Manifestation of idiosyncratic rater effect in employee performance appraisal
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(3).2020.19
-
Article InfoVolume 18 2020, Issue #3, pp. 224-232
- Cited by
- 1251 Views
-
264 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Performance appraisal is the bedrock of talent management and has received much attention from scholars and researchers alike in their pursuit to develop accurate, objective, and robust Performance Management Systems (PMS). Through survey questionnaire the present study examines the prevalence of idiosyncratic rater biases on the performance appraisal systems and evaluates the measure of its impact. The correlations between the personality traits and the similarities of the raters’ workplace characteristics with the raters’ performance ratings are also determined. The study has provided empirical evidence of the manifestation of idiosyncratic rater bias in the company under study. The idiosyncratic rater tendencies showed a significant impact on performance ratings. It was seen that about one-third of the variations in the ratings were resultant of the idiosyncratic factors, such as similarities in the personality traits and workplace identities. It is also found that there exists a positive correlation between the similarities in the identities, as well as the personality traits of the raters and the ratees, and the way the rating awarded by the rater.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)E24, M10, M12, M19
-
References35
-
Tables5
-
Figures0
-
- Table 1. Workplace Characteristics Factors
- Table 2. Big Five Personality Traits
- Table 3. Regression analysis of idiosyncratic rater effect team-wise
- Table 4. “Observed frequencies” of matching vis-à-vis performance ratings
- Table 5. “Expected frequencies” of matching vis-à-vis performance ratings
-
- Antonioni, D., & Park, H. (2001). The relationship between rater affect and three sources of 360-degree feedback ratings. Journal of Management, 27(4), 479-495.
- Ben-Ner, A., McCall, B. P., Stephane, M., & Wang, H. (2009). Identity and in-group/out-group differentiation in work and giving behaviors: Experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 71(1), 153-170.
- Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personal Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
- Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: what do we know and where do we go next? International Journal Selection Assessment, 9(1-2), 9-30.
- Bommer, W. H., Johnson, J. L., Rich, G. A., Podsakoff, P. M., & Mackenzie, S. B. (1995). On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 48(3), 587-605.
- Buckingham, M. (2015). Most HR data is bad data. Harvard Business Review.
- Castilla, E. J., & Benard, S. (2010). The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(4), 543-676.
- Ceschi, A. C., Costantini, A., Scalco, A., Charkhabi, M., & Sartori, R. (2016). The relationship between the Big Five personality traits and job performance in business workers and employees’ perception. International Journal of Business Research, 16(2), 63-76.
- Cleveland, J., & Murphy, K. (1992). Analyzing performance appraisal as goal-directed behavior. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 10, 121-185.
- Conway, J. M. (1996). Analysis and design of multitrait-multirater performance appraisal studies. Journal of Management, 22(1), 139-162.
- Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. New York: Wiley.
- Doornbos, A. J., Simons, R.-J., & Denessen, E. (2008). Relations between characteristics of workplace practices and types of informal work-related learning: A survey study among Dutch Police. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19(2), 129-151.
- Greguras, G. J., & Robie, C. (1998). A new look at within-source interrater reliability of 360-degree feedback ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 960-968.
- Hammond, K. R. (1955). Probabilistic functioning and the clinical method. Psychological Review, 62(4), 255-262.
- Hawaldar, I.T., Lokesha, Biso, S.SA., & Joseph, N.R. (2016). Factors affecting leaders’ behaviour: A study of Bahrain banking sector. British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences, 12(1), 11-21,
- Hoffman, B., Lance, C. E., Bynum, B., & Gentry, W. A. (2010). Rater Source Effects are alive and well after all. Personnel Psychology, 63(1), 119-151.
- Javad, S., & Sumod, S.D. (2016). It’s time to bring performance appraisal into the twenty-first century. Human Resource Management International Digest, 23(7), 23-26.
- Javidmehr, M., & Ebrahimpour, M. (2015). Performance appraisal bias and errors: The influences and consequences. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 4, 286-302.
- King, L. M., Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1980). Halo in a multidimensional forced-choice performance evaluation scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(5), 507-516.
- Lance, C. E. (1994). Test of a latent structure of performance ratings derived from Wherry’s (1952) theory of ratings. Journal of Management, 20(4), 757-771.
- Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1990). Alternative information processing models and their implications for theory, research, and practice. Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 9-28.
- Mount, M. K., Judge, T. A., Scullen, S. E., Sytsma, M. R., & Hezlett, S. A. (1998). Trait, rater, and level effects in 360-degree performance ratings. Personnel Psychology, 51(3), 557-576.
- Murphy, K. R., & Deshon, R. (2000). Interrater correlations do not estimate the reliability of job performance ratings. Personnel Psychology, 53(4), 873-900.
- O’Neill, T. A., Goffin, R. D., & Gellatly, I. R. (2012). The use of random coefficient modeling for understanding and predicting job performance ratings: An application with field data. Organizational Research Methods, 15(3), 436-462.
- O’Neill, T. A., McLarnon, M. J., & Carswell, J. J. (2015). Variance Components of Job Performance Ratings. Human Performance, 28(1), 66-91.
- Rynes, S., Gerhart, B., & Parks, L. (2005). Personnel Psychology: Performance Evaluation and Pay. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 571-600.
- Saadat, E. (1996). Human resource management (10th ed.). Tehran: SAMT Publications.
- Samartha, V., Rajesha, T. M., Hawaldar, I. T., & Souza, L. J. D. (2019). Application of Lev and Schwartz Compensation Model On the Accounting Practices of MCF Limited. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 8(8), 356-360.
- Scullen, S. E., Mount, M. K., & Goff, M. (2000). Understanding the latent structure of performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 956-970.
- Scullen, S. E., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Evidence of the construct validity of developmental ratings of managerial performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 50-66.
- Shaffer, J. A., & Postlethwaite, B. E. (2013). The validity of conscientiousness for predicting job performance: a meta-analytic test of two hypotheses. International Journal of Selection Assessment, 21(2), 183-199.
- Thai, N., Taber-Thomas, B. C., & Pérez-Edgar, K. E. (2016). Neural correlates of attention biases, behavioral inhibition, and social anxiety in children: An ERP study. Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 19, 200-210.
- Ullal, M. S., Hawaldar, I. T., & Samartha, V. (2019). Employee relations in micro, small and medium enterprises in India. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 8(8), 117-121.
- Viswesvaran, C. O., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 557-574.
- Wherry, R. J., & Bartlett, C. J. (1982). The control of bias in ratings: a theory of rating. Personnel Psychology, 35(3), 521-551.