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 appraisalinterviewsq

Pekka Pälli a,*, Esa Lehtinen b,1

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

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 29 October 2014

Keywords:Performance appraisal interviewsGoal settingConversation analysisWriting practiceSuperior–subordinate communication

q This work was supported by the Finnish Work* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ358 403538210.

E-mail addresses: pekka.palli@aalto.fi (P. Pälli), e1 Tel.: þ358 294498377.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2014.09.0020271-5309/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

This paper investigates goal setting in performance appraisal interviews. The data arevideo-recorded performance appraisal interviews from a Finnish public sector organiza-tion. The study focuses on the role of writing in deciding on common goals for futuredevelopment. Drawing from conversation analytical methods, the empirical analysishighlights 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 theyare 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 theseinteractional sequences. It is thus argued that goal setting is inextricably connected to thediscursive action of completing the appraisal form.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Performance appraisals (hence PAs) serve multiple purposes in organizations, among which the evaluation of perfor-mance, the setting of goals for work, and the agreeing on future development are some of the most important and mostwidely 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 littleknowledge of how these functions are interactionally accomplished by participants in real-time performance appraisaldiscussions. Put more generally, there has been an overall emphasis on reported experiences of PAs (e.g. interviews orquestionnaires) 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 simpleterms, 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 knowlittle about what happens between people in their situated face-to-face encounters. This is unfortunate, since the study ofinstitutional patterns of interaction can shed light on the questions of how people perform and achieve different functions ofPA interviews.

Environment Fund under Grant 111071, and the Academy of Finland under Grant 253350.

sa.lehtinen@uva.fi (E. Lehtinen).

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 PAinterviews (PAIs) in one Finnish public organization. Each interview lasts approximately one hour, and they all contain quiteexplicit ‘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 willshow that this effort of getting the goals into textual form greatly influences the interaction and the way that the discussantsjointly make sense of the future objectives. In particular, our study underpins the role of writing as physical action in theinterviews.

Applying conversation analysis, we examine the goals for future as interactional achievements of the superior and thesubordinate. By achievement we mean that the goals and joint understanding of them are something that the participantsattend to and construct in interaction and by means of interaction. In our empirical analysis, we will show how goals are setthrough conversational practices and practices of writing. Firstly, we will show how the activity of goal setting is initiatedwith three alternative conversational strategies: the superior proposes goals for the subordinate, asks for the subordinate’ssuggestions, or summarizes the preceding discussion. These strategies open up different possibilities for the subordinate toparticipate in the goal setting activity. Secondly, we will show how writing plays an important role in the goal setting se-quences. In particular, our analysis suggests that writing is a discursive device that has noticeable power effects. Overall, weargue that writing as action shapes the conduct of the goal setting sequence in appraisal interviews.

Our studymakes threemain contributions. First, it contributes to the research of PAs as organizational leadership practicesby adding a perspective of lived experience, as it analyses authentic video-recorded PA interviews, real-time interaction ofsuperior–subordinate dyads. Second, our investigation of talk-in-interaction participates in the discussion of the elements ofproductive dialogue (e.g. Isaacs, 1999; Tsoukas, 2009), as our empirical analysis contributes to the understanding of howachieving and agreeing on common goals can take a dialogical form and be a joint enterprise. In particular, wewill show howwriting as situated practice shapes and steers this dialogue. Third, as our analysis provides an example of how written textand talk-in-interaction affect each other, we participate in the discussion about the role of talk-text-dialectics in organiza-tional phenomena, which is of specific interest to scholars who apply insights from sensemaking and coordination theories toorganizational 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 researchregarding traditional perspectives on appraisal interviews and their significance as leadership and management tools. Thissection paves way for our contention that despite of the various approaches to PAIs, there is little research that views them asdiscursive practices of talk and text. We end the theoretical section by reviewing studies that have shown the importance oftext in social and professional practices in general as well as studies that have concentrated on the use of writing in insti-tutional encounters. Then the next two sections present our data, methods and empirical analysis. The paper ends with aconcluding 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 thetime 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 inmanagementcircles and in business literature. In their words, “one might almost say that everybody talks and writes about it” (p. 123). Insimilar vein, Nathan et al. (1991) mention that few topics in personnel research have received as much attention as per-formance appraisal. Despite the attention given to the topic, there has been and undoubtedly still is ongoing debate regardingwhat kinds of appraisal practices are effective and what is the usefulness of the interviews (Meyer, 1991). However, empiricalresearch has been able to demonstrate that effective appraisal practices lead to, for example, improved employee produc-tivity, job satisfaction, and commitment (Mayer and Davis, 1999; Pettijohn et al., 2001; Mani, 2002; Jawahar, 2006). The factstill remains that there has been surprisingly little research on what really happens between superiors and subordinateswithin the institutional encounters of interview situations, as most PAI studies have relied on data gotten from e.g. ques-tionnaires and retrospective interviews.

It is also noteworthy that normative and prescriptive approaches have dominated the research. In human resourcemanagement and business literature, this has meant providing information and guidelines on how to use appraisals effec-tively and also how to manage the appraisal process and how to conduct an interview (e.g. Grote, 2000; Losyk, 2002; Caruthand 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 howto conduct PAIs, but neglected the interactive character of the interview (Fletcher, 2001; Asmub, 2008; Clifton, 2012; Gordonand Steward, 2009).

Nevertheless, earlier research has brought forth the importance of superior-subordinate relationship with regard to theeffects of PAIs. In their study, Nathan et al. (1991) show that the interpersonal relationship between superior and subordinateis significant in that it affects the subordinate’s reactions to the appraisal process. Their findings also suggest the prominenceof the subordinate’s possibility to participate in the appraisal. Other studies have also drawn attention to the significance ofparticipation, 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

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–10894

justice perception of the appraisal is related to the interaction during the interviews andmore specifically to the interactionalstyle adopted by the superior (Erdogan, 2002), which again underscores the important role of in situ interaction in theinstitutional practice of performance appraisal.

Echoing these observations and findings, some researchers have paid attention towhat actually happens in the interviewsand how the institutional character of face-to-face interaction affects the conduct and the interview as a face-to-faceencounter. In an early conversation analytical study in this area, Adams (1981) investigated the question and answer se-quences in PAIs. Her study suggests that by demonstrating their understanding of the expectancy to ask and answer ques-tions, themanager as well as the employee accomplish their institutional roles and thus reconstruct the institutional norms ofthe face-to-face encounter. In amore recent study, Sandlund et al. (2011) show that the institutional norms that concern beingan ideal employee affect the behavior in PAIs as institutional encounters. Their study also indicates that the institutionalstructure of the interview situation has an effect on the possibilities of employees to raise critical topics related to their well-being at work. Also Asmub (2008) studied the “lived experience” of superior-subordinate dyads, and she concentrated oncritical feedback given in the interviews. Her study demonstrates that giving critical feedback is socially problematic, and thatthis specifically affects the way the employees deal with negative assessments. Clifton (2012) elaborates on this theme andshows 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 ofreading and writing. Clifton (2012) reproduces strips of interaction that show that documents and reading the documents isimportant in terms of what happens in interaction. Similarly, Adams’s (1981) analysis points toward the fact that texts such asgoal sheets and the practice of reading play a highly important role in the interaction. To date, however, no studies haveconcentrated on the question of how reading or writing is used in PAI interaction or how they facilitate the encounter. Still, ithas been demonstrated that texts are important for the practice of PAI in general. Townley’s (1993) analysis that was based onsuch documents as appraisal forms and notes of guidance is a case in point. Elaborating on the view that texts help toarticulate the asymmetry of power, she demonstrates the significance of written documentation in the PA practice: both priordocumentation as well as the (needed) subsequent documentation articulate and reconstruct specific managerial roles for theparticipants. Important for our purposes, Townley (1993) also notes how authoritative and directive texts of PAIs impose anecessity to end up with mutually agreed goals as results from the appraisal. In her words, “some schemes explicitly requirethe 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 ofintertextual chain in PAIs. He describes that what he calls ‘staff appraisal’ is constituted as a social practice through a chain ofactivities, some of which are written and some spoken interactions. In his illustrative example, texts preceding the face-to-face interview (such as employee’s CV or appraisal form) have an effect on the face-to-face interaction which in turn affectstexts-to-come (such as the appraiser’s evaluation). The point is that in order to understand the practice of PAI and whathappens in the individual stages of it, we need to take into account the way in which these linguistic interactions are linkedtogether.

More generally, there are studies from other professional settings that investigate the role of writing – or drawing – ininteraction, 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 ac-tivities 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’swishes into a form that can be understood by other employees later on. Secondly, these studies show how writing can becollaborative: 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 preciselysynchronized in relation to each other (e.g., Nevile, 2004). Thus, the timing of the writing with relation to talk is highlyimportant.

Building on these views, our study will specifically concentrate on how the coupling of text and talk is done by writingduring the interaction. The next section presents the data and method of our study, and it is followed by the empiricalanalysis.

3. Data and method

Our data are six authentic appraisal interviews from Early Learning Services in a Finnish city organization. The datawere video-recorded in autumn 2010 in a research project that concentrated on performance appraisal interviews asleadership tools. Each interview lasted approximately one hour. In this data set, there is the same superior in everyinterview. He is the manager of Early Learning Services, and he originally took interest in our study for the reason ofdeveloping his professional skills as a manager. The six subordinates that volunteered and gave permission to video-record the interview are either managers in their own units (such as kindergartens) or area managers (in charge ofmore than just their own unit or “house”, as they call the kindergartens). All video-recordings are fully transcribed byusing 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 ofthe appraisal form is in the Appendix.

Due to confidential information regarding the evaluation of subordinates’ performance, we were not given access to thecompleted interview forms. Consequently, we do not knowwhat the conversationalists actually wrote down in the forms, andneither can we say if or how the wordings in the superior’s and subordinates’ copies differed from each other. After theinterview, the superior and the subordinates verified the forms with their signatures, suggesting that both participantsaccepted the content.

The interview forms were used in the organization for two main purposes. First, they served as records of performanceevaluations and were in that way related to e.g. salary decisions. Second, the completed forms from last year or earlier yearswere used as the basis for succeeding interviews – for example to evaluate development and to check which of the previousyears’ objectives had been met.

The methodology of the article is based on conversation analysis (Heritage, 1984; Hutchby and Wooffitt, 1998), which is aspecific method for analyzing naturally occurring talk-in-interaction. In conversation analytical research face-to-face inter-action is seen as structurally organized. Contributions in interaction are analyzed in their sequential context, and turns of talkare seen as being shaped by the preceding context and simultaneously renewing that context for the next speaker. Aparticularly important concept is the adjacency pair (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973), i.e. a pair of utterances that are normativelytied to each other. An example of an adjacency pair is a question-answer format: If a question is asked, an answer isnormatively expected from the next speaker. In the conversation analytical study of institutional interaction (Drew andHeritage, 1992), the goal of the research is to show how the participants accomplish institutional tasks through thesequential patterns of an institutional encounter. In the context of our study, this means focusing on the institutional task ofgoal setting, which the participants accomplish through the sequential, turn-by-turn patterns in PAIs as institutional en-counters. We follow conversation analytical methodology also in that we analyze sequential patterns to uncover the com-petences 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 interactionalpatterns for goal setting2. We gave specific attention to themultimodality of interaction. In linewith Goodwin (2007) we holdthe view that social action is constructed not only through talk, but also through other sign systems such as gestures, thebodies of the interactants and through utilizing aspects of the physical environment. In addition to transcribed strips ofinteraction, we present also pictures from the video-recordings. Although the gaze and facial expressions play an importantrole in the interaction, we had to – for the sake of our agreement of not revealing their identity – blur the faces of theconversationalists 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 in-terviews. As, in our data, writing practices are connected to particular kinds of verbal practices, we will first give a briefoverview of the kinds of verbal practices that are used in connectionwith goal setting. More specifically, there are three kindsof 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 ofdecision-making in workplace contexts (Lehtinen and Pälli, 2011; Asmub and Oshima, 2012; Stevanovic, 2012). The proposalis 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, thesubordinate’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 inwhich he inquires about the subordinate’s own thoughts about her goals. This format gives the subordinate a very differentspace 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 thirdturn, a comment inwhich he may evaluate the viability of the subordinate’s suggestions. Also, the question itself may includepresuppositions that direct the subordinate’s suggestions.

Thirdly, at the end of a goal setting sequence the superior usually summarizes the previous discussion. The summaryusually concerns both the evaluation and the goal setting part of that discussion.

In the following, wewill give examples of the different kinds of interactional goal setting patterns and, in particular, showwhat 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 onthe goal setting.

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–10896

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, whilein 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, thesubordinate closes this discussionwith a statement that looks into the future: “we’ll see how it goes in the future”. From line 4on, 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 theEnglish translation below it. Above the line there are, in some cases, descriptions of non-verbal action, particularly those thathave to do with writing practices.

The topic of the superior’s suggestion (lines 4–8) concerns integrating two “group day cares”3 administratively under theleadership of the subordinate. The group day cares have been referred to earlier in the discussion, but they have not beentalked about in detail. Even here, the talk about them is quite truncated. The superior ends his suggestion with the indexicalexpression siihen ‘there’ (line 8). And, he does not explain what the group day cares should be integrated into. Thus, theparticipants 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 daycarers” are united into one unit. In the city in question, some of the group day cares are now administratively brought under the supervision of kindergartenleaders.

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 pre-sented suggestion that calls for an acceptance or a rejection from the co-participant. Stevanovic (2013) calls this kind of aproposal 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 veryweak acknowledgment token (see Gardner, 1997) that does not signal any kindof 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 reacheswriting position at the beginning of the suggestion and writes during the suggestion (see Fig. 1; the superior is on the left inthe figures, the subordinates on the right). Thus, at the same time that he is making the suggestion, he is already observablyrecording 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 (line7) there is a long pause, during which both of the participants write (see Fig. 2). The writing turns out to be a more importantsign 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).

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–10898

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 note-worthy that this kind of a sequence of actions is heavily guided by the superior. Since the superior is already writingduring the suggestion, it would be very difficult for the subordinate to resist the suggestion. In this case as in other caseswhere this interactional strategy is used, the goal seems to be connected to something that has been already decidedbeforehand and known to both participants. As we showed earlier, both of the participants seem to orient to the issuebeing 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 talkabout possible courses and other kinds of training the subordinate would be interested in attending. This is the case hereas 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 theform of a candidate understanding of the subordinate’s thoughts. The superior suggests that the subordinate is “interested” ina particular kind of training. The suggestion is clearly based on some earlier discussion between the superior and the sub-ordinate. This can be seen in the word edelleen ‘still’ (line 1).

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–108100

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 proposalis accepted, it is only a confirmation of the subordinate’s interest in the matter. After the confirmation, the subordinate assertsher commitment to attending the training at some point (line 8) and accounts for not doing it right away (lines 8–15). Thusshe also shows that she has interpreted the subordinates turn on lines 1–2 not only as a candidate understanding of herinterest, 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, thisnegotiability is also reflected in and partly constituted through the writing practices. In this case, the superior does not writeduring his proposal on lines 1–2. He begins to move his pen towards writing position after the proposal (line 6). The penreaches 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 bewritten. 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, thesubordinate 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 thisstrategy. The participants are talking about the “professional competence” part of the appraisal form. In the beginning of theextract the superior produces evaluations of the subordinate’s performance (lines 1–4). On lines 4–7 he turns to goals. He asksthe subordinate whether she has thought about any goals for the kindergarten she leads.

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–108102

On lines 9–52 the subordinate gives a long answer to the superior’s question (part of the answer is not shown). She begins itwith 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. Andindeed, 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 alsodone in a list-like fashion. Then she names two concrete methods: “emotional skills program” and “interaction games” (lines22–23). After that she produces an eli ‘in otherwords’ (line 23) and sums up her answer. In the end of her turn (not shown), sheadds a further aspect, “including the parents” and names a method through which that is attained: “this kind of peer supportgroup”. 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 pro-duces a few acknowledgment tokens (e.g. line 27), placing himself as a listener of the subordinate’s long answer. It is moreimportant what happens nonverbally – the superior writes during the answer. Hewrites twice during the answer, but wewill

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–108 103

concentrate on the first stretch of writing. He begins towrite in the beginning of the answer (line 10) andmoves out of writingposition on line 25. The section during which he writes includes the subordinate’s listing of the goals and methods forattaining them (see Fig. 5). He stops when the subordinate launches into a summary in which she more or less repeats hermain points. Thus, we can say that through his writing the superior legitimates the subordinate’s list of goals andmethods. Heshows 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 thesuperiorwrites on his copy of the appraisal form. She canmonitorwhen thewriting happens, but it is clear that the superior doesnot have time to write everything down. This inaccuracy can be partly remedied through the third turn of the sequence, i.e. thesuperior’s comment on the subordinate’s answer. In extract 2, the comment begins on line 53. Interestingly, in his comment thesuperior picks upa concept from the subordinate’s answer, “emotional skills”, and elaborates on it. Herehe shows that at least thispart of the subordinate’s answer is relevant. Moreover, when he utters tunnetaidot ‘emotional skills’, he points at the documentwith 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.

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–108104

In conclusion, the question–answer–comment sequence gives the subordinate more room to influence the achieve-ment of agreed goals. She can present her view of the goals in her own words. In this sequence, the superior’s role is tolegitimate the suggestions of the subordinate. Once again, we could see that writing practices play a crucial role. It isthrough writing that the superior shows which part of the subordinate’s answer he considers part of the agreed goals. Inthe comment the superior can verbally explain his interpretation of (some of) the important parts of the answer, but evenduring the comment the superior displays his orientation for the written record as a vantage point for discussing theagreed 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. Theimportance and even the normativity of writing becomes especially clear in this part of the sequence. In the analysis of thefollowing example (extract 4) we will concentrate on two recurring aspects of summarizing: how the superior initiates thesummary through explicitly stating the importance ofwriting, and how the summary itself is constructedwith regard towriting.

First, wewill showhow the practice ofwriting is explicitly referred to. It can be noted that in extract 1 both of the participantswere engaged inwritingon the appraisal form. In2 and3 itwasonly the superiorwhodid thewriting. This is representative of thewhole data. Sometimes both of themwrite, butmuch of the time only the superiorwrites.What is interesting is that the superiordisplays that jointwriting is important forhim. In the contextof summarizinghe recurrentlyadmonishes the subordinate towriteas 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 beenwriting 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 showswhere the writing should be done. There are, however, also some softeners in this directive. First, the superior uses the verbvoit ‘can’ and thus presents thewriting task as voluntary. Secondly, he uses the Finnish verb ‘kirjotella’, which includes an affixthat denotes a habitual, sporadic nature of the action in question. The meaning of ‘kirjotella’ is thus close to ‘scribble’. Thesesofteners work as markers of the delicacy of the directive. Thus, the superior both orients to the normativity of joint writingand 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, shemakesherself 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 towriting. 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 areevaluations, 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.

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

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–108106

The superior utters short title-like phrases and sentences: “good evaluations”, “finances ok”, “operations model has beenok” etc. They are separated by connectives like ja ‘and’ and sit ‘then’ and pronouns like tää ‘this’ and toi ‘that’. These phrasesand sentences are clearly hearable as something that can be written down in the same exact form that they are uttered. It canalso be seen on the video that the superior points at his document with his penwhen he utters them and that the subordinateactually 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 thatboth of the participants do the writing, it is the norm that they write down exactly the same thing. This kind of a norm ispowerful in that it stresses the importance of the jointness of the goals. Thus, writing practices are extremely crucial in theaccomplishment of common goals. It could even be said that common goals are constituted through writing practices. Theirjointness 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-timeinteraction between superior and subordinate in the interviews has been limited. Yet, some rare analyses of these in-teractions (e.g. Adams, 1981; Asmub, 2008; Clifton, 2012; Gioia et al., 1989) have given reason to emphasize the role that thepatterns of interaction play in the conduct of the interview. This paper adds to the previous analyses of talk in interaction inPAIs in that we have shown that written documentation and especially the use of writing in talk are important in terms of theoutcome of one crucial function of the interview, namely, getting an agreement of the goals for future. It is through writingpractices that the jointness of the goals is accomplished.

Our empirical analysis showed that writing practices have a systematic relation to the different interactional patterns ofgoal setting. When goal setting is done through the superior’s proposal and the subordinate’s acceptance, the timing of thewriting is contingent on and constitutive of the nature of the proposal. The proposal itself may be accompanied with writingto show that the suggestion is already treated as common to the participants. However, the negotiability of the proposal canbe displayed through delaying the writing. In the case of the question–answer pattern writing is used to legitimate parts ofthe subordinate’s answer as commonly agreed goals. In the summary format the items of the summary are presented as suchthat they can and should be written down. Writing is oriented to as a normative joint activity. While the superior’s right andresponsibility for goal setting is highlighted in the summary format, both the proposal-acceptance and the question-answerformat reflect the institutional norms attached to the roles of superior and subordinate. Most importantly, the use of writingunderpins the power of the superior and restricts the participation of the subordinate in both formats. In the proposal-acceptance format, it clearly makes it very difficult for the subordinate to, for example, reject the proposal or even todiscuss 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 whichgoals 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 inorganizational settings and in terms of organizational purposes. While this dialectic has been acknowledged as having apivotal 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 amongthe scholars of organizational communication. Thus, we believe that our careful analysis of talk-in-interaction serves as anovel 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, andmore generally, our analysis highlights the interconnection of situated interactional practices and wider organizationalpurposes such as goal setting and appraisal.

Our analysis of goal setting sequences as interactional accomplishments also contributes to the research that hasconcerned with the productivity of dialogue in organizations (e.g. Isaacs, 1999; Tsoukas, 2009). In a way writingpractices are efficient in dialogue. Writing can be done at the same time as talking, and it is still a powerful way ofshowing mutual agreement. On the other hand, our analysis suggests that writing may also impede dialogue in that itmay be used to convey an idea of a goal being already agreed on before it is actually discussed. Thus, writing is apowerful strategy. We believe that this finding is particularly important in research of PAI efficacy. Future studies in thisarea could benefit from, for example, comparing different writing practices in regards to factors such as for instance theperceived PAI satisfaction.

It should be stressed, however, that it is not only that these textual practices would be utilized strategically by individualinterlocutors, especially the manager. Rather, they facilitate the conduct of the interview. On the basis of our analysis we cansay that PAI is a truly discursive practice, guided and framed by both reading texts andwriting things down. Common goals forfuture development are agreed on by writing, and written documentation is an end result and achievement of superior-subordinate interaction.

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

P. Pälli, E. Lehtinen / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 92–108108

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 Uni-versity 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: alongitudinal 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.