Identifying High Performers: Do Peer Nominations Suffer from a Likeability Bias?

Sonnentag, Sabine

doi:10.1080/135943298398547

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar significant correlations between likeability and leniency in peer evaluation can be found in Sonnentag () and Love (). Antonioni and Park () show that peer evaluations suffer more from such a likeability bias than traditional performance evaluations.…”

supporting

confidence: 78%

Peer Evaluation: Incentives and Coworker Relations

Sol

2015

Economics Manag Strategy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractIn many workplaces co-workers have the best information about each other's e¤ort. Managers may attempt to exploit this information through peer evaluation. I study peer evaluation in a pure moral hazard model of production by two limitedly liable agents. Agents receive a signal about their colleague's e¤ort level, and are asked to report it to the principal. The principal may give an individual bonus for the receipt of a positive evaluation by a colleague, which stimulates e¤ort as long as signals are revealed truthfully. A cost of lying ascertains that there can be truthful revelation. I show that interpersonal relations between colleagues constrain the bonus for receiving a positive evaluation in order to keep evaluations truthful. Still, the principal will always include such a bonus in the optimal contract, and possibly complement it with a team bonus. Co-worker relations have non-monotic e¤ects on pro…ts in the optimal contract. JEL-codes: D86, J33, M50.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 78%

Peer Evaluation: Incentives and Coworker Relations

Sol

2015

Economics Manag Strategy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Peer nominations of expertise and peer ratings of behaviour may involve peers not qualified or knowledgeable enough to make such judgements, and may be biased by how much a therapist is liked; although Sonnentag (1998) suggests otherwise. Therapists may interact differently with peers than they do with clients, indicating the importance of capturing both perspectives.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…This questionnaire does not provide a means by which to classify therapists with respect to expertise level. The identification and selection of high performers is a central issue in work on expertise (Sonnentag, 1998). To truly know what attributes differentiate expert therapists from others, it is essential to be able to compare adequately delineated groups of therapists (Orlinsky, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the Expertise of Paediatric Rehabilitation Therapists

King

Bartlett

Currie

et al. 2008

International Journal of Disability, Development and Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The baseline characteristics of our 18 high performers were CSEs who had good supervisory records, with some form of high objective measure of their ability (where measured, even if one-dimensional), who were known to impact consistently and positively upon major crime investigations, and were respected and known by their peers as knowledgeable. Peer nomination for high performance in work colleagues is routinely used in identification research such as this (Boendermaker et al 2000;King et al 2008) and has been shown to be a highly reliable and valid research method for identifying high performers (Sonnentag 1998).…”

Section: The High-performing Csesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Professionalism in Crime Scene Examination: The Seven Key Attributes of Top Crime Scene Examiners

Kelty

Julian

Robertson

2011

Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Jour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The crime scene is a critical element of criminal investigations and where forensic science begins. Inadequately managed scenes lead to poor evidence and risk of wrongful convictions. Reports from the United States and the United Kingdom highlight that some crime scene examiners (CSEs) outperform their peers, leading to less unsolved cases. What neither report explained was why some CSEs excel. We identified the attributes of top-performing CSEs using job analytical techniques with 72 police investigators, forensic scientists, senior police managers, and 18 top CSEs from across Australia. We analyzed the data and found seven distinct critical skill sets for top performance in CSE: knowledge, life experience, professionalism, approach to life, communication, cognitive abilities, and stress management. In this paper we present the critical skills and discuss the multiple ways that top CSEs positively impact the work of criminal investigators and other CSEs, as well as the impact they have upon efficiencies within forensic laboratories.

show abstract

Identifying High Performers: Do Peer Nominations Suffer from a Likeability Bias?

Cited by 14 publications

References 34 publications

Peer Evaluation: Incentives and Coworker Relations

Peer Evaluation: Incentives and Coworker Relations

Measuring the Expertise of Paediatric Rehabilitation Therapists

Professionalism in Crime Scene Examination: The Seven Key Attributes of Top Crime Scene Examiners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About