the effect of performance appraisal on the intrinsic

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

https://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwithqvupcHNAhWDsxQKHTVMCvQQjRwIBw&url=http://www.knowledgeplus.ac.th/index.php/tilburg-university.html&psig=AFQjCNFYVJfOYVhPJ3pj6lV44dEbD31TnQ&ust=1466879424791658

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


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.


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.


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,


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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,


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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)


22

Table 5

Output Hayes process model 1: Growth mindset as moderator


Constant 3.56 1.47 2.43


Scenario -.20 .79 -.25

Interaction .08 .24 .35

Gender -.26 .34 -.77

Age .02 .01 1.73


Tenure -.02 .01 -1.51

Supervisor Support .31*** .09 3.45

Fixed mindset .02 .13 .16


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


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


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


Tenure -.01 .02 -.46

Supervisor Support .22* .11 2.03

Fixed mindset -.27 .19 -1.47


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)


24

Table 7

Hayes Process Model 1 additional analysis (N = 68): Fixed mindset as moderator


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


Tenure -.01 .02 -.31

Supervisor Support .25* .11 2.31



Childcare organization -.00 .35 -.01

R2 .28

Note. N = 68. (*** p <.001, ** p <.01, * p <.05)


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’.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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).


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


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

http://basiumit.nl/survey


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)


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)


Square

F p

Between

groups

4.205 2 2.102 2.627 .076

Within groups 104.847 131 .800

Total 109.052 133


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


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


.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


Cronbachs α



.865

.788

.000


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


Cronbachs α



.847

.721

.000


39

Appendix D

Additional Analysis

Figure D1. Graph additional analysis significant interaction with growth mindset as the

moderator


40

Figure D2. Graph additional analysis insignificant interaction with fixed mindset as the

moderator

the effect of performance appraisal on the intrinsic

Documents