Performance Appraisal & Feedback Flashcards

1
Q

• Distinction bw job analysis and competency modelingo Breadth of analysis: job analysis provides more complete picture of jobo Type of Characteristics studied: competency modeling focuses on any attribute related to perf, job analysis can be work or worker orientedo Unit of Analysis: competency modeling can focus on the job or the orgo General Use of Data: competency modeling is more prescriptive or future-oriented, job analysis is descriptiveo Methodological Rigor: job analysis usually involves multiple methods and competency modeling is identified by talking to management – no reason why they should differ

A

Schippmann et al. (2000)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Scientist-Practitioner Model - practice that has no scientific basis and research that has no clear implication for practice

A

Murphy & Saal (1990)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

book summarizing O*NET research

A

Peterson et al. (1999)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

• Examines the influence of demo charac of managers’ referent group on mgr’s pay level• Women tend to make less money, occupy lower status occupations, and as % of women increase in org, pay levels of org decreaseso Supply-side perspective – women devote less hrso Associate men with more status and authorityo Mismatch between stereotype of women and job• Pay generally increases with age• Results:o Men and whites had greater compensationo Age → +ly with compensationo Overall, - rel between female composition and compensationo Overall, curvilinear but positive rel btw age and compensation• Demo charac of workgroup important to consider

A

Ostroff & Atwater (2003)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

• MA of antecedents and consq of pay satisfaction• Equity theory – perceived amount of pay deserved and perceived amount of pay received will be primary determinants of pay sat• Moderator – type of pay sat measure (global or level)• Results:o Ees perception of perf reward contingency → pay sato Pay comparisons → pay sato Distributive justice stronger correlate than procedural justice → pay sato Turnover intentions related to pay sato Type of pay sat measure moderated rel btw justice and pay sat

A

Williams et al. (2006)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

competency modeling = the practice of identifying the characteristics or attributes that are needed for effective perf on the job

A

DuBois (1999)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

goal of strategic job analysis = to determine the tasks that will be performed and the abilities required for effective performance in jobs (that may or may not exist) as they are expected to exist in the future

A

Schneider & Konz (1989)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

• 16 potential social and cognitive sources of inaccuracy in job analysis• suggested that researchers have largely ignored issues of accuracy• 4 categories of inaccuracies:• Social Influence Processeso Apply when job analysis judgments are made in groups• Self-Presentation Processeso Impression management, social desirability, etc.• Information-Processing Systems of Respondentso Information overload• Bias in Information-Processing Systemso Job satisfaction, etc.

A

Morgeson & Campion (1997)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

• Old Psychological Contract:• Stability, predictability• Permanence• Standard work patterns• Valuing loyalty• Paternalism• Job security• Linear career growth• One-time learning• New Psychological Contract• Change, uncertainty• Temporariness• Flexible work• Valuing perf and skills• Self-reliance• Employment security• Multiple careers• Life-long learning

A

Rousseau (1996)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

• Examined formal mentoring programs from both protégé and mentor’s perspective and reported formal mentoring program characteristics and mentoring relationship outcomes• Reported formal mentoring program characteristics and mentoring relationship outcomes from both mentor and protégé perspective• Protégé as voluntary participant: makes little difference • Input into matching process critical for both• Orgs shouldn’t be concerned with matching from different locations/departments• Protégé more likely to role model individuals closer to their own rank while mentor reported the opposite- more to offer to lower ranked• Training quality and # of hours (less better) of training important

A

Allen et al (2006)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

• To summarize mentoring research and methodological concerns• More longitudinal studies and lab research needed • Less self-report data• Formal vs. informal: consider dyadic relationships• Use content and construct measures• Manipulate race and gender, conduct global research• Use Kram’s (1985) stages: mentoring-initiation, cultivation, separation, and redefinition

A

Allen et al (2007)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

• Study examined Five Factor model (FFM; Big 5) in relation to job performance criteria for 5 occupational groups• Conscientious is a consistently valid predictor across occupational and performance criteria types• Results suggest that agreeableness, openness, and emotional stability is not an important predictor for job performance, even in jobs with a large social component• Being courteous, trusting, straight forward and soft hearted has a smaller impact on job performance than being talkative, active, and assertive.• All of the big 5 positively predict training proficiency

A

Barrick & Mount (1991)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

• Self- monitoring (SM) attenuates the relationship between Extraversion (ET.), Emotional Stability (ES), and Openness to Experience (OE) and interpersonal performance rating of supervisors (This was the case for peers for only ET and ES)• High SM continually scan the social climate and adapt their behavior to be appropriate; are motivated to engage in behavior that help gain social status• Low ET people had relatively strong interpersonal performance when SM is high• ET and SM – individual must be high in one of the two in order to be successful in settings where status is important• ET and AG are highly correlated with interpersonal performance• SM may not be good for all jobs – certain jobs simply require straightforward interactions• SM plays an instrumental role in predicting work-related outcomes in jobs with a large interpersonal component

A

Barrick et al (2005)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

• Only conscientiousness and emotional stability show nonzero correlations with overall performance criterion• Authors call for a moratorium on this research• Future Researcho Research is needed to explore levels of analysis o Research is needed that investigates process models of personality that seek to explain how personality affects job performance- motivation?o Research is needed that continues to examine critical issues pertaining to the measurement of personality measures in construct valid wayso Get measures of Big Five supplied by external observers (supervisor, co-worker, customer, etc.)

A

Barrick et al. (2001)Moratorium on Personality - JP

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

• Org socialization: newcomers make transition from outsider to insider (meta-analysis)• Newcomer adjustment: role clarity, self-efficacy, social acceptance• Socialization outcomes: job sat, org commitment, job perf, intentions to remain/turnover• Org socialization tactics → adjustment → socialization outcomes• Information seeking → newcomer adjustment → socialization outcomes

A

Bauer et al (2007)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

• Org socialization is a process where one acquires attitudes, behavior, and knowledge needed to participate as an org member• Trends: • 1. Socialization in the context of diversity: cultural differences will affect socialization tactics, behavior by employees to newcomers, and outcomes defining success• 2. Socialization in context of temporary employment relationships: contingent employment relationships = more informal for temporary workers, individual socialization and different socialization outcomes (i.e. commitment less important for temporary• 3. Socialization in context of downsizing: orgs less invested in socialization, newcomers seek less information• Socialization outcomes measure should go beyond attitudes: involve existing org members= study quitters

A

Bauer et al (1998)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

• Realistic Job Preview (RJP): job specific and job-content laden and serves to reduce expectations of org newcomers• Expectation Lowering Procedure (ELP): not job specific and relatively content free• Perceptions of orientation helpfulness: RJP > ELP > control (normal orientation of the org studies)• Pre-beginning interventions → expectations → turnover• ELP and RJP yield similar positive org outcomes• Increase job sat, decrease turnover• ELP & RJP best combo

A

Buckley et al (1998)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

• Org socialization: main process by which people come to know their jobs and org roles• 6 content dimensions: perf proficiency, politics, language, people, org goals/values, history• longitudinal study: found stability in these dimensions, socialization takes places over your career• changes in socialization can predict career effectiveness• if no job switch, no change in social dimensions• if job switch, less perf proficiency• if change in org, greatest decrease in content dimensions• if no change of jobs, org goals/values most highly related with other career outcomes

A

Chao et al (1994)

19
Q

• Distributive justice (DJ): Adam (1965) equity theory• Procedural justice (PJ): Thiabault & Walker (1975) process control (voice)• IJ: interactional justice: Bies & Moag (1986) – when procedures implemented → interpersonal (ITJ; how treated) and informational (IFJ; explanations given)• All dimensions correlate with each other but shouldn’t be lumped together• Relationships (and magnitude of relationships):o DJ: (high) job sat, OC, trust, withdrawal, (mod) OCBO, neg reactions, (low) OCBI, perfo PJ: (high) job sat, OC, (mod) withdrawal, OCBO, neg reactions, perf, (low) OCBIo IFJ: (high) trust, (mod) job sat, OC, withdrawal, neg reactions, (low) OCBO, perfo ITJ: (mod) job sat, OCBI, neg reactions, (low) OC, withdrawal, perf

A

Colquitt et al (2001)

20
Q

• Justice and personality, examines the extent to which personality can predict reactions (CWBs) to fair and unfair treatment.• With low IJ, greater CWB among those high in trust propensity; with high IJ, greater CWB among those low in trust propensity• With low PJ and IJ, greater CWB among those high in risk aversion; with high PJ and IJ, greater CWB among those low in risk aversion• Tests using equity sensitivity and Big Five traits found that they were less significant moderators than risk aversion, trait morality, and trust propensity• Risk aversion was the most robust moderator as it enhanced the positive effects of both procedural and interpersonal justice

A

Colquitt et al (2006)

21
Q

• Stress on the job• Stress: an adaptive response, moderated by individual differences, that is a consequence of any action, situation, or event, that places special demands on a persono Refers to a reaction to a situationo Highlights the individual nature of stresso Only a significant or unusual situation can really said to produce stress• Curvilinear relationship• Some major preventive strategies include:o Training employees to meet new challengeso More concern about individual when change is planned and implementedo Ways to resolve work-home conflict (flexible schedule, family leave, sabbaticals, dependent/elder care, telecommuting)o Establish methods to deal with concerns and distress

A

DeFrank & Ivancevich 1998

22
Q

• Research on vacations shows that employees report less strain during and immediately after vacation than before it.• Stressors include both negative characteristics (overload, role conflict, and role ambiguity) and also the lack of positive characteristics (variety, autonomy, challenge).• Military service provides break from daily routine as well as pressures from work and family → 81 employees who had military service and 81 matched employees who did not do service during the study period (similar levels of stress/burnout on pretest)• Military service participants had lower levels of burnout than control participants, replicating the vacation findings.• The better the respite experience, the more it alleviated burnout and the more detachment, the more the employees gained from the respite. • Managers should encourage vacationers to make the most of their time and prohibit coworkers from intruding

A

Etzion et al (1998)

23
Q

• Employee Well-Being1. Psychological Well-Being (Happiness)2. Physical Well-Being (Health)3. Social Well-Being (Relationships)• Managers can change 4 dimensions of organizational context to improve employee well-being: task, reward, social, physical• Recommendations for managers• Notice impact on well-being• Value impacts on well-being• Broaden range of outcomes important to org.• Be willing to reconsider practices

A

Grant et al. 2007

24
Q

• COR → burnout occurs when certain valued resources are lost, inadequate to meet demands, or don’t yield anticipated returns.• Used metaanalysis to examine correlates of 3 dimensions of burnout• Work demands → emotional exhaustion, resources losses are more correlated with depersonalization and personal accomplishment• EE and depersonalization are more correlated with withdrawal outcomes (turnover intentions, org commitment)• Personal accomplishment is more correlated with self-efficacy (control coping)• People are more sensitive to demands than resource losses, leading to more concern with prevention of resource loss the resource gains.

A

Lee & Ashforth (1996)

25
Q

• A meta-analytic test of a two-dimensional work stressor framework (challenge stressor vs. hindrance stressor) with respect to stressors’ relationships with strains, motivation, and performance. • Both challenge and hindrance stressors were positively associated with strains• The relationship with motivation and performance is positive for challenge stressors and negative for hindrance stressors• Indirect effect of challenge stressors on performance is significant and positive through motivation and significant and negative through strains;• Indirect effect of hindrance stressors on performance is significant and negative through both motivation and strains

A

LePine et al. 2005

26
Q

• There are inconsistencies in the relationship of job demands with positive and negative outcomes (positive relationships with attitudes but negative with strain and withdrawal behavior) - could depend on the type of stressor under consideration• Stressor-strain perspective = work stressors are the stimuli that induce the stress process, and forms of strain are the proximal outcomes of this process• Challenge (high workload, time pressure, job scope, and responsibility) and hindrance (role ambiguity, org. politics, and job security issues) stressors explained 37% of the variance in job sat. and 34% in org. commitment• Both stressors explained 25% of the variance in intentions to leave the organization• Both stressors explained 6% of the variance in turnover and 5% in withdrawal behavior

A

Podsakoff et al (2007)

27
Q

• Examined predictors (jobs demands and resources) and consequences (health and turnover) of burnout and job engagement.• Burnout: A state of mental weariness that has three dimensions: exhaustion, cynicism, and professional efficacy• Engagement: Positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption• Burnout mediates the relationship between job demands and health problems and is positively but weakly correlated with intentions to turnover• job resources –> engagement –> turnover• Implications: reduce job demands, increase resources• Job demands –> BO –> health (-)

A

Schaufeli & Bakker 2004

28
Q

• Good and increasing evidence that stressors at work have a causal effect on health and well-being. The support for concurrent effects is stronger than for lagged effects, at least for psychological strains.• Predictors: role of resources, control at work, social support, coping style, locus of control, SEOverall conclusions: • Organizational stress has detrimental effects on individual health and well-being• Stress interventions, particularly those aimed at individual stress management, have been beneficial• Past research on this topic has some methodological issues, but has been improving

A

Sonnentag & Frese 2003

29
Q

• Fatigue – state that results from being active in order to deal with the work demands• Recovery – process of replenishing depleted resources • Job demands – stressful and strain-evoking work situations• Job control – ability to determine when to take a break and decide one’s own working method and strategy• Study 1: health service employees• Study 2: Dutch employees• Situational constraints and job control sig predictors of Need for Recovery (NFR)• High amount of time spent on work-related (social) activities positive (negative) effect on NFR at bedtime• NFR fully mediated the effect of work-related activities on well-being at bedtime• Having discretion over when to take a break and what strategy to follow reduces NFR; high subjective NFR could early warning for prolonged fatigue and reduces well-being

A

Sonnentag & Ziljstra (2006)

30
Q

• Reciprocal model of job stress and affective, health and performance outcomes: o There should be some convergence between supervisor and subordinate reports of stressors, subordinate stressors should correlate with outcomes, and supervisor stressors should correlated with outcomes, although to a lesser extent. All three of these hypotheses received support.• Most reserach views it as environment –> perceptions of stress –> outcomes. Alternative models: reverse causality, reciprocal model, external cause (method variance).,Results support the reciprocal model, but ruled out reverse causality.• Job environment, as reflected in the supervisor’s report of stressors, does have effects on job incumbents, although more on their affective reactions than on illness• The data might be interpreted as supporting the general environment -> perception -> outcome model in that supervisory reports of stressors were somewhat correlated with outcomes. • Does NOT rule out the outcome -> perception connection• supervisor reports may be less accurate because supervisors might be defensive or might not have enough knowledge of job stressors.

A

Spector et al (1988))

31
Q

o Meta-analysis of reciprocal relationship between personality and job performance.o Job type/setting can influence appropriateness of personality trait• Job tasks• Work groups• Org. cultureo Critical need is a theory specifying the conditions under which a selected trait might be expected to relate positively versus negatively with work outcomes

A

Tett et al. (1999)Personality - JP

32
Q

importance of trust in discussion of criterion problem into 21st centuryo When conforming to Greenberg’s (1986) principles for justice, trust will followo Ideas for creating a trust:1. applied measurement should lead to action2. be mindful of org. change dynamics3. involve the users during development, testing, and roll-out4. stay alert … [for] unexpected insights

A

Farr & Jacobs (2006)

33
Q

Employees loss of Trust in Management1. Destroying trust is easier than building it, extremely hard to rebuild it2. Best predictors of future behavior (trustworthiness) is past behavior3. Trust allows employee and org to interact in situations where risk involved, esp. when not full info about the risk4. Lack of trust can cause a dysfunctional workplace5. Lot of lacking info in workplace creates large potential for distrust6. Risk salient when employee believes best interests not on minds of management or org7. Evaluation can give employees and managers idea of how trustworthy they appear to others

A

Mayer 2007

34
Q

• Vitamin Model • Specifies a relationship bw stressors and employee health and well-being• Nonlinear relationships develop bw work characteristics and ind outcomes• Some features of work have a constant effect on the ind (like Vitamin C) – examples: salary• Other work features have a curvilinear relationship (like Vitamin D) – it is pos to a certain dose but then every further increase has a neg effect – examples: job autonomy, social support, etc.• Empirical studies on this model are rare

A

Warr 1987

35
Q

• Effort-Reward Imbalance Mode• A variant of P-E fit model• Assumes the lack of reciprocity bw costs and rewards are experienced as stressful and result in strains• The degree to which an ind’s efforts at work are rewarded or not is crucial for a person’s health and well-being

A

Siegrist (1996)

36
Q

o Meta-analysiso Social support is neg related to stressors at work

A

Viswesvaran et al (1999)

37
Q

o Social support functions only as a buffer in the stressor-strain relationship if the available support matches the specific need elicited by the event

A

Cohen & Wills (1985)

38
Q

o Social Support = resources provided by others and comprises emotional, informational, and instrumental support

A

House (1981)

39
Q

o Coping = constantly changing cog and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the persono Problem-focused = problem-solving behaviorso Emotion-focused = attempts to manage emotions directly

A

Lazarus & Folkman (1994)

40
Q

o Problem-focused coping has been found to be pos related to mental health and well-beingo Emotion-focused coping found to be associated w poorer well-being

A

Sears et al (2000)

41
Q

• Locus of Control • Ind diff concept = refers to whether ind see themselves as primarily able to control their lives and their major experiences (internal) or whether ind think that others or forces beyond themselves determine what happens (external)• Ind w internal locus of control exert more direct action against a stressor and thus are expected to experience less strain

A

Rotter 1996

42
Q

• Meta-analysis• No relationship bw role ambiguity or confict and job perf

A

Tubbs & Collins (2000)

43
Q

• Meta-analysis• Role stressors (overload, conflict, ambiguity) neg → org commitment

A

Mathieu & Zajac (1999)

44
Q

• Meta-analysis• Work-related strain is pos related to absence behavior

A

Martocchio et al. (2000)