This final chapter is concerned with how performance appraisals should be conducted—i.e., with the appraisal process. Appraisal process models by cognitive psychologists typically distinguish three stages of the appraisal process: The collection of information for appraising someone, its organization and storage in memory, and its retrieval and integration into a coherent judgment for the respective appraisal purposes.1 Understanding the cognitive processes related to appraisals of performance helps design the appraisal system such that the purposes and goals of the appraisal can be achieved. Hence, the findings of cognitive psychologists will be referred to at several points of this chapter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
Longenecker et al. (1987).
- 4.
- 5.
Longenecker et al. (1987, p. 183).
- 6.
Longenecker and Gioia (1994).
- 7.
Other examples of rater error and bias include halo, severity, central tendency, contrast, stereotype, similar-to-me, liking, friendship, first impression, and recency effects. The rater errors discussed most often in the literature are leniency, halo, and central tendency (Woehr and Hoffcutt 1994). Leniency refers to a tendency of appraisers to overrate their employees; halo refers to a tendency of providing exceptional ratings across all performance dimensions for someone who has performed exceptionally in one performance dimension that is particularly evident to the rater but was less effective in some other performance dimensions; and central tendency refers to a tendency to rate in categories in the middle of the rating scale, avoiding having to justify outstandingly good or bad ratings. Often, rater errors and accuracy are examined as separate outcome measures of the appraisal process, although, logically, rater errors should only matter in-so-far as they affect the accuracy of appraisal. Research on rater training (Bernardin and Pence 1980) showed that rater training that was aimed at reducing rater error not only reduced rater error but also rating accuracy. The training program that was examined involved definitions and distributional examples of halo, i.e., the training participants were told that high ratings equally distributed across different performance dimensions represented a rater error—halo. The study also measured halo on the basis of rating distributions across different dimensions. Halo and accuracy were measured before and after the training course. The fact that halo—as defined in the study—decreased together with rating accuracy indicates that what was defined and observed as halo did not actually represent halo but a tendency of outstanding performers to excel across different dimensions of performance. Actual halo would occur in a situation where someone actually performs exceptionally well in one performance factor, overshadowing deficiencies in other areas. This, however, is difficult to tell apart from the situation described above. Nevertheless, if it was observable, one would expect to observe a negative correlation between this rater error and rating accuracy.
- 8.
E.g., Folger et al. (1992).
- 9.
Schleicher and Day (1998).
- 10.
Findley et al. (2000).
- 11.
Folger et al. (1992).
- 12.
- 13.
Bernardin et al. (1995), Murphy (1994).
- 14.
- 15.
Schiek (2004), EU Regulation 2000/43/EG.
- 16.
Bretz et al. (1992) integrated the results of two major surveys of appraisal practices in 3,052 and 435 organizations and their own survey of appraisal practices of the Fortune Industrial 100.
- 17.
Fletcher (1997, p.74).
- 18.
Fletcher (1997, p.74).
- 19.
Lohaus and Kleinmann (2002).
- 20.
Lohaus and Kleinmann (2002).
- 21.
Greguras et al. (2003).
- 22.
Greguras et al. (2003).
- 23.
Lohaus and Kleinmann (2002).
- 24.
Fletcher (1997, p.77).
- 25.
- 26.
Jawahar and Williams (1997).
- 27.
Weighting more heavily does not necessarily imply numerical scaling factors. If that is not desired, rating dimensions may be aggregated into an overall rating in a qualitative fashion by the responsible supervisor, taking into account the assessments by some sources to a greater extent than those by other sources.
- 28.
Cf. Sects. 3.1.2 and 4.1
- 29.
Lohaus and Kleinman (2002).
- 30.
Lohaus and Kleinman (2002).
- 31.
Cf. Sect. 4.1 on the stability of general mental ability and personality traits of grown ups.
- 32.
Cf. Sect. 4.1 on the stability of general mental ability and personality traits of grown ups.
- 33.
- 34.
- 35.
Schleicher and Day (1998).
- 36.
Sulsky and Day (1992).
- 37.
Cf. Sect. 5.6.
- 38.
Fletcher (1997, p.20).
- 39.
Jawahar and Williams (1997).
- 40.
Jawahar and Williams (1997).
- 41.
Cf. Sect. 4.2.
- 42.
Smith and Kendall (1963).
- 43.
Dunnette et al. (1968).
- 44.
Wiersma and Latham (1986).
- 45.
Cf. Ilgen et al. (1993).
- 46.
- 47.
Cf. Sect. 5.6.
- 48.
- 49.
Bretz et al. (1992, p. 333).
- 50.
Teel (1986).
- 51.
- 52.
The argument is inspired by the work of Edward Deming (1986), who has provocatively labeled performance appraisal as one of seven deadly diseases of management. He suggests that the performance of individuals does not differ significantly and that variations are due to random observations, sampling error, factors outside the control of the individual, and the system in general. Any remaining differences in performance contributions by the individuals cannot be meaningfully differentiated from other factors by managers or other raters. There is partial empirical support for his argument, as, for instance, Greguras et al. (2003) find that “the combined rater and rater-by-ratee interaction effect and the residual effect were substantially larger than the person effect (the object of measurement)” (p.13). Earlier studies, by contrast, find that the largest source of variance in ratings is in fact the performance of the ratee (Landy and Farr 1980).
- 53.
Cf. Sect. 3.1.
- 54.
Zenger (1992).
- 55.
Lawler (2003, p. 400).
- 56.
Lawler (2003, p. 402).
- 57.
- 58.
It will be explained in Sect. 5.6 how abstract cognitive processing of raters can be supported through appraisal training.
- 59.
Kluger and DeNisi (1996, p.255).
- 60.
The psychological literature refers to factual feedback about performance results as knowledge of results (KR) interventions.
- 61.
Thus, the concept of feedback interventions is somewhat narrower than that of feedback as it covers only targeted and deliberate provision of feedback. Consider, for example, a definition of feedback by London (1997, p.11): “Feedback is the information people receive about their performance. It conveys information about behaviors, and it conveys an evaluation about the quality of those behaviors.”
- 62.
Kluger and DeNisi (1996). The theories they draw from include Thorndike's law of effect, control theory, goal setting theory, multiple-cue probability paradigm, social cognition theory, and learned helplessness theory.
- 63.
Kluger and DeNisi (1996).
- 64.
Kluger and DeNisi (1996).
- 65.
Cf. London (1997).
- 66.
Cf. Sect. 5.5.
- 67.
Cf. London and Smither (2002).
- 68.
- 69.
Hebert and Vorauer (2003).
- 70.
- 71.
- 72.
The meta-analysis of the empirical literature by Kluger and DeNisi (1996) finds that, on average, verbal FIs “are likely” to attenuate FI effects. It is proposed that this effect would not have been observed if it had been possible to control for a variable such as “flexibility of the team structure.” The analysis does control for task complexity, which displays relatively low interjudge reliability, though, reflecting “the difficulty in conceptualizing task complexity” (p.275). Furthermore, task complexity is not equivalent to the flexibility of the team structure. Hence, due to the difficulty of measuring the contingency variable in question, the present work relies on the logic of the argument described above. The same applies to Kluger and DeNisi's empirical finding that some normative FIs (such as praise) generally impact negatively on performance.
- 73.
Kluger and DeNisi (1996).
- 74.
Firms such as Coca Cola Foods and PWC have been reported to practice coaching of managers by senior mentors (Seijts and Latham 2005). Cf. Sect. 5.5.
- 75.
Longenecker et al. (1987, p. 184).
- 76.
- 77.
- 78.
London (1997, p. 152).
- 79.
- 80.
Longenecker et al. (1987, p. 186).
- 81.
Frink and Ferris (1998).
- 82.
- 83.
- 84.
Tetlock (1983a).
- 85.
Klimoski and Inks (1990, p.197), cf. Shore et al. (1988).
- 86.
Klimoski and Inks (1990).
- 87.
See below paragraphs on heuristics.
- 88.
- 89.
The academic literature distinguishes between distributive and procedural justice. Distributive justice concerns the equitability of a received outcome, i.e., the ratio of someone's own outcomes (e.g., performance ratings or pay) to inputs (e.g., performance levels) compared to the ratio of other people. Procedural justice, by contrast, is concerned with the fairness of the processes that led to a particular outcome. According to a two-component model of justice (Cropanzano and Folger 1996), distributive injustice energizes behavior, i.e., motivates people to do something about it. The direction of this behavior is determined by the perceived degree of procedural justice. If procedures are perceived to be fair, employees will respond with constructive behavior, expecting that this behavior will lead to the desired outcomes in future. If, however, procedures are perceived to be unfair, employees are more likely to retaliate through destructive behavior, expecting that constructive responses are unlikely to lead to the desired outcomes anyway. The conclusion that increased appraisal fairness results in positive motivational effects among appraisees can also be arrived at using expectancy theory (Vroom 1964). This theory suggests that motivation is dependent on the attractiveness of anticipated consequences of performance for the individual (“valence”), the perceived probability that effort will lead to performance on a task or job (“expectancy”), and the individual's confidence that a particular level of performance will lead to a particular level of outcomes (“instrumentality”). Thus, increased fairness of the performance appraisal can be seen to have a positive impact on instrumentality, thus, increasing the motivation of the appraisees. Schleicher and Day (1998) provide empirical evidence for a positive impact on employee attitudes of appraisal procedures that are perceived to be fair.
- 90.
Landy et al. (1978).
- 91.
Kandel and Frumer (1994, p. 587).
- 92.
Rowe (1991, p.356).
- 93.
A broader definition is adopted by Rowe (1991) who describes “an internal ombudsman as a neutral or impartial manager within an organization, who may provide informal and confidential assistance to managers and employees in resolving work-related concerns; who may serve as a counselor, informal go-between and facilitator, formal mediator, informal fact-finder, upward-feedback mechanism, consultant, problem prevention device and change agent; and whose office is located outside ordinary line management structures” (p.353).
- 94.
Rowe (1991, p. 359).
- 95.
Rowe (1991, p. 356).
- 96.
Kandel and Frumer (1994, p.587).
- 97.
Landy et al. (1978), cf. above.
- 98.
Professional associations include the International Ombudsman Association (www.ombuds-toa. org) and the Ombudsman Association (http://web.mit.edu/negotiation/toa). Usually, Ombudspeople are employed as regular employees, but they may also be hired as contractors to emphasize their independence from formal and informal organizational structures (Kandel and Frumer 1994, p. 591). Also cf. Fernie and Metcalf (2004).
- 99.
Elsewhere the mentor is defined as an influential individual, with advanced experience and knowledge, who is committed to providing upward support and mobility to his/her protégé's career (Levinson et al. 1978). Kram (1995) assigns two broad functions to mentoring—career development and psychological support. The former involves vocational support, including coaching, advising, exposing the protégé to key players in the organization, providing technical support and advice on specific skill development, minimizing protégé involvement in situations that may be political or controversial, and nominating the protégé for promotion. As part of the psychological support function, the mentor serves as a confidant, enhances the protégé's sense of competence, self-efficacy, and professional and personal development, and serves as a role model providing inspiration to the protégé (Scandura and Hamilton 2002).
- 100.
Clawson and Newburg (2002, p. 311).
- 101.
Clawson and Newburg (2002, p. 311).
- 102.
Clawson and Newburg (2002, p. 314) also cf. Scandura and Hamilton (2002).
- 103.
Woehr and Huffcutt (1994), see below.
- 104.
- 105.
Fletcher (1997, p. 83).
- 106.
- 107.
Campbell (1989).
- 108.
- 109.
Cf. Chap.4 on personal construct theory and Sect. 5.3 on associated systems theory.
- 110.
- 111.
- 112.
Noonan and Sulsky (2001).
- 113.
Noonan and Sulsky (2001, p.6).
- 114.
That is, letting the situation or setting influence observations.
- 115.
That is, forcing observations into categories instead of remembering the differences between ideas, behavior, and people.
- 116.
- 117.
Thornton and Zorich (1980).
- 118.
- 119.
Observational accuracy refers to a rater's ability to recall specific behavioral events.
- 120.
Woehr and Huffcutt (1994, p.200).
- 121.
- 122.
Pulakos (1986).
- 123.
- 124.
Levy and Williams (2004).
- 125.
Noonan and Sulsky (2001).
- 126.
Schleicher and Day (1998) find that due process appraisal systems are characterized by adequate notice, fair hearing, and judgments based on evidence.
- 127.
- 128.
London (1997).
- 129.
- 130.
A review of 24 studies of appraisal trainings (Smith 1986) found that presenting training material on the basis of a lecture alone was mostly ineffective in improving rating accuracy. Despite this, lectures were found to be the most commonly used training method, on the grounds that they are the least time consuming. Methods that include one or more practical exercises followed by feedback from the trainer were found to be mostly effective in improving rating accuracy. Group discussions in combination with practical exercises further enhanced accuracy.
- 131.
Cf. Hebert and Vorauer (2003).
- 132.
Fletcher (1997, p. 46).
- 133.
Fletcher (1997, p. 46).
- 134.
Longenecker et al. (1987), cf. Sect. 5.5.
- 135.
Generally, it has been suggested that training sessions should last for at least 3 h to be effective (Smith 1986; Noonan and Sulsky 2001; Fay and Latham 1982). Rating and feedback giving behaviors are well-ingrained habits, which are difficult to eliminate. Only repeated rehearsals of the new behavioral scripts ensure that they are also adopted during the actual appraisal process. Depending on the amount of content to be covered during the training, the duration of the training can also be longer. Some of the training sessions reviewed lasted up to 14 h (Smith 1986). Busy managers at the top- and mid-levels of the organizational hierarchy may have difficulties to find an uninterrupted time slot for a training course lasting for several hours. It has been suggested to break down the training for them into a couple of separate sessions (Fletcher 1997).
- 136.
Fletcher (1997, p. 98).
- 137.
Fletcher (1997, p. 98).
- 138.
Bretz et al. (1992).
- 139.
Korsgaard and Roberson (1995).
- 140.
Fletcher (1997).
- 141.
Fletcher (1997).
- 142.
Ivancevic (1979), Bernardin (1978).
- 143.
Cf. subsection “slicing the data,” Sect. 4.3.5.
References
Bernardin HJ (1978) Effects of rater training on leniency and halo errors in student ratings of instructors. J Appl Psychol 63:301–308
Bernardin HJ, Buckley MR (1981) Strategies in rater training. Acad Manage Rev 6:205–212
Bernardin HJ, Pence EC (1980) Effects of rater training: new response sets and decreasing accuracy. J Appl Psychol 65:60–66
Bernardin HJ, Walter CS (1977) Effects of rater training and diary-keeping on psychometric error in ratings. J Appl Psychol 62:64–69
Bernardin HJ, Kane JS, Ross S, Spina JD, Johnson DL (1995) Performance appraisal design, development, and implementation. In: Ferris RG, Rosen SD, Barnum DT (eds) Handbook of human resource management. Cambridge, MA, Blackwell, pp 462–493
Borman WC, Motowidlo SJ (1993) Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In: Schmitt N, Borman WC (eds) Personnel selection in organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 71–98
Bretz RD Jr, Milkovich GT, Read W (1992) The current state of performance appraisal research and practice: concerns, directions, and implications. J Manage 18(2):321–352
Campbell DT (1958) Systematic error on the part of human links in communication systems. Inf Control 1:334–369
Campbell JP (1989) The agenda for theory and research. In: Goldstein IL et al (eds) Training and development in organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp 469–486
Campbell JP, McCloy RA, Oppler SH, Sager CE (1993) A theory of performance. In: Neal Schmitt, Walter CB (eds) Personnel selection in organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 35–70
Carlston DE (1994) Associated systems theory: a systematic approach to cognitive representations of persons. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
Clawson JG, Newburg DS (2002) Mentoring for world-class performance. In: Sonnentag S (ed) Psychological management of individual performance. Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex, UK, pp 309–324
Cleveland JN, Murphy KR (1992) Analyzing performance appraisal as goal-directed behavior. Res Pers Hum Resour Manage 10:121–185
Cropanzano R, Folger R (1996) Procedural justice and worker motivation. In: Steers RM, Porter LW, Bigley GA (eds) Motivation and leadership at work, 6th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 72–83
DeNisi AS (1997) Cognitive approach to performance appraisal: a programme of research. Routledge, London
Drewes G, Runde B (2002) Performance appraisal. In: Sonnentag S (ed) Psychological management of individual performance. Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp 137–154
Dunnette MD, Campbell JP, Hellervik LW (1968) Job behavior scales for Penney Co. department managers. Personnel Decisions, Minneapolis
Fay CH, Latham GP (1982) Effects of training and rating scales on rating errors. Pers Psychol 35:105–116
Fernie S, Metcalf D (2004) The organisational ombuds: implications for voice, conflict resolution and fairness at work. In: Kaufman B (ed) Advances in Industrial and Labour Relations, vol 13. JAI, UK
Findley HM, Mossholder KW, Giles WF (2000) Performance appraisal process and system facets: relationships with contextual performance. J Appl Psychol 85(4):634–640
Fisher CD (1979) Transmission of positive and negative feedback to subordinates: a laboratory investigation. J Appl Psychol 64:533–540
Fletcher C (1997) Appraisal–routes to improved performance, 3rd edn. Institute of Personnel and Development, London
Folger R, Konovsky MA, Cropanzano R (1992) Due process metaphor for performance appraisal. Res Organ Behav 14:129–177
Ford JK, Weldon E (1981) Forewarning and accountability: effects on memory-based interpersonal judgments. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 7:264–268
Foucault M (1981) Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings. Harvester, Brighton
Frink DD, Ferris GR (1998) Accountability, impression management, and goal setting in the performance evaluation process. Hum Relat 51(10):1259–1283
Giles WF, Findley HM, Field HS (1997) Procedural fairness in performance appraisal: beyond the review session. J Bus Psychol 11:493–506
Gomez-Mejia LR (1989) Performance appraisal: testing a process model. J Manag Psychol 4(3):27–32
Greguras GJ, Robie C, Schleicher DJ, Goff M III (2003) A field study of the effects of rating purpose on the quality of multisource ratings. Pers Psychol 56:1–21
Harris MM, Smith DE, Champagne D (1995) A field study of performance appraisal purpose: research vs administrative-based ratings. Pers Psychol 48(1):151
Hebert BG, Vorauer JD (2003) Seeing through the screen: is evaluative feedback communicated more effectively in face-to-face or computer-mediated exchanges. Comput Human Behav 19:25–38
Hedge JW, Kavanagh MJ (1988) Improving the accuracy of performance evaluations: comparison of three methods of performance appraiser training. J Appl Psychol 73:68–73
Ilgen DR (1993) Performance-appraisal accuracy: an illusive or sometimes misguided goal? In: Schuler H, Farr JL, Smith M (eds) Personnel selection and assessment: individual and organizational perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 235–252
Ilgen DR, Barnes-Farrell JL, McKellin DB (1993) Performance appraisal process research in the 1980s: what has it contributed to performance appraisal in use? Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 54:321–368
Ilgen DR, Knowlton WA (1980) Performance attributional effects on feedback from supervisors. Organ Behav Hum Perform 25:441–456
Ivancevich JM (1979) Longitudinal study of the effects of rater training on psychometric error in ratings. J Appl Psychol 64:502–508
Jawahar IM, Williams CR (1997) Where all the children are above average: the performance appraisal purpose effect. Pers Psychol 50(4):905
Klimoski R, Inks L (1990) Accountability forces in performance appraisal. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 45(2):194
Korsgaard MA, Roberson L (1995) Procedural justice in performance evaluation: the role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal decisions. J Manage 21:657–669
Landy FJ, Farr JL (1980) Performance rating. Psychol Bull 87:72–107
Landy FJ, Barnes JL, Murphy KR (1978) Correlates of perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation. J Appl Psychol 63:751–754
Larson JR (1984) The performance feedback process: a preliminary model. Organ Behav Hum Perform 33:42–76
Latham GP (1986) Job performance and appraisal. In: Cooper CL, Robertson I (eds) International review of industrial and organizational psychology. Wiley, London
Latham GP, Wexley KN, Pursell FD (1975) Training managers to minimize rating errors in the observation of behavior. J Appl Psychol 60:550–555
Lawler EE III (2003) Reward practices and performance management system effectiveness. Organ Dyn 32(4):396–404
Levinson DJ, Darrow CN, Klein EB, Levinson MA, McKee B (1978) Seasons of a man's life. Knopf, New York
Levy PE, Williams JR (2004) The social context of performance appraisal: a review and framework for the future. J Manage 30(6):881–905
Lohaus D, Kleinmann M (2002) Analysis of performance potential. In: Sonnentag S (ed) Psychological management of individual performance. Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp 155–178
London M (1997) Job feedback. Giving, seeking, and using feedback for performance improvement. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey
London M, Smither JW (2002) Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Hum Resour Manage Rev 12:81–100
Longenecker CO, Sims HP, Gioia DA (1987) Behind the mask: the politics of employee appraisal. Acad Manage Exec 1(3):183–193
McAllister DW, Mitchell TR, Beach LR (1979) The contingency model for the selection of decision strategies: An empirical test of the effects of significance, accountability, and reversibility. Organ Behav Hum Perform 24:228–244
Mero NP, Motowidlo SJ, Anna AL (2003) Effects of accountability on rating behavior and rater accuracy. J Appl Soc Psychol 33(12):2493–2514
Milkovich GT, Wigdor AK (1991) Pay and performance: evaluating performance appraisal and merit pay. National Academy, Washington, DC
Miller GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for possessing information. Psychol Rev 63:81–97
Muller-Jentsch W (1995) Germany: from collective voice to co-management. In: Rogers J, Streeck W (eds) Works council. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 53–69
Noonan LE, Sulsky LM (2001) Impact of frame-of-reference and behavioral observation training on alternative training effectiveness criteria in a Canadian military sample. Hum Perf 14(1):3–26
Oechsler WA (2006) Personal und Arbeit. Grundlagen des human resource management und der Arbeitgeber-Arbeitnehmer-Beziehungen, 8th edn. Oldenbourg, Munich, Germany
Peck CA (1984) Pay and performance: the interaction of compensation and performance appraisal. Research bulletin no. 155. Conference Board, New York
Pulakos ED (1984) A comparison of rater training programs: error training and accuracy training. J Appl Psychol 69(4):581–588
Pulakos ED (1986) The development of training programs to increase accuracy with different rating tasks. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 38:76–91
Scandura TA, Hamilton BA (2002) Enhancing performance through mentoring. In: Sonnentag S (ed) Psychological management of individual performance. Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp 293–308
Schiek D (2004) Gleichbehandlungsrichtlinien der EU—Umsetzung im deutschen Arbeitsrecht, NZA. Heft 16:873–885
Schleicher DJ, Day DV (1998) A cognitive evaluation of frame-of-reference rater training: content and process issues. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 73(1):76–101
Seijts GH, Latham GP (2005) Learning vs. performance goals: when should each be used. Acad Manag Exec 19:124–131
Shore TH, Tashchian A (2002) Accountability forces in performance appraisal: effects of self-appraisal information, normative information, and task performance. J Bus Psychol 17(2):261–274
Smith DE (1986) Training programs for performance appraisal: a review. Acad Manage Rev 11(1):22–40
Smith PC, Kendall LM (1963) Retranslation of expectations. J Appl Psychol 47:149–155
Sulsky LM, Day DV (1992) Frame-of-reference training and cognitive categorization: an empirical investigation of rater memory issues. J Appl Psychol 77:501–510
Teel KS (1986) Compensation: are merit raises really based on merit. Pers J, March, 65:88–95
Tetlock PE (1983a) Accountability and complexity of thought. J Pers Soc Psychol 45:74–83
Tetlock PE (1985c) Accountability: the neglected social context of judgment and choice. In: Cummings L, Staw BM (eds) Research in organizational behavior, vol 7. JAI, Greenwich, CT, pp 297–332
Tetlock PE, Boettger R (1989) Accountability: social magnifier of the dilution effect. J Pers Soc Psychol 57:388–398
Tetlock PE, Kim JI (1987) Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task. J Pers Soc Psychol 52:700–709
Tetlock PE, Skitka L, Boettger R (1989) Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: conformity, complexity, and bolstering. J Pers Soc Psychol 57:632–640
Thornton GC III, Zorich S (1980) Training to improve observer accuracy. J Appl Psychol 65:351–354
Vroom VH (1964) Work and motivation. Wiley, New York
Walker AG, Smither JW (1999) A five-year study of upward feedback: what managers do with their results matters. Pers Psychol 52(2):393–423
Woehr DJ, Huffcutt AI (1994) Rater training for performance appraisal: a quantitative review. J Occup Organ Psychol 67:189–205
Zenger TR (1992) Why do employers only reward extreme performance? Examining the relationships among performance, pay, and turnover. Admin Sci Quart 37:198–219
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2009). Appraisal Process. In: Krausert, A. (eds) Performance Management for Different Employee Groups. Contributions to Management Science. Physica-Verlag HD. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-2197-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-2197-0_5
Publisher Name: Physica-Verlag HD
Print ISBN: 978-3-7908-2196-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-7908-2197-0
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)