Implications of Virtual Management for Subordinate Performance Appraisals: A Pair of Simulation Studies

This article shifts the focus of prior research examining virtual work to investigate how supervisors who work virtually use subordinate performance information. Drawing insights from several research streams, in Study 1, we propose that supervisors who work virtually bias performance ratings in the direction of information that is observed directly in the office, rather than that which is received when working virtually. In Study 2, we replicate and extend these results to show that this bias is independent of the level of performance information received. Results also indicate that, for high-performing workers, performance information received virtually is evaluated more extremely than information observed directly. We did not find evidence for this extremity effect when low-performing workers were evaluated.

[1]  Timothy D. Golden,et al.  The role of relationships in understanding telecommuter satisfaction , 2006 .

[2]  Nancy B. Kurland,et al.  A review of telework research: findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work , 2002 .

[3]  Linda Duxbury,et al.  An empirical evaluation of the impacts of telecommuting on intra-organizational communication , 1999 .

[4]  Nancy B. Kurland,et al.  Manager control and employee isolation in telecommuting environments , 2002 .

[5]  Donal E. Carlston,et al.  Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. , 1989 .

[6]  R. Liden,et al.  Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A longitudinal study. , 1995 .

[7]  R. Wyer,et al.  Person memory and judgment: pragmatic influences on impressions formed in a social context. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  Jeffrey A. Miles,et al.  The effects of videoconference, telephone, and face-to-face media on interviewer and applicant judgments in employment interviews , 2001 .

[9]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[10]  J. F. Veiga,et al.  The Impact of Extent of Telecommuting on Job Satisfaction: Resolving Inconsistent Findings , 2005 .

[11]  Vipin Gupta,et al.  Factors contributing to virtual work adjustment , 2001 .

[12]  Angelo S. DeNisi,et al.  A cognitive view of the performance appraisal process: A model and research propositions , 1984 .

[13]  Yehuda Baruch,et al.  Home, Sweet Work: Requirements for Effective Home Working , 1997 .

[14]  A. Tsui.  A role set analysis of managerial reputation , 1984 .

[15]  Terry A. Beehr,et al.  Evaluation of 360 degree feedback ratings: relationships with each other and with performance and selection predictors† , 2001 .

[16]  Andrew J. DuBrin,et al.  Comparison of the Job Satisfaction and Productivity of Telecommuters versus in-House Employees: A Research Note on Work in Progress , 1991 .

[17]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  The Cognitive and Interpersonal Costs of Video , 1999 .

[18]  M. Ross,et al.  Egocentric Biases in Availability and Attribution , 1979 .

[19]  Cheri Ostroff,et al.  UNDERSTANDING SELF-OTHER AGREEMENT: A LOOK AT RATER AND RATEE CHARACTERISTICS, CONTEXT, AND OUTCOMES , 2004 .

[20]  G. Milkovich,et al.  The Current State of Performance Appraisal Research and Practice: Concerns, Directions, and Implications , 1992 .

[21]  R. Daft,et al.  Information Richness. A New Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organization Design , 1983 .

[22]  Harold H. Kelley,et al.  Judgments of responsibility for activities in close relationships. , 1981 .

[23]  K. M. Kacmar,et al.  The effects of impression management on the performance appraisal process , 1991 .

[24]  Jane E. Humble,et al.  Benefits of telecommuting for engineers and other high-tech professionals , 1995 .

[25]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  Introduction to the Special Issue: Communication Processes for Virtual Organizations , 1999 .

[26]  Richard I. Hartman,et al.  Developing Successful Organizational Telecommuting Arrangements: Worker Perceptions and Managerial Prescriptions , 1992 .

[27]  France Bélanger,et al.  Workers' propensity to telecommute: An empirical study , 1999, Inf. Manag..

[28]  Suzanne P. Weisband,et al.  Evaluating self and others in electronic and face-to-face groups. , 1999 .

[29]  Walter C. Borman,et al.  360° ratings: An analysis of assumptions and a research agenda for evaluating their validity , 1997 .

[30]  Carol T. Kulik,et al.  Category-based and feature-based processes in performance appraisal: Integrating visual and computerized sources of performance data. , 1993 .

[31]  Tor Guimaraes,et al.  Empirically testing the benefits, problems, and success factors for telecommuting programmes , 1999 .

[32]  E. Hill,et al.  Influences of The Virtual Office on Aspects of Work and Work/Life Balance , 1998 .

[33]  K. Murphy,et al.  Evaluating the Performance of Paper People , 1986 .

[34]  Alain Pinsonneault,et al.  The Impacts of Telecommuting on Organizations and Individuals: A Review of the Literature , 2001 .

[35]  George M. Piskurich,et al.  Making telecommuting work , 1996 .