Against a backdrop of new public management (NPM) thinking and managerialism generally applied to universities in a range of countries, this study examines one of its manifestations--performance management for academics. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 40 academics at an Australian university, this article identifies six stances regularly adopted by those conducting performance appraisal interviews with academics. These are labelled "nurturing", "hard-driving", "self-serving", "coddling", "disengaged" and "hostile". Each of these appraisal stances is described in detail and then considered from two perspectives--that of academics themselves and of NPM. The material presented suggests that while a "nurturing" stance was viewed favourably by the academics interviewed, it is out of step with NPM thinking. "Hard-driving" and "self-serving" stances, which directly reflect NPM thinking, were disliked by many (although not all) of the interviewees who had experienced them. The most common appraising stance--a "disengaged" one--was widely condemned, as was the "hostile" stance, yet both stances have much in common with the ruthlessness of NPM.