A Review, an Integration, and a Critique of Cross-Disciplinary Research on Performance Appraisals, Evaluations, and Feedback: 1990-2000

Deloris McGee Wanguri

Abstract


Performance related pay and the performance appraisal system continue to have a strong presence in corporate America. The presence of the performance appraisal system ranges from more traditional paper-and-pen systems to the emergence of eAppraisal, a web-based software designed by Halogen to facilitate the appraisal process. The current study investigates trends in this area. Ninety-eight empirical studies on performance appraisals, published between 1990 and 2000, in business, communication, and psychology journals, were reviewed and integrated. This review examined published empirical studies in four categories: performance appraisal systems and practices, rating instruments, raters, and ratees. Results of this synthesis revealed the following: (a) Effective performance appraisal systems feature opportunities for employee “voice”; (b) PRP systems are being implemented with increasing frequency internationally; (c) BOS are superior to BARS and GRS in terms of goal specificity; (d) all types of appraisal systems are subject to rating distortion; (e) multirater, SAM, and peer review feedback programs should be used most frequently for developmental purposes and performance improvement; (f) perceived accuracy of performance feedback is an important component of the evaluation process; (g) acceptance of subordinate feedback is related to subordinate awareness of the supervisor’s job; (h) supervisors tend to rate more favorably subordinates from the same nationality or race; (i) organizations should consider culture in terms of human resource development; and (j) variables that affect perceptions of ratees include age, power, pregnancy, and smoking habits. These findings reflected the following five trends: (a) quantitative studies that investigated counterrational dimensions in the performance appraisal process, (b) quantitative studies that investigated interaction effects between rater and ratee characteristics, (c) quantitative studies that investigated preferences of raters and ratees, (d) quantitative studies that investigated communication transactions, and (e) quantitative studies that investigated international applications. The researcher recommends continued research in the areas of counterrational dimensions, interaction effects, participant preferences, communication transactions, and international applications of the performance appraisal process.


Keywords


Performance appraisals; Performance evaluations; Performance feedback; Organizational communication; Corporate communication

Full Text:

PDF

References


Adsit, D. J., London, M., Crom, S., & Jones, D. (1997). Cross-cultural differences in upward ratings in a multinational company. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(4), 385-401.

Amba-Rao, S. C., Petrick, J. A., Gupta, J. N. D., & Embse, T. J. V. (2000). Comparative performance appraisal practices and management values among foreign and domestic firms in India. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(1), 60-89.

Antonioni, D. (1994). The effects of feedback accountability on upward appraisal ratings. Personnel Psychology, 47(2), 349-356.

Ash, A. (1994). Participants’ reactions to subordinate appraisal of managers: Results of a pilot. Public Personnel Management, 23(2), 237-256.

Atwater, L. E., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F. J., & Fleenor, J. W. (1998). Self-other agreement: Does it really matter? Personnel Psychology, 51(3), 577-598.

Atwater, L. E., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, D., & Cartier, P. (2000). An upward feedback field experiment: Supervisors’ cynicism, reactions, and commitment to subordinates. Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 275-297.

Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1992). Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions? Personnel Psychology, 45(3), 141-164.

Avolio, B. J., Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). Identifying common methods variance with data collected from a single source: An unresolved sticky issue. Journal of Management, 17(3), 571-587.

Balfour, D. L. (1992). Impact of agency investment in the implementation of the performance appraisal. Public Personnel Management, 21(1), 1-15.

Barclay, J. H., & Harland, L. K. (1995). Peer performance appraisals: The impact of rater competence, rater location, and rating correctability on fairness perceptions. Group and Organization Management, 20(1), 39-60.

Barge, J. K., & Musambira, G. W. (1992). Turning points in chair-faculty relationships. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20(1), 54-77.

Beckner, D., Highhouse, S., & Hazer, J. T. (1998). Effects of upward accountability and rating purpose on peer-rater inflation and delay: A field experiment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(2), 209-214.

Bernadin, H. J., Hennessey, Jr. H. W., & Peyrefitte, J. (1995). Age, racial, and gender bias as a function of criterion specificity: A test of expert testimony. Human Resource Management Review, 5(1), 63-77.

Bettenhausen, K. L., & Fedor, D. B. (1997). Peer and upward appraisals: A comparison of their benefits and problems. Group and Organization Management, 22(2), 236-263.

Biddle, L. E. (2006, September 13). Performance management series. Message posted to DT_All_Users.

Bissessar, A. M. (2000). The introduction of new appraisals systems in the public services of the Commonwealth Caribbean. Public Personnel Management 29(2), 277-292.

Bommer, W. H., Johnson, J. L., Rich, G. A., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1995). On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 48(3), 587-605.

Brumback, G. B. (1993). Sixteen elephants can’t do what a change in law could. Public Personnel Management, 22(2), 237-242.

Burke, R. J. (1996). Performance evaluation and counseling in a professional services firm. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 17(3), 21-26.

Caligiuri, P. M., & Day, D. V. (2000). Effects of self-monitoring on technical, contextual, and assignment-specific performance: A study of cross-national work performance ratings. Group and Organization Management, 25(2), 154-174.

Cheung, G. W. (1999). Multifaceted conceptions of self-other ratings disagreement. Personnel Psychology, 52(1), 1-36.

Church, A. H., Rogelberg, S. G., & Waclawski, J. (2000). Since when is no news good news? The relationship between performance and response rates in multirater feedback. Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 435-452.

Clifford, J. P. (1999). The collective wisdom of the workforce: Conversations with employees regarding performance evaluation. Public Personnel Management, 28(1), 119-155.

Coates, G. (1994). Performance appraisal as icon: Oscar-winning performance or dressing to impress? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(1), 167-191.

Coens, T., & Jenkins, M. (2000). Abolishing performance evaluations: Why they backfire and what to do instead. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Conway, J. M. (1996). Analysis and design of multitrait-multirater performance appraisal studies. Journal of Management, 22(1), 139-162.

Daley, D. M. (1990). The Civil Service Reform Act and performance appraisal: A research note on federal employee perceptions. Public Personnel Management, 19(3), 245-251.

Daly, J. A., Vangelisti, A. L., & Weber, D. J. (1995). Speech anxiety affects how people prepare speeches: A protocol analysis of the preparation processes of speakers. Communication Monographs, 62(4), 383-397.

Deadrick, D. L., & Gardner, D. G. (1997). Distributional ratings of performance levels and variability: An examination of rating validity in a field setting. Group and Organization Management, 22(3), 317-342.

Delery, J. E., Gupta, N., Jenkins, Jr. G. D., & Walker, B. C. (1998). Interdimensional correlations in individual and dyadic performance ratings. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(6), 577-587.

Dion, P. A., & Notarantonio, E. M. (1992). Salesperson communication style: The neglected dimension in sales performance. Journal of Business Communication, 29(1), 63-77.

Dobbins, G. H., Cardy, R. L., & Platz-Vieno, S. J. (1990). A contingency approach to appraisal satisfaction: An initial investigation of the joint effects of organizational variables and appraisal characteristics. Journal of Management, 16(3), 619-632.

Duarte, N. T., Goodson, J. R., & Klich, N. R. (1993). How do I like thee? Let me appraise the ways. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(3), 239-249.

Elenkov, D. S. (1997). Environmental scanning systems and performance: An empirical study of Russian companies. Journal of Management Development, 16(2-3), 111-124.

Facteau, C. L., Facteau, J. D., Schoel, L. C., Russell, J. E. A., & Poteet, M. L. (1998). Reactions of leaders to 360-degree feedback from subordinates and peers Leadership Quarterly, 9(4), 427-448.

Farh, J., Dobbins, G. H., & Cheng, B. (1991). Cultural relativity in action: A comparison of self-ratings made by Chinese and U.S. workers. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 129-147.

Farrell, D., & Petersen, J. C. (1982). Patterns of political behavior in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 7, 403-412.

Fedor, D. B., Bettenhausen, K. L., & Davis, W. (1999). Peer reviews: Employees’ dual roles as raters and recipients. Group and Organization Management, 24(1), 92-120.

Fernandez, D. R., & Perrewe, P. L. (1995). Implicit stress theory: An experimental examination of subjective performance information on employee evaluations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(4), 353-362.

Foo, S., & Hui, S. C. (1998). A framework for evaluating Internet telephony systems. Internet Research, 8(1), 14-25.

Fried, Y., Levi, A. S., Ben-David, H. A., & Tiegs, R. B. (1999). Inflation of subordinates’ performance ratings: Main and interactive effects of rater negative affectivity, documentation of work behavior, and appraisal visibility. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(4), 431-444.

Gaugler, B. B., & Rudolph, A. S. (1992). The influence of assessee performance variation on assessors’ judgments. Personnel Psychology, 45(1), 77-98.

Gilbert, G. R., Hannan, E. L., & Lowe, K. B. (1998). Is smoking stigma clouding the objectivity of employee performance appraisal? Public Personnel Management, 27(3), 285-300.

Gioia, D. A., & Longenecker, C. O. (1994). Delving into the dark side: The politics of executive appraisal. Organizational Dynamics, 22(3), 47-58.

Gittleman, M., Horrigan, M., & Joyce, M. (1998). “Flexible” workplace practices: Evidence from a nationally representative survey. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 52(1), 99-115.

Goodson, J. R., McGee, G. W., & Seers, A. (1992). Giving appropriate performance feedback to managers: An empirical test of content and outcomes. Journal of Business Communication, 29(4), 329-342.

Gunnigle, P., Turner, T., & D’Art, D. (1998). Counterpoising collectivism: Performance-related pay and industrial relations in Greenfield sites. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 36(4), 565-579.

Halpert, J. A., Wilson, M. L., & Hickman, J. L. (1993). Pregnancy as a source of bias in performance appraisals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(7), 649-663.

Harris, M. M., Smith, D. E., & Champagne, D. (1995). A field study of performance appraisal purpose: Research- versus administrative-based ratings. Personnel Psychology, 48(1), 151-160.

Healy, G. (1997). The industrial relations of appraisal: The case of teachers. Industrial Relations Journal, 28(3), 206-220.

Hedge, J. W. & Teachout, M. S. (2000). Exploring the concept of acceptability as a criterion for evaluating performance measures. Group and Organization Management, 25(1), 22-44.

Heery, E. (1997). Performance-related pay and trade union de-recognition. Employee Relations, 19(3), 208-221.

Hooijberg, R., & Choi, J. (2000). Which leadership roles matter to whom? An examination of rater effects on perceptions of effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 11(3), 341-364.

Jae-yong, P. (2002, July 18). Risks of performance-based pay: Report warns of individualism at team’s expense. JoongAng Ilbo, p. 6.

Janssens, M. (1994). Evaluating international managers’ performance: Parent company standards as control mechanism. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(4), 853-873.

Jawahar, I. M., & Williams, C. R. (1997). Where all the children are above average: The performance appraisal purpose effect. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 905-926.

Johnson, J. W., & Ferstl, K. L. (1999). The effects of interrater and self-other agreement on performance improvement following upward feedback. Personnel Psychology, 52(2), 271-303.

Kane, J. S. (1996). The conceptualization and representation of total performance effectiveness. Human Resource Management Review, 6(2), 123-145.

Kolb, J. A. (1995). Leader behaviors affecting team performance: Similarities and differences between leader/members assessments. Journal of Business Communication, 32(3), 233-248.

Korsgaard, M. A. (1996). The impact of self-appraisals on reactions to feedback from others: The role of self-enhancement and self-consistency concerns. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(4), 301-311.

Korsgaard, M. A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions. Journal of Management, 21(4), 657-669.

Kover, A. J., Goldberg, S. M., & James, W. L. (1995). Creativity vs. effectiveness? An integrating classification for advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 35(6), 29-40.

Lam, S. S. K., & Schaubroeck, J. (1999). Total quality management and performance appraisal: An experimental study of process versus results and group versus individual approaches. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(4), 445-457.

Lance, C. E. (1994). Test of a latent structure of performance ratings derived from Wherry’s (1952) theory of rating. Journal of Management, 20(4), 757-771.

Lance, C. E., Woehr, D. J., & Fisicaro, S. A. (1991). Cognitive categorization processes in performance evaluation: Confirmatory tests of two models. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(1), 1-20.

Lee, J. S. Y., & Akhtar, S. (1996). Determinants of employee willingness to use feedback for performance improvement: Cultural and organizational interpretations. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 7(4), 878-890.

Lee, M., & Son, B. (1998). The effects of appraisal review content on employees’ reactions and performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(1), 203-214.

Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. (1998). The role of perceived system knowledge in predicting appraisal reactions, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(1), 53-65.

London, M., & Wohlers, A. J. (1991). Agreement between subordinate and self-ratings in upward feedback. Personnel Psychology, 44(2), 375-390.

Long, B. W. (1991). Performance criticism and questions of value. Text and Performance Quarterly, 11(2), 106-115.

Longenecker, C. O., & Nykodym, N. (1996). Public sector performance appraisal effectiveness: A case study. Public Personnel Management, 25(2), 151-164.

Lowry, P. E. (1991). The assessment center: Reducing interassessor influence. Public Personnel Management, 20(1), 19-26.

Lowry, P. E. (1996). A survey of the assessment center process in the public sector. Public Personnel Management, 25(3), 307-321.

McEvoy, G. M. (1990). Public sector managers’ reactions to appraisals by subordinates. Public Personnel Management, 19(2), 201-212.

Miller,C. S., Kaspin, J. A., & Schuster, M. H. (1990). The impact of performance appraisal methods on age discrimination in employment act cases. Personnel Psychology, 43(3), 555-578.

Morrison, E. W. (1995). Information usefulness and acquisition during organizational encounter. Management Communication Quarterly, 9(2), 131-155.

Mount, M. K., Judge, T. A., Scullen, S. E., Sytsma, M. R., & Hezlett, S. A.. (1998). Trait, rater and level effects in 360-degree performance ratings. Personnel Psychology, 51(3), 557-576.

Mount, M. K., Sytsma, M. R., Hazucha, J. F., & Holt, K. E. (1997). Rater-ratee race effects in developmental performance ratings of managers. Personnel Psychology, 50(1), 51-69.

Owen, D. (1997). Talk radio and evaluations of President Clinton. Political Communication, 14(3), 333-353.

Paik, Y., Vance, C. M., & Stage, H. D. (2000). A test of assumed cluster homogeneity for performance appraisal management in four Southeast Asian countries. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(4), 736-750.

Pan, Z. & Kosicki, G. M. (1997). Priming and media impact on the evaluations of the president’s performance. Communication Research, 24(1), 3-30.

Park-Fuller, L. M., & Pelias, R. J. (1995). Charting alternative performance and evaluative practices. Communication Education, 44(2), 126-139.

Peiperl, M.A. (1999). Conditions for the success of peer evaluation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(3), 429-458.

Peterson, S. B. (1998). Saints, demons, wizards, and systems: Why information technology reforms fail or underperform in public bureaucracies in Africa. Public Administration and Development, 18(1), 37-60.

Plax, T. G., Beatty, M. J., & Feingold, P. C. (1991). Predicting verbal plan complexity from decision rule orientation on business students and corporate executives. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 19(4), 242-262.

Ragins, B. R. (1991). Gender effects in subordinate evaluations of leaders: Real or artifact? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(3), 259-268.

Ralston, R. W., & Waters, R. O. (1996). The impact of behavioral traits on performance appraisal. Public Personnel Management, 25(4), 409-421.

Reilly, R. R., Smither, J. W., & Vasilopoulos, N. L. (1996). A longitudinal study of upward feedback. Personnel Psychology, 49(3), 599-612.

Roberson, L, Torkel, S., Korsgaard, A., Klein, D., Diddams, M., & Cayer, M. (1993). Self-appraisal and perceptions of the appraisal discussion: A field experiment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 129-142.

Roberts, G. E. (1994a). Barriers to municipal government performance appraisal systems: Evidence from a survey of municipal personnel administrators. Public Personnel Management, 23(2), 225-236.

Roberts, G. E. (1994b). Maximizing performance appraisal system acceptance: Perspectives from municipal government personnel administrators. Public Personnel Management, 23(4), 525-549.

Roberts, G. E. (1995). Municipal government performance appraisal system practices: Is the whole less than the sum of its parts? Public Personnel Management, 24(2), 197-221.

Roberts, G. E. (1998). Perspectives on enduring and emerging issues in performance appraisal. Public Personnel Management, 27(3), 301-320.

Roberts, G. E., & Pavlak, T. (1996). Municipal government personnel professionals and performance appraisal: Is there a consensus on the characteristics of an effective appraisal system? Public Personnel Management, 25(3), 379-408.

Robinson, R. K., Fink, R. L., & Allen, B. M. (1996). The influence of organizational constituent groups on rater attitudes toward performance appraisal compliance. Public Personnel Management, 25(2), 141-150.

Saks, A. M., & Waldman, D. A. (1998). The relationship between age and job performance evaluations for entry-level professionals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(4), 409-419.

Salam, S., Cox, J. F., & Sims, Jr., H. P. (1997). In the eye of the beholder: How leadership relates to 360-degree performance ratings. Group and Organization Management, 22(2), 185-209.

Snape, E., Thompson, D., Yan, F. K., & Redman, T.(1998). Performance appraisal and culture: Practice and attitudes in Hong Kong and Great Britain. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(5), 841-861.

Taylor, M.S., Tracy, K. B., Renard, M. K., Harrison, J. K., & Carroll, S. J. (1995). Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 495-523.

Taylor, P. J., & Pierce, J. L. (1999). Effects of introducing a performance management system on employees’ subsequent attitudes and effort. Public Personnel Management, 28(3), 423-452.

Tharenou, P. (1995). The impact of a developmental performance appraisal program on employee perceptions in an Australian federal agency. Group and Organization Management, 20(3), 245-271.

Thorsteinson, T. J., & Balzer, W. K. (1999). Effects of coworker information on perceptions and ratings of performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(7), 1157-1173.

Townley, B. (1999). Practical reason and performance appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 36(3), 287-306.

Tziner, A., Joanis, C., & Murphy, K. R. (2000). A comparison of three methods of performance appraisal with regard to goal properties, goal perception, and ratee satisfaction. Group and Organization Management, 25(2), 175-190.

Tziner, A., Latham, G. P., Price, B. S., & Haccoun, R. (1996). Development and validation of a questionnaire for measuring perceived political considerations in performance appraisal. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(2), 179-190.

Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research, and management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Varma, A., Denisi, A. S., & Peters, L. H. (1996). Interpersonal affect and performance appraisal: A field study. Personnel Psychology, 49(2), 341-360.

Waldman, D. A. (1997). Predictors of employee preferences for multirater and group-based performance appraisal. Group and Organization Management, 22(2), 264-287.

Walker, A. G., & Smither, J. W. (1999). A five-year study of upward feedback: What managers do with their results matters. Personnel Psychology, 52(2), 393-423.

Wanguri, D. M. (1995). A review, an integration, and a critique of cross-disciplinary research on performance appraisals, evaluations, and feedback: 1980-1990. Journal of Business Communication, 32(3), 267-293.

Warech, M. A., Smither, J. W., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., & Reilly, S. P. (1998). Self-monitoring and 360-degree ratings. Leadership Quarterly, 9(4), 449-473.

Weekley, J. A., & Jones, C. (1997). Video-based situational testing. Personnel Psychology, 50(1), 25-49.

Werner, J. M., & Bolino, M. C. (1997). Explaining U.S. Courts of Appeals decisions involving performance appraisal: Accuracy, fairness, and validation. Personnel Psychology, 50(1), 1-24.

Westerman, J. W., & Rosse, J. G. (1997). Reducing the threat of rater nonparticipation in 360-degree feedback systems: An exploratory examination of antecedents to participation in upward ratings. Group and Organization Management, 22(2), 288-309.

Whitfield, K. (2000). High-performance workplaces, training, and the distribution of skills. Industrial Relations, 39(1), 1-25.

Wiersma, U. J., van den Berg, P. T., & Latham, G. P. (1995). Dutch reactions to behavioral observation, behavioral expectation, and trait scales. Group and Organization Management, 20(3), 297-309.

Williams, J. R., & Levy, P. E. (1992). The effects of perceived system knowledge on the agreement between self-ratings and supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 45(4), 835-847.

Williams, S. L., & Hummert, M. L. (1990). Evaluating performance appraisal instrument dimensions using construct analysis. Journal of Business Communication, 27(2), 117-135.

Woehr, D. J. (1992). Performance dimension accessibility: Implications for rating accuracy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(4), 357-367.

Woehr, D. J., & Miller, M. J. (1997). Distributional ratings of performance: More evidence for a new rating format. Journal of Management, 23(5), 705-720.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/4925

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c)



Share us to:   

Reminder

  • How to do online submission to another Journal?
  • If you have already registered in Journal A, then how can you submit another article to Journal B? It takes two steps to make it happen:

1. Register yourself in Journal B as an Author

  • Find the journal you want to submit to in CATEGORIES, click on “VIEW JOURNAL”, “Online Submissions”, “GO TO LOGIN” and “Edit My Profile”. Check “Author” on the “Edit Profile” page, then “Save”.

2. Submission

  • Go to “User Home”, and click on “Author” under the name of Journal B. You may start a New Submission by clicking on “CLICK HERE”.


We only use three mailboxes as follows to deal with issues about paper acceptance, payment and submission of electronic versions of our journals to databases:
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

 Articles published in Higher Education of Social Science are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY).

HIGHER EDUCATION OF SOCIAL SCIENCE Editorial Office

Address: 1055 Rue Lucien-L'Allier, Unit #772, Montreal, QC H3G 3C4, Canada.
Telephone: 1-514-558 6138 
Website: Http://www.cscanada.net Http://www.cscanada.org 
E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Copyright © 2010 Canadian Research & Development Center of Sciences and Cultures