Search results

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

360° feedback processes have gained popularity as a performance management and career development tool in contemporary organisations. This monograph explores the nature of 360° feedback, investigates the factors which have influenced its emergence and contrasts it with more traditional performance management processes used by organisations. It specifically identifies the benefits and problems associated with 360° feedback in the context of management of performance and employee career development. The monograph considers the issues surrounding different sources of feedback, i.e. peer, subordinate and self. The monograph concludes with a discussion of the issues pertaining to the use of multi‐rater feedback as a tool for performance improvement and career development.

This paper aims to evaluate alternative theories about how perceived innovativeness and perceived relational skills interact with gender to explain evaluations by managers of scientists and engineers' promotability into management.

A cross‐sectional design is used. The sample (n=2,278) is drawn from 24 large US corporations. Separate surveys are administered in each corporation to scientists and engineers and to managers evaluating them.

Managers rate men and women equally promotable. Furthermore, women whom managers perceived to be especially innovative receive higher evaluations of promotability than similarly accomplished men. And, among those perceived to have low relational skills, women and men are evaluated similarly.

More research is needed to evaluate how ambivalent stereotypes and pressures from organizations to suppress categorical thinking might combine to affect evaluation and selection processes in diverse work settings.

Companies should be concerned about the potential tendency for managers to reward a few individuals when they exceed stereotypical expectations. Employees should be aware of and actively manage the impressions that managers have of them with regard to innovativeness and relational skills.

This paper calls attention to the role of ambivalence and legitimacy theories that predict that women will receive higher evaluations when they exceed stereotypical expectations of innovativeness and that when women do not meet stereotypical expectations of relational skills, managers will temper their harshness in evaluating them. In developing this analysis, it seeks to contribute to the understanding of evaluation processes by considering the context in which evaluations take place.

This study seeks to examine the links between employee agreeableness, group performance, and peers' perceptions of threat of retaliation, through relationship conflict.

In a laboratory setting, 42 groups of undergraduate students (N = 182) from a Pakistani university were assigned to group projects to be completed within four months. Data collected from three different questionnaires at four different times and actual scores awarded by the course instructor to each group were used for the analyses. Based on r_WG(J) and ICC(1), level 1 (182 students') data were aggregated to level 2 (groups), and then analysed using regression analysis followed by Preacher and Hayes' bootstrapping procedure.

Results suggest that high agreeableness predicts group performance positively and peers' perceptions of threat of retaliation negatively. Moreover, relationship conflict among group members significantly mediates the agreeableness-group performance relationship. The above relationships may be sensitive to national culture.

In this study, groups were formed for a few months, whereas in real organizational life, workgroups are formed for different durations. Therefore, the range of situations to which these findings generalize remains an open question.

Agreeableness of group members can be constructive for performance of the group. Managers may utilize this insight while forming groups, and rating performance.

There is dearth of research illuminating how employee's personality traits affect group performance and appraisal ratings. The study tests the effects of employee agreeableness on: (1) group performance, as rated by supervisors; (2) the threat of retaliation, as perceived by peer raters; and (3) the mediating effect of relationship conflict.

The purpose of this paper is to assess whether firms' transparency in supply chain (TISC) statements indicate that substantive action is being taken on modern slavery in UK government supply chains.

The authors analyse 66 of the UK government's strategic suppliers' TISC statements and 20 key documents related to the policy intent of the UK Parliament, 2015 TISC requirements. Qualitative document analysis identifies what suppliers say they are doing and what they are not saying to provide novel insights into how firms employ ambiguity to avoid timely action on modern slavery in their supply chains A set of propositions are developed.

The authors elaborate the concepts of time and change in socially sustainable supply chains and illustrate how firms use ambiguity in TISC statements as a highly strategic form of action to defend the status quo, reduce accountability and delay action for modern slavery within supply chains. The authors identify three ambiguous techniques: defensive reassurance, transfer responsibility and scope reduction that deviate from the policy intention of collaborative action.

The results illustrates how ambiguity is preventing firms from taking collaborative action to tackle modern slavery in their supply chains. The lack of action as a result of ambiguity protects firms, rather than potential victims of modern slavery.

Prior research focuses on technical compliance rather than the content of firms' TISC statements. This qualitative study provides novel insights into the policy-resistant effects of ambiguity and highlights the dynamic and instrumental role of modern slavery reporting. Theoretically, we identify accountability as an essential concept to address the causes of modern slavery in supply chains and for developing collaborative supply chain environments to tackle the issues.

Despite indications of scholarly interest, there are still gaps in the research of the concept of felt accountability, especially the felt accountability of board members. This paper aims to clarify the sources of accountability experienced by board members. Especially those in a non-executive capacity. How these sources can be accessed to enhance felt accountability and thereby governance effectiveness is explored.

Qualitative, exploratory research methods were used. In total, 15 semi-structured, in-depth interviews were completed with non-executive board members of Johannesburg Stock Exchange listed companies in South Africa. Thematic content analysis was used to analyse data.

The findings clarified the formal and informal sources of accountability experienced by non-executive board members. This included relational and structural mechanisms that can be used within corporate governance to enhance both types of accountability. Accessing the identified sources of accountability through appropriate mechanisms could increase the levels of felt accountability experienced by the individual non-executive board member, thereby strengthening accountability inside the boardroom and improving overall board effectiveness. The study also revealed a layer of implicit and explicit accountability.

The study was conducted solely in South Africa, with non-executive board members of Johannesburg Stock Exchange listed companies.

There is limited research that clarifies the sources of accountability experienced by non-executive board members. This study aims to address this gap in the literature by providing techniques on how to enable the clarified sources of accountability to improve governance effectiveness.

The study aims to look at whether trait emotional intelligence (EI) was related to the job performance level of a manager, their immediate team and their peers.

This study looked at the relationship between trait EI and performance appraisals, as evaluated by the person themselves, their peers, manager and team. Trait EI facets of 903 employees were compared to evaluated performance appraisals of the different groups four months later.

All 15 of the correlations (20 < r < 0.42) between the emotional intelligence facets and self-ratings were significantly positive whilst for managers 10, peers 6 and team only 4 were significant, though all were positive. In line with affective primacy theory, structural equation modelling revealed performance was rated higher by non-manager colleagues when employees exhibited traits associated with positive interpersonal interactions.

There are very few studies using multi-source ratings to explore the consequences of EI on a manager’s team and peers.