Other Flashcards
• Examined the extent to which a general factor underlies rated job performance after controlling for halo error• Coded studies for 9 job performance dimensions: interpersonal competence, administrative competence, quality, productivity, effort, job knowledge, leadership, compliance/acceptance of authority, communication competence• Average true score correlation between job performance dimensions controlling for inflationary effects of halo error (HE) was 0.54o When not controlling for HE, average correlation was 0.72 for supervisory ratings - inflationary effect of 0.18 or 33%o For peer ratings, there is a correlation of 0.88 when not controlling for HE - inflationary effect of 0.34 or 63%• Combining component measures of job performance into a single rating may be appropriate• Partial out the general factor underlying performance ratings in order to remove halo error
Viswesvaran et al (2005)
• Investigated situational (feedback seeking context) and individual (public self-consciousness (PSC - tendency to direct attention towards the self as a social object) and self-esteem) determinants on feedback seeking.• Employees may want feedback, but are unlikely to seek it in public contexts• High PSC leads to wanting more feedback, but social anxiety weakens the relationship• Reconsideration and modifying behavior was most likely in the public, than semi-public, and finally private conditions.• Individuals high in self-esteem (SE) modified seeking intentions more frequently than those low in self-esteem.
Levy et al (1995)
• In attempting to prosper in an org, individuals are frequently very active in the feedback process→ Feedback generally enhances both performance and motivation• Feedback is only informative to the extent that the individual is initially uncertain, and to the extent it provides and incremental increase in knowledge• Referent information: feedback has the potential to resolve uncertainty for individual by indicating which behaviors are most appropriate for achieving desired goals• Appraisal information: feedback has the potential to resolve uncertainty by giving the individual information as to how the behavior is being perceived by others• Monitoring and Inquiry are two forms of feedback seeking behavioro Monitoring involves attending to and taking in information from the environmento Inquiry involves directly asking actors in the environment for their perception and evaluation of the behavior in question
Ashford & Cummings (1983)
• Chapter deals with the idea that rater (supervisors) pursue different goals → They might not be primarily interested in creating a accurate and valid description of performance• Decision makers might not have the inclination or capacity to accurately assess the costs and benefits of various alternatives• Image theory provides new approach: Fitting ratings to goals involves a simple assessment of the extent to which performance ratings are consistent with the rater’s goals• Behavior is influenced by multiple goals, that are in effect simultaneously or sequentially → Raters are not aware of what their goals are• Task performance goals: involved in increasing or maintaining ratee’s performance level • Interpersonal goals: maintaining or improving interpersonal relations between supervisor and subordinates• Strategic goals: involve appraisal to increase the supervisor’s standing in the organization• Internalized goals: product of rater’s values and beliefs
Murphy & Cleveland (1995)
• Meta-analysis: The general pattern suggested that raters from the same organizational level disagree as much as raters from different levels• Agreement between raters can be reduced by the absence of agreement on the nature of the construct to be rated, by the difficulty of rating a particular agreed on dimension or by both:o The correlation between peer and supervisor ratings may be reduced because peers and supervisors are rating different constructs or perceived dimensions of job performance • Peers and supervisors may have somewhat different conceptualizations of administrative competence, interpersonal competence and compliance or acceptance of authority • Peers and supervisors appear to be rating the same construct when providing ratings of productivity, quality, job knowledge, leadership, overall job performance and effort• The findings also indicated that the moderating effect of rating content on the convergence between peer and supervisor ratings is not as strong as it is implied in some theoretical work
Viswesvaran et al (2002)
• Conducted two field studies evaluating interventions that laboratory research has suggested enable raters to better organize performance information in memory: Structured diary keeping and structured recall. • After these interventions, raters had more positive reactions to the appraisal process, were better able to recall performance information, and produced ratings that were less elevated and better able to discriminate between and within ratees. • Raters seem to appreciate and benefit from interventions designed to imposed structure on unstructured information• Recalling information by person (as opposed to by performance dimension or free recall) resulted in less elevated ratings, better between-ratees discriminability and better within-ratee discriminability; raters recalling by person believed more strongly that their ratings were fair and accurate
DeNisi & Peters (1996)
• Feedback: a subset of the available information in the work environment that indicates how well an individual is meeting his or her goals. • The feedback environment consists of 7 facets: source credibility, feedback quality, feedback delivery, frequency of favorable feedback, frequency of unfavorable feedback, feedback availability, and the support of feedback seeking.• Quality of the supervisor and coworker feedback environments were negatively related to perceptions of organizational politics.• Perceptions of org politics in turn was negatively related to morale. • Employee morale (job satisfaction and affective commitment) was positively related to performance outcomes.
Rosen et al (2006)
• There are 3 types of comparative standards for feedback: normative (comparison relative to others), ipsative (comparison relative to one’s past performance), and idealized (comparison relative to one’s ideal performance).• Narcissism is related to increased aggression in situations in which one has received negative, or threatening, information. • The nature of the information or feedback also influences the type of response received:1) Prior to feedback, participants who were told that they were being evaluated compared to other students (i.e., normative standard) tended to be more aggressive than participants who were told that they were being evaluated based on improvements (i.e., ipsative standard). 2) Participants in the ipsative condition tended to demonstrate less increase in aggressiveness after negative feedback compared to participants in the other conditions, particularly the idealized condition.
Barry et al (2006)
• Rating inflation is typically thought to be the result of rater error • Most attempts to correct leniency problems focus on features of the task (rating format) or the rater (rater training)• Alternative explanation for rating inflation involves rater motivation• Necessary to focus on the rating context (i.e., create a culture that accepts accurate ratings)• Raters provide accurate ratings when there are valued rewards linked to doing so• Why ratings are low: consequences for ratee and rater, avoidance of negative reactions, want to maintain org. image• If accurate ratings are needed, orgs should tie valued rewards to rating behavior and reduce the negative outcomes of accuracy
Murphy & Cleveland (1995)
• Social comparison theory• Individuals tend to think they are above average and expect high performance ratings• Individuals with low outcomes are more likely to focus on fairness of procedures and may be reasonably satisfied if they are perceived as fair. Social comparison information takes precedence• Lab study: manipulated segmentation rating system (3 v. 5)• Self efficacy partially mediated relationship between rating system and performance ratings on goals for rating improvement. • Goals partially mediate the effect of self-efficacy on rating improvement. • 5 category system more effective in motivating performance than the 3 category system; may create perceptions of unfairness in terms of procedural and distributive justice for lower performers. May be acceptable to organizations because it will encourage turnover amongst low performers
Bartol et al (2001)
• Feedback seeking allows clarification of role expectations, evaluation of behavior and improvement in performance• Antecedents: 1) Individual dispositions – self esteem and Learning goal orientation (LGO), 2) Context – publicness of seeking feedback and 3) Cognitions – perceived cost and value of feedback seeking behavior (FSB)• 310 salespeople from 2 fortune 500 companies via self-report• Supervisors can enhance the likelihood of face to face feedback seeking through choice of leadership style• Evidence for the potential value of using a LGO as a criterion for personnel decisions• Suggests that managers should receive leadership training for leadership styles that foster FSB by subordinates
Vandewalle et al. (2000)
• Examined the validity of ratings from a 360-degree feedback program using assessment center (AC) ratings as an independent criterion source• Results showed that the average of the supervisor, peer, and subordinate ratings was the most valid predictor of AC performance (argument for multisource feedback), the supervisor ratings alone predicted AC performance too• Self-ratings were negatively and nonlinearly related to performance, high self-ratings were associated with very poor performance on the AC• Peers also overestimated performance for poor performers• Practical implications: need to use caution in the use of self-ratings from 360 programs (self-ratings should not be interpreted as reflecting actual competency), although the possibility of errors in observer ratings also should not be ignored
Atkins & Wood (2002)
• Feedback interventions (FI) have demonstrated negative but largely ignored effects on performance• Meta-analysis suggesting FIs improved performance on average, but that over 1/3 of the FIs decreased performance• Propose a FI theory (FIT) tested with moderator analyses • Assumptions of FIT: FIs change the locus of attention between 3 hierarchical levels of control (organized going from top to bottom of hierarchy): meta-tasks (including self-related) processes, task motivation involving the focal task, and task learning involving the task details of the focal task• Results indicate that FI effectiveness decreases as attention moves up the hierarchy closer to the self and farther away from the task• FIs = actions taken by external agent to provide information regarding some aspect of one’s task performance
Kluger & DeNisi (1996)
• Most ubiquitous method of performance appraisal is rating• Rater characteristics: personal (i.e. no consistent effect of rater sex on ratings, supervisors give higher ratings to people of own race), type of rater (i.e. supervisors rate less leniently than peers), rater knowledge of rate and job (i.e. relevancy of contact with ratee)• Ratee characteristics: personal (i.e. females receive less favorable evaluations in tradition masculine jobs), job-related (i.e. actual performance accounts for largest percentage of variance in perf ratings)• Interaction: rater and ratee sex do not appear to interact to affect judgments• Rating process: Most data shows training raters reduces errors• Vehicle: graphic scales, BARS, forced-choice rating, rating dimensions, # of response categories, anchors• Call for a moratorium on format-related research)• Cognitive characteristics of raters seem to hold the most promise for increased understanding of the rating process
Landy & Farr (1980)
• To demonstrate the effectiveness of Fram of Reference (FOR) training in improving the construct and criterion-related validity of ACs• FOR training: 1)Teaching important dimensions comprising the job and behaviors indicative of each dimension, 2)Discussing behaviors indicative of various effectiveness levels within each dimension, 3) Providing practice evaluations with the new frame of reference and 4) Giving feedback on the accuracy of the ratings• Participants: former business students who participated in an undergraduate AC, personality and skills measures in the AC conducted 4 years prior to criterion data collection• FOR training improved the reliability and the accuracy of AC ratings• Improved discriminant validity associated with the FOR assessment ratings in the form of smaller heterotrait-monomethod and heterotrait-heteromethod correlations and some what improved convergent validity in the form of larger correlations with external measures of the same and similar constructs• FOR training significantly improved the criterion-related validity of the current AC for predicting supervisors’ ratings of job performance
Schleicher et al. (2002)
• Meta-analysis of the impact of dimension and exercise factors on assessment center (AC) ratings• Each dimension label was coded as belonging to 1 of 6 higher order dimension categories: communication, consideration/ awareness of others, drive, influencing others, organizing and planning, problem solving • Each of the exercises was coded as belonging to 1 of 6 AC exercise: case analysis, in basket, interview, leaderless group discussion, presentation, role play• Dimensions and exercises contributed to AC ratings• Impact of dimension and exercise factors is not the same across the different dimension and exercise categories• Impact of dimension and exercise factors varies across dimension constructs and exercise types and between dimensions and exercises. Not all dimensions and exercises are the same• Combination of several ratings across exercises can result in a more reliable and valid, measure of the dimension
Bowler & Woehr (2006)
• Meta-analysis of the incremental validity associated with using narrow traits of conscientiousness over global conscientiousness in predicting various performance criteria• Narrow traits may predict performance at least as well as general conscientiousness, especially if specific performance criteria and job types are considered• Results for different types of performance criteriao Overall job performance – strongest effect sizes with global trait and dependabilityo Task performance – strongest effect size with achievemento Job dedication – strongest effect size with dependabilityo Interpersonal facilitation – strongest effect size with dependabilityo CWB – strongest effect size with dependability (negative relationship)
Dudley et al. 2006
• A theory of performance• Performance defined: Behavior and actions that are relevant to the organization’s goals and that can be measured in terms of each individual’s proficiency; it is NOT the consequences, e.g., “effectiveness” or “productivity”• Individual differences on each specific performance component are viewed as a function of declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and skill, and motivation• Taxonomy: Job-specific task proficiency, Non-job-specific task proficiency, Written and oral communication task proficiency, Demonstrating effort, Maintaining personal discipline, Facilitating peer and team performance, Supervision/leadership, Management/administration• Critical parameters: speed vs. accuracy, automatic vs. controlled processing, peak vs. typical performance.
Compbell et al (1993)
• Introduction to the measurement of work performance• Purposes of perf. measurement : administrative, developmental, research• Classification of perf. measures : Smith’s (1976) 3 dimensions- time span covered, specificity, alignment with org. goals.• General measurement issues : need quantitative descriptions of individual differences and work behaviors• Psychometric indexes of perf. measures : reliability (of both the construct of perf. and the measures), validity, accuracy (reflective of true score/nature?)• Other requirements of perf. measures : qualitative data, quantitative data, and utilization criteria
Landy & Farr (1983)
