Doctoral Dissertations

Date of Award

12-1990

Degree Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy

Major

Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Major Professor

Joyce E. A. Russell

Committee Members

Michael Rush, Greg Dobbins, John Lounsbury

Abstract

The present study investigated the relationships of interpersonal, individual, and contextual factors with raters' distortion of performance appraisal ratings. Distortion was defined as the discrepancy between public and private performance appraisal ratings for a target ratee. Affect for a ratee was an interpersonal factor hypothesized to be positively related to the degree of rating inflation (positive distortion). Discomfort in giving feedback was an individual factor also hypothesized to be positively related to the degree of rating inflation. Raters' generalized self-efficacy, tenure in the organization, and position tenure were individual factors hypothesized to be related to the degree of total distortion. The degree raters valued anticipated consequences (e.g., increasing employees' self-confidence, obtaining more resources for my department) and believed they would result from good and poor appraisal ratings were contextual factors also hypothesized to influence the degree of rating distortion. The degree raters perceived the performance appraisal climate as conducive to distortion was a contextual factor hypothesized to be positively related to the degree of rating distortion. Participants were 76 non-academic, full-time university employees with responsibility for rating employee performance. Sixty-one percent of the participants were male and the average participant age was 45 years old. They were employed in a variety of departments (i.e., housing, food service, purchasing, maintenance, etc.) and had an average of eleven years experience rating employees at the university. The most common number of employees rated by participants was four. Ninety-five percent of the participants reported conducting performance reviews annually. A standardized interview and questionnaire were used to collect data. Distortion was measured by discrepancies between actual (public or assigned) performance ratings of a target ratee and ratings given during the interview (private) for that ratee. Matched public and private ratings were obtained for 39 target ratees. Given the low number of matched ratings in the sample, a self-report questionnaire was developed to assess past distortion tendencies among ratees. This measure was used in post hoc exploratory analyses. Fifty-five of 76 distortion tendencies questionnaires were returned, yielding a 72.4% return rate for this measure. A majority of raters had discrepant ratings in an inflation direction and the degree of distortion was typically one rating scale point. Results did not support the hypotheses that rater affect for the target ratee or discomfort in giving feedback was related to positive distortion. Raters* perceived value of consequences multiplied by the belief consequences would occur as a result of good and poor ratings was also not significantly related to distortion. Generalized self-efficacy was not significantly related to degree of distortion, however, it was significantly related to actual performance ratings, such that higher self-efficacy was related to giving higher public and private ratings. Longer university tenure was not significantly related to the degree of distortion. The perception of the performance appraisal climate as conducive to distortion was also not related to the degree of distortion in ratings. Raters reporting greater tendencies to distort in the past also reported experiencing greater discomfort giving feedback to ratees as well as a greater belief that consequences would result from giving good ratings. Raters having greater affect for a target ratee reported lower past tendencies to distort ratings. Many reasons raters reported distorting ratings in the past concerned consequences which would benefit the ratee or the rater-ratee relationship (e.g., increase employee's confidence, reward the employee for effort). Results suggest that while rater affect and discomfort in giving feedback are related to actual performance ratings, these variables may not account for discrepancies between ratings submitted publicly and ratings given privately. In addition, the perceived value and likelihood of consequences from ratings may not predict distortion for a given ratee. Reasons for intentional rating distortion may vary across raters within a given setting and within situations for particular rater-ratee dyads. Limitations of the current study, theoretical and practical implications, as well as avenues for further research were discussed.

Download
Files over 3MB may be slow to open. For best results, right-click and select "save as..."

Share

COinS