Search results

1 – 10 of over 1000
Article
Publication date: 1 December 2005

Sylvia G. Roch

Managers frequently complain that performance ratings are inflated; thus, this study aims to explore what extent two motivational factors theoretically associated with…

3884

Abstract

Purpose

Managers frequently complain that performance ratings are inflated; thus, this study aims to explore what extent two motivational factors theoretically associated with accountability, rating audience and incentive, can influence rating inflation.

Design/methodology/approach

One hundred and forty‐nine raters were assigned to one of four audience conditions (ratee, expert, both ratee and expert – dual, and no audience) and either to an incentive or no incentive condition.

Findings

Results showed that when an incentive was offered, raters expecting an expert audience to view their ratings provided significantly lower ratings, and raters expecting a dual audience provided significantly higher ratings compared to raters not offered an incentive. Furthermore, raters expecting a ratee audience inflated their ratings, regardless of incentive.

Research limitations/implications

Financial incentives were used in this study and more research is needed to explore other types of incentives. Nonetheless, this research shows that incentives influence rating level.

Practical implications

The research suggests that if managers wish to reduce rating inflation, they should ensure that an audience, other than the person being rated, will view the ratings.

Originality/value

This study is the first to show that feelings of accountability and rating level are influenced by incentives, and that the audience of the ratings can determine whether incentives result in lower or higher ratings. Furthermore, it appears that the tendency to inflate ratings given a ratee audience may be quite powerful, even in the absence of specific incentives.

Details

Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 20 no. 8
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0268-3946

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 2 December 2022

Malik Ikramullah, Ammad Ahmed Khan Khalil, Muhammad Zahid Iqbal and Faqir Sajjad Ul Hassan

Recent performance appraisal (PA) literature suggests that alongside cognitive biases, rating distortions may stem from rater disposition and PA context. The study investigated…

Abstract

Purpose

Recent performance appraisal (PA) literature suggests that alongside cognitive biases, rating distortions may stem from rater disposition and PA context. The study investigated the role of social value orientation (rater disposition), PA purposes and rater accountability (PA context) toward rating distortions at both performance levels, i.e. good and poor.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors designed an experimental study and elicited data from N = 110 undergraduate students about two video-taped performances of good and poor performers. In these videos, two managers conducted assessment interviews of two different employees for the job of a sales representative at an information technology organization. To ensure the validity of performance ratings, the authors invited 10 senior managers to provide benchmark ratings of the video-taped performances. While being placed in two separate groups, the study participants gave performance ratings on both the video-taped performances. The authors used repeated-measures analysis to analyze data.

Findings

The results revealed that rating distortions took place not because of rater social value orientation, but the PA context. Different rating distortion patterns emerged for different levels of ratees' performance.

Originality/value

This study’s findings furnish new insights for assessing rating distortions for poor as well as good performers. Moreover, the results support previous findings that for good performers, accountable raters are tempted toward accurate ratings and refrained from deflation. Similarly, for poor performers, accountable raters do not inflate ratings. The findings will open research avenues to examine the role of PA purposes in rating distortions for different performance levels.

Details

Management Decision, vol. 61 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0025-1747

Keywords

Book part
Publication date: 20 July 2017

Paul E. Levy, Steven T. Tseng, Christopher C. Rosen and Sarah B. Lueke

In recent years, practitioners have identified a number of problems with traditional performance management (PM) systems, arguing that PM is broken and needs to be fixed. In this…

Abstract

In recent years, practitioners have identified a number of problems with traditional performance management (PM) systems, arguing that PM is broken and needs to be fixed. In this chapter, we review criticisms of traditional PM practices that have been mentioned by journalists and practitioners and we consider the solutions that they have presented for addressing these concerns. We then consider these problems and solutions within the context of extant scholarly research and identify (a) what organizations should do going forward to improve PM practices (i.e., focus on feedback processes, ensure accountability throughout the PM system, and align the PM system with organizational strategy) and (b) what scholars should focus research attention on (i.e., technology, strategic alignment, and peer-to-peer accountability) in order to reduce the science-practice gap in this domain.

Details

Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78714-709-6

Keywords

Abstract

Details

The Emerald Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78743-786-9

Article
Publication date: 14 August 2009

Stephanie C. Payne, Margaret T. Horner, Wendy R. Boswell, Amber N. Schroeder and Kelleen J. Stine‐Cheyne

The purpose of this paper is to compare employee reactions to the use of an online performance appraisal (PA) system to the traditional paper‐and‐pencil (P&P) approach.

8281

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to compare employee reactions to the use of an online performance appraisal (PA) system to the traditional paper‐and‐pencil (P&P) approach.

Design/methodology/approach

A quasi‐experimental study is conducted comparing the reactions of a group of 83 employees evaluate with a traditional P&P PA instrument to the reactions of a group of 152 employees evaluated with an online version of the same assessment tool.

Findings

Employees rate with the online version reported significantly higher levels of rater accountability and employee participation than employees rate with the traditional instrument. They report no difference in perceived security of the ratings, utility of the ratings, or satisfaction with the PA. Online employees report significantly lower levels of quality for the PA ratings than traditional employees.

Research limitations/implications

The paper is limited to employees in one organization and the variables examined. In the future, researchers should examine supervisor and human resource (HR) manager reactions to the system, additional individual difference variables, variables related to technology acceptance and use, and additional PA reactions.

Practical implications

The findings inform HR managers about how one sample of employees' reacted to an online appraisal. It is important for organizations to ensure all system users are well‐trained in how to provide quality ratings and feedback through the system.

Originality/value

This is the first quasi‐experiment comparing employees' attitudes toward an online administration of PA to a traditional P&P administration.

Details

Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 24 no. 6
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0268-3946

Keywords

Content available
Book part
Publication date: 20 July 2017

Abstract

Details

Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78714-709-6

Article
Publication date: 18 October 2018

Allan H. Church and Lorraine M. Dawson

The purpose of this paper is to describe a data-driven approach to driving accountability for behavior change at the individual level, i.e. the “Development Check-In” (DCI). It…

1481

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to describe a data-driven approach to driving accountability for behavior change at the individual level, i.e. the “Development Check-In” (DCI). It has become an accepted reality that 70 per cent of all organizational change efforts fail. The reasons cited are many and include such factors as a lack of focus on the hard and soft sides of the organization, misaligned reward systems, disengaged leadership and new interventions introduced at the expense of existing efforts. While all of these are important, we argue that accountability is the most critical element for ensuring an intervention sticks and delivers lasting results.

Design/methodology/approach

The DCI reflects the principles of agility and accountability, and has been used with great success in a large consumer products organization. The paper begins with an overview of the need for feedback tools to drive accountability, followed by a discussion of the design and process of the DCI.

Findings

Highlights from the authors’ use of the customized process to measure and reinforce leader capability development over time are then provided. The paper concludes with some recommendations and additional considerations.

Originality/value

Behavior change is not easy and requires focus, direction and a way of measuring progress. The DCI is an example of an agile multi-rater feedback accountability mechanism that provides leaders and managers with targeted and positively oriented feedback to support their continued development. This type of tool can be used beyond leadership development for a variety of types of interventions because it is based on sound organization development principles.

Details

Strategic HR Review, vol. 17 no. 6
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1475-4398

Keywords

Book part
Publication date: 1 July 2014

Emilija Djurdjevic and Anthony R. Wheeler

The current chapter focuses on environmental and organizational factors that affect the performance appraisal context, performance evaluations, and rating accuracy. Drawing on the…

Abstract

The current chapter focuses on environmental and organizational factors that affect the performance appraisal context, performance evaluations, and rating accuracy. Drawing on the extant literature and focusing on current organizational practices, we propose a dynamic multi-level model of performance rating that takes these distal factors into consideration. In doing so, we also provide propositions explicating causal linkages between these distal factors, more proximal performance appraisal factors, and ultimately the accuracy of performance ratings. Furthermore, we identify current and emerging directions in performance appraisal research and practice. The implications of the current and emerging trends are then discussed in the context of our proposed model.

Details

Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78350-824-2

Keywords

Book part
Publication date: 13 August 2018

Robert L. Dipboye

Abstract

Details

The Emerald Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78743-786-9

Case study
Publication date: 2 January 2018

Karen E. Boroff and Alexander Boroff

Captain Joseph Brunetti was given the assignment to provide his superior officer an analysis of what to expect when the US Army implemented its new process to evaluate the…

Abstract

Synopsis

Captain Joseph Brunetti was given the assignment to provide his superior officer an analysis of what to expect when the US Army implemented its new process to evaluate the performance of noncommissioned officers (NCOs), called sergeants. Brunetti had about 104 sergeants in his unit. The US Army created a new process in 2015 to evaluate sergeants to overcome the deficiencies in the Army’s old process, now 28 years old. Under the old process, almost every sergeant was rated at the highest levels, making it nearly impossible for the US Army to know whom to promote to higher ranks. Under the old process, very little counseling took place, so NCOs were not given guidance on how to develop themselves. Raters and senior raters (SRs) were not held accountable for their work in performance management, either. Under the new process, which included a forced distribution form of ranking, SRs had to offer counselings as well as options for future assignments. Brunetti, who had only limited experience in rating sergeants anyway, had to prepare for his boss what was called an “operations report” outlining what the organization could expect with the changeover to the new process and what may need attention as the process would continue in subsequent years.

Research methodology

This case has been developed from actual experiences and the assignment given to Brunetti also happened as described in the case. Since many of the individuals in the case are still employed by the US Army, the names of the individuals and the company units in this case have been disguised. Even so, the events of the protagonist’s tours of duty prior to the assignment described in this case did occur, but some of the locations within the USA have been changed. The other persons quoted from public documents or otherwise referenced in the articles are the actual persons so identified. The old NCOERs in Exhibit 3 are as these were written but the personally identifiable data about the individuals have been blackened out.

Relevant courses and levels

This case is suitable for both undergraduate and graduate courses in human resource management and especially on the topical material on performance management and performance appraisal. The case can also be used in both undergraduate and graduate courses in general management, for modules on human resource management. The Relevant Theory section below is centered on human resource management.

Theoretical bases

This relevant theory which undergirds this case centers on the broad concept of performance management and on performance appraisal instruments. The case underscores the important concept that performance management has to be more than “completing the appraisal form.”

1 – 10 of over 1000