Performance Appraisal

Question 1

PA

Answer 1

Casico 1982: systematic description of job relevant strengths/weaknesses within and b/w ees

Question 2

Employee Reactions

Answer 2

Meyer Smith 2000: overall sat, adequacy of feedback, and perceptions of org commit to conducting developmental perform appraisal

Question 3

Feedback Intervention

Answer 3

Kluger DeNisi, 1996: actions taken to provide info regarding perform

Question 4

Halo Error

Answer 4

Thorndike 1920; Cooper 1981: tendencey to grade for general merit, influence position on specific qualitites

Question 5

Performance Mgmt

Answer 5

Aquinis 2009: explicit link b/w individual perform and org strategic goals

Question 6

BOS

Answer 6

Behavioral observation scales: Latham Wexley 1997: ask raters to use aids such as diaries to std PA

Question 7

Sources of error

Answer 7

halo, and primacy-recency/central tendency (Landy Farr, 1980)

Question 8

Pros vs Cons

Answer 8

Adler et al., 2016

Question 9

Pulakos et al., 2008

Answer 9

Perform Mgmt: explanation of feedback–> success depends on commit from top mgmt. feedback should be timely, frequent, and ongoing manner

Question 10

Teamwork Perfom

Answer 10

Salas et al., 2005: Big 5

Question 11

Team adaptability

Answer 11

Burke et al., 2006

Question 12

Org Perfrom

Answer 12

Most common is Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES Pritichard et al., 1989; 2002

Question 13

TQM

Answer 13

Kanji 1990: 4 stages

Question 14

Legal defensibility

Answer 14

Bernardin Beatty 1984: based on JA, eval based on specific dimensions, rating based on behaviors, supporting evidence

Question 15

Best Practices of PA

Answer 15

Barrett Kernan 1987: reviewed cases, 41/51 ruled on the side of the org. Basically JA –> training–> review document

Question 16

Martin et al. 2000

Answer 16

Evals should be based on PA that incorporate org justices fairness. Reviews defenses for not promoting and discharging

Question 17

Landy Farr 1980

Answer 17

Cog approach: biases occur in roles (chars), context (org, purpose), and vehicle (type of rating used), process results

Question 18

Rater Mot

Answer 18

Murphy Cleveland (1995): 4 possible rater goals

Question 19

Viswevaran et al 2002

Answer 19

Focus on process, not scale. Rating difficult is 3 times more to blame for diffs b/w peer and sup ratings

Question 20

FOR

Answer 20

1st: Bernardin Buckley 1981; then Sulsky Day 1992. Provides common reference, better classification accuracy

Question 21

Dissat can…

Answer 21

result in anger, effect attitudes toward work and supervision (Johnson 2000) LAWSUITS (Aquinis, 2009)

Question 22

360

Answer 22

Kluger Denisi 1996 Meta; Smither et al., 2005 meta

Question 23

Judge Ferris 1993

Answer 23

Antecedents of sup ratings

Question 24

Judgement vs ratings

Answer 24

Murphy Cleveland (1995): private eval via processing all available info vs public statement of that eval

Question 25

Reasons for PA

Answer 25

Campbell & Wiernik (2015); Viswesveran et al. (2001)

Question 26

Rating scales explained 42% of variance in rating accuracy–> overall rated more reliably than dimensions

Answer 26

Viswesvaran et al. (1996)

Question 27

Feedback interventions

Answer 27

should be part of any PM, but only work 1/3 of the time, don’t do anything 1/3 and 1/3 reduce performance (Kluger DeNisi, 1996)–> connect to Pulakos et al., 2008

Question 28

For sat on PA

Answer 28

Ees need justice, timeliness, rating accuracy & utility–> more about strengths and weaknesses and encouraging than critical (Boswell Boundreau, 2000)

Question 29

Best practices in PM

Answer 29

Smither London (2009)