Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information on Marketing Management

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Management
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (28)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Levy, P. E.
Right arrow Articles by Williams, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Social Context of Performance Appraisal: A Review and Framework for the Future

Paul E. Levy

Department of Psychology, The University of Akron, 290 East Buchtel Avenue, Akron, OH44325-4301, USApelevy{at}uakron.edu

Jane R. Williams

Psychology Department, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, 402 N. Blackford St., Indianapolis, IN 46142, USAjrwillim{at}iupui.edu

Performance appraisal research over the last 10 years has begun to examine the effects of the social context on the appraisal process. Drawing from previous theoretical work, we developed a model of this process and conducted a systematic review of the relevant research. This review of over 300 articles suggests that as a field we have become much more cognizant of the importance of the social context within which the performance appraisal process operates. First, research has broadened the traditional conceptualization of performance appraisal effectiveness to include and emphasize ratee reactions. Second, the influence that the feedback environment or feedback culture has on performance appraisal outcomes is an especially recent focus that seems to have both theoretical and applied implications. Finally, there appears to be a reasonably large set of distal variables such as technology, HR strategies, and economic conditions that are potentially important for understanding the appraisal process, but which have received very little research attention. We believe that the focus of recent performance appraisal research has widespread implications ranging from theory development and enhancement to practical application.

References

  • Albright, M. D., & Levy, P. E. 1995. The effects of source credibility and performance rating discrepancy on reactions to multiple raters. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(7): 577–577.[CrossRef]
  • Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. 1998. The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2): 247–260.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • 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.[Abstract]
  • Atkins, P. W. B., & Wood, R. E. 2002. Self-versus others’ ratings as predictors of assessment center ratings: Validation evidence for 360-degree feedback programs. Personnel Psychology, 55(4): 871–904.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Atwater, L., Rousch, P., & Fischthal, A. 1995. The influence of upward feedback on self and follower ratings of leadership. Personnel Psychology, 48: 35–59.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Atwater, L., Waldman, D., Atwater, D., & Cartier, P. 2000. An upward feedback field experiment: Supervisors’ cynicism, reactions, and commitment to subordinates. Personnel Psychology, 53: 275–297.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Bannister, B. D. 1986. Performance outcome feedback and attributional feedback: Interactive effects on recipient responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 203–210.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Barr, M. A., & Raju, N. S. 2003. IRT-based assessments of rater effects in multiple-source feedback instruments. Organizational Research Methods, 6(1): 15–43.[Abstract]
  • Bartol, K. M. 1999. Reframing salesforce compensation systems: An agency theory-based performance management perspective. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19(3): 1–1.
  • Bates, R. 2002. Liking and similarity as predictors of multi-source ratings. Personnel Review, 31(5): 540–552.[CrossRef]
  • Beehr, T. A., Ivanitskaya, L., Hansen, C. P., Erofeev, D., & Gudanowski, D. M. 2001. Evaluation of 360 degree feedback ratings: Relationships with each other and with performance and selection predictors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(7): 775–775.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Bernardin, H. J., & Buckely, M. R. 1981. Strategies in rater training. Academy of Management Review, 6: 205–212.
  • Bernardin, H. J., Cooke, D. K., & Villanova, P. 2000. Conscientiousness and agreeableness as predictors of rating leniency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2): 232–236.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Bernardin, H. J., Dahmus, S. A., & Redmon, G. 1993. Attitudes of first-line supervisors toward subordinate appraisals. Human Resource Management,.32: 315–324.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Borman, W. C. 1997. 360 degree ratings: An analysis of assumptions and a research agenda for evaluating their validity. Human Resource Management Review, 7(3): 299–299.[CrossRef]
  • Boswell, W. R., & Boudreau, J. W. 2000. Employee satisfaction with performance appraisals and appraisers: The role of perceived appraisal use. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(3): 283–283.[CrossRef]
  • Boswell, W. R., & Boudreau, J. W. 2002. Separating the developmental and evaluative performance appraisal uses. Journal of Business & Psychology, 16(3): 391–412.[CrossRef]
  • Brett, J. F., & Atwater, L. E. 2001. 360 degrees feedback: Accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5): 930–930.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Bretz, R. D., Milkovich, G. T., & Read, W. 1992. The current state of performance appraisal research and practice: Concerns, directions, and implications. Journal of Management, 18(2): 321–321.[Abstract]
  • Brown, M., & Benson, J. 2003. Rated to exhaustion? Reactions to performance appraisal processes. Industrial Relations Journal, 34(1): 67–67.[CrossRef]
  • Brutus, S., Fleenor, J. W., & McCauley, C. D. 1999. Demographic and personality predictors of congruence in multi-source ratings. Journal of Management Development, 18(5): 417–435.[CrossRef]
  • Campbell, D. J., Campbell, K. M., & Chia, H.-B.1998.Meritpay, performance appraisal, and individual motivation: An analysis and alternative. Human Resource Management, 37(2):131–131.
  • Cardy, R. L., & Dobbins, G. H. 1994. Performance appraisal: Alternative perspectives. Cincinatti, OH: South-Western Publishing.
  • Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. 1998. Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4): 615–633.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. 1997. Psychometric properties of multisource performance ratings: A meta-analysis of subordinate, supervisor, Peer, and self-ratings. Human Performance, 10(4): 331–331.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Day, D. V., & Sulsky, L. M. 1995. Effects of frame-of-reference training and information configuration on memory organization and rating accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1): 158–167.[CrossRef]
  • DeNisi, A. S., & Peters, L. H. 1996. Organization of information in memory and the performance appraisal process: Evidence from the field. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6): 717–737.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Digh, P. 1998. The next challenge: Holding people accountable. HR Magazine: Vol. 43. 63–63. Society for Human Resource Management.
  • Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. 2001. The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12(4): 450–467.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Duarte, N. T., & Goodson, J. R. 1994. Effects of dyadic quality and duration on performance appraisal. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3): 499–499.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Duarte, N. T., Goodson, J. R., & Klich, N. R. 1993. How do I like thee? Let me appraise the ways. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(3): 239–239.
  • Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. 2001. Procedural justice as a two-dimensional construct: An examination in the performance appraisal account. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37(2): 205–222.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Erez, A., Lepine, J. A., & Elms, H. 2002. Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: A quasi-experiment. Personnel Psychology, 55(4): 929–948.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Facteau, C. L., & Facteau, J. D. 1998. Reactions of leaders to 360-degree feedback from subordinates and peers. Leadership Quarterly, 9(4): 427–427.
  • Facteau, J. D., & Craig, S. B. 2001. Are performance appraisal ratings from different rating sources comparable? Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2): 215–227.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Farr, J. L., & Levy, P. E. (in press). Performance appraisal. In L. L. Koppes (Ed.), The science and practice of industrial-organizational psychology: The first hundred years. Erlbaum.
  • Feldman, J. M. 1981. Beyond attribution theory: Cognitive processes in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66: 127–148.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M., & Fitzgibbons, D. E. 1994. Subordinate influence and the performance evaluation process: Test of a model. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 58(1): 101–427.[CrossRef]
  • Facteau, J. D., & Craig, S. B. 2001. Are performance appraisal ratings from different rating sources comparable? Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2): 215–227.
  • Farr, J. L., & Levy, P. E. (in press). Performance appraisal. In L. L. Koppes (Ed.), The science and practice of industrial-organizational psychology: The first hundred years. Erlbaum.
  • Feldman, J. M. 1981. Beyond attribution theory: Cognitive processes in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66: 127–148.
  • Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M., & Fitzgibbons, D. E. 1994. Subordinate influence and the performance evaluation process: Test of a model. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 58(1): 101–101.
  • Ferris, G. R., & King, T. R. 1991. Politics in human resources decisions: A walk on the dark side. Organizational Dynamics, 20(2): 59–59.
  • Ferris, G. R., & King, T. R. 1992. The politics of age discrimination in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(5/6): 341–341.
  • Fletcher, C. 2001. Performance appraisal and management: The developing research agenda. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 74(4): 473–487.[CrossRef]
  • Fletcher, C., & Baldry, C. 2000. A study of individual differences and self-awareness in the context of multi-source feedback. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 73(3): 303–319.[CrossRef]
  • Flint, D. H. 1999. The role of organizational justice in multi-source performance appraisal: Theory-based applications and directions for research. Human Resource Management Review, 9(1): 1–1.
  • Folger, R., Konovsky, M., & Cropanzano, R. 1992. A due process metaphor for performance appraisal. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: Vol. 14. 129–177. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
  • Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. 2001. Affective influences on judgments and behavior in organizations: An information processing perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1): 3–34.
  • Fried, Y., Tiegs, R. B., & Bellamy, A. R. 1992. Personal and interpersonal predictors of supervisors’ avoidance of evaluating subordinates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4): 462–468.[CrossRef]
  • Frink, D. D., & Ferris, G. R. 1998. Accountability, impression management, and goal setting in the performance evaluation process. Human Relations, 51(10): 1259–1259.[Abstract]
  • Funderburg, S. A., & Levy, P. E. 1997. The influence of individual and contextual variables on 360-degree feedback system attitudes. Group & Organization Management, 22(2): 210–210.
  • Furnham, A., & Stringfield, P. 2001. Gender differences in rating reports: Female managers are harsher raters, particularly of males. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(4): 281–281.
  • Garavan, T. N., Morley, M., & Flynn, M. 1997. 360 degree feedback: Its role in employee development. Journal of Management Development, 16(2/3): 134–134.[CrossRef]
  • Gendersen, D. E., & Tinsley, D. B. 1996. Empirical assessment of impression management biases: The potential for performance appraisal error. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11(5): 57–77.
  • Goss, W. 2001. Managing for results—Appraisals and rewards. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 60(1):3–3.
  • Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. 1987. Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: Vol. 9. 175–208. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
  • Greguras, G. J., Robie, C., Schleicher, D. J., & Goff, M. 2003. A field study of the effects of rating purpose on the quality of multisource ratings. Personnel Psychology, 56(1): 1–21.
  • Harris, M. M. 1994. Rater motivation in the performance appraisal context: A theoretical framework. Journal of Management, 20(4): 737–737.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Harris, M. M., Smith, D. E., & Champagne, D. 1995. A field study of performance appraisal purpose: Research versus administrative-based ratings. Personnel Psychology, 48(1): 151–151.
  • Hazucha, J. F., Hezlett, S. A., & Schneider, R. J. 1993. The impact of 360-degree feedback on management skills development. Human Resource Management, 32: 251–325.
  • Hebert, B. G., & Vorauer, J. D. 2003. Seeing through the screen: Is evaluative feedback communicated more effectively in face-to-face or computer-mediated exchanges? Computers in Human Behavior, 19(1): 25–38.[CrossRef]
  • Hedge, J. W., & Teachout, M. S. 2000. Exploring the concept of acceptability as a criterion for evaluating performance measures.Group & Organization Management, 25(1): 22–44.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Hitchcock, D. 1996. What are people doing around peer review? Journal for Quality & Participation, 19(7): 52–52.
  • Ilgen, D. R., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & McKellin, D. B. 1993. Performance appraisal process research in the 1980s: What has it contributed to appraisals in use? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54: 321–368.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. 1979. Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64: 349–371.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Jawahar, I. M., & Williams, C. R. 1997. Where all the children are above average: The performance appraisal purpose effect. Personnel Psychology, 50(4): 905–905.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Johnson, D. E., Erez, A., Kiker, D. S., & Motowidlo, S. J. 2002. Liking and attributions of motives as mediators of the relationships between individuals’ reputations, helpful behaviors and raters’ reward decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4): 808–815.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Johnson, J., & Ferstl, K. L. 1999. The effects of interrater and self-other agreement on performance improvement following upward feedback. Personnel Psychology, 52: 271–303.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Kacmar, K. M., Witt, L. A., Zivnuska, S., & Gully, S. M. 2003. The interactive effect of leader–member exchange and communication frequency on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4): 764–772.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. 2000. Performance appraisal reactions: Measurement, modeling, and method bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5): 708–723.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Keown-Gerrard, J. L., & Sulsky, L. M. 2001. The effects of task information training and frame-of-reference training with situational constraints on rating accuracy. Human Performance, 14(4): 305–305.[CrossRef]
  • Klimoski, R., & Inks, L. 1990. Accountability forces in performance appraisal. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 45(2): 194–194.[CrossRef]
  • Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. 1996. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119: 254–284.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Korsgaard, M. A., & Roberson, L. 1995. Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal decisions. Journal of Management, 21: 657–669.[Abstract]
  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Morrison, R. F. 1998. Games raters play: Politics, strategies, and impression management in performance appraisal. In J. W. Smither (Ed.), Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice: 163–205. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. 1980. Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87: 72–107.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Lefkowitz, J. 2000. The role of interpersonal affective regard in supervisory performance ratings: A literature review and proposed causal model. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 73(1): 67–85.[CrossRef]
  • Leung, K., Su, S., & Morris, M. W. 2001. When is criticism not constructive? The roles of fairness perceptions and dispositional attributions in employee acceptance of critical supervisory feedback. Human Relations, 54(9): 1155–1187.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Levy, P. E., Cawley, B. D., & Foti, R. J. 1998. Reactions to appraisal discrepancies: Performance ratings and attributions. Journal of Business & Psychology, 12(4): 437–437.
  • Levy, P. E., & Steelman, L. A. 1997. Performance appraisal for team-based organizations: A prototypical multiple rater system. In M. Beyerlein, D. Johnson, & S. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Team implementation issues: Vol. 4. 141–165. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
  • Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. 1998. The role of perceived system knowledge in predicting appraisal reactions, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(1): 53–65.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. 1997. Leader–member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management: Vol. 15. 47–119. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
  • London, M. 2003. Job feedback: Giving, seeking and using feedback for performance improvement (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • London, M., & Smither, J. W. 2002. Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management Review, 12(1): 8181.
  • London, M., Smither, J. W., & Adsit, D. J. 1997. Accountability: The achilles’ heel of multisource feedback. Group and Organization Management, 22: 162–184.
  • Longenecker, C. O., Sims, H. P., & Gioia, D. A. 1987. Behind the mask: The politics of employee appraisal. Academy of Management Executive, 1: 183–193.
  • Mani, B. G. 2002. Performance appraisal systems, productivity, and motivation: A case study. Public Personnel Management, 31(2): 141–159.[Web of Science]
  • Maurer, T. J., Mitchell, D. R. D., & Barbeite, F. G. 2002. Predictors of attitudes toward a 360-degree feedback system and involvement in post-feedback management development activity. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 75(1): 87–107.[CrossRef]
  • Maurer, T. J., Weiss, E. W., & Barbeite, F. G. 2003. A model of involvement in work-related learning and development activity: The effects of individual, situational, motivational, and age variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4): 707–724.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. 1999. The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1): 123–136.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Mero, N. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1995. Effects of rater accountability on the accuracy and the favorability of performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4): 517–524.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Mero, N. P., Motowidlo, S. J., & Anna, A. L. 2003. Effects of accountability on rating behavior and rater accuracy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(12): 2493–2514.[CrossRef]
  • Miller, J. S. 2003. High tech and high performance: Managing appraisal in the information age. Journal of Labor Research, 24(3): 409–409.
  • Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. 1998. Trait, rater and level effects in 360-degree performance ratings. Personnel Psychology, 51(3): 557–557.
  • Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. 1991. Performance appraisal: An organizational perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. 1995. Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • Noonan, L. E., & Sulsky, L. M. 2001. Impact of frame-of-reference and behavioral observation training on alternative training effectiveness criteria in a Canadian military sample. Human Performance, 14(1): 3–26.
  • Norris-Watts, C., & Levy, P. E. (in press). The mediating role of affective commitment in the relation of the feedback environment to work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior.
  • Patton, F. 1999. Oops, the future is past and we almost missed it!"—Integrating quality and behavioral management methodologies. Journal of Workplace Learning, 11(7): 266–277.[CrossRef]
  • Penny, J. A. 2003. Exploring differential item functioning in a 360-degree assessment: Rater source and method of delivery. Organizational Research Methods, 6(1): 61–79.[Abstract]
  • Pettijohn, C., Pettijohn, L. S., Taylor, A. J., & Keillor, B. D. 2001. Are performance appraisals a bureaucratic exercise or can they be used to enhance sales-force satisfaction and commitment? Psychology & Marketing, 18(4): 337–364.
  • Pettijohn, C. E., Pettijohn, L. S., & d’Amico, M. 2001. Characteristics of performance appraisals and their impact on sales force satisfaction. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(2): 127–146.
  • Pulakos, E. D. 1984. A comparison of training programs: Error training and accuracy training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 581–588.[CrossRef]
  • Reilly, R. R., Smither, J. W., & Vasilopoulos, N. 1996. A longitudinal study of upward feedback. Personnel Psychology, 49: 599–612.[CrossRef]
  • Robbins, T. L., & DeNisi, A. S. 1998. Mood vs. interpersonal affect: Identifying process and rating distortions in performance appraisal. Journal of Business & Psychology, 12(3): 313–313.
  • Roberts, G. E. 2003. Employee performance appraisal system participation: A technique that works. Public Personnel Management, 32(1): 89–89.
  • Roberts, G. E., & Reed, T. 1996. Performance appraisal participation, goal setting and feedback. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 16(4): 29–29.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Schleicher, D. J., Day, D. V., Mayes, B. T., & Riggio, R. E. 2002. A new frame for frame-of-reference training: Enhancing the construct validity of assessment centers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4): 735–746.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • 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.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Seifert, C. F., Yukl, G., & McDonald, R. A. 2003. Effects of multisource feedback and a feedback facilitator on the influence behavior of managers toward subordinates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3): 561–569.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Shah, J. B., & Murphy, J. 1995. Performance appraisals for improved productivity. Journal of Management in Engineering, 11(2): 26–26.
  • Shore, T. H., & Tashchian, A. 2002. Accountability forces in performance appraisal: Effects of self-appraisal information, normative information, and task performance. Journal of Business & Psychology, 17(2): 261–274.
  • Sinclair, R. C. 1988. Mood, categorization, breadth, and performance appraisal: The effects of order of information acquisition and affective state on halo, accuracy, information retrieval, and evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42: 22–46.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Smither, J. W., London, M., Flautt, R., Vargas, Y., & Kucine, I. 2003. Can working with an executive coach improve multisource feedback ratings over time? A quasi-experimental field study. Personnel Psychology, 56(1): 23–44.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Smither, J. W., London, M., Vasilopoulos, N., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., & Salvemini, N. 1995. An examination of the effects of an upward feedback program over time. Personnel Psychology, 48: 1–34.
  • Starcher, R. 1996. Individual performance appraisal systems. Production & Inventory Management Journal, 37(4): 58–58.
  • Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., & Snell, A. F. 2004. The feedback environment scale (FES): Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(1): 165–184.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Strauss, J. P., Barrick, M. R., & Connerley, M. L. 2001. An investigation of personality similarity effects (relational and perceived) on peer and supervisor ratings and the role of familiarity and liking. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 74(5): 637–657.[CrossRef]
  • Struthers, C. W., Weiner, B., & Allred, K. 1998. Effects of causal attributions on personnel decisions: A social motivation perspective. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 20(2): 155–166.
  • Sulsky, L. M., & Day, D. V. 1992. Frame-of-reference training and cognitive categorization: An empirical investigation of rater memory issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4): 501–510.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Sulsky, L. M., & Keown, J. L. 1998. Performance appraisal in the changing world of work: Implications for the meaning and measurement of work performance. Special Issue: Industrial-Organizational Psychology and Emerging Needs of the Canadian Workplace: Traversing the Next Millennium, 39(1/2): 52–59.
  • Sulsky, L. M., Skarlicki, D. P., & Keown, J. L. 2002. Frame-of-reference training: Overcoming the effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance rating accuracy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(6): 1224–1240.[CrossRef]
  • Taylor, M. S., Masterson, S. S., Renard, M. K., & Tracy, K. B. 1998. Managers’ reactions to procedurally just performance management systems. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5): 568–579.[CrossRef]
  • Taylor, M. S., Tracy, K. B., Renard, M. K., Harrison, J. K., & Carroll, S. J. 1995. Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3): 495–523.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Taylor, E. K., & Wherry, R. J. 1951. A study of leniency in two rating systems. Personnel Psychology, 4: 39–47.
  • Tziner, A., Kopelman, R., & Joanis, C. 1997. Investigation of raters’ and ratees’ reactions to three methods of performance appraisal: BOS, BARS, and GRS. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14(4): 396396.
  • Tziner, A., & Kopelman, R. E. 2002. Is there a preferred performance rating format? A non-psychometric perspective. Applied Psychology, 51(3): 479–479.[CrossRef]
  • Varma, A., Denisi, A. S., & Peters, L. H. 1996. Interpersonal affect and performance appraisal: A field study. Personnel Psychology, 49(2): 341–341.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Varma, A., & Stroh, L. K. 2001. The impact of same-sex LMX dyads on performance evaluations. Human Resource Management, 40(4): 309–309.[CrossRef]
  • Vecchio, R. P. 1998. Leader–member exchange, objective performance, employment duration, and supervisor ratings: Testing for moderation and mediation. Journal of Business & Psychology, 12(3): 327–327.
  • Villanova, P., Bernardin, H. J., Dahmus, S. A., & Sims, R. L. 1993. Rater leniency and performance appraisal discomfort. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 53(3): 789–799.
  • Waldman, D. A., & Bowen, D. E.1998.The acceptability of 360 degree appraisals: A customer-supplier relationship perspective. Human Resource Management, 37(2): 117–117.[CrossRef]
  • Walker, A. G., & Smither, J. W. 1999. A five-year study of upward feedback: What managers do with their results matters. Personnel Psychology, 52(2): 393–423.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Warech, M. A., & Smither, J. W. 1998. Self-monitoring and 360-degree ratings. Leadership Quarterly, 9(4): 449–449.[CrossRef]
  • Warr, P., & Bourne, A. 1999. Factors influencing two types of congruence in multirater judgments. Human Performance, 12(3/4): 183–210.
  • Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. 1995. Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1): 232–260.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. 1998. Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. The Academy of Management, 23: 531–546.[CrossRef]
  • Williams, J. R., & Levy, P. E. 2000. Investigating some neglected criteria: The influence of organizational level and perceived system knowledge on appraisal reactions. Journal of Business & Psychology, 14(3): 501–513.[CrossRef]
  • Williams, J. R., & Lueke, S. B. 1999. 360 degrees feedback system effectiveness: Test of a model in a field setting. Journal of Quality Management, 4(1): 23–23.[CrossRef]
  • Woehr, D. J., & Huffcutt, A. I. 1994. Rater training for performance appraisal: A quantitative review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67: 189–205.[Web of Science]
  • Yammarino, F. J. 2003. Modern data analytic techniques for multisource feedback. Organizational Research Methods, 6(1): 6.

Journal of Management, Vol. 30, No. 6, 881-905 (2004)
DOI: 10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.005
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of ManagementHome page
D. J. Schleicher, R. A. Bull, and S. G. Green
Rater Reactions to Forced Distribution Rating Systems
Journal of Management, August 1, 2009; 35(4): 899 - 927.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Management Communication QuarterlyHome page
M. E. Gordon and L. P. Stewart
Conversing About Performance: Discursive Resources for the Appraisal Interview
Management Communication Quarterly, February 1, 2009; 22(3): 473 - 501.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of ManagementHome page
B. G. Whitaker, J. J. Dahling, and P. Levy
The Development of a Feedback Environment and Role Clarity Model of Job Performance
Journal of Management, August 1, 2007; 33(4): 570 - 591.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of ManagementHome page
N. P. Mero, R. M. Guidice, and A. L. Brownlee
Accountability in a Performance Appraisal Context: The Effect of Audience and Form of Accounting on Rater Response and Behavior
Journal of Management, April 1, 2007; 33(2): 223 - 252.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of ManagementHome page
J. D. Elicker, P. E. Levy, and R. J. Hall
The Role of Leader-Member Exchange in the Performance Appraisal Process
Journal of Management, August 1, 2006; 32(4): 531 - 551.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
S. Taggar and T. C. Brown
Interpersonal Affect and Peer Rating Bias in Teams
Small Group Research, February 1, 2006; 37(1): 86 - 111.
[Abstract] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (28)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Levy, P. E.
Right arrow Articles by Williams, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?