The effect of performance appraisal on the intrinsic motivation of
employees: the moderating role of the managers’ implicit person
theory
Master Thesis: Human Resource Studies
Author: Patty Janssen
Supervisor: dr. M. van Woerkom
Second reader: dr. M.L. van Engen
Project period: February 2016 – August 2016
Project theme: Performance appraisal
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
1
Table of content
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... 2
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 4
Theoretical framework ............................................................................................................ 6
Appraisal may have the unintended consequence of decreasing the level of intrinsic
motivation ............................................................................................................................... 6
The degree to which an appraisal could be detrimental depends on whether the employee
thinks his manager sees his employees as malleable ............................................................. 7
Conceptual model ................................................................................................................... 9
Methods ................................................................................................................................... 10
Research set-up..................................................................................................................... 10
Procedure and sample .......................................................................................................... 10
Measures ............................................................................................................................... 13
Manipulation checks ............................................................................................................. 15
Statistical analysis ................................................................................................................ 17
Results ..................................................................................................................................... 18
Descriptive statistics ............................................................................................................. 18
Hayes Process Routine ......................................................................................................... 20
Additional analysis ............................................................................................................... 22
Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 25
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research .............................................................. 26
Practical implications ............................................................................................................. 28
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 28
References ............................................................................................................................... 30
Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 34
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
2
Acknowledgements
This study (Master Thesis) about the effect of a performance appraisal is a part of the ‘Master Human
Resource Studies (MHRS)’ at Tilburg University. I would like to thank several people who supported
me during writing my thesis.
First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Marianne van Woerkom for
her critical and constructive feedback. This helped me a lot during the process of writing my thesis. Also
the brainstorm session about the design of the different questionnaires was very helpful and useful.
Furthermore, I would like to thank the four organizations who participated in this study.
Especially, all the participants who invested their precious time in completing the questionnaire.
Also, I would like to express my gratitude to the second reader, Marloes van Engen. Her
comments were very helpful and made me reflect on the importance of being understandable for
outsiders who do not know anything of the study.
The feedback I received from Babette van der Zanden (a student in my thesis circle) was very
valuable. Furthemore, Babette and I searched together for organizations who wanted to participate in
our study which was very successful in the end. Therefore, I would like to thank Babette for the good
cooperation we had.
Furthermore, special gratitude to my ‘third readers’, John Geurts, John Kessels, and my dearest
friend Iris Steinbusch. With their comments they helped me a lot to finalize my Master Thesis. Last but
not least, I want to thank my family who supported me throughout the whole process of writing my
Master Thesis.
I would like to wish you a lot of reading pleasure.
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
3
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between a performance appraisal and the intrinsic
motivation of an employee. It was expected that this relationship was negative due to the controlling
effect (i.e., pressure to obtain a specific outcome) of a performance appraisal. In addition, it was
expected that the negative relationship between a performance appraisal and the intrinsic motivation of
an employee would be stronger when employees perceive the Implicit Person Theory (IPT) (i.e., extent
of belief that people can change) of their manager to be fixed (i.e., belief that people are unchangeable).
The sample represents 134 respondents from four different non-profit organizations who completed the
digital questionnaire. For this scenario experiment the respondents were randomly divided into two
groups. The control group (N = 66) received an ‘informal conversation scenario’ and the experimental
group (N = 68) received a ‘performance appraisal scenario’. The results of this study did not show a
significant effect of performance appraisal on the intrinsic motivation of an employee. Furthermore,
there was no moderating effect of the employee perception of the IPT of their manager on this
relationship. Additional analysis on a subset of the sample (N = 68) showed a significant interaction
effect with the employee perception of the growth mindset (i.e., belief that people are malleable). This
implies that the perception of the growth mindset leads to a positively stronger relationship between a
positive feedback experience during a performance appraisal and the intrinsic motivation of an
employee. Furthermore, this study showed that supervisor support significantly influences the intrinsic
motivation of an employee.
Keywords: Performance appraisal, Intrinsic motivation, Employee perception, Implicit person
theory, Fixed mindset, Growth mindset, Scenario experiment, Supervisor support.
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
4
Introduction
The supposed benefits of performance appraisals for most organizations are questionable (Smither,
London, & Reilly, 2005). A common problem in organizations is that performance appraisals do not
always lead to the intended beneficial outcomes of motivating employees and improving performance
(Bouskila-Yam & Kluger, 2011; Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Coens & Jenkins, 2002). One of the
possible reasons for the absence of beneficial outcomes of performance appraisals is, that in typical
performance appraisal systems, employees are evaluated by the same yardstick (job description) without
having any focus on individual qualities (Van Woerkom & Freese, 2015). As a result, a typical
performance appraisal can be ineffective and even in some extent destructive (Coens & Jenkins, 2002).
Whether the ratings are accurate or not, employees may be psychologically affected in a negative way
by a rating and this can be one of the reasons why a typical performance appraisal might be destructive
(Coens & Jenkins, 2002). Therefore, it is likely that there is little benefit in telling people that they are
performing average or below average (Coens & Jenkins, 2002). Moreover, telling an employee that they
are performing good might lead to a decrease in motivation because this employee knows that other
colleagues were ranked even higher (Coens & Jenkins, 2002; Rock, Davis & Jones, 2014). An increasing
number of organizations (e.g. Microsoft, Medtronic, Adobe, and Intel) have taken these demotivating
issues seriously by replacing the year-end performance appraisal with in-depth conversations (Rock et
al., 2014).
In this research the focus is on the relationship between performance appraisal and the intrinsic
motivation of an employee. Intrinsic motivation can be defined as “the inherent tendency to seek out
novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one’s capacities, to explore, and to learn” (Ryan & Deci,
2000, p. 70). Due to the controlling effect (i.e., a pressure towards a specific outcome) (Ryan, 1982) of
a performance appraisal, it is expected that the relationship between performance appraisal and intrinsic
motivation will be negative. Control entails the idea of the manner how subjects should perform (Ryan,
1982). This can be linked to a performance appraisal. Controlling events lead to the experience of
pressure to obtain a specific outcome and undermine intrinsic motivation (Zhou, 2003). The more an
employee interprets what someone says as a pressure to achieve a specific outcome (e.g. controlling
effect of a performance appraisal) the less likely this employee is to be intrinsically motivated to perform
a specific activity (Ryan, 1982). Therefore, it can be expected that a controlling event such as a
performance appraisal has a negative impact on the intrinsic motivation of an employee.
Another cause of the expected negative effect between a performance appraisal and intrinsic
motivation entails the employee’s feeling of discomfort during a performance appraisal (Rock et al.,
2014). Employees usually have high expectations of their performance. However, at their performance
appraisal these expectations are mostly not fulfilled (Lam & Yik, 2002). These unmet expectations can
arouse negative sentiments such as anxiety (Lam & Yik, 2002). It is likely that these negative sentiments
can be explained by evaluation apprehension. Evaluation apprehension can be described as an active,
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
5
anxiety-toned concern of an employee in such a way that an employee wants to win a positive evaluation
from his manager or that the manager provides no grounds for a negative one (Rosenberg, as cited in
Rosenthal & Rosnow, 2009). In other words, employees have the experience of being anxious about a
performance appraisal that is negative or not positive. Therefore, evaluation apprehension is also a
reason in this study for expecting a negative relationship between a performance appraisal and the
intrinsic motivation of an employee.
This research also focuses on the moderating effect of the employee’s perception of the IPT of
their manager. It is important to know whether the employee’s perception of the belief of a manager,
that people are changeable (i.e., growth mindset) or unchangeable (i.e., fixed mindset) (Rock et al.,
2014), influences the relationship between performance appraisal and the intrinsic motivation of an
employee. Officially, the IPT contains the manager’s assumption about the malleability of the
employees’ personal attributes (e.g. personality and ability) (Heslin & VandeWalle, 2011). However, in
this study it is expected that perceptions of employees about the IPT of their manager influence the
relationship between performance appraisal and the intrinsic motivation of an employee. Thus, in this
study the perceptions of employees about the manager’s IPT can be described as the perception about
the degree to which their manager believes that employees are able to change. Employee perceptions
about the belief of their manager (i.e., IPT) can vary between the possibility that employees can change,
learn and develop and the possibility that employees do not have the ability to change (i.e., that
employees just are how they are). The two IPT extremes can be linked to the fixed and the growth
mindset (Rock et al., 2014). The perception of the fixed mindset is focused on innate traits and talents
(Rock et al., 2014; Clifton & Harter, 2003). Furthermore, the fixed mindset assumes that talents of
employees and intelligence are established at birth and stay unchanged throughout their lives (Rock et
al., 2014). The growth mindset is focused on development and based on something that is activated in
the employee because the effort of the employee is determining to bring the difference (Rock et al.,
2014). Furthermore, the growth mindset holds that employees can grow, learn, and improve at any time
of their life (Rock et al., 2014). An employee perception that is more related to the extreme of the growth
mindset might weaken the detrimental effect of a performance appraisal on the intrinsic motivation of
an employee (Deliège, Davidson & Sloboda, 2011). To conclude, in this study it is expected that an
employee perception which is more related to a manager who thinks employees are malleable (i.e.,
growth mindset), this may act as a buffer against negative influences between a performance appraisal
and the intrinsic motivation of an employee (Deliège, Davidson and Sloboda, 2011). In turn, a stronger
negative relationship between a performance appraisal and intrinsic motivation is expected in case an
employee perceives the IPT of their manager to be fixed (Rock et al., 2014; Clifton & Harter, 2003).
In the next chapter more in depth theory is provided focused on the expected relationships of
this study. In the other chapters, the methodology, results, discussion, limitations and suggestions for
future research, practical implications, and the conclusion of this study is further described.
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
6
Theoretical framework Appraisal may have the unintended consequence of decreasing the level of intrinsic motivation
A performance appraisal is an evaluative process because the manager rates and gives feedback
regarding the performance of an employee (Spence & Keeping, 2011). Most employees prefer not to be
appraised (Cleveland, Murphy & Lim, 2007). Linking a rating to the quality of employees’ performance
sometimes may give employees the feeling of being dehumanized because of reducing the employee to
a “number” (Adler, Campion, Colquitt, Grubb, Murphy, Krane, & Pulakos, 2015). Moreover, unmet
expectations (e.g., an employee who has high expectations of their performance but these high
expectations are not fulfilled during a performance appraisal) can arouse anxiety (Lam & Yik, 2002).
Evaluation apprehension is a common issue of observations like performance appraisals resulting in
employees having anxiety about an evaluation that is negative or not positive (Rosenberg, as cited in
Rosenthal & Rosnow, 2009, p. 212). Because a performance appraisal is an observation of an employee
and the employee can have the feeling of being appraised or observed in this situation, evaluation
apprehension can occur which may lead to a decrease in intrinsic motivation (Rosenberg, as cited in
Rosenthal & Rosnow, 2009).
An employee who is intrinsically motivated will challenge him or herself, wants to exercise his
or her capacities and explore and learn to become better (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Therefore, intrinsic
motivation comes from within and can be described as the level of how much an employee enjoys the
job (Deliège et al., 2011). The feeling of being appraised is negatively related with intrinsic motivation
(Ryan, 1982). This can be explained by reactance theory (Brehm, 1966), and cognitive evaluation theory
(Ryan, 1982). These two theories support the assumption that the feeling of control (i.e., a pressure
towards a specific outcome) during a performance appraisal is negatively related with the intrinsic
motivation of an employee. First, the reactance theory (Brehm, 1966) which proposes that when people
feel controlled by some external person, the given response to this control is doing just the opposite than
what is expected (Ryan, 1982). The reactance or arousal that occurs when people feel controlled by
some external person, is according to the reactance theory caused by the perception of an employee that
his or her freedom is being threatened (Moyer-Gusé, 2008). Reactance theory predicts that the feeling
of being controlled leads to a “boomerang effect”, whereby employees are willing to engage in
discouraged behavior (Moyer-Gusé, 2008). The main expectation of performance appraisal is to
improve employees’ performance and motivation (Bouskila-Yam & Kluger, 2011; Hackman & Oldham,
1976). According to reactance theory it is expected that the opposite might happen (Brehm, 1966).
Second, cognitive evaluation theory states that an external circumstance or so-called environmental
event that is perceived as controlling to attain a particular outcome results in a decrease of intrinsic
motivation of that person (Ryan, 1982). According to the cognitive evaluation theory (Ryan, 1982), all
external circumstances or so-called environmental events include two functional aspects namely the
controlling- and informational aspect. As an employee experiences pressure to attain a particular
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
7
behavioral outcome one can speak of a controlling event (Ryan, 1982), this is something that can occur
also within a performance appraisal. The more an employee interprets what a manager says as a pressure,
even if it is positive, the less likely someone is to be intrinsically motivated to achieve the desired
behavioral outcome (Ryan, 1982). Thus, it is expected that a performance appraisal results in a decrease
in intrinsic motivation.
Many organizations link performance appraisal with a lot of different rewards (e.g., money,
benefits, time off etc.). This makes the feeling of being appraised stronger because the appraisal might
be perceived as judgmental, punitive, and in some circumstances as frightening (Dransfield, 2000).
Being appraised can be experienced as a pressure towards a specific outcome (Ryan, 1982). Moreover,
control entails the way how subjects should perform (Ryan, 1982). Since a performance appraisal can
be seen as a pressure towards a specific outcome (e.g., intrinsic motivation) (Ryan, 1982) and control
can be seen as the idea of how subjects should perform (Ryan, 1982), a performance appraisal can be
seen as a controlling event. As a result and according to the reactance and cognitive evaluation theory,
a controlling event such as a performance appraisal leads to experiencing pressure to achieve a specific
outcome and undermines the intrinsic motivation of an employee (Ryan, 1982; Zhou, 2003).
H1: Performance appraisal is negatively related to the intrinsic motivation of an employee
The degree to which an appraisal could be detrimental depends on whether the employee thinks his
manager sees his employees as malleable
According to the study of Heslin and VandeWalle (2011), a manager’s implicit theory can be defined
as the belief of a manager about the degree to which people are able to change. As said in the
introduction, this study focuses on the employee perceptions about the IPT assumptions of their
manager. The employee perceptions about the managers’ IPT assumptions can vary between two
extremes. The first IPT extreme perception is based on the possibility that employees can change, learn
and develop (i.e., incremental implicit person theory). The second IPT extreme perception is based on
the possibility that employees just are how they are and do not have the ability to change (i.e.,
prototypical entity implicit person theory) (Heslin & VandeWalle, 2011; Dweck, Chiu & Hong, 1995).
An employee perception which is high on the incremental IPT extreme states that the manager
believes that personal attributes and traits are malleable and thus changeable over time (Heslin, Latham
& VandeWalle, 2005; Dweck et al., 1995). Personal attributes can be seen as the personality and ability
of a person (Heslin, Latham & VandeWalle, 2005). The employee perception of this IPT extreme is
based on the degree that the employee thinks that the manager provides employees with supportive or
valuable information. Employees can use this supportive information to develop, learn, and create
improvement on the job. This is also known as providing developmental feedback (Zhou, 2003).
Developmental feedback is informational in its nature (Zhou, 2003). Employees who think that their
manager provides developmental feedback believe that their manager tries to give behaviorally relevant
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
8
information that might lead to an improvement in the performance of his employees without any
pressure for a particular outcome (Zhou, 2003). An employee perception of the incremental IPT can be
linked to the perception of a growth mindset. A mindset is an established set of assumptions, beliefs,
and values that will determine the decisions made, the goals that are pursued, and the perception of how
we see others and ourselves (Deliège, 2011). The growth mindset is important since this mindset can
weaken the negative relationship between a performance appraisal and the intrinsic motivation of an
employee (Deliège, 2011; Zhou, 2003). To return to the definition of intrinsic motivation: ‘the inherent
tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one’s capacities, to explore, and to
learn’ (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70). An employee perception of the growth mindset of the manager might
help to find those learning opportunities and challenges (Deliège et al., 2011). Therefore, it is likely that
the detrimental effect of a performance appraisal will be weaker if an employee has a high perception
of a ‘growth mindset manager’ since there is a bigger chance that employees contact those managers in
order to find learning opportunities and challenges (which is important for an employee who is
intrinsically motivated) (Ryan & Deci, 2000). To conclude, it can be expected that the employee’s
perception of a manager with a growth mindset (high degree of malleability) will influence the negative
relationship between performance appraisal and intrinsic motivation, in such a way that this negative
relationship will be weaker.
An employee perception which is high on the prototypical entity IPT extreme states that the
manager believes that personal attributes (ability or personality) are a fixed entity (Heslin, Latham &
VandeWalle, 2005). A trait is a disposition to behave and is expressing itself in consequent patterns of
functioning regardless of the situation (Pervin, 1994). In other words, a trait is a consequent pattern of
an expressed capacity without paying attention to the situation. To what extent people grow and how
efficient this development is, is related to who people are (Clifton & Harter, 2003). Thus, the
prototypical entity IPT holds an employee perception about the belief of the manager that traits are
innate and will not change over time. Therefore, a high employee perception of the prototypical entity
IPT of the manager is focused on the personality of an employee. From the employee perception, a
manager who believes in the prototypical entity IPT can be seen as a judgmental evaluator since he or
she assumes that an employee is unchangeable on forehand. Geen (1983) discovered that the relationship
between a performance appraisal and the performance on a task was hampered more by judgmental
evaluators in comparison to an evaluator who promised future assistance with a positive outcome. The
performance on a task is strongly associated with the intrinsic motivation of an employee (Hackman &
Oldham, 1976). This is because intrinsic motivators (e.g. recognition, responsibility, achievement) are
believed to be effective in motivating employees intrinsically to superior effort and performance
(Hackman & Oldham, 1976). In other words, comparing the findings of Geen (1983) and Hackman and
Oldham (1976), it is expected that the negative relationship between a performance appraisal and the
intrinsic motivation of an employee is stronger when the employee thinks that the performance appraisal
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
9
is given by a judgmental manager with a prototypical entity IPT. The prototypical entity IPT can be
linked to the fixed mindset. This fixed mindset is associated with the employee perception about the
belief of the manager that the abilities of an employee are fixed personal attributes. It is assumed when
the employee perception about the manager is more focused on the fixed mindset, this will create an
urgency for an employee to prove himself over and over again (Dweck, 2006). Moreover, intrinsic
motivated employees want to challenge themselves, explore, and learn to become better (Ryan & Deci,
2000). Since this employee perception of the fixed mindset about the manager focuses on innate talents
and therefore ‘finished products’ without challenging employees to develop one’s capacities (Dweck,
2006), it can be expected that the employee’s perception of a manager with a fixed mindset will influence
the negative relationship between performance appraisal and intrinsic motivation, in such a way that this
negative relationship will be stronger.
H2: The perceived implicit person theory of the manager will moderate the negative
relationship between performance appraisal and the intrinsic motivation of an employee, in
such a way that this relationship will be stronger when employees perceive the IPT of their
manager to be fixed
Conceptual model
Implicit Person Theory
+ / - H2
Performance Intrinsic motivation
appraisal -
H1
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
10
Methods Research set-up
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of a performance appraisal on the intrinsic
motivation of an employee. Moreover, the moderating effect of the perceptions of employees about the
IPT of their manager on the relationship between a performance appraisal and the intrinsic motivation
of an employee was examined. This is an explanatory study since the relationships between variables
were described (Singleton & Straits, 2005). Furthermore, this study can be defined as a ‘quantitative
cross-sectional design’ since the collection of the data is associated on relevant variables at one specific
point in time (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). To examine these relationships, data was collected
using a digital questionnaire that took fifteen minutes of the respondent’s time.
The relationships were tested by a scenario experiment. A scenario experiment implies a research
where respondents fill in a questionnaire after they received a scenario (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2009).
The respondents were divided randomly (by using a random internet link) into two groups and each
group received a different scenario. One group belonged to the experimental condition and the other
group belonged to the control condition. The respondents in the experimental condition received, before
giving the answers to the items of the intrinsic motivation scale or the so-called outcome variable, the
following scenario: ‘Imagine that you just come back from your last performance appraisal with your
supervisor. Try to think back and capture this moment: in which room took the conversation place and
how did you feel. Answer the following questions according to this feeling you had immediately after
this conversation’. The respondents in the control condition received, before giving the answers to the
items of the intrinsic motivation scale or the so-called outcome variable, the following scenario: ‘Go
back in your mind to your last informal conversation that you had with your supervisor. Try to think
back and capture this moment: in which room took this conversation place and how did you feel. Answer
the following questions according to this feeling you had immediately after this conversation’.
Before answering the questionnaire with one of the scenarios the respondents were asked to
answer the questions of the IPT scale (and the questions of the control variables). After answering the
IPT scale questions without the scenario, respondents received the scenario and had to answer the
questions regarding the intrinsic motivation scale. By analyzing the Hayes output and focusing on the
coefficients (B) which can be positive (indicating positive effect on performance appraisal) or negative
(indicating positive effect on informal conversation), the impact of the performance appraisal could be
assessed.
Procedure and sample
In April 2016, the principals of 18 primary schools, an HR manager of a trade union, and one principal
of a childcare organization sent an e-mail to their employees with a random internet link to the digital
questionnaire. By clicking on the distributed internet link the employees were directed randomly to the
questionnaire for the experimental group or for the control group. Furthermore, in the e-mail an
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
11
introduction letter (see Appendix A) designed by the researchers was attached. In order to gain a higher
response, the guaranteed anonymity and the objectives of the study were mentioned in the introduction
letter. Furthermore, to get a higher response rate a reminder was sent to the respondents within one week
after the distribution of the questionnaires. Finally, this resulted in a total response of 134 respondents
(24.81 %) that filled in the questionnaire completely.
A web-based tool was used for the digital questionnaire called ‘Qualtrics’. Qualtrics is a program
that helps researchers to manage online data analysis and collection (Qualtrics, 2016). All the
respondents who participated in this study worked at non-profit organizations (trade union, childcare,
and education sector). As described in the previous paragraph, the questionnaire was distributed among
18 primary schools, a childcare organization, and a trade union. Starting, within the trade union the
questionnaire was distributed among 120 employees. Eventually, 54 employees (45%) filled in the
questionnaire completely. Furthermore, the questionnaire was distributed among 207 employees of 17
primary schools. Finally, 41 employees (19.81%) of the 17 primary schools filled in the questionnaire
completely. Within the childcare organization the questionnaire was distributed among 190 employees.
Eventually, 37 employees (19.47%) filled in the questionnaire completely. Two employees (8.70%) of
the additional primary school filled in the questionnaire completely.
The demographic characteristics of the respondents in total and per group (control and
experimental) are shown in Table 1. In total 540 employees who worked in four different non-profit
organizations received the survey in order to participate in this research. In addition, 214 respondents
filled in the questionnaire but did not fully complete the questionnaire. Eventually, 134 respondents
completed the questionnaire. The total response rate was 24.81%. For the total sample contribution,
40.30% of the respondents represented the trade union, 30.60% represented the 17 primary schools,
27.61% represented the childcare organization, and 1.49% the other primary school.
Table 1 presents the demographical characteristics of the respondents based on age, gender,
education, and organizational tenure. These demographical characteristics were displayed in total
numbers, but as well especially for the control group (N = 66) and experimental group (N = 68). The
average age of the total group was 45.81 in years. The sample included 33 (24.6%) male and 101 (75.4%)
female employees. The majority of the sample was female, ranging from 72.7% for the control group
and 77.9% for the experimental group. The majority of the respondents possessed an HBO (49.3% total)
or MBO (30.6% total) education level. These two education levels were also the two largest groups for
the experimental and control group. Moreover, the mean of the organizational tenure was high on
average for all of the respondents (16.4 years).
12
Table 1
Demographic characteristics (N=134) divided into experimental group (N = 68) and control group (N = 66)
Demographic
characteristics
Total group (N=134) Experimental group (N=68) Control group (N=66)
Mean SD Sig. Mean SD Mean SD Mean difference
Age (in years)
45.81 10.77 .53 46.38 11.60 45.21 9.90 -1.17
Gender
.43
.49
.42
.45
-.05
Male 24.6% (N=33) 22.1% (N=15) 27.3% (N=18)
Female
75.4% (N=101) 77.9% (N=53) 72.7% (N=47)
Education .82 .87 .84 .80 -.02
Primary school 1.5% (N=2) 1.5% (N=1) 1.5% (N=1)
Secondary
school
3.7% (N=5) 4.4% (N=3) 3.1% (N=2)
MBO 30.6% (N=41) 29.4% (N=20) 31.8% (N=21)
HBO 49.3% (N=66) 48.5% (N=33) 50% (N=33)
WO
14.9% (N=20) 16.2% (N=11) 13.6% (N=9)
Tenure
(in years)
16.4 (N=134)
8.12
.38
17.0 (N=68)
8.95
15.7 (N=66)
7.18
-1.24
13
Measures
For this study already published scales with high content validity results were used in order to measure
the intrinsic motivation and the perceptions of employees about the IPT of their manager. However, in
this study the validity had to be measured again because of the different design of this study and the
different characteristics compared with previous studies. The validity of a scale refers to the extent to
which it measures what it assumes to measure (Pallant, 2013). To check the validity of the scales and to
determine if there were groups of items that correlated with other groups of items, an exploratory factor
analysis was conducted on the intrinsic motivation and the IPT scale. A factor analysis can discover
patterns in the variables. Since the organizations which participated in this study were all located in the
Netherlands, the scales were translated into Dutch. Below, the results of the factor analysis, the variables
and the associated scales are described. Additionally, more detailed information about the exploratory
factor analysis can be found in Appendix C.
Performance appraisal. For the measurement of performance appraisal two groups were
created. Both received a different scenario. The experimental group (coded in SPSS as 1) received the
scenario of the performance appraisal and the control group (coded in SPSS as 0) received the scenario
of the informal conversation. Further explanation about the scenario experiment can be found in the
paragraph entitled as ‘Research set-up’ on page 9.
Implicit person theory. As said before, the IPT scale was measured before giving the scenario
to the respondents. The variable of the IPT of the manager is the moderating variable in this study and
was measured by using the eight item scale developed by Levy and Dweck (as cited in Heslin &
VandeWalle, 2011). Officially, this scale is invented to examine the manager’s assumption about the
malleability of the employees’ personal attributes (i.e., IPT) (Heslin & VandeWalle, 2011). However,
in this study it is expected that perceptions of employees about the IPT of their manager influence the
intrinsic motivation of an employee. Therefore, in the questionnaire the introduction for this scale was
rephrased in order to clarify that the respondents had to answer these items with the manager in their
mind. The introduction was described as follows: “The following 7 statements are about the perception
you have about the idea of your direct manager. Indicate if your direct manager would agree with the
following statements”. The IPT scale includes four items that can evaluate incremental beliefs (i.e.,
growth mindset) and four items that can evaluate entity beliefs (i.e., fixed mindset) (as cited in Hesllin
& VandeWalle, 2011). An example of an item of the IPT scale for a growth mindset is: “Everyone, no
matter who they are, can significantly change their basic characteristics”. An example of an item of the
IPT scale for the fixed mindset is: “The kind of person someone is, is something basic about them, and
it can’t be changed very much”. One item for the fixed mindset was removed since this item was similar
to another item. Thus, in total the fixed mindset consisted of three items. Furthermore, this scale
developed by Levy and Dweck has a high internal consistency of .93 (as cited in Heslin & VandeWalle,
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
14
2011). The IPT of the manager was measured on a 6 point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 =
strongly agree).
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value for the IPT scale was higher than .60 (.832). According
to the Bartlett’s test of Sphericity the IPT scale was significant (p < .05), however not all loadings (5) in
the correlation matrix were above .30. Besides, the scree plot and the ‘Eigenvalue’ levels showed that
the IPT scale were loaded on two components and the reliability for the total IPT scale was low .306 (<
.70). In the introduction and the theoretical framework the IPT was described as one variable. Since the
factor analysis indicated that there were two components this scale was divided into two scales (fixed
mindset and the growth mindset). According to the literature of the IPT, the existence of those two
components were clarified because it relates to the two different mindset theories. After the decision
was made to make two scales for the IPT, the factor analysis was conducted for both, the fixed mindset
and the growth mindset.
For the fixed mindset, a KMO of .721 was found (> .60) and the Bartlett’s test of Sphericity was
significant (p < .05). In the correlation matrix, all loadings were above .30. The scree plot and Eigenvalue
resulted in one component. The reliability was high namely .847 (> .70).
For the growth mindset, a KMO of .788 was found (>.60) and the Bartlett’s test of Sphericity
was significant (p < .05). In the correlation matrix, all loadings were above .30. The scree plot and
Eigenvalue resulted in one component. The reliability was high namely .865 (> .70).
Intrinsic motivation. This variable was measured directly after giving the scenarios to the respondents.
The variable of intrinsic motivation was measured by using the Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation
Scale (WEIMS) (Ryan & Deci, 2000). This scale includes eighteen items. The WEIMS consists of three
items and six subscales (six forms of motivation suggested by the Self Determination Theory (SDT):
intrinsic motivation, integrated, identified, introjected, external regulations, and motivation) (Tremblay,
Blachard, Taylor, Pelletier & Villeneuve, 2009). Since three items were related to the intrinsic
motivation of an employee, those three were used for the measurement of intrinsic motivation. Before
answering the three items in the questionnaire, the following description was presented: “Using the scale
below, please indicate to what extent each of the following items corresponds to the reasons why you
are presently involved in your work”. An example of an item of the intrinsic motivation scale was:
“Because I derive much pleasure from learning new things”. Intrinsic motivation was measured on a 7
point Likert scale (1 = does not correspond at all, 5 = corresponds exactly). The internal consistency of
this scale was .84 (Tremblay et al., 2009).
The results of the factor analysis for the intrinsic motivation scale indicated that the KMO value
was .691 (> .60) and the Bartlett’s test of Sphericity (p < .05) was significant. In the correlation matrix
all loadings were above .30. Moreover, while analyzing the scree plot and Eigenvalue levels it was found
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
15
that the intrinsic motivation scale consisted of one component and the reliability was .871 (> .70).
Control variables. The control variables were measured before giving the scenario to the respondents.
The included control variables in this study were age, tenure, education level, gender, feedback sign,
organizations, and perceived supervisor support. These control variables were included because they
could have an effect on the dependent and moderating variable.
Age and tenure were measured in years and the education level was based on the education
levels of the Netherlands (Primary school, secondary school, MBO, HBO, and WO). Furthermore,
gender was measured as a dichotomous variable (1 = male, 2 = female). Moreover, the control variable
‘feedback sign’ was included in the questionnaire for the experimental group, since this might influence
the moderation (IPT), and the relationship between performance appraisal and intrinsic motivation. This
control variable was asked only to the experimental group and includes the following question: “How
would you classify the feedback that you received at your most recent performance evaluation meeting?”
(Belschak & Den Hartog, 2009). This question was measured on a 5 point Likert scale from very positive
(1) to very negative (5) (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2009). Furthermore, the perceived supervisor support
was measured by using the four items of the scale of Rhoades, Eisenberg, and Armeli (2001). This scale
includes four items from the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS) and is measured on a
7-point Likert scale from 1 (=strongly disagree) to 7 (=strongly agree). The items were selected on the
high loadings on the SPOS (Rhoades et al., 2001). The subsequent internal consistency reliability
estimates for the SPOS have been reported to be between .74 and .97 (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).
One example of an item of this scale is “My supervisor cares about my opinions”. Since the conducted
ANOVA (as discussed in the section ‘group differences’ on page 15) resulted in significant differences
for intrinsic motivation between the 17 primary schools and the childcare organization, dummy variables
were made to control for those differences in the Hayes output.
Manipulation checks
This study was based on a scenario experiment which compared the two groups. Therefore, it was
necessary to examine whether the control and experimental group were similar. In addition, a t-test was
conducted based on the demographic characteristics in order to compare the experimental and control
group (shown in Table 1). For the demographic characteristics (e.g. age, gender, education, and
organizational tenure), there was no statistically (p < .05) significant difference found between the
control and the experimental group.
An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the fixed mindset scores, growth
mindset scores, and intrinsic motivation scores for the experimental and control group. T-tests are used
when a researcher wants to compare two different groups with mean scores on some continuous
variables (Pallant, 2013). Since this study consists of two groups (the experimental group and the control
group) an independent samples t-test was conducted and can be found in Table 2. For all the three mean
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
16
scores of the variables there were no statistically significant (p < .05) differences between the control
and experimental group. For example, for the growth mindset there was no significant difference in
scores for the control group (M = 3.27, SD = .92) and for the experimental group (M = 3.08, SD = .89; t
(132) = 1.179, p = .24, two-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean difference =
.18, 95 % CI: -.12 to .49) was very small (eta squared = .01). To conclude, the results of the independent
samples t-test indicated there were no statistically significant differences in mean scores (growth
mindset, fixed mindset, and intrinsic motivation) for the control and experimental group.
Table 2
Results of t-tests growth mindset, fixed mindset, and intrinsic motivation
Group 95% CI
of the
Differen
ce
Control Experimental
M SD n M SD n Sig (2-
tailed)
t df
Growth
mindset 3.27 .92 66 3.08 .89 68 -.12, .49 .24
1.179 132
Fixed
mindset 3.65 .98 66 3.84 .89 68 -.52, .12 .23
-1.22 132
Intrinsic
motivation 5.57 1.33 66 5.65 1.04 68 -.48, .33 .71
-.37 132
Subsequently, a one-way between-groups analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to
explore the impact of the different organization groups on levels of intrinsic motivation, and on the
perception of the IPT of a manager. The respondents came from different organizations which means
that there was an existence of more groups than one (Group 1: trade union; Group 2: primary schools;
Group 3: childcare organization). The ANOVA was conducted three times and can be found in Appendix
B.
Intrinsic motivation ANOVA
There was a statistically significant difference at the p < .05 level in intrinsic motivation scores for the
three organization groups: F (2, 129) = 4,0, p = .02. The actual difference in mean scores between Group
2 and 3 was according to the effect sizes of Cohen a medium effect size. This was calculated using eta
squared that resulted in an effect size of .06. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated
that the mean score for Group 2 (M = 6.01, SD = .68) was significant different from Group 3 (M = 5.31,
SD = 1.41). Group 1 (M = 5.49, SD = 1.26) did not differ significantly from either Group 2 or 3.
Therefore, the decision was made to run the process tool by Hayes with dummy variables (as control
variables) for the different organization groups separately in order to determine if it would change
anything in the significant values.
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
17
Fixed and growth mindset ANOVA
There was no statistically difference at the p < .05 level in IPT scores for the three organization groups.
Thus, the three organization groups did not differ significantly from each other for either the growth or
the fixed mindset.
Statistical analysis
After collecting the data with the digital questionnaires, the data was downloaded and imported from
Qualtrics. Qualtrics exported the data to IBM’s statistics program, SPSS (version 23). In order to test
the main and the moderation effect of the perceptions of the fixed and the growth mindset of the manager
on the relationship between performance appraisal and the intrinsic motivation of an employee, the
process tool by Hayes (2012) was performed (model 1). Hayes is a process tool for testing moderations
and also mediations (Hayes, 2013). Since the Hayes Process tool allows to execute the process entirely
(Hayes, 2013), it was used in this study. To execute the Hayes Process Routine, means were calculated
for the scales of intrinsic motivation, IPT (fixed and growth mindset separately), and the control variable
of supervisor support. By calculating these scale means, new variables were made in IBM SPSS
Statistics in order to execute the Hayes Process Routine model 1.
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
18
Results This section provides the results of data analysis as described in the ‘Methods’ section. After the analysis
of the correlation matrix, the results are described.
Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics include means, standard deviations, and correlations between the different
variables (as presented in Table 3). This table is created by using the bivariate Pearson Correlation
function in SPSS which measures the strength and direction of linear relationships between two
continuous variables (Pallant, 2013).
The mean of the intrinsic motivation scale was 5.61 (on a 7 point Likert scale), the mean of the
fixed mindset scale was 3.75 (on a 6 point Likert scale), and the mean of the growth mindset scale was
3.17 (on a 6 point Likert scale). For the control variable of supervisor support the mean was 4.94 (on a
7 point Likert scale). These mean scores represent the average scores of the respondents on the different
scales for the experimental and control group together.
Scenario and therefore the performance appraisal was not significantly correlated with the
intrinsic motivation of an employee (r = .03, n.s.). A significant negative correlation was shown between
the growth and the fixed mindset (r = -.50, p < .01). In other words, the higher the employee perception
was for the growth mindset, the lower the employee perception was for the fixed mindset. Furthermore,
there was a negative relationship between the fixed mindset and the intrinsic motivation of an employee
(r = -.01, n.s.). Besides, there was a positive relationship between the perceptions of the employee about
their managers for the growth mindset and the intrinsic motivation of an employee (r = .08, n.s.). There
was a significant positive correlation between intrinsic motivation and supervisor support (r = .37, p <
.01). To summarize: there was no significant correlation found between the scenario of performance
appraisal and intrinsic motivation of an employee. However, between the growth and the fixed mindset
there was a significant negative correlation. The relationship between the growth mindset (and the fixed
mindset) on the intrinsic motivation of an employee did not show a significant correlation.
For the control variables, a significant positive correlation between the rated feedback (feedback
sign) and supervisor support was indicated (r = .52, p < .01). Furthermore, supervisor support was
positive correlated with gender (r = .24, p < .01). There also was a significant positive correlation
between the perception of the growth mindset and gender (r = .23, p < .01). Furthermore, the control
variable tenure is positive correlated with age (r = .61, p < .01). To summarize: supervisor support was
significantly positive correlated with the intrinsic motivation of an employee, the rated feedback
(feedback sign, N = 68), and gender. All control variables used in the correlation matrix were included
in the Hayes Process Routine model 1. Especially, the control variable of supervisor support was
included in the Hayes Process Routine because there was a positive correlation between supervisor
support and the outcome variable of intrinsic motivation.
19
Table 3 Means, standard deviations and correlations among independent, dependent, and control variables
* Correlation is significant at the < .05 level (2-tailed)
** Correlation is significant at the < .01 level (2-tailed)
Scale M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Gender 1.75 .43 -
2. Age 45.81 10.77 -.38** -
3. Education 3.72 .82 -.17* .12 -
4. Tenure 16.36 8.12 -.23** .61** .02 -
5. Supervisor support 4.94 1.32 .24** -.02 .05 .11 -
6. Feedback sign 3.78 .91 .22 -.14 .24 .01 .52** -
7. Scenario .51 .50 .06 .06 .01 .08 -.01 .c -
8. Fixed mindset 3.75 .94 -.11 .14 .00 .07 -.03 -.07 .11 -
9. Growth mindset 3.17 .91 .23** -.16 -.17 -.03 .11 .14 -.10 -.50** -
10. Intrinsic motivation 5.61 1.19 -.01 .12 .11 .06 .37** .18 .03 -.01 .08 -
20
Hayes Process Routine
The Hayes Process routine (Hayes, 2012) model 1 was used in order to analyze if the results supported
the hypothesis used in this study. The moderating variable contains of two mean scores of the IPT of a
manager (fixed and the growth mindset scale) concluded from the factor analysis as described in the
method section entitled as ‘measures’ on page 13. Therefore, the Hayes Process model 1 was performed
twice. First with the growth mindset as a moderator and second with the fixed mindset as a moderator.
The output of the process tool of Hayes is presented in Table 4 and 5, in which Table 4 represents the
output with the fixed mindset as a moderator and Table 5 represents the output with the growth mindset
as a moderator.
All the control variables described in the method section (measures) were used in the Hayes
Process due to prevent spuriousness risks and for better reasoning for the relationship between the
variables. However, with the exception of the variable of supervisor support, there were no significant
relationships between the control variables and intrinsic motivation in both (perception of fixed and
growth mindset) outputs of Hayes.
The main effect of the scenario of the performance appraisal on the intrinsic motivation of an
employee was based on Hypothesis 1. This hypothesis expected that the scenario of a performance
appraisal was negatively related with the intrinsic motivation of an employee. Hypothesis 1 was not
supported since there was no significant association between the scenario of the performance appraisal
and the intrinsic motivation of an employee (Table 4, B = 1.31, s.e. = .87, n.s.; Table 5, B = -.20, s.e. =
.79, n.s.). This means that Hypothesis 1 was not supported.
The moderation effect of the employee perceptions about the IPT of their manager on the
relationship between performance appraisal and intrinsic motivation is further described. Hypothesis 2
expected that the perception of the fixed mindset would moderate the relationship between the scenario
of the performance appraisal and intrinsic motivation in such a way that this negative relationship
becomes stronger when an employee perceives the IPT of their manager to be fixed. The output shows
that Hypothesis 2 was not supported since there was no significant association according to the
interaction effect of the fixed mindset on the relationship between the performance appraisal and the
intrinsic motivation of an employee (Table 4, B = -.33, s.e. = .22, n.s.). According to the growth mindset,
there was also no significant association that the employee perception of this mindset would moderate
the relationship between the scenario of the performance appraisal and intrinsic motivation (Table 5, B
= .08, s.e. = .24, n.s.). To conclude, the employee perception of the IPT of the manager was not
confirmed as a moderator between the scenario of the performance appraisal and the intrinsic motivation
of an employee in such a way that this negative relationship would be stronger if the employee perceived
the IPT of their manager to be fixed. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was not supported.
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
21
For both, the fixed and the growth mindset, it was shown that supervisor support was
significantly associated with the intrinsic motivation of an employee. Therefore, supervisor support was
associated with the intrinsic motivation of an employee with almost the same coefficients for the output
of the fixed and the growth mindset (Table 4, B = .31, s.e. = .09, p < .001; Table 5, B = .31, s.e. = .09, p
< .001). To conclude, higher levels of supervisor support led to a higher intrinsic motivation for
employees who perceived the scenario of the performance appraisal. Furthermore, the childcare
organization showed a significant lower intrinsic motivation (Table 4, B = -.44, s.e. = .22, p < .05; Table
5, B = -.45, s.e. = .22, p < .05) than the other two non-profit organizations.
Table 4
Output Hayes process model 1: Fixed mindset as moderator
Predictor variable B s.e. t
Constant 3.02 1.43 2.10
Fixed mindset .17 .16 1.05
Scenario 1.31 .87 1.51
Interaction -.33 .22 -1.48
Gender -.30 .32 -.95
Age .02 .01 1.86
Education .07 .11 .66
Tenure -.02 .01 -1.58
Supervisor Support .31*** .09 3.49
Growth mindset .14 .15 .91
17 primary schools -.45 .30 -1.51
Childcare organization -.44* .22 -2.0
R2 .21
Note. N = 134. ‘Scenario’ was coded for the informal conversation as 0 and for the performance appraisal as 1. Thus, negative
values represent effects for the situation of not being appraised (condition of the informal conversation) and positive values represent the situation of being appraised (condition of the performance appraisal) (*** p <.001, ** p <.01, * p <.05)
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
22
Table 5
Output Hayes process model 1: Growth mindset as moderator
Predictor variable B s.e. t
Constant 3.56 1.47 2.43
Growth mindset .11 .24 .48
Scenario -.20 .79 -.25
Interaction .08 .24 .35
Gender -.26 .34 -.77
Age .02 .01 1.73
Education .06 .11 .60
Tenure -.02 .01 -1.51
Supervisor Support .31*** .09 3.45
Fixed mindset .02 .13 .16
17 primary schools -.36 .29 -1.24
Childcare organization -.45* .22 -2.01
R2 .20
Note. N = 134. ‘Scenario’ was coded for the informal conversation as 0 and for the performance appraisal as 1. Thus, negative
values represent effects for the situation of not being appraised (condition of the informal conversation) and positive values represent the situation of being appraised (condition of the performance appraisal) (*** p <.001, ** p <.01, * p <.05)
Additional analysis
Since there was no significant effect or association related to the hypotheses within this study, an
additional analysis was performed for only the experimental group (N = 68). The additional analysis
used a question from the questionnaire based on the rated feedback (‘feedback sign’) which was only
distributed among the experimental group: “How would you classify the feedback that you received at
your most recent performance evaluation meeting?” (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2009). Thus, the
‘feedback sign’ item focused on the rating of the perceived feedback of the last performance appraisal
of the respondents. This question was coded from 1 (very positive), to 5 (very negative). Due to the fact
that ‘1’ was indicated as very positive and ‘5’ was indicated as very negative, recoding of this variable
was necessary. After recoding this variable, the Hayes Process Routine model 1 was executed between
the relationship of the ‘feedback sign’ item (X) and the intrinsic motivation of an employee (Y) with
either the fixed and the growth mindset separately as the moderator (M). The output of the additional
analysis can be found in Table 6 (growth mindset as a moderator) and in Table 7 (fixed mindset as a
moderator). This additional analysis showed that the fixed mindset perception about the manager did
not significantly moderate the relationship between ‘feedback sign’ and the intrinsic motivation of an
employee (Table 7, B = -.20, s.e. = .12, n.s.). However, this additional analysis showed that the growth
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
23
mindset perception did significantly moderate the relationship between the ‘feedback sign’ and the
intrinsic motivation of an employee (Table 6, B = .24, s.e. = .11, p < .05). Based on the graphs (as shown
in Appendix D) it was concluded that high levels of the growth mindset of a manager (according to the
opinion of the employee) leads to higher levels of employees’ intrinsic motivation, in case the feedback
during the performance appraisal was experienced as very positive. Furthermore, low levels of the
growth mindset of a manager (according to the opinion of the employee) leads to lower levels of the
employees’ intrinsic motivation, in case the feedback during the performance appraisal was experienced
as very positive. Moreover, the relationship between supervisor support and the intrinsic motivation of
an employee showed a significant result again (Table 6, B = .22, s.e. = .11, p < .05; Table 7, B = .25, s.e.
= .11, p < .05). Therefore, it can be concluded that supervision support is highly related to the intrinsic
motivation of an employee.
Table 6
Hayes Process Model 1 additional analysis (N = 68): Growth mindset as moderator
Predictor variable B s.e. t
Constant 9.76 2.25 4.33
Growth mindset -.95 .53 -1.79
Feedback sign -.71 .37 -1.93
Interaction .24* .11 2.09
Gender -.66 .48 -1.33
Age .00 .01 .32
Education .00 .15 .02
Tenure -.01 .02 -.46
Supervisor Support .22* .11 2.03
Fixed mindset -.27 .19 -1.47
17 primary schools -.64 .41 -1.56
Childcare organization .00 .36 .01
R2 .28
Moderation analysis: Bootstrap results for conditional indirect
effects of performance appraisal on intrinsic motivation by employee
perceptions of growth mindset Boot Indirect Effect Boot SE LL 95% UL 95%
-.19 .17 -.53 .15
.02 .15 -.27 .32
.24 .19 -.14 .61 Note. N = 68. (*** p <.001, ** p <.01, * p <.05)
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
24
Table 7
Hayes Process Model 1 additional analysis (N = 68): Fixed mindset as moderator
Predictor variable B s.e. t
Constant 3.88 2.58 1.50
Fixed mindset .50 .51 .98
Feedback sign .74 .47 1.58
Interaction -.20 .12 -1.74
Gender -.68 .46 -1.48
Age .01 .01 .40
Education .01 .14 .05
Tenure -.01 .02 -.31
Supervisor Support .25* .11 2.31
Growth mindset .01 .18 .04
17 primary schools -.57 .42 -1.36
Childcare organization -.00 .35 -.01
R2 .28
Note. N = 68. (*** p <.001, ** p <.01, * p <.05)
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
25
Discussion Previous research has generally focused on the IPT of the manager (e.g., Heslin & VandeWalle, 2011;
Heslin, Latham & VandeWalle, 2005) without examining the perceptions of the employees about the
IPT of their manager. Furthermore, further research was needed to increase the understanding of the
benefits of the growth mindset (Deliège, Davidson & Sloboda, 2011). Therefore, this research is of
importance since the moderating effect of the perceptions of employees about the IPT of a manager on
the relationship between performance appraisal and intrinsic motivation are examined. This study
intended to gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between a performance appraisal and the
intrinsic motivation of an employee. Furthermore, this study aimed to obtain more insight into the
moderating role of the perceptions of employees about the IPT of their manager on the relationship
between performance appraisal and intrinsic motivation. There are no supportive results found.
However, additional analysis which focuses on the experience of the experimental group (N = 68) shows
a significant interaction effect with the perception of the growth mindset. This implies that the perception
of the growth mindset leads to a positively stronger relationship between a high levels of positive
feedback experience during a performance appraisal and the intrinsic motivation of an employee.
The first hypothesis of this study expects that a performance appraisal is negatively related to
the intrinsic motivation of an employee. It was concluded that this hypothesis is not supported. This is
not in correspondence with the reactance theory of Brehm (1966) and the cognitive evaluation theory of
Ryan (1982), according to these authors a controlling event such as a performance appraisal would
decrease the intrinsic motivation of an employee. However, hypothesis 1 is not supported in this study.
A possible reason of this unexpected result could be that the employees who participated in this study
did not perceive their performance appraisal as controlling. Furthermore, the performance appraisal
systems of the four different organizations that participated in this study are mostly focused on the
development of employees consisting of reflective purposes. Within the 17 primary schools, employees
are appraised on eight competencies on a scale from 1 to 4. The performance appraisal is mainly based
on personal development interventions and promotion opportunities. To summarize, the current
performance appraisal system of 17 primary schools is focusing on the development of an employee.
Within the childcare organization, employees are appraised based on a ‘reflection system’ consisting of
conversations based on personal development, goals, and performance. Within the trade union
organization, the performance appraisal system is based on three conversations. Employees are
appraised according to a scale from A to D. The appraisals are mainly focused on the development of
an employee (e.g. career interview, more challenging job or task, improvement arrangements).
Therefore, the ‘controlling’ effect of the performance appraisal might not be that strong within these
organizations. Further explanation is given in the section entitled as ‘limitations and suggestions for
future research’.
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
26
The second hypothesis of this study expects that the perceived IPT of a manager will moderate
the relationship between performance appraisal and the intrinsic motivation of an employee, in such a
way that this negative relationship will be stronger when employees perceive the IPT of their manager
to be fixed. According to the results of this study it can be stated that this hypothesis is not supported.
Thus, IPT perceptions of employees about their manager do not moderate the effect of the scenario of
the performance appraisal on intrinsic motivation. This is not in correspondence with authors like Heslin,
Latham, and VandeWalle (2005), Geen (1983), and Hackman & Oldham (1976). A possible reason for
this unexpected result can be that the employees who participated in this study could not relate that much
to the scenario of the situation of the performance appraisal nor the informal conversation.
To conclude, the expected relationships described in the introduction of this paper are not
supported by this study. Several limitations might be the reason of the unsupported results, further
explanation about these limitations are given in the following section entitled as ‘limitations and
suggestions for future research’. However, in the introduction it was stated that the employee perception
of the growth mindset moderates the relationship between a performance appraisal and the intrinsic
motivation of an employee. Additional analysis on a subset of the sample (N = 68) confirms that the
employee perception of the growth mindset leads to a higher intrinsic motivation for an employee, in
case the feedback is experienced as very positive. Even though this additional analysis is focused on the
feedback experience of a performance appraisal and not entirely focused on the relationship between a
performance appraisal in general and the intrinsic motivation of an employee, it is advisable to research
this effect further.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
The first limitation of this study concerns the type of performance appraisal systems within the
organizations that participated in this study. After collecting the data, the organizations participating in
this study were asked about their performance appraisal system as described in the discussion section.
To conclude, the performance appraisal of the different organizations in this study are largely based on
the development of employees consisting of reflective purposes. This can be indicated as a limitation
for this study because according to literature studies, a performance appraisal system is seen as a
controlling event which can lead to a lower intrinsic motivation of an employee. However, it can be the
case that the majority of employees of the non-profit organizations participated in this study do not
experience a performance appraisal as “controlling”. Therefore, it is recommended for future research
to analyze on forehand how the performance appraisal systems are conducted within the specific
organizations before adding these organizations to the sample of the study.
The second limitation of this study is the size of the sample (134 respondents), from which 68
respondents belong to the experimental group and 66 respondents belong to the control group. For future
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
27
research it is recommended to have a larger sample of respondents to provide a more reliable and valid
study. Furthermore, a larger sample leads to an increase in the generalizability of the conclusions.
The third limitation contains the description of the two different scenarios of the informal
conversation and the performance appraisal. For future research it is preferable to make sure that
respondents understand the scenario well enough to visualize this event (performance appraisal or
informal conversation) and answer the questions according to the feeling they had during the event.
Future researchers could make the scenarios more realistic by adding a question before the scenario
where the respondents have to name three words that summarize their feeling during the last
performance appraisal or during the last informal conversation. The aim of this intervention is to increase
the respondent’s involvement with the different scenarios. On the other hand, it would be more effective
if the questionnaires could be distributed directly after the performance appraisal and informal
conversation between a supervisor and an employee. In this way, it is fresh in the mind of an employee
which leads to a greater chance that the respondents fill in the questionnaire with a realistic scenario in
their mind.
The fourth limitation is the item of “feedback sign” which only the experimental group (N = 68)
was asked. Future research should also ask the control group (N = 66) about their satisfaction with the
informal conversation. This study only used the “feedback sign” item for additional analysis with the
experimental group. By asking this item also with the control group, all the respondents could be used
during analysis. Especially because there was a significant effect shown with the growth mindset as a
moderator in this additional analysis, it is recommended to ask the control group as well.
The fifth limitation contains the measurement of the IPT variable, since this variable was based
on the perceptions of the employees regarding the IPT of their manager. Future research should focus
also on the manager’s view.
Because of the limitations of this study as discussed (type of performance appraisal systems,
description of the scenarios, sample size, the feedback question only asked to the experimental group,
and not measuring the view of the manager himself) it is advised to follow up with a more in-depth
analysis of the effect of being appraised and the influence a manager has on the motivation of people to
(out)perform.
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
28
Practical implications
This study indicates that supervisor support is positively related with the intrinsic motivation of an
employee. For employees and supervisors it is also important to know that receiving (or in the case of
supervisors: delivering) a higher level of supervisor support leads to an increase in the intrinsic
motivation of the employee. Therefore, it is advisable for supervisors to give more support if they want
their employees to be more intrinsically motivated.
According to the additional analysis of this study, it is advisable for organizations to focus and
identify which mindset a manager possesses since a growth mindset leads to a higher intrinsic motivation
for an employee, in case the feedback is experienced as very positive. Therefore, it is important that
managers give feedback in a professional way in order to provide a positive experience for the
employees.
Conclusion
This study did not confirm the detrimental effect of a performance appraisal on the intrinsic motivation
of an employee. Furthermore, this study did not confirm that the degree to which a performance appraisal
can be detrimental to the intrinsic motivation of an employee depends on whether the employee thinks
his manager sees his employees as malleable. However, this study provided statistical evidence that
supervisory support has a positive influences with the level of intrinsic motivation of an employee.
According to this study, additional analysis shows that a perceived growth mindset moderates the
relationship between the level of satisfaction of the feedback of the last performance appraisal and the
intrinsic motivation of an employee. The growth mindset moderates this relationship in such a way that
when an employee perceives high levels of the growth mindset from their manager, this will lead to
higher levels of employees’ intrinsic motivation, in case the feedback during the last performance
appraisal was experienced as very positive. In contrast, when an employee perceives low levels of the
growth mindset from their manager, this will lead to lower levels of the employees’ intrinsic motivation,
in case the feedback during the performance appraisal was experienced as very positive.
Nowadays, many organizations are searching for new performance appraisal techniques. As
already mentioned in the introduction of this paper, some large organizations (e.g. Microsoft) already
decided to quite their performance appraisal systems and started in-depth conversations (Rock, Davis &
Jones, 2014). Due to these changes, it is clearly of organizations’ interest how to cope with the
performance appraisal since these appraisals do not always lead to the intended beneficial outcomes of
motivating employees and improving performance (Bouskila-Yam & Kluger, 2011; Hackman &
Oldham, 1976; Coens & Jenskins, 2002). These changes explain that organizations have serious doubts
on the effectiveness of this tool and feel the urge to change their approach. Since people are one of the
most important assets of the organization alternatives are being investigated and implemented. The role
a manager plays in all applicable systems is crucial. Therefore it is important to investigate further what
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
29
the effect of the employee perception of the fixed and the growth mindset of the manager is on the
intrinsic motivation of an employee.
One of the key conclusions of this study is that employee perceptions of the growth mindset (as
a moderator on the relationship between high levels of a positive feedback experience and intrinsic
motivation) influences the level of intrinsic motivation of the employee in a positive way, this effect
should be investigated further. Moreover, this study showed that supervisory support strongly influences
the level of intrinsic motivation of the employee in a positive way. This conclusion as such can be of
high importance for the development of people.
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
30
References
Adler, S., Campion, M., Colquitt, A., Grubb, A., Murphy, K., Krane, R.O., & Pulakos, E.D.
(2015). Getting Rid of Performance Ratings: Genius or Folly?—A debate. Proceedings of the
2015 Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1-49.
Philadelphia: PA
Belschak, F.D., & Den Hartog, D.N. (2009). Consequences of Positive and Negative
Feedback: The Impact on Emotions and Extra-Role Behaviors. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 58(2), 274-303. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00336.x
Bouskila-Yam, O., & Kluger, A.N. (2011). Strength-based performance appraisal and goal
setting. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 137-147. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.001
Brehm, J.W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press. Retrieved
from: https://books.google.nl/books
Cleveland, J. N., Lim, A. S., & Murphy, K. R. (2007). 11 Feedback phobia? Why employees
do not want to give or receive performance feedback. Research companion to the
dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms, 168-186. Retrieved from:
http://www.untag-smd.ac.id
Clifton, D. O., & Harter, J. K. (2003). Investing in strengths. Positive organizational
scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline, 111-121. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net
Coens, T., & Jenkins, M. (2002). Abolishing performance appraisals: Why they backfire and
what to do instead. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/
Deliège, I., Davidson, J., & Sloboda, J. A. (2011). Music and the mind: Essays in honour of
John Sloboda. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199581566.001.0001
Dransfield, R. (2000). Studies in economics and business: Human Resource Management. Retrieved
from: http://books.google.com/
Dweck, C.S. (2006). Mindset the new psychology of success: How we can learn to fulfill our potential.
Retrieved from: http://books.google.com
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
31
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C. Y., & Hong, Y. Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in
judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychological inquiry, 6(4), 267-285.
doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1
Geen, R.G., & Gange, J.J. (1977). Drive Theory of Social Facilitation: Twelve Years of
Theory and Research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(6), 1267-1288. doi: 10.1037/0033-
2909.84.6.1267
Geen, R.G. (1983). Evaluation Apprehension and the Social Facilitation/Inhibition of
Learning. Motivation and Emotion, 7(2), 203-212. doi: 10.1007/BF00992903
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation Through the Design of Work: Test of a
Theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250-79. doi:10.1016/0030-
5073(76)90016-7
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable
mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. Retrieved from
http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
Heslin, P. A., Latham, G. P., & VandeWalle, D. (2005). The effect of implicit person theory
on performance appraisals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 842-856. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.842
Heslin, P. A., & VandeWalle, D. (2011). Performance appraisal procedural justice: The role
of a manager's implicit person theory. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1694-1718. doi:
10.1177/0149206309342895
Lam, S. K., & Yik, S. M. (2002). Responses to formal performance appraisal feedback: the role
of negative affectivity. Journal of applied psychology, 87(1), 192-201. doi:10.1037//0021-
9010.87.1.192
Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of
the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485-516.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142105
Moyer‐Gusé, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the
Persuasive effects of entertainment‐education messages. Communication Theory, 18(3), 407-
425. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00328.x
Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
32
SPSS (5th ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.
Pervin, L.A. (1994). A Critical Analysis of Current Trait Theory. Psychological Inquiry, 5(2),
103-113. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0502_1
Qualtrics. (2016, April 3). Retrieved from: http://www.qualtrics.com/customer-experience/
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization:
The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5),
825-836. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825
Rock, D., Davis, J., & Jones, B. (2014). Kill your performance ratings: Neuroscience shows why
numbers-based HR management is obsolete. Strategy Business, 76, 2-10. Retrieved from:
https://www.semanticscholar.org
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow (2009). Artifacts in Behavioral Research. In. M. Rosenberg (Ed.), The
conditions and consequences of evaluation apprehension, (pp. 211-240), University of
Chicago. Retrieved from http://books.google.nl/books
Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive
evaluation theory. Journal of personality and social psychology, 43(3), 450-461.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.450
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
doi:10.1037110003-066X.55.1.68
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thorhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. Harlow:
Pearson Education Limited.
Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following
multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of Empirical findings.
Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 33−66. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.514_1.x
Spence, J. R., & Keeping, L. (2011). Conscious rating distortion in performance appraisal: A
review, commentary, and proposed framework for research. Human Resource Management
Review, 21(2), 85-95. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.013
Tremblay, M. A., Blanchard, C. M., Taylor, S., Pelletier, L. G., & Villeneuve, M. (2009).
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
33
Work extrinsic and intrinsic motivation scale: its value for organizational psychology research.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 41(4), 213-226. doi:10.1037/a0015167
Van Woerkom, M., & Freese, C. (2015, September 29). Schaf het beoordelingsgesprek af. De
Volkskrant. Retrieved from http://www.volkskrant.nl/
Zhou, J. (2003). When the Presence of Creative Coworkers Is Related To Creativity: Role of
Supervisor Close Monitoring, Developmental Feedback, and Creative Personality. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(3), 413-422. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.413
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
34
Appendices Appendix A
Introduction Letter in Dutch
Onderzoek informele en formele gesprekken in organisaties
Beste medewerk(st)er,
Allereerst zullen we ons even kort voorstellen, onze namen zijn Babette, Patty en Emmanouil en wij
studeren aan de universiteit van Tilburg (Master Human Resource Studies). Voor ons afstuderen doen
wij onderzoek naar formele en informele gesprekken binnen organisaties en daarvoor hebben wij een
online vragenlijst samengesteld. Het invullen van deze vragenlijst is geheel anoniem en neemt
maximaal 15 minuten tijd in beslag. De gegevens die hieruit voortkomen worden alleen gebruikt voor
dit afstudeeronderzoek.
Het is de bedoeling dat u de vragen alleen invult en deze niet bespreekt met anderen. De vragenlijst
kunt u vinden door op onderstaande link te klikken:
http://basiumit.nl/survey
Mocht u nog vragen hebben dan kunt u contact met mij opnemen:
Patty Janssen
U doet ons een heel groot plezier en helpt ons enorm als u even de tijd neemt om deze vragenlijst in te
vullen. Bij voorbaat dank.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Babette van der Zanden
Emmanouil Fotakis
Patty Janssen
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
35
Appendix B
ANOVA
Table B1
One-way between-groups ANOVA of Organization Groups on Intrinsic Motivation
Sum of Squares df Mean
Square
F p
Between
groups
10.821 2 5.411 3.989 .021
Within groups 174.963 129 1.356
Total 185.785 131
Table B2
One-way between groups ANOVA of Organization Groups on Fixed Mindset (IPT)
Sum of Squares df Mean
Square
F p
Between
groups
2.378 2 1.189 1.357 .261
Within groups 114.773 131 .876
Total 117.151 133
Table B3
One-way between groups ANOVA of Organization Groups on Growth Mindset (IPT)
Sum of Squares df Mean
Square
F p
Between
groups
4.205 2 2.102 2.627 .076
Within groups 104.847 131 .800
Total 109.052 133
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
36
Appendix C
Factor Analysis
Table C1
Factor analysis scale intrinsic motivation (3-item)
Intrinsic motivation (3 item scale)
Component
1
2. Voor de bevrediging die ik haal uit het aangaan van interessante uitdagingen .936
1. Omdat ik veel plezier haal uit het leren van nieuwe dingen .876
3. Voor de tevredenheid die ik ervaar als ik succesvol ben in het uitvoeren van moeilijke taken .868
Eigenvalue 2.396
Variance explained 79.852
Cronbachs α
KMO
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
.871
.691
.000
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
37
Table C2
Factor analysis scale IPT with two components
IPT scale
Component Component
1 2
6. Wat voor type persoon iemand ook is, hij/zij kan altijd in sterke mate
veranderen .927
7. Mensen kunnen zelfs hun meest basale eigenschappen veranderen .877
5. Mensen kunnen in belangrijke mate veranderen wat voor type persoon ze zijn .788
4. Iedereen, wie dan ook, kan zijn wezenlijke karaktereigenschappen in
belangrijke mate veranderen.
.603 -.400
1. Wat voor persoon iemand is, is iets heel wezenlijks, waar je niet veel aan kunt
veranderen
.903
3. Iedereen heeft een bepaalde persoonlijkheid, en daar kunnen ze niet echt veel
aan veranderen
.887
2. Mensen kunnen dingen op een andere manier aanpakken, maar hun
wezenlijke karaktereigenschappen kan je niet echt veranderen
.803
Eigenvalue 3.914 1.371
Variance explained 55.951 19.584
Cronbachs α
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
.306
.832
.000
Table C3
Factor analysis scale growth mindset
Growth mindset
Component
1
5. Mensen kunnen in belangrijke mate veranderen wat voor type persoon ze zijn .873
6. Wat voor type persoon iemand ook is, hij/zij kan altijd in sterke mate veranderen .844
7. Mensen kunnen zelfs hun meest basale eigenschappen veranderen .838
4. Iedereen, wie dan ook, kan zijn wezenlijke karaktereigenschappen in belangrijke mate
veranderen. .823
Eigenvalue 2.854
Variance explained 71.358
Cronbachs α
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
.865
.788
.000
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
38
Table C4
Factor analysis scale fixed mindset IPT
Fixed mindset
Component
1
3. Iedereen heeft een bepaalde persoonlijkheid, en daar kunnen ze niet echt veel aan veranderen .900
1. Wat voor persoon iemand is, is iets heel wezenlijks, waar je niet veel aan kunt veranderen .867
2. Mensen kunnen dingen op een andere manier aanpakken, maar hun wezenlijke
karaktereigenschappen kan je niet echt veranderen .863
Eigenvalue 2.306
Variance explained 76.862
Cronbachs α
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
.847
.721
.000
INFLUENCE OF APPRAISAL AND IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY ON MOTIVATION
39
Appendix D
Additional Analysis
Figure D1. Graph additional analysis significant interaction with growth mindset as the
moderator