Liking and similarity as predictors of multi‐source ratings

Bates, Reid

doi:10.1108/00483480210438753

Cited by 32 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As reviewed in the introduction, it is possible that a portion of this relationship is attributable to performance irrelevant factors such as rater cognitive and affective biases, performance-irrelevant friendship, rater personality, ratee demographics, ratee attractiveness, surface or deep level similarity, or lack of familiarity with ratee performance. However, Bates (2002) found that even after controlling for such performance irrelevant factors, liking is still strongly related to performance ratings. Additional research comparing the relative influence of rater and ratee factors that might introduce liking-induced bias is needed, as is accompanying research isolating methods to reduce any performance irrelevant influence of rater bias on performance ratings.…”

Section: Main Findings and Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 85%

A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Rater Liking and Performance Ratings

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This meta-analysis reviewed the magnitude and moderators of the relationship between rater liking and performance ratings. The results revealed substantial overlap between rater liking and performance ratings (ρ = .77). Although this relationship is often interpreted as indicative of bias, we review studies that indicate that to some extent the relationship between liking and performance ratings potentially reflects "true" differences in ratee performance. Moderator analyses indicated that the relationship between liking and performance ratings was weaker for ratings of organizational citizenship behaviors, ratings made by peer raters, ratings in nonsales jobs, and ratings made for development; however, the relationship was strong across moderator levels, underscoring the robustness of this relationship. Implications for the interpretation of performance ratings are discussed.Performance evaluation systems are central to a cross-section of talent management functions, such as determining employee compensation and rewards, providing developmental feedback, documenting administrative decisions, succession planning, and reinforcing organizational norms (Cascio & Aguinis, 2005). In fact, Ghorpade and Chen (1995) suggested that performance ratings are "inevitable in all organizations-large and small, public and private, local and multinational" (p. 32). Yet performance appraisals have been the subject of substantial criticism over the years. Indeed, skepticism as to the quality of the information obtained from human evaluations has persisted for nearly as long as the field of psychological measurement (Thorndike, 1925;Wells, 1907). Murphy (2008) succinctly summed up the state of affairs, noting "performance ratings are widely viewed as poor measures of job performance" (p. 148).Over the years, a litany of factors has been proposed to hinder the quality of performance ratings. The overarching theme of this school of thought is that raters introduce performance irrelevant variance into performance ratings because they are either unable or unwilling to provide accurate ratings. Early research attributed low-quality ratings to rater ability (or presumably, lack thereof) and sought to design better scales

show abstract

Section: Main Findings and Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 85%

A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Rater Liking and Performance Ratings

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Korrelationen zwischen den Erfolgschancen von Bewerberinnen und dem Frauenanteil bei den Gatekeepern wurden bisher bei Berufungsverfahren gefunden: Je mehr Frauen im Berufungskomitee sind, umso höher ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass eine Frau die Professorenstelle erhält [5,12,41,42]. Diese Korrelation belegt jedoch nicht zwangsläufig, dass Frauen Frauen fördern.…”

Section: Ff3: Fördern Frauen Frauen?unclassified

Wissenschaftlerinnen auf Informatikkonferenzen:

Herrmann¹

2014

Informatik Spektrum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In der Informatikbranche arbeiten bis zu 30 % Frauen, jedoch zumeist in den nichttechnischen Bereichen, denn unter den Informatikern sind Frauen EU-weit nur zu 15 % anzutreffen und in Deutschland nur zu 12 % [36] oder 18 % laut Bundesagentur für Arbeit [14,15]. Dabei ist der Trend rückläufig, d. h. der Frauenanteil sinkt. Im Jahr 2010 betrug der Frauenanteil der Studierenden im 1. Fachsemester Informatik 19 % [14], 2011 dann 15 %, 2001-2008 waren es zwischen 14,8 und 16,2 % mit sinkendem Trend [53]. Gerade auf höheren Hierarchieebenen sind Frauen unterrepräsentiert: Der Frauenanteil lag 2006 bei 4,5 % auf der Geschäftsführungsebene im Informatikbereich [34]. Frauen machen in der EU mehr als 50 % der Studierenden aus und bekommen 43 % der Doktortitel, sind aber auf Professuren nur zu 15 % vertreten [21, S. 55]. Dabei gehört Deutschland EU-weit zu den Ländern mit dem niedrigsten Professorinnenanteil mit nur 9,2 % [21, S. 57].Für den Schwund an Frauen über die Hierarchiestufen hinweg kann es ganz verschiedene Gründe geben, wie wir im folgenden Abschnitt diskutieren. Uns interessiert hier ganz besonders der Effekt des ,,Gender Bias", also wenn die Karriere von Frauen durch Vorurteile und Diskriminierung behindert wird. "Gender bias is the often unintentional and implicit differentiation between men and women situating one gender in a hierarchical position to the other, as a result of stereotypical images of masculinity and femininity steering the assessment and selection process or the gendered structure of the scientific system. Explicit gender bias is prohibited, but still exists -discriminatory practices considering recourses seemed partly to explain the under-representation of female scholars at the highest positions" [45]. Diese Diskriminierung findet oft unbewusst und unabsichtlich statt und lässt sich in einzelnen Lebensläufen nicht eindeutig nachweisen, da auch andere Effekte Karrieren behindern. Aber im statistischen Mittel über größere Fallzahlen im Vergleich zwischen Männern und Frauen kann ein Gender Bias deutlich werden.Eine wichtige Rolle in Karriereverläufen spielen sogenannte Gate-keeper. Das sind Personen, die qualitätssichernd über den Zugang zu Karrieremöglichkeiten, Veröffentlichungsmöglichkeiten oder Geldern entscheiden. Gate-keeper bewerten "the promise and limitations of aspirants to new positions, thus affecting the mobility of individual scientists and, in the aggregate, the distribution of personnel throughout the system" [46, S. 523]. Gate-keeper gibt es in der Wissenschaft auf allen Karrierestufen und in verschiedenen Bereichen: auf Konferenzen und in Zeitschriften, in wissenschaftlichen Vereinigungen und Vereinen, in der Forschungsförderung sowie bei Stellenbesetzungen und Beförderungen.,,Frauen sind in Positionen, in denen wichtige Entscheidungen getroffen werden (gate-keeping positions), weiterhin unterrepräsentiert. Dies liegt vor allem an ihrer mangelnden Präsenz in höhe-ren akademischen Qualifikationsstufen und daran, dass das Peer-Review-System bekanntermaßen

show abstract

“…However, the evidence suggests that this expectation is unlikely to be fulfilled. Interpersonal factors such as liking and similarity have been found to be more important in determining ratings in 360-degree appraisals than the technical proficiency of the person being appraised (Bates, 2002). We also now live in an increasingly litigious age.…”

Section: The Perspective Of the Interviewermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is assumed that appraisals from multiple sources provide a wider range of performance information, useful in identifying employee strengths and weaknesses (Gregurus et al, 2001). They are also assumed to have the capacity to increase perceived fairness, reliability and ratee acceptance of feedback (Harris and Schaubroeck, 1988), to provide an additional legal defence in the face of feedback (Bernardin and Beatty, 1984), and to be more simple and inexpensive to administer (Bates, 2002). In essence, applause or boos from a large audience is thought to deliver a more credible verdict on a performance than that of a single spectator.…”

Section: -Degree Appraisal -A New Way Forward?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Zhu and Dowling (1998) concluded that 74.8% of Chinese firms carried out annual performance appraisals, presumably because they imagined that they had contributed to economic growth in the West. It is a wonder, 5 with so many appraisal interviews being conducted, that anyone finds the time to make sure that the real work of the organisation gets done.360-degree appraisals, designed to overpower some of the bugbears associated with traditional appraisals, have also become a huge growth area in recent years (Bates, 2002). It has been argued that they offer multiple benefits, since multi-source feedback is assumed to provide better performance information, more reliable ratings than what can obtained from a single supervisor and improved satisfaction by appraisees after the process is complete (Becton and Schraeder, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The appraisal interview reappraised

Tourish¹

The Handbook of Communication Skills

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe appraisal interview is one of the most ubiquitous features of life in organisations.It is also one of the most ridiculed. Evidence mounts each year to the effect that most such interviews are poorly managed, fail to improve organisational performance, demoralise employees and subject the managers who administer them to intolerable levels of stress. No wonder that one researcher, unkindly but accurately, has described them as 'the annual fiasco ' (Pickett, 2003, p.237). It is typical of the data that a conference of human resources professionals found over 90% of those present declaring that, if given the chance, they would modify, revise or even eliminate the performance appraisal system currently used in their organisations (HR Focus, 2000).Thus, appraisal interviews are governed by some seemingly impregnable assumptions that research nevertheless suggests may be invalid -e.g. that organisations are rational entities, administrative systems are highly reliable, and most people can be trained to be unbiased and candid in their assessments of others (McCauley, 1997).Some have even argued that traditional appraisals are so inherently dysfunctional that they need to be abolished altogether (e.g. Coens and Jenkins, 2000). Their ongoing popularity represents another instance of hope triumphing over experience. This chapter therefore offers a different perspective to that often found in the literature, particularly practitioner guides that instruct on 'how to'. Firstly, I define what appraisal interviews are and outline the range of roles they are expected to perform. Flowing from this, the voluminous evidence that indicates why appraisals generally fail to work is reviewed. It would be tempting to outline a series of steps 2 and skills that appear to avoid these problems, as many texts do (e.g. Bacal, 2003;Sandler and Keefe, 2003). However, the conclusion offered here is that such piecemeal perspectives are more likely to compound the problem than resolve it. In particular, it is argued that most people are inherently poor at receiving criticism. We are so sensitive to it that even if critical feedback forms only a small part of the appraisal process it is likely to be regarded by the recipient as representative of the entire interview. The evidence clearly suggests that when such perceptions arise they derail the main intended point of the appraisal interview -which is to improve performance. But we are also poor at giving accurate criticism or feedback more generally. For example, managers are inclined to exaggerate the personal contribution that people make to negative outcomes and under-estimate the role of systems in producing poor performance (Gray, 2002). There is no compelling reason to believe that training or any other intervention will so improve the attitude of most people to either giving or receiving critical feedback that appraisal interviews will become effective for most people in most organisations in the near future. This chapter therefore outlines a framework to move organisations ...

show abstract

Liking and similarity as predictors of multi‐source ratings

Cited by 32 publications

References 25 publications

A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Rater Liking and Performance Ratings

A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Rater Liking and Performance Ratings

Wissenschaftlerinnen auf Informatikkonferenzen:

The appraisal interview reappraised

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About