Difference between revisions of "Scheuer2014"
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Number=3 | |Number=3 | ||
|Pages=407–429 | |Pages=407–429 | ||
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461445613519018 |
|DOI=10.1177/1461445613519018 | |DOI=10.1177/1461445613519018 | ||
|Abstract=Performance appraisal interviews are carried out on the basis of known-in-advance written materials such as preparation forms and interview guides. This article demonstrates how participants manage interviews by following a question–answer–response format fit to address interview guide entries one at a time. Two recurring supervisor responses to employees’ talk about problems in work are investigated: positive prediction and advice. It is suggested that these responses serve to establish supervisor authority and deter participants from discussing issues raised in employee answers and thus go against norms emanating from literature on management communication. Results obtained in interviews are put down in writing along the way and subsequently summarized in documents to be signed by both participants, that is, employee and supervisor. The article demonstrates how participants use positive prediction and advice to coordinate talk-in-interaction with handling written materials and note taking, as well as formulating conclusions suitable for writing. The analyses shed light on how talk in an institutional context becomes a middle-medium, that is, a bridge between writings, and how this process is accomplished in turn-taking procedures. | |Abstract=Performance appraisal interviews are carried out on the basis of known-in-advance written materials such as preparation forms and interview guides. This article demonstrates how participants manage interviews by following a question–answer–response format fit to address interview guide entries one at a time. Two recurring supervisor responses to employees’ talk about problems in work are investigated: positive prediction and advice. It is suggested that these responses serve to establish supervisor authority and deter participants from discussing issues raised in employee answers and thus go against norms emanating from literature on management communication. Results obtained in interviews are put down in writing along the way and subsequently summarized in documents to be signed by both participants, that is, employee and supervisor. The article demonstrates how participants use positive prediction and advice to coordinate talk-in-interaction with handling written materials and note taking, as well as formulating conclusions suitable for writing. The analyses shed light on how talk in an institutional context becomes a middle-medium, that is, a bridge between writings, and how this process is accomplished in turn-taking procedures. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:18, 7 December 2019
| Scheuer2014 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Scheuer2014 |
| Author(s) | Jann Scheuer |
| Title | Managing employees’ talk about problems in work in performance appraisal interviews |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, interviews, leadership management, multimodality, performance, appraisal, post-answer response, question–answer sequences, supervisor–employee interaction, talk in institutions, talk on problems in work |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2014 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 16 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 407–429 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461445613519018 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Performance appraisal interviews are carried out on the basis of known-in-advance written materials such as preparation forms and interview guides. This article demonstrates how participants manage interviews by following a question–answer–response format fit to address interview guide entries one at a time. Two recurring supervisor responses to employees’ talk about problems in work are investigated: positive prediction and advice. It is suggested that these responses serve to establish supervisor authority and deter participants from discussing issues raised in employee answers and thus go against norms emanating from literature on management communication. Results obtained in interviews are put down in writing along the way and subsequently summarized in documents to be signed by both participants, that is, employee and supervisor. The article demonstrates how participants use positive prediction and advice to coordinate talk-in-interaction with handling written materials and note taking, as well as formulating conclusions suitable for writing. The analyses shed light on how talk in an institutional context becomes a middle-medium, that is, a bridge between writings, and how this process is accomplished in turn-taking procedures.
Notes
