Performance management and assessment: Methods for improved rater accuracy and employee goal setting

Abstract

IntroductionPerformance management systems in organizations should rest on principles of good management supported by extensive research in organizational psychology and human resource management. Basic methods of performance management encompass dimensions of performance, goals for performance and career development, training and development programs, supervisory performance appraisal, multisource performance ratings, feedback, coaching, and rewards. Unfortunately, human resource practitioners and managers may misunderstand or not be aware of research on these central elements of performance management systems. In fact, they may have erroneous views that do not stem from research at all. Managers have an excuse since they were not trained in human resources. Practitioners don't.This article focuses on two key elements of performance management systems: rater accuracy and goal setting. We begin by highlighting gaps between research and practice in these areas pointed out by Rynes, Colbert, and Brown (2002). These gaps suggest problems with how organizations manage and assess employee performance. We then review theory and research on rater accuracy and goal setting. In the final section, we suggest how to design and assess these key elements of performance management programs, and related elements such as feedback and coaching, to ensure that they meet current and emerging organizational needs and re- PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND ASSESSMENT: METHODS FOR IMPROVED RATER ACCURACY AND EMPLOYEE GOAL SETTING

Rater training revisited: An updated meta‐analytic review of frame‐of‐reference training

“…; Hedge & Teachout, 2000;Murphy & Cleveland, 1995), accuracy indices are still commonly used to investigate performance ratings (London, Mone, & Scott, 2004). For example, in the last 3 years, Cronbach's accuracy indices were used as indicators of rating quality in several empirical studies (e.g., Bernardin, Tyler, & Villanova, 2009;Gorman & Rentsch, 2008;Melchers, Kleinmann, & Printz, 2010;Melchers, Lienhardt, von Aarburg, & Kleinmann, 2011;Uggerslev & Sulsky, 2008).…”

Recruiters’ Inferences of Applicant Personality Based on Resume Screening: Do Paper People have a Personality?

“…In particular, frame-of-reference (FOR) training is one possible approach for improving rater reliability and accuracy (London et al 2004;Schleicher et al 2002). FOR training changes the impression formation process of raters to more trait-based (as opposed to behavioral-based) representations of the ratee (Schleicher et al 2002).…”

The mediating effect of psychological empowerment on the relationship between participative goal setting and team outcomes – a study in China

“…The presumption is that people who participate in setting goals are likely to be more motivated to achieve them than those who are given goals created by others (London et al 2004). With regard to group efficacy, it is asserted that team-level goal setting can potentially increase cohesiveness, establishment of norms and routines, and increased efficiency of information processing.…”

“…A number of studies in goal-setting theory are the effect of participative goal setting (PGS) on employee performance and attitude. The presumption is that people who participate in setting goals are likely to be more motivated to achieve them than those who are given goals created by others (London, Mone and Scott 2004). However, reviews addressing the use of participation in goal setting (Mitchell 1979;Locke and Latham 1984;Erez and Arad 1986;Mento, Steel and Karren 1987) have all concluded that the relationship between participation and performance is inconsistent and unclear; participative vs. assigned goal setting is inconclusive and must await further research.…”