Effects of ratee task performance and interpersonal factors on supervisor and peer performance ratings.

Abstract

The study examines the effects of a wide array of rater-ratee relationship and rateecharacteristic variables on supervisor and peer job-performance ratings. Interpersonal ratings, job performance ratings, and ratee scores on ability, job knowledge, and technical proficiency were available for 493-631 first-tour U.S. Army soldiers. Results of supervisor and peer ratings-path models showed ratee ability, knowledge, and proficiency accounted for 13% of the variance in supervisor performance ratings and 7% for the peer ratings. Among the interpersonal variables, ratee dependability had the strongest effect for both models. Ratee friendliness and likability had little effect on the performance ratings. Inclusion of the interpersonal factors increased the variance accounted for in the ratings to 28% and 19%, respectively. Discussion focuses on the relative contribution of ratee technical and contextual performance to raters'judgments.Performance ratings continue to be the most often used criterion measure for personnel research applications (e.g., Murphy & Cleveland, 1991). Research on ratings also remains popular (e.g., Borman, 1991), with the motivation great to reduce rating errors and increase the accuracy of performance evaluations. Streams of research have included rating format studies (e.g., Bernardin, 1977), rater training initiatives (e.g., Pulakos, 1984;D. E. Smith, 1986), and cognitively oriented studies of the performance rating process (e.g.,

The joint effects of personality and workplace social exchange relationships in predicting task performance and citizenship performance.

“…Consistent with this, Borman, White, and Dorsey (1995) reported that likeability had little effect on task performance; LePine and Van Dyne (2001) showed no relationship between agreeableness and task performance on a laboratory task where performance was operationalized as decision making accuracy; and at least three meta-analyses have failed to show a consistent relationship between agreeableness and task performance (Hough et al, 1990;Hurtz & Donovan, 2002;Salgado, 1997). Commenting on these findings, Johnson (2003) noted that agreeableness may predict task performance in some jobs but not in others.…”

Development of a Conditional Reasoning Measure of Team Orientation

“…Borman, White, Pulakos, and Oppler (1991) found that high dependability among military personnel led to fewer disciplinary infractions and higher performance ratings. Borman, White, and Dorsey (1995) also reported a strong relationship between dependability and both peer and supervisor performance ratings. Hough (1992) found that dependability was related to ratings of teamwork, and Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, and Mount (1998) found that work teams with higher levels of conscientiousness (broadly defined) received higher ratings of team performance.…”

“…Hough (1992) found that dependability was related to ratings of teamwork, and Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, and Mount (1998) found that work teams with higher levels of conscientiousness (broadly defined) received higher ratings of team performance. Behavioral markers of dependability reported by peers and supervisors in Borman et al (1995) include "Count on for back up" and "Trust and depend on." Thus, team members high on dependability are likely to be more responsible and can be relied on to back up other team members.…”

Summer Research Program - 1998 Summer Research Extension Program Volume 1 Armstrong Laboratory

“…Work samples have also been held in high regard as criterion measures (Borman, White, & Dorsey, 1995;Kavanagh, Borman, Hedge, & Gould, 1987). For example, Borman and Hallum (1991) noted that"...some researchers have maintained that work samples.. .are the highest fidelity performance-measurement method available and that they provide the most valid indication of 'actual' performance" (p. 11).…”

“…Granted, work sample performance measures are high fidelity measures of "can-do" aspects of job performance (versus "will-do" aspects, see Borman et al, 1995;Borman, White, Pulakos, & Oppler, 1991;DuBois, Sackett, Zedeck, & Fogli, 1993;Motowidlo, Borman & Schmit, 1997;Motowidlo & VanScotter, 1994;Sackett, Zedeck, & Fogli, 1988). However, they are not without their limitations.…”