Using a blend of quantitative interaction coding, qualitative open-axial coding, and survey methodology in a field study design, our study generated several findings. In focusing on the functionality of different communicative behaviors, our multimethod approach highlighted emergent leader–follower interaction patterns while accounting for the temporal nature of the communication data. In line with our predictions, lag sequential findings revealed the role of relation-oriented supervisor communication for initiating active employee involvement in the interview process. Active employee contributions, in turn, were linked to (even more) relation-oriented communication by supervisors. Task-oriented supervisor statements, on the other hand, led to passive employee agreement. Moreover, perceptions of the interview were not related to isolated counts of supervisor or employee behavior, but rather to patterns of interaction, in terms of sequences of relation-oriented supervisor behavior followed by active employee contributions. Specifically, both supervisors and employees perceived interviews as more successful when they contained more patterns of relation-orientation and subsequent active employee contributions.
Our qualitative analysis further revealed that employee disagreement— even though infrequent—was meaningfully related to perceptions of supervisor support. Findings suggest that the way employee disagreement was enacted is more important in shaping supervisor responses than the actual content of the disagreement.
Our study provides several key implications for research on appraisal interviews as well as leadership theory more broadly. First, we followed an organizational discourse approach (Fairhurst & Connaughton, 2014; Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012; Ruben & Gigliotti, 2016) and focused on the central role of communication within the ongoing interview process (Gordon & Miller, 2014; Gordon & Stewart, 2009). Whereas past leadership studies frequently overlooked behavioral contingencies involved in the leadership process (cf. DeRue, 2011), our findings on the communication dynamics between supervisors and employees underscore the value of considering leadership—and followership—at the behavioral event level (Hoffman & Lord, 2013). Moreover, our fine-grained interaction coding approach and lag sequential analysis revealed emergent interaction patterns both from supervisors to employees and vice versa. In other words, the communication dynamics during appraisal interviews are shaped by employee statements as well. These quantitative findings were substantiated by qualitative insights into specific employee disagreement episodes, which further emphasize the active role of followers in shaping the interview process. As such, our findings show that leadership is not a “one-way street,” where social influence is exerted by leaders and affects followers, but rather a mutual influence process. This finding aligns with previous theorizing on the key role of followers in the leadership process (e.g., Uhl-Bien et al., 2014).
Second, our findings highlight the functionality of supervisors’ communicative behaviors along the task-oriented and relation-oriented dimensions of leadership behavior (Fleishman, 1953; Fleishman & Harris, 1998; Yukl et al., 2002). Lag sequential analysis showed differential effects on employee responses within the interview process, in terms of their active participation versus passive recipient role. Specifically, relation-oriented supervisor statements triggered subsequent active employee contribution statements. Thus, relation-oriented supervisor statements appear to be essential for involving employees in the discussion. Past research showed that employee involvement during appraisal interviews is essential to interview success (Cawley et al., 1998; Pichler, 2012) as it increases employees’ sense of ownership (Roberts, 2002). Task-oriented supervisor statements, on the other hand, elicited passive employee agreement. Supervisors’ knowledge management statements (i.e., task-oriented supervisor statements) were an exception in this regard, as they also initiated active employee contributions. One explanation for this finding might be that supervisors’ knowledge management communication comprises specific questions about knowledge (e.g., “What quality measures do we use?”). As such, these statements constitute a direct supervisor request (cf. Gioia & Sims, 1986).
Third, our results align with and extend previous work showing that successful leaders engage in both task- and relation-oriented behaviors (e.g., Fleishman & Harris, 1998). In particular, our findings showcase how supervisors alternate between task- and relation-oriented statements at the behavioral event level in a very flexible manner. Rather than favoring one particular leadership style, the supervisors in our sample used both task- and relation-oriented behaviors during the interview process, depending on the conversational context of the interview and on the behavioral contingencies created by the employee statements. Such a flexible approach to task- and relation-oriented leader behavior corresponds to past descriptive research showing that complementary leader behaviors “are woven together into a complex tapestry such that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts” (Yukl, 2010, p. 129; see also Kaplan, 1988).
Fourth, we linked the verbal patterns of supervisors’ relation-orientation and subsequent employee contributions to both supervisor and employee perceptions of the interview. In doing so, we followed calls by Levy and Williams (2004) to apply a dual perspective to understand how both interview partners experience the appraisal interview. Supervisors and employees perceived the appraisal interview as more successful when it contained more relation-activation patterns. However, this effect was more pronounced for supervisors than for employees. In addition, supervisors’ and employees’ perceptions of interview success were not meaningfully related in all dyads. The matching between both interview partners was higher when employees experienced the interviews as more successful. Thus, employees who reported low interview success represent a potential critical subgroup because their views differ from those of their supervisors who reported higher interview success. This finding indicates that both interview partners have their own frame of reference when it comes to evaluating what a successful interview looks like. Supervisors’ familiarity with the appraisal interview might play a role here (cf. Hedge & Teachout, 2000). In the current study, each supervisor was responsible for around 27 employees. Thus, they could compare their perceptions of interview success across a larger number of interviews, which likely helped them base their perceptions of interview success on the actual interview. In line with this idea, previous research suggests that supervisors are less interested in the interpersonal issues surrounding appraisal interviews in comparison to employees (Reinke, 2003). Another explanation could be that employees feel more pressured during the interview because they are the target of the performance rating. Because they are emotionally involved, employees’ perceptions of the interview may be affected by perceived relationship quality in addition to their active involvement during the interview process (Skinner & Searle, 2011).
Furthermore, our qualitative findings build on and extend previous research (e.g., Angouri, 2012; Angouri & Locher, 2012; Sifianou, 2012) by showing that disagreement is a complex, multilayered, and affect-laden phenomenon. Specifically, none of the identified disagreement episodes in our study were characterized by low arousal and low pleasure, but were rather pronounced in affective tone (cf. Angouri & Locher, 2012). However, whereas some disagreement episodes were characterized by a personal attack style and a rather aggressive undertone, other disagreement episodes were much more constructive in nature. Importantly, this affective tone, in contrast to the actual content of the disagreement, had an impact on supervisor reactions such that supervisors were more likely to enforce their own point of view after an employee expressed disagreement in a personal attack style, but not when disagreement was expressed as constructive criticism. As a potential explanation for this finding, employee disagreement could be experienced as face-threatening for supervisors because it undermines their opinion (Sifianou, 2012). Disagreements in a personal attack style might be especially pressuring in this regard, prompting supervisors to defend their own position in the communication. On the contrary, disagreement that is enacted in a constructive or playful manner might be more tolerable or acceptable for supervisors. This could also explain why employee disagreement per se was not related to ratings of interview success. As stated earlier, appraisal interviews should leave room for both interview partners to state their own opinions and views (Asmuß, 2013). Thus, expressing disagreement might be expected (cf. Angouri & Locher, 2012).
Finally, from a methodological point of view, we focused on the interaction process within authentic appraisal interviews and chose a level of granularity that allowed us to pinpoint the moment-tomoment dynamics of supervisor and employee behavior to explore emerging patterns of leader–follower interactions (see also Hoffman & Lord, 2013). It is important to note that although the patterns of supervisor–employee behaviors were related to subsequent perceptions of the interview, isolated counts of either supervisor or employee behaviors were not. There are two possible explanations for this finding. First, leadership influence during appraisal interviews is socially embedded, such that the positive effect of relation-oriented supervisor behavior unfolds in social interactions (cf. DeRue, 2011; Uhl-Bien, 2006; see also Lehmann- Willenbrock & Allen, 2014, for similar observations in the context of humor patterns). Simple counts of isolated supervisor behavior cannot represent this dynamic. Second, by focusing on emergent patterns of supervisor–employee interactions, we were able to consider the temporal progression of the interview (cf. Bluedorn & Jaussi, 2008; Shamir, 2011).
Our findings also point to a number of practical implications. First, our fine-grained approach to understanding the social dynamics during appraisal interviews yields actionable results for supervisors who wish to obtain feedback on their own behavioral conduct and effectiveness during interactions with their employees. From an intervention perspective, using audio or video feedback and providing such a quantitative analysis can sensitize supervisors for the functionality of specific behaviors, for the patterns of action and reaction that they engage in with their employees, and for ways to create more employee involvement and higher satisfaction.
Second, communication during appraisal interviews should not be a one-way street. As such, employees can also take charge and shape the interview process and outcome. In particular, it should not only be the supervisor’s responsibility to create active employee involvement in the interview. To increase their own active participation and leave the interview feeling more satisfied, employees should prepare well for the conversation. For example, they could reflect on their own expectations and future plans before entering the interview. Organizations can facilitate this by highlighting the roles and responsibilities of both conversational partners in information materials or guidelines and by focusing on teaching the importance of employee participation and involvement in their HR development efforts.
Third, even though employee disagreement is infrequent, it is meaningfully linked to perceptions of supervisor support. This means that supervisors should be mindful of employee disagreement, as well as their own responses to this behavior. For example, our findings suggest that supervisor responses to employee disagreement are likely more contingent on the ways employees disagree but less on the actual content of the disagreement. As such, trainings for leaders to conduct better performance appraisal interviews could incorporate a component aimed at increasing awareness for the importance and sensitivity of employee disagreement as well as their own responses to disagreement.
Finally, we observed that many supervisors in our samples were “slaves” to the interview guideline, as indicated by a substantial frequency of procedural supervisor statements (21.63% of all supervisor statements). This may be desirable from a quality management perspective because it implies that guidelines are strictly adhered to. However, when a supervisor is overly focused on reading out interview guidelines and rigidly sticks to the agenda, this can come at the cost of low employee participation. To avoid this and strike a better balance, human resource management may consider adapting interview guidelines in terms of a set of questions or predefined communication phases that encourage active employee participation (cf. Gordon & Stewart, 2009).
