Influence of measurement type and the moment of occurrence of low performance behaviour’s on task and citizenship performance appraisal

  1. Christian Rosales 1
  2. María Dolores Díaz Cabrera 1
  3. Estefanía Hernández Fernaud 1
  1. 1 Universidad de La Laguna
    info

    Universidad de La Laguna

    San Cristobal de La Laguna, España

    GRID grid.10041.34

Journal:
Revista Interamericana De Psicología/Interamerican Journal of Psychology,

Year of publication: 2021

Volume: 55

Issue: 1

Type: Article

Export: RIS
DOI: 10.30849/ripijp.v55i1.1229 GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

Abstract

This research studies whether the moment of occurrence of a task or contextual behaviour with a low performance produces a primacy or recency effect and whether it causes changes in performance appraisal. We also analyzed whether the nature of assessment questionnaire items affects raters’ assessments and how the sequence of questionnaire presentation and completion may do so. Participants were 146 undergraduate students. We used a design with two inter-subject variables (questionnaire presentation and performance sequence) and one within-subject variable (global versus specific questionnaires). Findings show that if a low performance is presented at the beginning of the assessment period, the performance assessment will be more negative. Also, results indicate that task performance appraisals and contextual behaviour assessments are higher and less accurate when performed with a questionnaire that includes global items.

Bibliographic References

  • Aguinis, H. (2013). Performance management. Pearson.
  • Aguinis, H., Joo, H., & Gottfredson, R. K. (2011). Why we hate performance management - and why we should love it. Business Horizons, 54, 503-507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.06.001
  • Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. En N. Schmitt, & W. C. Borman, Personnel selection in organizations (pp 71–98). Jossey - Bass.
  • Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_3
  • 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, 321-352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800206
  • Campbell, J. P. (1999). The definition and measurement of performance in the new age. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 399-430). Jossey-Bass.
  • Carmona-Halty, M., & Villegas-Robertson, J. M. (2019). El Capital Psicológico Predice el Bienestar y Desempeño en Estudiantes Secundarios Chilenos. Revista Interamericana de Psicología, 52(3).
  • Dauda, Y. (2018). A review of performance appraisal systems in different countries: The UK, India, South Africa and Ghana. International Journal of Applied Environmental Sciences, 13(2), 203-221.
  • DeNisi, A. S., & Murphy, K. R. (2017). Performance appraisal and performance management: 100 years of progress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 421. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000085
  • Dewberry, C., Davies-Muir, A., & Newell, S. (2013). Impact and causes of Rater Severity/Leniency in Appraisals without Postevaluation communication between raters and rates. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 21(3), 286-293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12038
  • Díaz-Cabrera, D., Hernández-Fernaud, E., Isla-Díaz, D., Delgado, N., Díaz-Vilela, L. & Rosales-Sánchez, C. (2014). Factores relevantes para aumentar la precisión, la viabilidad y el éxito de los sistemas de evaluación del desempeño laboral. Papeles del Psicólogo, 35(2), 115-121.
  • Díaz-Vilela, L., Delgado, N., Isla-Díaz, R., Díaz-Cabrera, D. Hernández-Fernaud, E & Rosales-Sánchez, C. (2015). Relationships between contextual and task performance and interrater agreement: Are there any? Manuscript presented for publication. PLoS ONE 10(10): e0139898. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139898
  • Díaz-Vilela, L., Díaz- Cabrera, D., Isla-Díaz, R., Hernández-Fernaud, E., & Rosales-Sánchez, C. (2012). Spanish adaptation of the citizenship performance questionnaire by Coleman and Borman (2000) and an analysis of the empiric structure of the construct. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y las Organizaciones, 28(3), 135-149. http://dx.doi.org/10.5093/tr2012a12
  • Dror, I. E., & Fraser-Mackenzie, P. (2008). Cognitive biases in human perception, judgment, and decision making: Bridging theory and the real world. In K. Rossmo (Ed.) Criminal Investigative Failures (pp. 53-67). Taylor & Francis Publishing.
  • Fay, C. H., & Latham, G. P. (1982). Effects of training and rating scales on rating errors. Personnel Psychology, 35, 105–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1982.tb02188.x
  • Gaugler, B. B., & Thornton, G. C. (1989). Number of assessment center dimensions as a determinant of assessor accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 611-618.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.74.4.611
  • Griffin, R., & Ebert, R. (2002). Business. Prentice Hall.
  • Gürbüz, S. & Dikmenli, O. (2007). Performance Appraisal Biases in A Public Organization: An Empirical Study. Journal of the Kocaeli University of the Institute of Social Sciences, 13(1), 108-138.
  • Heneman, R. L. (1988). Traits, behaviors, and rater training: Some unexpected results. Human Performance, 1, 85–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup0102_1
  • Highhouse, S., & Gallo, A. (1997). Order effects in personnel decision making. Human Performance, 10, 31-46.
  • Kane, J.S., Bernardin, J.J., Villanova, P. & Peyrefitte, J. (1995). Stability of rater leniency: Three studies. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1036-1051. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256619
  • Latham, G. P., & Wexley, K. N. (1977). Behavioral observation scales for performance appraisal purposes. Personnel Psychology, 30, 225-268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1977.tb02092.x
  • Linstone, H. A. & Turoff, M. (1975). Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley Publishing.
  • Mclntyre, R., Smith, D., & Hassett, C. (1984). Accuracy of performance ratings as affected by rater training and perceived purpose of rating. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69,147-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.147
  • Morgeson, F.P. & Campion, M.A. (1997). Social and cognitive sources of potential inaccuracy in job analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 627-655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.82.5.627
  • Motowidlo, S. J., & Schmit, M. J. (1999). Performance assessment in unique jobs. In D. R. Ilgen, & E. D. Pulakos, The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development, (pp. 56-87). Jossey-Bass.
  • Porras, N. R. (2016). Aproximación histórica a la psicología del trabajo y de las organizaciones en Colombia. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 50(3), 317-329. Disponible en: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=284/28450492002
  • Rosales, C., Díaz-Cabrera, D., & Hernández-Fernaud, E. (2019). Does effectiveness in performance appraisal improve with rater training? PLoS ONE 14(9): e0222694. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222694
  • Schraeder, M., Becton, J.B., & Portis, R.(2007). A Critical Examination of Performance Appraisal: An Organization’s Friend or Foe? The Journal for Quality and Participation, 30, 20-25.
  • Silvestre, E. (2017). Construcción y validación empírica de una escala de clima organizacional universitario. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 51(1), 44-59. Disponible en: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=284/28452860005
  • Smith, D.E. (1986). Training Programs for Performance Appraisal: A Review. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, 1, 22-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/258329
  • Smith, P. C., & Kendall, L. M. (1963). Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 149-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0047060
  • Steiner, D., & Rain, J. (1989). Immediate and delayed primacy and recency effects in performance evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 136-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.136
  • Vélez, S., Rosario, I., Méndez, V., & Vargas, L. (2016). Familia, capital humano, y Psicología Industrial/Organizacional. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 50(3), 433-440. Disponible en: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=284/28450492011
  • Wagner, S. H., & Goffin, R. D. (1997). Differences in accuracy of absolute and comparative performance appraisal methods. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(2), 95-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2698
  • Woehr, D. J., & Huffcutt, A. I. (1994). Rater training for performance appraisal: A quantitative review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 189-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1994.tb00562.x Creative Commons License