Acceptance of peer/upward performance appraisal systems: Role of work context factors and beliefs about managers' development capability

Formal mentoring programs and organizational attraction

“…Notably, self-efficacy for development consistently has been related to intentions and participation in training and development activities (Maurer et al, 2002;Maurer & Tarulli, 1994;Noe & Wilk, 1993). In addition, Maurer and Tarulli (1996) found self-efficacy for development related positively to attitudes toward an employee development program. Access to a formal mentoring program represents a unique opportunity for career development.…”

Career-relevant learning and development, worker age, and beliefs about self-efficacy for development

“…Maurer / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 123-140 between self-efficacy and motivation to learn as well as time spent in training and development activities per year. In another project (Maurer & Tarulli, 1996), employees' beliefs that they could develop and improve their skills were positively related to attitudes toward an employee development program. The research suggested that for employees to feel good about a developmental feedback program, perhaps they should believe that they are actually capable of developing skills.…”

Conditions for the success of peer evaluation

“…However, while quality of data is an indicator of success, more important operationally are the less objective measures of user satisfaction and attribution (Section II). While it is possible that poor data will preclude high satisfaction, it is by no means certain, and it is emphatically not the case that good data will guarantee a positive response, particularly if users do not accept peer evaluation as legitimate (Maurer and Tarulli, 1996).…”

“…More recently, and more directly aimed at multi-rater appraisal, London (1995) identi® ed the following list of items as being important: c content of appraisal (relevant, familiar, observable behaviours) c format of appraisal form c involvement in design (more likely to yield commitment) c clarity of procedure and purpose c training to make aware of common errors and biases c rater anonymity c use for development or rewards c inclusion of self-assessment c frequency of feedback c format of report; level of personal interaction in delivery of results Conceptually, the factors from these and other previous studies divide into three classes of variables which could potentially affect the success (as de® ned above) of peer evaluations ± and, to some extent, any kind of evaluation system. These are the organizational context (Maurer and Tarulli, 1996), the design of the system itself (Kane and Lawler, 1978), and the implementation of the system by individuals and groups within the organization (Zedeck and Cascio, 1982). Drawing on the studies and on preliminary ® eld-work, under each of these broad headings I chose a set of items to be investigated as potential conditions for the success of peer evaluation.…”