Gerald L. Wilson

The performance appraisal interview: An interpretive reassessment

This essay proposes a framework for appraisal processes that includes consideration of antecedent and consequent cultural, organizational, and individual information, and the narratives used by participants to relate their experiences. The framework features motives identified by Kenneth Burke as intrinsic to communication marked by hierarchy: “mystery,” “order,” and “the kill.” Three performance appraisals are critiqued and directions for future interpretive studies are recommended.

An Analysis of Instructional Strategies for Responding To Illegal Selection Interview Questions

The selection interview is clearly a very important communication event for every person who is employed or seeks employment. It is one of the few communication events in our life that has the potential for major impact. We are all keenly aware that a decision will be made regarding whether we will be a wage earner and what kind of a wage earner we will be. The recognition that this kind of decision is being made on the basis of what we say and do and the uncertainty regarding how what we say may be received undoubtedly creates high stress for the person involved. A factor that can dramatically increase that stress is the potential for being asked to supply information that is not legally usable in the employment decision-making process. Adding further to this problem is the likelihood that the interviewee has not been taught strategies for managing these questions. The purpose of this article is to systematically analyze instructional strategies for teaching about illegal interviewing. First, the question, &dquo;Is the asking of illegal questions a serious problem?,&dquo; is investigated. Next, criteria are set for instruction regarding answering illegal selection interview questions. Finally, instructional materials presented in college-level textbooks that treat selection interviewing are assessed.

Preparing Students for Responding to Illegal Selection Interview Questions.

The selection interview is a very important communication event for all of us who seek employment because our ability to earn a living is at stake. The recognition that this kind of decision is being made and the uncertainty regarding how the interviewer might evaluate what we say undoubtedly contributes to the stress we feel. Beyond this, the potential is high for being asked to supply information that is not legally usable in the employment decision-making process. Research indicates that we might very well be asked an illegal question and that we are likely to answer the question directly, if asked (Springston & Keyton, 1988; Siegfried & Wood, 1983). Adding further to this problem is the likelihood that the interviewee has not been taught strategies for managing these questions (Siegfried & Wood, 1983; Wilson, in press). The purpose of this article is to demonstrate how strategies for answering illegal interview questions can be taught. First, the nature of the illegal questioning problem is discussed. Then, a plan for teaching strategies for managing illegal questioning is presented.

Confrontation rhetoric in institutional settings: A rational process

It is argued that rhetorical scholars, for the most part, have not considered power rhetoric in the context of institutional authority and power systems within which rhetoric operates. It is suggested that symbolic acts of power (threats and promises) in the context of conflict resolution are within the rhetorical domain and that their consideration re‐focuses the attention given to invention, strategic choices, and ethical questions. With the introduction of power, the focus of rhetoric during conflict shifts from questions of truth and justice in which issues concerning the relationships among proofs and propositions are paramount to questions of power in which a different set of issues concerning the relationship among conflicting parties become paramount. This essay compares issues related to truth and justice and those related to power in the context of confrontation within the institutional setting.