The impact of non‐performance information on ratings of job performance: A policy‐capturing approach

Abstract

SummaryResearchers have suggested that rater motives and the organizational context should be considered as sources of performance appraisal inaccuracies. A review of the performance appraisal literature revealed three primary non-performance factors that managers consider when rating employee performance: (a) Potential negative consequences of ratings, (b) organizational norms, and (c) the opportunity to advance self-interests. Using a policycapturing methodology, the current study investigated if these three non-performance factors, as well as individual rater differences (e.g., conscientiousness, agreeableness, and performance appraisal experience), influence performance ratings. A sample of 303 experienced managers rated the performance of a fictitious employee, featured in a series of hypothetical scenarios, in which the above information was manipulated. Using hierarchical linear modeling, the results revealed that each of the three non-performance related considerations accounted for variance incremental to objective employee performance. Managers' performance appraisal experience also predicted ratings, such that more experience was associated with lower ratings. These results provide support for the view that non-performance factors can be a substantive component of performance ratings.

The Modeling and Assessment of Work Performance

“…One of the most critical factors is the goal of the rater during high-stakes appraisal (DeNisi & Sonesh 2011, Kozlowski et al 1998, Levy & Williams 2004, Spence & Keeping 2010. The goal of assessing the ratee's true performance has frequently been shown to be less important than alternative rater goals, such as rewarding or punishing the ratee, conforming to organizational expectations, or advancing the rater's self-interests.…”

Rater’s Intention Towards Appraising Accurately

“…Raters having such feelings tend not to be committed to appraise accurately since the top management is not commited either. Spence and Keeping (2010) also found that raters will be influenced by the normative information on how other raters appraise in their organization. Hence, raters tend to appraise towards the normative information.…”

“…Performance appraisal model (Harris, 1994;Levy & Williams, 2004;Murphy & Cleveland, 1995) and performance appraisal research (Murphy, Cleveland, Skattebo, & Kinney, 2004;Spence & Keeping, 2010;Wong & Kwong, 2007) started to pay attention back to raters' motivation in performance appraisal process. Traditionally, it is assumed that raters were motivated to appraise accurately (Levy & Williams, 2004).…”

“…The study found that less experienced raters tend to appraise based on interpersonal aspects while more experienced raters use the work performance aspects of the performance appraisal process, which is more accurate. Other than that, more experienced raters are likely to provide lower ratings and more accurate contrast to less experience when appraising the same ratee (Spence & Keeping, 2010).…”

Reducing Organizational Politics in Performance Appraisal: The Role of Coaching Leaders for Age-Diverse Employees

“…This assumption was further debunked in a study by Longenecker, Sims, and Gioia (), in which the researchers conducted in‐depth interviews with upper‐level executives from well‐known corporations and revealed that managers consciously manipulate the performance ratings of their employees. However, these intentional motivational antecedents of rating employees have been typically overlooked when it comes to empirical research (for exceptions, see Spence & Keeping, ; Tziner, ), although some recent theoretical contributions have drawn attention to this topic (Spence & Keeping, , ).…”