performance evaluation

Archive for performance evaluation

performance appraisal

2006/09/11 在 7:52 am · Filed under performance evaluation

Levy P. E., & Williams, J.R. 2004. The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the future. Journal of management, 30:881-905.

A pretty decent review. I found some useful papers in its reference. They reviewed 360 papers published during 1995-2003.

They classified factors influencing rating behavior and ratee/rater reactions into distal variables (climate, culture, and strategy, etc.) and proximal variables.

Proximal variables:

1) Process related: commitment, affect, trust, reward, LMX, impression management, accountability, feedback, performance level

2) Structure related: need of PA, appraisal goals, training, frequency of appraisal, consequence of appraisal, and legitimacy, etc.

The appraisal effectiveness:

1) rater errors and biases (halo, severity, leniency, first impression, recency, etc.)

2) rating accuracy: differential elevation, classification accuracy, etc.

3) appraisal reactions: satisfaction, accuracy, justice, motivation to use feedback, acceptability.

Research future: to examine the rater and ratee’s reaction simultaneously.

固定链接发表评论

performance appraisal

2006/09/11 在 7:51 am · Filed under performance evaluation

DeNisi, A. S., & Pritchard, R.D. 2006. Performance appraisal, performance management and improving individual performance: A motivational framework. Management and Organization Review, 2:253-277

Reviewed the history why performance appraisal put emphasis on the evaluation accuracy (“measurement issue”), while missed the more important goal of improving performance. Proposed an expectancy based motivational framework, suggested that HR should focus on the reaction of appraisal and how it can improve individual’s performance.

Why accuracy is emphasized? 1) Dunnete (1963) performance evaluation as selection test’s criterion, should be reliable, valid, and accurate. 2) Even at the earliest era, Thorndike, 1920, deal with the “constant error”. 3) Rating scale as a source of rating errors, Landy and Farr, 1980. 4) Murphy and Balzer (1989) found that there was almost no relationship between rating errors and rating accuracy. 5) Lawler (1967) and Tsui (1990), Tsui and Barry (1986), Tsui and Ohlott (1988) demonstrated that ratings from different source are seldom in agreement, they have different expectations and observations of performance. 6) In 1990s, 360-degree appraisals are very popolar. 7) However, the effect of 360-degree appraisals on subsequent performance is equivocal.

固定链接发表评论

justice and performance appraisal

2006/08/15 在 2:23 pm · Filed under justice, performance evaluation

Taylor, M.S., Materson, S.S., Renard, M.K., &
Tracy, K.B. 1998. Manager’s reactions to procedurally just performance management systems.

Academy of
Management Journal, 41:568-579.

Competing hypotheses: Will managers act positively or negatively to the “due process performance management” (DPPM)?

Negative response: 1) Lissak & Sheppard, 1983. managers emphasize cost, efficiency, and informality more heavily than fairness as criteria for resolving organization conflicts. 2) Longenecker, Gionia, and Sims 1987.

Lissak & Sheppard, 1983. Beyond fairness: the criterion problem in research on dispute intervention. JPSP ,13:45-65.

Useful measurement: “tendency to distort appraisal.”—inflate because…deflate because…

Useful argument: Wanous, Reichers, and Hudy (1997), if the construct being measured is sufficient narrow and ambiguous, a single item indicator can provide valid, practical and efficient measurement.

Wanous, Reichers, and Hudy (1997) Overall job satisfaction: how good are single-item measures? JAP, 82:247-252.

固定链接发表评论

justice and performance appraisal

2006/08/15 在 2:23 pm · Filed under justice, performance evaluation

Taylor, M.S., Tracy, K.B., Renard, M.K.,
Harrison, J. K., & Carroll, S.J. 1995. Due process in performance appraisal: a quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40:495-523.

The paper is mainly based on a theoretical paper, (Folger, Konovsky, & Cropanzano, 1992. A due process metaphor for performance appraisal. In Staw and Cummings (eds.) Research in Organization Behavior, 13:129-177.)

Due process of law, (fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution) 1) adequate notice, 2)fair hearing, 3) judgment based on evidence.—Folger et al applied this idea to the appraisal system.

Two approaches for the psychological processes underlying procedural justice effect:

1) Thibaut and
Walker’s (1978) “instrumental control” Parties want to improve outcomes and relationship in the dispute. Parties take a short-term view.

2) Lind and
Tyler (1988) “relational concerns” People care about the long term relationship.

Leventhal’s six procedural rules affect individual’s judgment of fairness. 1)consistency, 2) bias-suppression, 3) accuracy, 4) correctability, 5)representativeness, 6) ethicality.

Tyer(1989)’s relational perspective, three factors of the authority or the institution-person relationship determined perception of fairness: standing, neutrality, and trust.

Contribution of the study: 1) quasi-experimental design, 2) reaction of the management to the due-process. –the later is examined more in 1998 paper.

An interesting finding is that justice affect on OCB, commitment, but not the ongoing, day-today job performance.

固定链接发表评论

performance appraisal and trust

2006/08/15 在 2:21 pm · Filed under performance evaluation, trust

Mayer, R.C., & Davis, J. H. 1999. The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: a field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84:123-136.

Not surprisingly, the authors conducted an empirical study after the 1995 theoretical paper.

However, the context they choose to test the trust model is kind of weird, they said, “one avenue of assessing the impact of a human resource system on trust or trustworthiness is to measure the impact of changing the system in the perceptual and attitudinal variables.” They suggested, that the acceptability of an appraisal system will increase the trustworthiness of manager. –wouldn’t it be the reverse? That trusted managers are more likely to be accepted when introduced a new appraisal system.

Another weird thing is, they proposed a full mediation model in SEM, the effect on trust is full mediated by the trustworthiness. –another question of testing mediation using SEM. Also, they said, if trust and trustworthiness are the same, then the IV will also have significant effects on trust.—Is that true??

固定链接发表评论