THE FATE OF ROLE STEREOTYPES IN TWO PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SITUATIONS

Summary T he present study investigated the effect and course of stereotyped attitudes of supervisors and subordinates interacting to plan changes in the subordinates' performance. In particular, the study concerned the fate of these stereotyped role‐attitudes during the course of two types of appraisal interviews: the traditional traits rating method and the newly‐formulated goals method. Thirty‐six nursing supervisors were assigned roles as supervisors and subordinates and given appropriate role descriptions and instructions. Both groups made initial trait ratings of the hypothetical subordinate and then role‐played parts in the two types of appraisal interviews. Following each interaction, supervisors and subordinates rated their reactions. The results clearly indicated that the initial ratings by the supervisors of the hypothetical subordinate were more negative than the ratings made by the subordinates themselves. These differences were present before any interaction had taken place between supervisors and subordinates, and they appear due to stereotyped attitudes inherent in the role of supervisors and subordinates. After role playing, reactions of both supervisors and subordinates to the goals method were more positive than reactions to the traits interaction. When the initial disparity in the critical rating attitudes of supervisors and subordinates was greatest, the traits method interaction perpetuated conflict whereas the goals method interaction either resolved it or in some way avoided it. The traits method appears to force the supervisor to assume an evaluative posture toward the subordinate. This posture fosters the critical attitudes associated with the supervisory role. Under the goals method, on the other hand, the supervisor can take a relatively non‐evaluative role. Consequently, the stereotyped attitudes and behaviors associated with an evaluative relationship are circumvented.