Changing Attitudes toward a Merit Rating System
Authors: ZANDER ALVIN , GYR JOHN 
Published: December 2006

SummaryAn effort was made to change the attitudes of 400 men in a favorable direction concerning a merit appraisal procedure used in one department of a large company. Two experimental methods were used, one in which the members of 12 crews counselled their supervisor on the practices that he should use in order that he might be equally fair to all persons in making his judgments, and another in which 12 foremen explained to their crews the methods he follows so that he might be impartial in his ratings. These supervisors were trained in the procedures necessary for conducting permissive and stimulating meetings and also in standard techniques of reporting appraisal results to each individual workman. The merit evaluations were made monthly instead of the usual practice of twice a year. A number of supervisors, who were also trained in reporting methods, described the appraisal results to the men monthly but held no prior group meetings with them. These were controls on the effect of the increase in frequency of feedback. Another set of crews provided an overall control by making no change from the usual practices. Attitude measures were made at the beginning and end of the experimental period. Measures concerning the crew meetings were also obtained.The difference between the average changes in attitude toward the appraisal plan in the two experimental methods is not statistically significant and the attitude change in the two procedures is not significantly different from the over‐all control group. The over‐all control group did not change at all.The effectiveness of the meetings in both treatments were alike in creating positive attitudes toward the appraisal plan if the foreman was seen to have the best interests of the men in mind, knew what he was talking about, and the men agreed with his beliefs about the evaluation methods during the meeting. Where these features were absent, the attitudes of the men concerning the evaluation methods did not change.The workmen in the consultation procedure made a significant favorable change in attitude toward the appraisal methods if they felt that the meeting outcome was satisfactory, the men were skilled in discussion procedures, and there was difference in opinion during the session prior to arriving at a group decision. Those who were given an explanation of his practices by the boss made a significant positive change in attitude concerning the evaluation methods only if they felt that higher management was sincere and that there was a high degree of similarity in the opinions of the crew members and with their boss.The men in the feedback‐frequency control groups made the greatest average favorable change in attitude toward the appraisal procedures and also developed a strong perception of control over their own fate. It was suggested that these men viewed their foreman as greatly interested in them—even more than those supervisors who held prior meetings with crews—and willing to provide means for improvement of the men.Average attitudes concerning the liking of the foreman and the company, or the power of the supervisor, were not changed during the study in either experimental treatment, nor did the changes where they occurred appear to affect feelings toward the evaluation methods.Positive attitudes toward a potential source of reward or punishment are a function of the probability that one's needs will be satisfied by that source. In the consultation method the group members' feelings about the practices used by a powerful person depend upon how effective they themselves are as a group in determining his behavior. In the explanation treatment the attitudes depend upon how sincere higher management is perceived to be in sanctioning the superior's behavior. Finally, monthly appraisal reports seem to generate a perception that supervisors will help the subordinate to improve his performance and thus to have control over his own need gratification; therefore, attitudes improve when appraisal feedback interviews are frequent.