WHERE ALL THE CHILDREN ARE ABOVE AVERAGE: THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PURPOSE EFFECT

More than 40 years ago, Taylor and Wherry (1951) hypothesized that performance appraisal ratings obtained for administrative purposes, such as pay raises or promotions, would be more lenient than ratings obtained for research, feedback, or employee development purposes. However, research on appraisal purpose has yielded inconsistent results, with roughly half of such studies supporting this hypothesis and the other half refuting it. To account for those differences, a meta-analysis of performance appraisal purpose research was conducted with 22 studies and a total sample size of 57,775. Our results support Taylor and Wherry's hypothesis as performance evaluations obtained for administrative purposes were, on average, one-third of a standard deviation larger than those obtained for research or employee development purposes. In addition, moderator analyses indicated larger differences between ratings obtained for administrative and research purposes when performance evaluations were made in field settings, by practicing managers, and for real world subordinates. Implications for researchers and practitioners are discussed.

[1]  D. Ilgen,et al.  Performance Attributional Effects on Feedback from Superiors , 1980 .

[2]  S. J. Motowidlo,et al.  Effects of rater accountability on the accuracy and the favorability of performance ratings. , 1995 .

[3]  Steven D. Maurer,et al.  The validity of employment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. , 1994 .

[4]  John T. Hazer,et al.  Effects of upward accountability and rating purpose on peer‐rater inflation and delay: a field experiment , 1998 .

[5]  C. Fisher.  Current and recurrent challenges in human resource management , 1989 .

[6]  Peter Villanova,et al.  Rater Leniency and Performance Appraisal Discomfort , 1993 .

[7]  Ted H. Shore,et al.  Effects of Self-Appraisal Information, Appraisal Purpose, and Feedback Target on Performance Appraisal Ratings , 1998 .

[8]  John E. Hunter,et al.  Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings , 1991 .

[9]  Kevin R. Murphy,et al.  Performance appraisal: An organizational perspective. , 1991 .

[10]  J. Werbel,et al.  Effects of Purpose of the Appraisal and Expectation of Validation On Self-Appraisal Leniency , 1986 .

[11]  J. R. Larson.  The performance feedback process: A preliminary model , 1984 .

[12]  D. Waldman,et al.  A Field Study of Rating Conditions and Leniency in Performance Appraisal , 1988 .

[13]  James R. Berkshire,et al.  Forced-Choice Performance Rating—A Methodological Study* , 1953 .

[14]  Chester A. Schriesheim,et al.  The Usefulness of the "Fail-Safe" Statistic in Meta-Analysis , 1990 .

[15]  H. J. Bernardin.  Effects of rater training on leniency and halo errors in student ratings of instructors. , 1978 .

[16]  Lawrence M. Aleamoni,et al.  A review of the research on student evaluation and a report on the effect of different sets of instructions on student course and instructor evaluation , 1973 .

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

[18]  J. A. Orban,et al.  Leniency effect as a function of rating format, purpose for appraisal, and rater individual differences , 1990 .

[19]  Peter Villanova,et al.  Stability of Rater Leniency: Three Studies , 1995 .

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

[21]  Robert J. Wherry,et al.  A Study of Leniency in Two Rating Systems , 1951 .

[22]  J. Centra.  THE INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS ON STUDENT RATINGS OF INSTRUCTION , 1975 .

[23]  Linda Parrack Livingstone,et al.  Another Look at The Relationship Between Performance and Voluntary Turnover , 1994 .

[24]  David E. Smith,et al.  Accuracy of performance ratings as affected by rater training and perceived purpose of rating. , 1984 .

[25]  C. Bartlett,et al.  Effect of instructional conditions in producing leniency on two types of rating scales. , 1969 .

[26]  G. Glass.  9: Integrating Findings: The Meta-Analysis of Research , 1977 .

[27]  H. John Bernardin,et al.  Subordinate appraisal: A valuable source of information about managers , 1986 .

[28]  D. Ilgen,et al.  Limits in Generalization from Psychological Research to Performance Appraisal Processes , 1985 .

[29]  Allen I. Huffcutt,et al.  Development of a new outlier statistic for meta-analytic data. , 1995 .

[30]  H. S. Feild,et al.  Administrative versus Research Performance Ratings: An Empirical Test of Rating Data Quality , 1983 .

[31]  T. DeCotiis,et al.  The performance appraisal process: a model and some testable propositions. , 1978, Academy of management review. Academy of Management.

[32]  Robert D. Gatewood,et al.  Human Resource Selection , 1997 .

[33]  J. Feldhusen,et al.  Another look at Dr. Fox: Effect of stated purpose for evaluation, lecturer expressiveness, and density of lecture content on student ratings. , 1979 .

[34]  K. Murphy,et al.  Effects of the purpose of rating on accuracy in observing teacher behavior and evaluating teaching performance. , 1984 .

[35]  Kurt Kraiger,et al.  A meta-analysis of ratee race effects in performance ratings. , 1985 .

[36]  H. P. Sims,et al.  Behind the Mask: The Politics of Employee Appraisal , 1987 .

[37]  Hollander Ep.  Validity of peer nominations in predicting a distant performance criterion. , 1965 .

[38]  H. Bernardin,et al.  A Comparison of Rating Formats After Corrections for Attenuation , 1985 .

[39]  Angelo S. DeNisi,et al.  The role of appraisal purpose: effects of purpose on information acquisition and utilization , 1985 .

[40]  H. G. Osburn,et al.  A note on the sampling variance of the mean uncorrected correlation in meta-analysis and validity generalization. , 1992 .

[41]  Susan E. Jackson,et al.  Explaining performance variability: Contributions of goal setting, task characteristics, and evaluative contexts. , 1982 .

[42]  David E. Smith,et al.  A FIELD STUDY OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PURPOSE: RESEARCH‐ VERSUS ADMINISTRATIVE‐ BASED RATINGS , 1995 .

[43]  W. Goodwin,et al.  The Effects of Varying Information About Use and Disposition of Results on University Students’ Evaluations of Faculty and Courses , 1979 .

[44]  D. R. Ilgen,et al.  Performance Appraisal Process Research in the 1980s: What Has It Contributed to Appraisals in Use? , 1993 .

[45]  Richard J. Klimoski,et al.  Accountability forces in performance appraisal , 1990 .

[46]  H. J. Bernardin,et al.  Effects of Purpose of Appraisal on Discriminability and Accuracy of Ratings , 1992, Psychological reports.

[47]  Winfred Arthur,et al.  Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-level jobs. , 1994 .

[48]  Wayne F. Cascio,et al.  Performance Appraisal Decisions as a Function of Rater Training and Purpose of the Appraisal , 1982 .

[49]  Arthur G. Bedeian,et al.  The Impact of Purpose On Rating Quality and User Acceptance , 1991 .

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