Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:33:59.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disappointing Interventions and Weak Criteria: Carving Out a Solution Is Still Possible

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

Aharon Tziner  and
Sylvia G. Roch
Aharon Tziner*
Affiliation:
Schools of Behavioral Studies and Business Administration, Netanya Academic College, Netanya, Israel
Sylvia G. Roch
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University at Albany, State University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Aharon Tziner, Schools of Behavioral Studies and Business Administration, Netanya Academic College, 1 University Street, Netanya, Israel. E-mail: atziner@netanya.ac.il
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In their focal article, Adler and his colleagues (2016) elaborate on the pros and cons of abolishing the performance appraisal process in organizations. Sherman-Garr (2014) contends that this trend is on the rise because both managers—the raters—and their subordinates—the ratees—disdain performance scores. Employees feel that performance ratings do not reflect their actual performance, and therefore they do not gain the rewards they merit. Conversely, their supervisors/managers experience a great deal of frustration because the improvement of employee performance does not match up to the excessive time and effort invested in the appraisal process, making the whole process ineffective and inefficient. We agree that performance appraisals, specifically the practice of assigning performance ratings, appear to be a disliked and ineffective human resource function. However, we do not agree that goal attainment should be used in place of performance ratings; rating format and rater training represent “disappointing interventions” and, most of all, only “weak” criteria exist for performance ratings.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 350 - 356
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, S., Campion, M., Colquitt, A., Grubb, A., Murphy, K., Ollander-Krane, R., & Pulakos, E. D. (2016). Getting rid of performance ratings: Genius or folly? A debate. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9 (2), 219–252.Google Scholar
Balzer, W. K., & Sulsky, L. M. (1992). Halo and performance appraisal research: A critical examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 975–985.Google Scholar
Bernardin, H. J., & Beatty, R. W. (1984). Performance appraisal: Assessing human behavior at work. Boston, MA: Kent.Google Scholar
Cascio, W. (2000). Costing human resources: The financial impact of behavior in organizations (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern.Google Scholar
Dierdorff, E. C., Surface, E. A., & Brown, K. G. (2010). Frame-of-reference training effectiveness: Effects of goal orientation and self-efficacy on affective, cognitive, skill-based, and transfer outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1181–1191.Google Scholar
Gorman, C. A., Meriac, J. P., Ray, J. L., & Roddy, T. W. (2015). Current trends in rater training: A survey of rater training programs in American organizations. In O'Leary, B. J., Weathington, B. L., Cunningham, C. J. L., & Biderman, M. D. (Eds.), Trends in training (pp. 1–23). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Hedge, J. W., & Borman, W. C. (1995). Changing conceptions and practices in performance appraisal. In Howard, A. (Ed.), The changing nature of work (pp. 451–481). San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Lance, C. E., Baranik, L. E., Lau, A. R., & Scharlau, E. A. (2009). If it ain't trait it must be method: (Mis)application of the multitrait–multimethod methodology in organizational research. In Lance, C. E. & Vandenberg, R. J. (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Received doctrine, verity, and fable in organizational and social research (pp. 339–362). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Landy, F. J, & Farr, J. L. (1983). The measurement of work performance. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. (2004). The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the future. Journal of Management, 30, 881–905.Google Scholar
Lievens, F., & Sanchez, J. I. (2007). Can training improve the quality of inferences made by raters in competency modeling? A quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 812–819.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Longenecker, C. O., Sims, H. P., & Gioia, D. A. (1987). Behind the mask: The politics of employee appraisal. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183–193.Google Scholar
Lundstrom, J. T. (2007). A new use of frame-of-reference training: Improving reviewers’ inferences from biodata information (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R., & Balzer, W. K. (1989). Rater errors and rating accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 619–624.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R., Jako, R. A., & Anhalt, R. L. (1993). Nature and consequences of halo error: A critical analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 218–225.Google Scholar
Roch, S. G. (2015, April). Rating format and justice: Importance of justice dimension and trust. In Gorman, C. A.. (Chair), It's okay to do rating format research again. Symposium conducted at the 30th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Roch, S. G., Sternburgh, A., & Caputo, P. (2007). Absolute versus relative performance rating formats: Implications for fairness and organizational justice. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 302–316.Google Scholar
Roch, S. G., Woehr, D. J., Mishra, V., & Kieszczynska, U. (2012). Rater training revisited: An updated meta-analytic review of frame-of-reference training. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85, 370–395.Google Scholar
Sherman-Garr, S. (2014). Abolishing performance scores: A practical guide. Oakland, CA: Bersin by Deloitte.Google Scholar
Sulsky, L. M., & Balzer, W. K. (1988). Meaning and measurement of performance rating accuracy: Some methodological and theoretical concerns. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 497–506.Google Scholar
Tziner, A., Joanis, C., & Murphy, K. (2000). A comparison of three methods of performance appraisal with regard to goal properties, goal perception, and ratee satisfaction. Group and Organizational Management, 25, 175–190.Google Scholar
Tziner, A., Kopelman, R. E., & Joanis, C. (1997). Investigation of raters’ and ratees’ reactions to three methods of performance appraisal: BOS, BARS, and GRS. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14, 396–404.Google Scholar
Tziner, A., Kopelman, R. E., & Livneh, N. (1993). Effects of performance appraisal format on perceived goal characteristics, appraisal process satisfaction, and changes in rated job performance: A field experiment. Journal of Psychology, 127, 281–292.Google Scholar
Tziner, A., & Latham, G. P. (1989). The effects of appraisal instrument, feedback, and goal-setting on worker satisfaction and commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 145–153.Google Scholar
Tziner, A., & Murphy, K. (1999). Additional evidence of attitudinal influences in performance appraisal. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13, 407–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woehr, D. J., & Huffcutt, A. I. (1994). Rater training for performance appraisal: A quantitative review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 189–205.Google Scholar