Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

Measuring Police Performance

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_187


Successful organizations have one critical thing in common: they get the right people on the bus (Collins 2001). Selecting top quality individuals is a critical first step in creating a highly effective organization. In general, this is true but nowhere is it more the case than in a police department. Consider the fact that in almost every other type of organization, deficiencies in selection can at least be partially corrected by successfully introducing supervisors and other leaders from outside the organization. In police departments, it is rare, in fact highly unlikely, that supervisors and other leaders come from anywhere else except those who joined the force as new officers. The pool of applicants for promotions and ultimately departmental leadership is almost exclusively made up of individuals who have come up through the ranks. Ineffective selection programs and the inevitable hiring mistakes that occur even with the best selection processes result in limitations in...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Ashford SJ, Cummings LL (1983) Feedback as an individual resource: personal strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior Human Performance 32:370–398Google Scholar
  2. Atkins PWB, Wood RE (2002) Self-versus others’ ratings as predictors of assessment center ratings: validation evidence for 360-degree feedback programs. Personnel Psychol 55:871–904Google Scholar
  3. Atwater L, Brett J (2006) Feedback format: does it influence manager’s reactions to feedback? J Occupational Psychol 79:517–532Google Scholar
  4. Austin JT, Villanova P (1992) The criterion problem: 1917–1992. J Appl Psychol 77:836–874Google Scholar
  5. Campbell JP (1999) The definition and measurement of performance in the new age. In: Ilgen DR, Pulakos E (eds) The changing nature of performance. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, pp 399–430Google Scholar
  6. Cawley BD, Keeping LM, Levy PE (1998) Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: a meta-analytic review of field investigations. J Appl Psychol 83:615–633Google Scholar
  7. Collins J (2001) Good to great. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Earley PC (1986) Trust, perceived importance of praise and criticism, and work performance. An examination of feedback in the United States and England. J Manage 12:457–473Google Scholar
  9. Farr JL, Jacobs R (2006) Unifying perspectives: the criterion problem today and into the 21st century. In: Bennett W, Lance C, Woehr D (eds) Performance measurement: current perspectives and future challenges. LEA, Mahwah, NJ, pp 321–337Google Scholar
  10. Folger R, Konovsky MA, Cropanzano R (1992) A due process metaphor for performance appraisal. Res Organizational Behav 14:129–177Google Scholar
  11. Hedge JW, Teachout MS (2000) Exploring the concept of acceptability as a criterion for evaluating performance measures. Group Organization Manage 25:22–44Google Scholar
  12. Herold DM, Greller MM (1977) Feedback: the definition of a construct. Acad Manage J 20:142–147Google Scholar
  13. Ilgen DR, Fisher CD, Taylor SM (1979) Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. J Appl Psychol 64:349–371Google Scholar
  14. Ilgen DR, Barnes-Farrell JL, McKellin DB (1993) Performance appraisal process research in the 1980s: what has it contributed to appraisals in use? Organizational Behav Human Decision Processes 54:321–368Google Scholar
  15. Jablin FM (1979) Superior-subordinate communication: the state of the art. Psychol Bull 86:1201–1222Google Scholar
  16. Jacobs RR, Kafry D, Zedeck S (1980) Expectations of behavioral rating scales. Personnel Psychol 33:595–640Google Scholar
  17. Kluger AN, DeNisi A (1996) Effects of feedback intervention on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol Bull 119:254–284Google Scholar
  18. Korman AK (1970) The prediction of managerial performance: a preview. Studies Personnel Psychol 2:4–26Google Scholar
  19. Landy FJ, Farr JL (1980) Performance rating. Psychol Bull 87:72–107Google Scholar
  20. Levy PE, Williams JR (2004) The social context of performance appraisal: a review and framework for the future. J Manage 30:881–905Google Scholar
  21. Motowidlo SJ (2003) Job performance. In: Borman WC, Ilgen DR, Klimoski RJ (eds) Handbook of psychology: industrial and organizational psychology. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp 39–53Google Scholar
  22. Murphy KR, Cleveland JN (1995) Understanding performance appraisal: social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  23. Ostroff C, Ilgen DR (1992) Cognitive categories of raters and rating accuracy. J Business Psychol 7:3–26Google Scholar
  24. Scullen SE, Mount MK, Judge TA (2003) Evidence of the construct validity of developmental ratings of managerial performance. J Appl Psychol 88:50–66Google Scholar
  25. Smither JW, Walker AG (2004) Are the characteristics of narrative comments related to improvement in multirater feedback ratings over time? J Appl Psychol 89:575–581Google Scholar
  26. Spector PE (2006) Industrial and organizational psychology: research and practice. Wiley, Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
  27. Steelman LA, Rutkowski KA (2004) Moderators of employee reactions to negative feedback. J Manag Psychol 19:6–18Google Scholar
  28. Steelman LA, Levy PE, Snell AF (2004) The feedback environment scale: construct definition, measurement, and validation. Educational Psychol Measure 64:165–184Google Scholar
  29. Sulsky LM, Day DV (1992) Frame-of-reference training and cognitive categorization: an empirical investigation of rater memory issues. J Appl Psychol 77:501–510Google Scholar
  30. Taylor MS, Fisher C, Ilgen D (1984) Individuals reactions to performance feedback in organizations: control theory perspective. In: Rowland K, Ferris G (eds) Research in personnel and human resource management. JAI, Greenwich, CT, pp 81–124Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rick Jacobs
    • 1
  • Don Zettlemoyer
    • 2
  • Lawrence Houston
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyThe Pennsylvania State University and EB JacobsUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Penn State Justice and Safety InstituteThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  3. 3.The Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA