Performance appraisal (PA) research and practice suggest that political character of employee appraisal is one of the main concerns of the employees and the top managements. Research literature also acknowledges the need to study PA from political perspective. But the extant literature on politics in performance appraisal is largely anecdotal and descriptive in nature. The development of concept itself has been piecemeal with different strands in need of integration. Therefore this thesis expands the concept of appraisal politics, and investigates it from appraisee’s perspective. Appraisees being the decision recipient experience ‘appraisal politics’ more acutely. Stakeholders in the performance appraisal process resort to political behavior to fulfill their appraisal related self serving goals, often at the cost of others or organizational goals. For example, appraisers inflate performance ratings so that subordinates close to them get higher rewards. Appraisees use political tactics, such as ingratiation targeted at appraiser, to influence their performance ratings and rewards. In this thesis, we define appraisal politics from an appraisees’ perspective as constituting those appraiser actions (rating ignoring performance criteria), fellow appraisees’ actions (upward influence behaviors to get higher ratings/ rewards), and appraisal linked discriminatory pay & promotion decisions (ignoring performance criteria) which are aimed at achieving appraisers and fellow appraisees’ self- serving ends, and which may affect appraisee’s appraisal rating/ rewards interests. Such decisions and appraiser/ appraisee actions demotivate good performers, compromise organization’s pay for performance policies and performance culture in the long run. We focus on studying appraisee’s perceptions, and define a construct, perception of appraisal politics (PAPS), as appraisee’s perception about political nature of PA rating decision, i.e. which promotes the PA related self interests of fellow appraisees and appraisers, and which may affect appraisee’s appraisal rating/ reward related self interests. We investigate antecedents related to PA structure, PA process, and PA’s proximal context which influence PAPS. Further, we investigate the influence of appraisee’s PAPS on appraisee reactions – PA related anxiety, PA system satisfaction, and satisfaction with appraiser. We draw upon organizational politics (OP) and organizational justice (OJ) literature, and stress-strain theory as applied to politics, to state hypotheses and propose a model. Taking cues from work stress-strain theory, it is proposed that appraisees’ high PAPS act as a work stressor causing individual strain i.e. anxiety and (dis)satisfaction. Drawing from stress-strain theory further, it is proposed that the PAPS can be reduced by those antecedents which enhance appraisees’ perceived control, understanding, and prediction of appraisal decision and process. Social support or interpersonal relations act as another antidote to stress. OJ theories suggest that appraisees’ perception of control (understanding, and prediction) depends largely on PA structural, processes, and interpersonal factors. Specifically, based on procedural justice theory, it is proposed that ‘due process’ performance appraisal can give appraisee such control etc. For example ‘voice’ during various PA stages (includes participative performance planning, self appraisals, and appeal) enhances appraisees’ PA control perception, and ‘downward communication’ (includes communication/ clarity of PA policies, effective feedback, and PA decision communication) will enhance appraisees’ PA process understanding. Appraiser’s interactional and informational fairness in the process will also reduce appraisees’ PAPS. Another important stress theory hypothesis states that the stressor–strain relation is moderated by individual’s decision/process control (understanding, and prediction). In the current research it is proposed that appraisees’ self political behavior acts as this moderator. When PAPS is high and appraisee perceives lesser appraisal control, then appraisee tries to bring back decision and process control by influencing appraiser through covert or overt political behaviors. It reflects their assessment of high politics in appraisal as an opportunity to get higher rating and rewards. There are others who consider such situation as a threat to their interests. These conclusions are based on appraisee’s positive or negative assessment of their own political skills, and of situational appropriateness of such actions (e.g. appraiser’s susceptibility to political influence). Thus in case of higher PAPS, appraisees indulging in political behavior will experience lesser strain, whereas others not indulging in such behavior will experience higher strain. A mix of quantitative and qualitative methods was used. A preproposal qualitative study helped to identify key issues influencing appraisees’ perceptions. A pretested self – administered questionnaire was used to collect responses from appraisees in six organizations. Further, an interview based qualitative study was conducted in one of these organizations to understand and explain the results obtained in the quantitative study, especially the antecedents –PAPS relations. The six organizations belonged to private sector, functioning in manufacturing/ process/ engineering industries, and are Indian family run businesses. The respondents of the study belonged to junior, middle, and senior level managers in these organizations. In all we received 407 acceptable responses for quantitative study, and we interviewed 17 appraisees in the qualitative study. The results at bivariate level show that, even after controlling for appraisee’s outcome favorability, most of the variables exhibit significant relation with PAPS and its dimensions in the hypothesized directions. Except that PA instrumentality variables- close rating-reward relation, promotional opportunities, and forced curve rating, were negatively related with PAPS, a result opposite to the hypotheses. In the hierarchical regression analysis it was found that these variables precede structural and process variables in the hierarchical order, and have a positive influence on them. It implies that unless PA instrumentality is high, PA processes suffer because then it is not taken seriously by its users. Overall bivariate results were supported by hierarchical regression results. At multivariate level, PAPS was influenced the most by authority hierarchy (or centralization), downward communication, appraiser-appraisee relations, criteria relevance, and developmental use of appraisals. Since these represent all PA variable categories- process, structure, job, and interpersonal, it implies that all categories are important. However, in case of PAPS dimensions, MVA results provide strong evidence of politics foci- antecedents’ alignment. Appraiser politics (AP) had significant positive relation with authority hierarchy, and negative with appraiser-appraisee relation and downward communication. We have argued that these variables are either appraiser centric e.g., appraiser –appraisee relation, or are appraiser driven e.g., downward communication processes. It was found that for AP, appraiser driven downward communication component- PA decision explanation, is significant. Organizationwide pay and promotion decision politics (PAP) had significant negative relation with downward communication, promotional opportunities, and developmental purpose / use of PA. These antecedents are predominantly structural and organization driven. More organization driven downward communication component- communication / clarity of PA policies, was significant. Coworker politics (CP) had significant positive relation with authority hierarchy, and negative with downward communication, criteria relevance and PA’s developmental purpose/ use. In this case influential antecedents were both structure and process related. A test of hierarchical model of antecedents –PAPS relations revealed strong support for the following hierarchical order among antecedent categories: job, instrumental, structural, process, and interpersonal. Both mediation and SEM tests supported this order. Overall the results suggest that appraiser centric antecedents- downward communication, authority hierarchy, and appraiser-appraisee relations are the critical antecedents. These exhibit strong main effects for PAPS and/or its dimensions, and also strong mediation of other antecedents. Interestingly, downward communication mediated voice effect, a result, we explained, may be idiosyncratic to the Indian cultural context. On the consequence side, appraisee’s PA system satisfaction had significant negative relation with their perceptions of PAP and CP. Their PA related anxiety was related positively with their perceptions of AP and PAP. Appraisee’s satisfaction with appraiser was negatively related with all three components. These results also indicate some support for politics foci-consequence relation. Thus if concern is PA system, then it may be prudent to focus more on policy issues like pay and promotion. Similarly, higher PA anxiety indicates need to focus more on appraiser controlled processes. The support was weak for mediation of antecedents – appraisee reaction relations by PAPS. Only antecedents - PA anxiety results were partially mediated by PAPS. We argued that anxiety, being a momentary affective state, can be felt as a reaction to high PAPS. However, satisfaction is more stable and cognitive experience like PAPS, and the causalty can be bidirectional between the two. The support for appraisee’s self political behaviors moderating PAPS-appraisee reaction relations was also modest. However, results prove that in face of highly politically charged environment, appraisee’s own political actions do mitigate negative influence of PAPS. For appraisee, these actions serve as alternate informal means to control and influence PA decision. Therefore the study exhibits reasonable support for the proposed model and hypotheses. The study makes contribution to the PA politics literature by expanding the concept of appraisal politics and measuring it. It also identifies a hierarchical order among variable categories. The study extends support for multiple foci nature of politics phenomenon, a result found by Maslyn & Fedor (1998) in organizational politics context. It has implications for closely related concept, organizational justice, which is again multi-foci in nature. This study also provides support to the work stress –psychological strain literature, by demonstrating that appraisal politics is a form of work stressor and follows relation predicted by stress-strain theory. Thus it extends the work done in OP research. The test of hierarchical model also provides support to the untested administrative process part of Landy & Farr’s (1980) PA process model. The study also informs practitioners about relative importance of PA systemic and contextual factors. They can diagnose their own systems and identify gaps in their structural design or process implementation. Taking appraisee’s perspective, managers need to recognize that appraiser is the key figure in the process. They need to ensure that apart from implementing the structural aspects of PA, communication processes are properly followed.