Search results

This study examines how asking employees to self-assess their performance during the compensation setting process, when they are unaware of their marginal contribution to firm profit, affects employer welfare. Previous research suggests that giving employees a voice in the compensation setting process can positively affect employee performance and firm profit (Jenkins & Lawler, 1981; Roberts, 2003). However, the study proposes that asking employees to assess their own performance as part of the compensation setting process can have unintended consequences that ultimately lead to higher employee compensation demands. This is because asking employees to assess their performance increases their overconfidence in their own performance and their compensation demands. As a result, employers may face the dilemma of whether to meet these higher compensation demands or risk economic losses due to employee retaliation if their demands are not met. Through experimental evidence comparing a control condition without self-assessments and three self-assessment reporting conditions, the study provides evidence that supports the notion that eliciting employee self-assessments as part of the compensation process reduces employer welfare. Data on employee perceptions of performance further support the notion that asking employees to evaluate their performance leads to an inflated perception of their performance. These findings provide a theory-based explanation of why, in practice, many companies disentangle employee performance assessments from the compensation setting process and that companies are well advised in doing so.

We examine the influence of the self-assessment and self-enhancement motives on the choice of comparison organizations in two experimental studies. Study 1 shows that: (1) self-assessment generally prevailed over self-enhancement, guiding decision makers to choose organizations that were more similar and had better performance; (2) self-enhancement was more pronounced under conditions of low performance, leading participants to more frequently choose organizations that were less similar and had lower performance; and (3) self-enhancing comparisons inhibited perceptions of failure and the propensity to make changes. Study 2 extends the results of Study 1 by showing that participants were more likely to choose comparison organizations that had lower performance and were less similar when they were in a self-enhancement mindset than when they were in a self-assessment mindset. The combined effects of self-assessment and self-enhancement on the choice of comparison organizations are discussed in relation to the broader organizational literature on learning from performance feedback.

The global emphasis on performance-based assessment marginalises teachers' professional work with assessment and affects what is valued and devaluated in education. Thus, it affects students, teachers and schools, how the education system is governed, external experts, educational industry and societies. The programme Assessment for learning (AfL), which developed in the wake of the comprehensive high stakes test regime in England in the 1980s, was initially meant to counteract the democratic deficit caused by the increasing focus on metrics and large-scale assessments. As a backdrop, this chapter discusses performance standards in assessment and their consequences and then asks: What potential do professional standards in assessment have compared to current performance standards, and what do professional standards in assessment look like? The following argument is elaborated: In the endeavour to make education meaningful and relevant for students and societies, there is a need to shift from a focus on (global) standards for assessing students' performance to a focus on professional standards for teachers' work in assessment.

Each of the four objectives can be applied within the military training environment. Military training often requires that soldiers achieve specific levels of performance or proficiency in each phase of training. For example, training courses impose entrance and graduation criteria, and awards are given for excellence in military performance. Frequently, training devices, training media, and training evaluators or observers also directly support the need to diagnose performance strengths and weaknesses. Training measures may be used as indices of performance, and to indicate the need for additional or remedial training.

This chapter, completed in 1999, provides an overview and critical analysis of the validity research agenda undertaken by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) for its assessment to certify accomplished teachers at the end of its first decade of assessment development and implementation. The review is presented in three major sections: (a) an overview of the validity criteria underlying the review; (b) a description of the National Board's research agenda presented in its own terms, focusing first on the studies that were routinely carried out for each certificate and second on the “special studies” that were not part of the routine agenda; and (c) a series of six critical observations and explanations based on the validity issues described in the first section.