different conflict resolution approaches and techniques depending on the combination that appear relevant to the particular context of the conflict.
Conclusion
Examination of performance review conflict in the public sector showed that performance review can give rise to serious conflict and it is important to understand the nature of this conflict, its basis and causes, approaches of people to the conflict, factors influencing its intensity, and potential solutions to the conflict. Concepts, models, tools and techniques are useful in providing a full understanding of the conflict and practical pathways to its resolution.
References
Chappell, J. L. (2007). Conflict administration for the public sector. Indiana Journal of Political Science, Winter, 33-40. Retrieved from http://www.indianapsa.org/2007/2007article4.pdf
Mayer, B. (2009). Staying with conflict: A strategic approach to ongoing disputes. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mayer, B. (2010). The dynamics of conflict resolution: A practitioner’s guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mayer, B. (2012). The dynamics of conflict: A guide to engagement and intervention (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Myers, D. G. (2010). Social psychology (10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Raines, S. (2013). Conflict management for managers: Resolving workplace, client, and policy disputes. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sonnentag, S., Unger, D., & Nagel, I. J. (2013). Workplace conflict and employee wellbeing: The moderating role of detachment from work during off-job time. International Journal of Conflict Management, 24, 166-183. doi:10.1108/10444061311316780
Tjosvold, D., & Tjosvold, M. (2015). Building the team organization: How to open minds, resolve conflict, and ensure cooperation. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
