Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:18:05.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inaccurate Performance Ratings Are a Reflection of Larger Organizational Issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Michael M. Harris ,
Dan Ispas  and
Greg F. Schmidt
Michael M. Harris*
Affiliation:
University of Missouri-St. Louis
Dan Ispas
Affiliation:
University of South Florida
Greg F. Schmidt
Affiliation:
University of South Florida
*
E-mail: mharris@umsl.edu, Address: College of Business Administration, University of Missouri-St. Louis, 1 University Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63121
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , June 2008 , pp. 190 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Management and Center for International Studies, College of Business Administration, University of Missouri-St. Louis

**

Department of Psychology, University of South Florida

References

Cronbach, L. J. (1955). Processes affecting scores on “understanding others” and “assumed similarity.” Psychological Bulletin, 52, 177–193.Google Scholar
Curtis, A. B., Harvey, R. D., & Ravden, D. (2005). Sources of political distortions in performance appraisals. Group and Organization Management, 30, 42–60.10.1177/1059601104267666Google Scholar
Fiske, S., & Taylor, S. (1984). Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Harris, M. M. (1994). Rater motivation in the performance appraisal context: A theoretical framework. Journal of Management, 20, 737–756.Google Scholar
Harris, M. M., Smith, D., & Champagne, D. (1995). A field study of performance appraisal purpose: Research- versus administrative-based ratings. Personnel Psychology, 48, 151–160.Google Scholar
Jussim, L. (2005). Accuracy: Criticisms, controversies, criteria, components, and cognitive processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 1–93.10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37001-8Google Scholar
Lerner, J. S., Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255–275.10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255Google Scholar
Levesque, M. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1993). Accuracy of behavioral predictions at zero acquaintance: A social relations analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1178–1187.Google Scholar
Mero, N. P., Guidice, R. M., & Brownlee, A. L. (2007). Accountability in a performance appraisal context: The effect of audience and form of accounting on rater response and behavior. Journal of Management, 33, 223–252.10.1177/0149206306297633Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R. (2008). Explaining the weak relationship between job performance and ratings of job performance. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 148–160.Google Scholar
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220–247.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. In Staw, M. B. & Cummings, L. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 297–332). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E., & Kim, J. I. (1987). Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 700–709.Google Scholar