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.


Rating Accuracy Procedural Justice Performance Dimension Performance Appraisal Appraisal Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bernardin HJ (1978) Effects of rater training on leniency and halo errors in student ratings of instructors. J Appl Psychol 63:301–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernardin HJ, Buckley MR (1981) Strategies in rater training. Acad Manage Rev 6:205–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernardin HJ, Pence EC (1980) Effects of rater training: new response sets and decreasing accuracy. J Appl Psychol 65:60–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernardin HJ, Walter CS (1977) Effects of rater training and diary-keeping on psychometric error in ratings. J Appl Psychol 62:64–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 462–493Google Scholar
  6. 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 71–98Google Scholar
  7. 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):321–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell DT (1958) Systematic error on the part of human links in communication systems. Inf Control 1:334–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 469–486Google Scholar
  10. 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 35–70Google Scholar
  11. Carlston DE (1994) Associated systems theory: a systematic approach to cognitive representations of persons. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 309–324Google Scholar
  13. Cleveland JN, Murphy KR (1992) Analyzing performance appraisal as goal-directed behavior. Res Pers Hum Resour Manage 10:121–185Google Scholar
  14. 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 72–83Google Scholar
  15. DeNisi AS (1997) Cognitive approach to performance appraisal: a programme of research. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Drewes G, Runde B (2002) Performance appraisal. In: Sonnentag S (ed) Psychological management of individual performance. Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp 137–154Google Scholar
  17. Dunnette MD, Campbell JP, Hellervik LW (1968) Job behavior scales for Penney Co. department managers. Personnel Decisions, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  18. Fay CH, Latham GP (1982) Effects of training and rating scales on rating errors. Pers Psychol 35:105–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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, UKGoogle Scholar
  20. Findley HM, Mossholder KW, Giles WF (2000) Performance appraisal process and system facets: relationships with contextual performance. J Appl Psychol 85(4):634–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisher CD (1979) Transmission of positive and negative feedback to subordinates: a laboratory investigation. J Appl Psychol 64:533–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fletcher C (1997) Appraisal–routes to improved performance, 3rd edn. Institute of Personnel and Development, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Folger R, Konovsky MA, Cropanzano R (1992) Due process metaphor for performance appraisal. Res Organ Behav 14:129–177Google Scholar
  24. Ford JK, Weldon E (1981) Forewarning and accountability: effects on memory-based interpersonal judgments. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 7:264–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Foucault M (1981) Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings. Harvester, BrightonGoogle Scholar
  26. Frink DD, Ferris GR (1998) Accountability, impression management, and goal setting in the performance evaluation process. Hum Relat 51(10):1259–1283Google Scholar
  27. Giles WF, Findley HM, Field HS (1997) Procedural fairness in performance appraisal: beyond the review session. J Bus Psychol 11:493–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gomez-Mejia LR (1989) Performance appraisal: testing a process model. J Manag Psychol 4(3):27–32Google Scholar
  29. 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 56:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harris MM, Smith DE, Champagne D (1995) A field study of performance appraisal purpose: research vs administrative-based ratings. Pers Psychol 48(1):151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 19:25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hedge JW, Kavanagh MJ (1988) Improving the accuracy of performance evaluations: comparison of three methods of performance appraiser training. J Appl Psychol 73:68–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 235–252Google Scholar
  34. 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 54:321–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ilgen DR, Knowlton WA (1980) Performance attributional effects on feedback from supervisors. Organ Behav Hum Perform 25:441–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ivancevich JM (1979) Longitudinal study of the effects of rater training on psychometric error in ratings. J Appl Psychol 64:502–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jawahar IM, Williams CR (1997) Where all the children are above average: the performance appraisal purpose effect. Pers Psychol 50(4):905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Klimoski R, Inks L (1990) Accountability forces in performance appraisal. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 45(2):194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Korsgaard MA, Roberson L (1995) Procedural justice in performance evaluation: the role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal decisions. J Manage 21:657–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Landy FJ, Farr JL (1980) Performance rating. Psychol Bull 87:72–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Landy FJ, Barnes JL, Murphy KR (1978) Correlates of perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation. J Appl Psychol 63:751–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Larson JR (1984) The performance feedback process: a preliminary model. Organ Behav Hum Perform 33:42–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Latham GP (1986) Job performance and appraisal. In: Cooper CL, Robertson I (eds) International review of industrial and organizational psychology. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Latham GP, Wexley KN, Pursell FD (1975) Training managers to minimize rating errors in the observation of behavior. J Appl Psychol 60:550–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lawler EE III (2003) Reward practices and performance management system effectiveness. Organ Dyn 32(4):396–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Levinson DJ, Darrow CN, Klein EB, Levinson MA, McKee B (1978) Seasons of a man's life. Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Levy PE, Williams JR (2004) The social context of performance appraisal: a review and framework for the future. J Manage 30(6):881–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lohaus D, Kleinmann M (2002) Analysis of performance potential. In: Sonnentag S (ed) Psychological management of individual performance. Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp 155–178Google Scholar
  49. London M (1997) Job feedback. Giving, seeking, and using feedback for performance improvement. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  50. London M, Smither JW (2002) Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Hum Resour Manage Rev 12:81–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Longenecker CO, Sims HP, Gioia DA (1987) Behind the mask: the politics of employee appraisal. Acad Manage Exec 1(3):183–193Google Scholar
  52. 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 24:228–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mero NP, Motowidlo SJ, Anna AL (2003) Effects of accountability on rating behavior and rater accuracy. J Appl Soc Psychol 33(12):2493–2514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Milkovich GT, Wigdor AK (1991) Pay and performance: evaluating performance appraisal and merit pay. National Academy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  55. Miller GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for possessing information. Psychol Rev 63:81–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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 53–69Google Scholar
  57. 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):3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Oechsler WA (2006) Personal und Arbeit. Grundlagen des human resource management und der Arbeitgeber-Arbeitnehmer-Beziehungen, 8th edn. Oldenbourg, Munich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  59. Peck CA (1984) Pay and performance: the interaction of compensation and performance appraisal. Research bulletin no. 155. Conference Board, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  60. Pulakos ED (1984) A comparison of rater training programs: error training and accuracy training. J Appl Psychol 69(4):581–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pulakos ED (1986) The development of training programs to increase accuracy with different rating tasks. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 38:76–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Scandura TA, Hamilton BA (2002) Enhancing performance through mentoring. In: Sonnentag S (ed) Psychological management of individual performance. Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp 293–308Google Scholar
  63. Schiek D (2004) Gleichbehandlungsrichtlinien der EU—Umsetzung im deutschen Arbeitsrecht, NZA. Heft 16:873–885Google Scholar
  64. 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):76–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Seijts GH, Latham GP (2005) Learning vs. performance goals: when should each be used. Acad Manag Exec 19:124–131Google Scholar
  66. 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):261–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Smith DE (1986) Training programs for performance appraisal: a review. Acad Manage Rev 11(1):22–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Smith PC, Kendall LM (1963) Retranslation of expectations. J Appl Psychol 47:149–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sulsky LM, Day DV (1992) Frame-of-reference training and cognitive categorization: an empirical investigation of rater memory issues. J Appl Psychol 77:501–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Teel KS (1986) Compensation: are merit raises really based on merit. Pers J, March, 65:88–95Google Scholar
  71. Tetlock PE (1983a) Accountability and complexity of thought. J Pers Soc Psychol 45:74–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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 297–332Google Scholar
  73. Tetlock PE, Boettger R (1989) Accountability: social magnifier of the dilution effect. J Pers Soc Psychol 57:388–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tetlock PE, Kim JI (1987) Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task. J Pers Soc Psychol 52:700–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tetlock PE, Skitka L, Boettger R (1989) Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: conformity, complexity, and bolstering. J Pers Soc Psychol 57:632–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Thornton GC III, Zorich S (1980) Training to improve observer accuracy. J Appl Psychol 65:351–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vroom VH (1964) Work and motivation. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  78. Walker AG, Smither JW (1999) A five-year study of upward feedback: what managers do with their results matters. Pers Psychol 52(2):393–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Woehr DJ, Huffcutt AI (1994) Rater training for performance appraisal: a quantitative review. J Occup Organ Psychol 67:189–205Google Scholar
  80. Zenger TR (1992) Why do employers only reward extreme performance? Examining the relationships among performance, pay, and turnover. Admin Sci Quart 37:198–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Personalised recommendations