Performance Management Exam
Major Performance Management Citations - ANSWER - 1. Definitions: appraisal, performance
management
2. Legal: Barrett & Kernan (1987)
4. Feedback: Kluger & DeNisi (1996); Aguinis (2013)
5. Goals: Locke & Latham (1990; 2007)
6. PE method: Murphy (2020); Denisi & Murphy (2017); Bommer et al. (1995)
7. Distribution: Murphy (2020); Aguinis et al. (2018)
8. Fairness/reactions/errors: Greenberg (1986); Landy & Farr (1980)
9. 360: Atwater et al. (2007)
10. Assumptions of performance ratings: Pulakos et al. (2019)
11. Purposes: Campbell & Wiernik (2015)
12. Managers: Murphy & Cleveland (1995)
14. Dropping PE: Murphy (2020); DeNisi & Murphy (2017)
15. Org change: Bridges & Bridges (2016)
16. Feedforward: Kluger & Nir (2010)
17. Future: Pulakos et al. (2019); Murphy (2020)
Performance appraisal history - ANSWER - Early history is focused on performance evaluation. Efficiency
ratings in US federal civil service in late 1800s and officer performance during WWI (Pulakos et al.,
2019). Thorndike (1920) published an article about constant error (now know as halo error). No rating
format yielded substantially more accurate or less biased ratings than any others (Landy & Farr, 1980).
Forced choice in 2000s: managers choose which behavior is most true of each employee's job
performance from a set of equally desirable behaviors and use IRT to place each employee. Rater
training to improve ratings (Borman, 1975; Latham et al., 1975). 1980s: more holistic theory needed to
understand interactive effects of different factors on ratings using human info processing theories
(Landy & Farr, 1980). 1970s and 1980s: legal challenges led to more structured evaluation processes
(Pulakos et al., 2019). Forced distribution (top 10%) was popular until ~2010. 360 reports (Borman,
1974)
, Performance appraisal legal - ANSWER - 1. (Barrett & Kernan, 1987): reviews perf appraisal court cases:
41/51 of cases ruled on the side of the organization. In other cases either 1) clearly racist supervisors or
2) uneven application of performance evaluation standards. 6 recommendations: 1) conduct JA; 2)
incorporate JA findings into rating instrument; 3) train supervisors to use instrument appropriately; 4)
allow formal appeal rules and review of ratings; 5) document PA evals; 6) provide corrective counseling
for poor performers. 2. (Martin et al, 2000): evaluations of performance should be based on results of a
PA that incorporates concerns for org justice and fairness to avoid legal concerns. Defense for
promotion discrimination: 1) selected person with better credentials; 2) emp not qualified for
promotion; 3) shortcomings in present job. Discharge defense: 1) emp fails to meet org expectations for
promotion; 2) performance deterioration
360 ratings - ANSWER - Beehr et al. (2001). 360s are distinct from performance appraisal (generally
considered broader) and are typically used for developmental purposes and for assessing OCB. They are
not used effectively for administrative purposes; not related to selection. Peer and supervisors provide
different but correlated ratings, while self-ratings are not typically correlated with anything else (much
more lenient). In contrast, performance appraisals are typically good for assessing task performance.
Objective vs. subjective performance appraisal - ANSWER - (Bommer et al, 1995): objective and
subjective measures only correlate ~ .39, and should not be used interchangeably. Emphasis on
performance improvement as the ultimate goal in the appraisal process and employee motivation to
improve their performance and subordinate perceptions of appraisal fairness (Pulakos et al., 2019)
Dual-process system process of PA - ANSWER - (Feldman, 1981): views PA as a dual-process system of
evaluation and decision making. Attention, categorization, recall and information integration are either
automatic or controlled. Automatic process usually dominant unless decision is problematic.
Categorization and recall are subject to many biases (halo, leniency/stringency, racial)
Perceived fairness of evaluation - ANSWER - Greenberg (1986) determinants of perceived fairness of
evaluation. Fairness perceptions of appraisal system help determine if employees will accept it. 7
categories of fairness determinants w/ 2 underlying factors: Procedural = a) soliciting input prior to eval
and using it; b) two-way communication during interview; c) ability to challenge/rebut eval; d) rater
familiarity with ratee's work; e) consistent application of standards. Distributive = a) receipt of rating
based on performance achieved; b) recommendations for salary/promotion based on rating.
Scale types - ANSWER - (Landy & Farr, 1980): graphic rating scales have better cost ratio than BARS.
Since courts don't care about complexity of scales, graphic rating scales may be used over BARS. Should
choose best one based on utility analysis. Behavioral observation scales (BOS) ask raters to use aids such
as diaries to standardize performance observation and recall (Latham & Wexley, 1977)
Major Performance Management Citations - ANSWER - 1. Definitions: appraisal, performance
management
2. Legal: Barrett & Kernan (1987)
4. Feedback: Kluger & DeNisi (1996); Aguinis (2013)
5. Goals: Locke & Latham (1990; 2007)
6. PE method: Murphy (2020); Denisi & Murphy (2017); Bommer et al. (1995)
7. Distribution: Murphy (2020); Aguinis et al. (2018)
8. Fairness/reactions/errors: Greenberg (1986); Landy & Farr (1980)
9. 360: Atwater et al. (2007)
10. Assumptions of performance ratings: Pulakos et al. (2019)
11. Purposes: Campbell & Wiernik (2015)
12. Managers: Murphy & Cleveland (1995)
14. Dropping PE: Murphy (2020); DeNisi & Murphy (2017)
15. Org change: Bridges & Bridges (2016)
16. Feedforward: Kluger & Nir (2010)
17. Future: Pulakos et al. (2019); Murphy (2020)
Performance appraisal history - ANSWER - Early history is focused on performance evaluation. Efficiency
ratings in US federal civil service in late 1800s and officer performance during WWI (Pulakos et al.,
2019). Thorndike (1920) published an article about constant error (now know as halo error). No rating
format yielded substantially more accurate or less biased ratings than any others (Landy & Farr, 1980).
Forced choice in 2000s: managers choose which behavior is most true of each employee's job
performance from a set of equally desirable behaviors and use IRT to place each employee. Rater
training to improve ratings (Borman, 1975; Latham et al., 1975). 1980s: more holistic theory needed to
understand interactive effects of different factors on ratings using human info processing theories
(Landy & Farr, 1980). 1970s and 1980s: legal challenges led to more structured evaluation processes
(Pulakos et al., 2019). Forced distribution (top 10%) was popular until ~2010. 360 reports (Borman,
1974)
, Performance appraisal legal - ANSWER - 1. (Barrett & Kernan, 1987): reviews perf appraisal court cases:
41/51 of cases ruled on the side of the organization. In other cases either 1) clearly racist supervisors or
2) uneven application of performance evaluation standards. 6 recommendations: 1) conduct JA; 2)
incorporate JA findings into rating instrument; 3) train supervisors to use instrument appropriately; 4)
allow formal appeal rules and review of ratings; 5) document PA evals; 6) provide corrective counseling
for poor performers. 2. (Martin et al, 2000): evaluations of performance should be based on results of a
PA that incorporates concerns for org justice and fairness to avoid legal concerns. Defense for
promotion discrimination: 1) selected person with better credentials; 2) emp not qualified for
promotion; 3) shortcomings in present job. Discharge defense: 1) emp fails to meet org expectations for
promotion; 2) performance deterioration
360 ratings - ANSWER - Beehr et al. (2001). 360s are distinct from performance appraisal (generally
considered broader) and are typically used for developmental purposes and for assessing OCB. They are
not used effectively for administrative purposes; not related to selection. Peer and supervisors provide
different but correlated ratings, while self-ratings are not typically correlated with anything else (much
more lenient). In contrast, performance appraisals are typically good for assessing task performance.
Objective vs. subjective performance appraisal - ANSWER - (Bommer et al, 1995): objective and
subjective measures only correlate ~ .39, and should not be used interchangeably. Emphasis on
performance improvement as the ultimate goal in the appraisal process and employee motivation to
improve their performance and subordinate perceptions of appraisal fairness (Pulakos et al., 2019)
Dual-process system process of PA - ANSWER - (Feldman, 1981): views PA as a dual-process system of
evaluation and decision making. Attention, categorization, recall and information integration are either
automatic or controlled. Automatic process usually dominant unless decision is problematic.
Categorization and recall are subject to many biases (halo, leniency/stringency, racial)
Perceived fairness of evaluation - ANSWER - Greenberg (1986) determinants of perceived fairness of
evaluation. Fairness perceptions of appraisal system help determine if employees will accept it. 7
categories of fairness determinants w/ 2 underlying factors: Procedural = a) soliciting input prior to eval
and using it; b) two-way communication during interview; c) ability to challenge/rebut eval; d) rater
familiarity with ratee's work; e) consistent application of standards. Distributive = a) receipt of rating
based on performance achieved; b) recommendations for salary/promotion based on rating.
Scale types - ANSWER - (Landy & Farr, 1980): graphic rating scales have better cost ratio than BARS.
Since courts don't care about complexity of scales, graphic rating scales may be used over BARS. Should
choose best one based on utility analysis. Behavioral observation scales (BOS) ask raters to use aids such
as diaries to standardize performance observation and recall (Latham & Wexley, 1977)
