Rater Self- Efficacy and the
Fairness of Performance Appraisals
Rosalyn Reus Student number: 1612182
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
Master‟s Thesis, Msc Human Resource Management
July 14, 2010 Bonkelaar 6 1633 GR Avenhorn Tel.: +316 23 41 79 60 E-mail: rosalynreus@hotmail.com Supervisors/ university Drs. J. van Polen Drs. A.J.E. Schilder
Supervisor/ field of study H. Wagenaar Westfriesgasthuis
TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT………...3
1. INTRODUCTION……….4
2. THEORY………7
2.1. Self- efficacy……….7
2.2. Personal related variables and self- efficacy……….8
2.3. Contextual related variables and self- efficacy………...10
2.4. The quality of leader- member exchange relationship: a moderator………...13
3. RESEARCH METHODS..………..16 3.1. Procedure………16 3.2. Respondents………16 3.3. Measures……….17 3.4. Data analysis………...18 4. RESULTS……….19 4.1. Correlation Analysis………...19
4.2. Single Regression Analyses………19
4.3. Multiple Regression Analyses………...…….20
4.4. Moderator Analysis……….21
5. DISCUSSION………...22
5.1. Results and remarks………22
5.2. Strengths and weaknesses………...24
5.3. Main conclusions and recommendations………24
5.4. Final comments and future research………...25
REFERENCES………...27
ABSTRACT
Rater Self- Efficacy and the Fairness of Performance Appraisals
The aim of this study is to provide insight in the factors that influence a rater‟s self- efficacy and the fairness of performance appraisals at Westfriesgasthuis. Based on findings of previous studies, this study focuses on two personal related (appraisal experience and appraisal training) and three contextual related variables (transparency of appraisal guidelines and policies, appraisal accountability and management support). Furthermore, the influence of the leader- member exchange relationship as a moderating variable will be investigated. For this reason, the central question to this study is: How can Westfriesgasthuis improve line managers‟ self- efficacy in such a way that the line managers will be able to give fair performance appraisals, and how can the influence of the leader- member relationship on the performance appraisal be minimized if necessary?
1. INTRODUCTION
Most organizations recognize that pay for performance is necessary to remain competitive (Buchenroth, 2006), so do healthcare organizations. Pay-for-performance derives from dissatisfaction with reimbursement methods that reward the quantity rather than the quality of health care services (Robinson et al., 2009). Williams (2006) argued that linking hospital payments to the quality of hospitals provide results in higher quality of care and save lives. Furthermore, he explains that organizations feel more pressure for improving quality and reducing costs because of growing environmental pressures for organizing this way. Performance- based pay offers an apparently fair and objective way to improve organizational efficiency and effectiveness. In addition, performance based pay plans have evolved as tools for improving individual and organizational productivity by linking organizational goals, performance, pay, and promotion (Garavan, 2001).
In a pay-for-performance system, (a part of) an employee‟s pay varies with the amount and the quality of work he or she carries out. The general idea behind pay-for-performance schemes is to give employees an incentive for working harder or smarter (Buelens et al., 2006). Under such a system, employees‟ salaries are adjusted to indicate how well they do their jobs (Brown, 2009). A pay based on actual performance can motivate executives to focus more on their tasks, to gain the rewards (Landsberg, 2009). Performance- based pay assumes that workers seek maximum fulfilment of needs by calculating efforts, valuation of rewards, expenditures of resources, and benefits to the self (Rusaw, 2009).
It is clear that a pay-for-performance system is desirable for organizations for improving individual and organizational productivity and quality of services. Therefore, Westfriesgasthuis (WFG) is designing a performance- related pay system which will be implemented next year. The traditional job evaluation conversations about an employees‟ functioning that take place once a year, will be replaced by three conversations a year (a planning interview, a progress interview, and an appraisal interview). In the new system, line managers will work with a new performance appraisal form they have to fill in. This form will provide employees with periodic performance feedback, serves as a basis for determining developmental needs, and assists in the assessment of employees‟ potential.
traditional increase), a „B‟ (one and a half times the traditional increase), a „C‟ (comparable to the traditional increase), a „D‟ (a half time the traditional increase) or an „E‟ (no increase) and this performance rating determines the monthly salary increase during a year, next to the job rating that is established for the kind of job position the employee has. Therefore, the line manager has much more influence on the periodically salary increase of the employees than in the traditional way and it provides the employee with more concrete information about what is going well and what needs to be improved to receive a higher salary.
However, difficulties can arise. Managers must make clear distinctions between employees with direct consequences for the amount of money these employees receive. The new way of rating raises the question whether managers will be able to make, and maybe whether they are willing to make, distinctions between their employees. Furthermore, it is difficult to get clearwhat needs to be done to make the new appraisal system work as it is meant to: not giving the traditional periodically salary increase, but giving a fair salary increase based on an employee‟s performance of a certain period. Hendry et al. (1997) argued that the architects of strategic performance interventions are reliant on line management to transmit the desired corporate messages and that therefore, line managers have been identified as the crucial factor in the application of performance management systems. The human resource department of WFG is wondering whether line managers believe they have the skills, abilities, and confidence to rate their subordinates accurately and to make clear distinctions between employees (rater self-efficacy) (Smith and Furtunato, 2008). Furthermore, WFG would like to know in which degree the quality of the relationship between the line manager and the employee has an
influence on the performance appraisal because, in the situation of WFG, the line manager (the assessor) and the employee (the assessee) are part of the same working team and therefore the relationship with one employee might be better than those with another. For this reason, a manager might give an employee a certain performance appraisal which might not be based on real
performances but on the kind of relationship they have with each other. Graen (1976) argues that because of time pressures, the leader develops a close relationship with only a few key subordinates (Graen, 1976). With the rest of the work group, the leader will rely mainly on formal authority, rules, and policies to ensure adequate performance (Dienesch and Liden, 1986). In addition, it is argued that the quality of the leader- member exchange relationship has important implications for one‟s career such as performance ratings and promotions (Gerstner and Day 1997; Ilies et al., 2007).
For these reasons, the aim of this study is to investigate to what degree a line manager‟s self-efficacy will influence the way in which he or she is able to give a fair performance appraisal and how the quality of the relationship between the line manager and the subordinate will influence the performance appraisal. In order to conduct this research the following research question will be central: How can WFG improve line managers’ self- efficacy in such a way that the line managers will
2. THEORY
2.1. Self- efficacy
Task specific self-efficacy is an individual‟s belief about his or her capability to mobilize the resources requisite for successful task accomplishment (Bandura, 1977, 1986). An individual‟s self- efficacy beliefs regulate human functioning through cognitive, motivational, affective, and decisional processes (Bandura, 1997). These efficacy beliefs affect whether individuals think in self-enhancing or self- debilitating ways, how well they motivate themselves and persevere in the face of difficulties, and the choices they make at important decisional points (Bandura and Locke, 2003). How well they motivate themselves, is reflected in how much effort they will exert and how long they will persevere. The stronger the belief in their capabilities, the greater and more persistent are their efforts (Bandura, 1988). People tend to avoid activities they belief will exceed their coping capabilities, but they readily undertake challenging activities they judge themselves capable of managing. When people are faced with difficulties, they might have self doubts about their capabilities and may therefore slacken their efforts or abort their attempts prematurely and quickly settle for mediocre solutions. Those who have a strong belief in their capabilities exert greater effort to master the challenge (Banduran and Cervone, 1983, 1986; Cervone and Peake, 1986; Jacobs, Prentice-Dunn, and Rogers, 1984; Weinberg, Gould, and Jackson, 1979). Next to the influence of a person‟s self beliefs on his or her motivation to exert efforts, a person‟s degree of self- efficacy influences the degree in which he or she experiences stress and depression in threatening or taxing situations. Those who believe they cannot manage potential difficulties will experience high levels of stress. They tend to dwell of their deficiencies and view many aspects of their environment as threatening (Ozer and Bandura, 1989). When a person experiences disbelief in his of her capabilities to attain valued goals that affects his or her sense of self- worth, also creates depression (Bandura, 1988; Holahan and Holahan, 1987; Kanfer and Zeiss, 1983). Through such inefficacious thoughts, persons like this will distress and depress themselves and constrain and impair their level of functioning (Bandura, 1988; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Meichenbaum, 1977; Sarason, 1975).
As explained in the introduction, two major categories of factors will be used to determine the degree of self- efficacy of the line managers: „personal factors‟ and „contextual factors‟ (Longenecker 1989; Ghorpade and Chen, 1995; Witt, 1998; Longenecker and Gioia, 2000; Vigoda, 2000; Dhiman and Singh, 2007; Wood and Marshall, 2008).
The personal factors will be described first, thereafter an explanation of the contextual factors will follow. In addition, an explanation will be given of the possible impact of the quality of the leader- member relationship.
2.2. Personal related variables and self- efficacy
Appraisal experience. The assessor‟s ability is affected by knowledge of the appraisal norms,
purpose, procedure, and outcomes (Pulakos, 1984). This knowledge can partly be learned by giving training to the assessor, but the knowledge and experiences with performance appraisals an assessor already has, play a role as well (Wood and Marshall, 2008).
The most effective way in which individuals develop a strong sense of efficacy is through mastery experiences (Wood and Bandura, 1989). Self- efficacy arises from the gradual acquisition of complex cognitive, social, linguistic and/ or physical skills through experience (Bandura, 1982). Gist and Mitchell (1992) argued that in general, past experience regarding a task should increase the accuracy of self- efficacy to the extent that causal attributions about past performance are accurate. When a person has relevant experience, it is likely that this person simply will use past performance and attributions about the causes of that performance as major predictors of how he or she can perform. As experience with a certain task increases, shorthand evaluations and stable attitudes about the task may evolve. These evaluations and attitudes may be reflected in the formation of self- efficacy through simpler processes of recalling past performance levels and making attributions (Gist and Mitchell, 1992).
Peng (2008) explains that when a line manager has past experiences with performance appraisal, this experience can be enactive or observational. An enactive experience is a direct learning experience in which one actually have acted out and participated in an activity within a real physical environment. An observational experience is no direct experience in real life, but it is a situation in which a person has acted as an observer. In this way, people develop self- efficacy through other people‟s their behaviours and the consequential effects (Peng, 2008). According to Bandura (1997), a person‟s self- efficacy will be higher when he or she has enactive experience instead of observational experiences. Through enactive experience, people develop self- efficacy by examining the pattern of outcomes they have directly experienced and which they have generated in conceptions and rules of behaviour (Peng, 2008).
easily discouraged by failure. For this reason, people must have experience in overcoming obstacles through perseverant effort. In this way they can gain a resilient sense of efficacy. Difficulties serve as a useful purpose in learning that success usually requires sustained effort. After people become assured of their capabilities through repeated successes, they can manage setbacks and failures without being adversely affected by them (Wood and Bandura, 1989).
In conclusion, previous results of different studies show that through experience (especially enactive experience) people develop certain rules of behaviour that are associated with performing a certain task successfully and in this way people develop self- efficacy. It is therefore hypothesized that having experience with performance rating in this way (by making distinctions between employees) increases the self- efficacy of line managers (hypothesis 2).
Appraisal training. As explained earlier, the assessor‟s ability is affected by knowledge of the
appraisal norms, purpose, procedure, and outcomes (Pulakos, 1984). On the one hand, this ability is more present when the assessor has relevant experience in working with these norms and procedures. On the other hand, these norms and procedures can be learned by giving the assessor relevant training. Organizations that invest in training of managers who must do the appraisals are associated with higher levels of fair appraisals (Longenecker, 1989). Frayne and Geringer (2000) argued that training people in a set of behavioural and cognitive strategies assists them in approaching their task, maintaining self-motivation, and raising self-efficacy and performance.
But to be effective, training in appraisal activities and the feedback process must create the efficacy needed to transfer the acquired skills. For this reason, the training must be specific and focused on how to conduct good appraisals (Longenecker, 1989; Gist and Mitchell, 1992; Martocchio and Judge, 1997). Therefore, performance appraisal training must be multifaceted and intense. Equally important are topics such as performance planning, effective supervision, communication, providing feedback, and conflict resolution. Performance appraisal training must be conducted not in isolation but within the context of management training. The training should include skills training and must be designed in such a way that it enhances the motivation to provide accurate appraisals. The goal of training is to enhance the manager‟s self-efficacy and confidence in conducting appraisals and to make him or her feel comfortable in approaching various appraisal situations (Longenecker, 1989; Longenecker and Gioia, 2000).
appraisal; it improves appraisal accuracy. FOR- training aims at establishing a common reference among the assessors as to what constitutes an effective appraisal by establishing the rating standards and showing behavioural examples on various rating dimensions (Dhiman and Singh, 2007). It has been shown to improve appraisal accuracy. Athey and McIntyre (1987) empirically found that FOR- training in comparison to training that is only „information providing‟, improved the distance accuracy, and reduced halo errors1.
In summary, relevant skills training can make line managers feel more comfortable in approaching various appraisal situations. Based on this literature, it is hypothesized that a higher need for training would decrease a line manager‟s self- efficacy and confidence in conducting appraisals (hypothesis 3).
2.3. Contextual related variables and self- efficacy
Transparency. Of the contextual factors, the appraisal system itself is likely to be an important
factor as it provides the immediate framework within which appraisal sessions occur, appraisal information is processed, and evaluations are given (Cederblom 1982; Giles and Mossholder 1990; Klein et al. 1987). The most significant determinants of perceived quality of an instrument are thought to be how easily a rater can understand the content and the instructions, and its sensitivity towards a certain purpose (Murphy and Cleveland, 1991). The design of an effective performance appraisal system is supported by a sound foundation. The critical components of that foundation include clear job descriptions, measurable goals and objectives, and nearly articulated standards of performance (Montague, 2007).
Furthermore, Longenecker and Fink (1999) also argue that supervisors‟ attitudes toward the appraisal system are influenced by practical issues, like the ease of administration and the length and complexity of the form. To be effective, appraisal systems need forms that are simple and easy to understand. Moreover, they say that performance criteria, rating procedures, and feedback should be expressed in terms that are focused and meaningful for both managers and employees. Forms should be designed in such a way that they provide clear information and aid communication between managers and employees about behaviours, work processes, and opportunities for improvement (Longenecker and Fink, 1999).
If the instructions and procedural guidelines are vague and difficult to understand, supervisors will not become motivated to conduct effective appraisals. This will lead to poorly documented, poorly run appraisals in which rating of subordinates are inflated or deflated (Longenecker and Fink, 1999). If an appraisal instrument is viewed as lacking the quality needed to support the task at hand, the manager will be less likely to invest the required effort to collect and process the data, to obtain fair and accurate ratings and to communicate those ratings to the assessee (Wood and Marshall, 2008).
1A halo error occurs when one positive performance aspect causes the rater to rate all other aspects of
More fair and accurate ratings will be produced when the appraisal documentation is simple-to-use and linked to a clear purpose (Ilgen et al. 1992; Ostroff, 1993). Clear goals increase managers‟ motivation and belief to conduct appraisals properly and boost their interest in performance management (Longenecker and Fink, 1999).
In summary, appraisal systems need forms that are clear and simple to be effective. This leads to the hypothesis that transparency of the appraisal guidelines and policies increases a line manager‟s self- efficacy for rating accurately (hypothesis 4).
Appraisal accountability. Accountability refers to the specific expectations and mechanisms by which
appraisers are called to account for their conduct and outcomes of appraisals (Wood and Marshall, 2008). Schlenker et al. (1994) defined accountability as „being answerable to external audiences for performing up to certain prescribed standards thereby fulfilling obligations, duties, expectations, and other charges‟. Furthermore, according to Frink and Klimoski (1998), it is a „felt‟ state, rather than just a norm or rule. Across different accountability situations, a common theme is the felt need for decision- makers to justify their judgments and decisions to others, who may also control the decision- makers‟ valuable rewards (Frink and Klimoski, 1998). Tetlock and colleagues (Tetlock, 1985; Tetlock and Boettger, 1989; Tetlock, Skitka and Boettger, 1989) stated that raters generally have limited motivation and prefer „least effort‟ solutions. These are most of the time solutions that gain the favour of those to whom they feel accountable (Tetlock, 1985).
Under some circumstances, raters will be more motivated to carefully consider their judgments. For example, when it is not clear to what the most acceptable position or rating is for the person(s) to feel accountable to, the rater will use more careful information processing, which will result in more accurate ratings (Tetlock, 1985). Raters who were held accountable for their performance ratings made more accurate ratings than raters who were not held accountable. Accountable raters were more attentive, took more notes, and were more engaged in the simulation than nonaccountable raters (Mero and Motowidlo, 1995).
1989). This increases decision quality and reduces stress (Siegel- Jacobs and Yates, 1996) and might increase an appraiser‟s feeling of having the needed abilities and knowledge of the required work procedures to come to fair performance appraisals.
In case of performance appraisals, the assessor is accountable to multiple constituencies – reviewer, assessee, human resource department etc., depending on the goals these stakeholders pursue, and on their potential to reward the assessor, either tangibly or intangibly (Dhiman and Singh, 2007). Dhiman and Singh (2007) argue that the stronger and more multiple these accountabilities are, the more there is conflict and associated ambiguity for the assessor. This can make the assessors feel less capable of fulfilling their own goals from appraisals and can therefore decrease their self-efficacy, which might result in more appraisal politics (Dhiman and Singh, 2007).
The results of previous research about accountability are not consistent. It is argued that holding managers accountable for their ratings will lead to more accurate ratings. However, holding managers accountable to multiple constituencies with different goals can lead to conflict and less attention to a manager‟s own goals and therefore to a lower self- efficacy. Due to the fact that most researchers found that raters who were held accountable were more motivated to carefully consider their judgments, it is hypothesized that being accountable increases a line manager‟s self- efficacy in making accurate ratings (hypothesis 5).
Management support. The importance of effective performance appraisals should be demonstrated
through the actions of top management (Longenecker and Gioia, 2000). For appraisal systems to be effective, they must get support from top management. Support for effective appraisal practices can be demonstrated through written and oral communications with managers and employees in memos, testimonials, videotaped messages, and company newsletters (Longenecker, 1997). Longenecker (1997) furthermore argues that top executives can also show their support by practicing the same appraisal practices when they appraise managers. Longenecker‟s research (1997) indicates that when top managers do not practice what they preach, lower-level managers mimic these practices instead of the stated policies. Top executives must be models: if they demonstrate fair and effective rating practices, there is a great chance of getting similar behaviour at the lower levels of the organization as well (Longenecker and Gioia, 2000).
If the management views the appraisal process itself as merely a necessary bureaucratic exercise and does not support and encourages the conduction of proper appraisals, this sort of belief system would probably be similar at lower levels of the organization. But if an organization takes performance appraisal seriously from the top down and creates a positive, performance- oriented culture, managers will be more motivated to focus on the appraisals, and will believe that what they do is relevant and important (Longenecker, 1989; Longenecker and Gioiga, 2000).
(Wood and Marshall, 2008). Vigoda (2000) argues that a lack of management support and concern provides the opportunity for political and social pressures within the organization to prevail over the required process.
Having communication with influential others is explained by Bandura (1986) as one of the four sources of self- efficacy. Employees who have managers who recognize them for effectively managing difficult situations or who tell them they are doing a good job, are more likely to develop greater confidence in their own competences (Bandura, 1986). Wood and Bandura (1989) have stated that people will be more likely to exert greater effort and to become successful when they receive realistic encouragements, than when they are troubled by self- doubts. However, if their beliefs of personal efficacy are too high and rise to unrealistic levels, they run the risk of failures that undermine their perceptions of personal efficacy (Wood and Bandura, 1989).
In conclusion, a top management that supports managers by acting as a role model and by giving realistic encouragements will probably get easier acceptance and understanding from managers about the application of the new system and will easier reach the desired behaviours and outcomes. It is therefore hypothesized that support from top management increases line manager‟s self- efficacy in rating (hypothesis 6).
2.4. The quality of leader-member exchange relationship: a moderator
The leader- member exchange relationship (LMX) is the relationship between a supervisor and each individual subordinate (Schyns et al, 2007). More specifically, this relationship is viewed as dyadic or, in other words, as taking place between the supervisor and each of his or her subordinates separately (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995). The LMX- theory suggests that each supervisor- subordinate dyad may involve a somewhat different style of interaction (Dansereau, Cashman, and Graen, 1973). This style of interaction is reflected in the degree to which the leader is accepted and members are loyal to the subordinate, and in the affective reaction of the subordinate to the leader (Fiedler, 1958, in Miner, 2005).
Duarte et al. (1991) argue that for high LMX employees, the positive categorizations which were established initially in the exchange relationship may be retrieved „automatically‟ when making judgments about their current performance. Moreover, raters may have a well- developed categorization in terms of strong expectations about the performance of high LMX employees. A consistent bias in favour of high LMX employees is supported in other studies as well; they also show that there is a positive relationship between high LMX employees and performance ratings and that supervisors were more likely to make more positive attributions about the performance of in- group members instead of the performance of out- group members (e.g. Diensch and Liden, 1986; Heneman, Greenberger, and Anonyuo, 1989). Alexander and Wilkins (1982) found that the nature of the interpersonal relationship was more strongly related to ratings of performance than did objective measures of performance. These researches suggest that high LMX employees will be rated favourably, and they expect a weak relationship between actual and rated performance (Duarte et al., 1991).
However, another study indicates that a low LMX may not be necessarily a negative or undesirable outcome for either the supervisor or employee. Duchon, Green, and Taber (1986) found that differential treatment of out- group members does occur, but does not have to create employee perceptions of inequity or conflict. Furthermore, Graen and Schiemann (1978) showed that leaders and employees in low LMX relationships simply may not have reached a clear agreement regarding various aspects of the job situation. In such a case, the rater may not have formed a fixed impression of out- group employees. The rater may be more inclined to pay attention to actual performance (Williams, Cafferty, and DeNisi, 1990) and it seems that the ratings of employees in low LMX relationships will be more controlled rather than automatic (Duarte, 1991). Raters who are self- efficacious tend to be stricter in their evaluations of others (Brutus et al., 2009). Therefore, raters who are self- efficacious will be less influenced by the quality of the leader- member exchange relationship than are raters with a low self- efficacy.
Figure 1 (below) is a visual picture of the hypotheses:
Figure 1: The research model
Degree of rater (line manager‟s) self- efficacy
3. RESEARCH METHODS
3.1. Procedure
Quantitative research was conducted to gather the data necessary for answering the research question. A questionnaire was sent to all line managers (67) and all coordinating managers (4) of
Westfriesgasthuis because next year all of them have to start with rating their employees by using the new appraisal system (rating for performance). Because it would have cost too much time to interview all line managers, they were asked to fill in a questionnaire. A link that led to the online questionnaire was sent by e- mail to all managers because every manager works with the computer a lot.
Furthermore, the statements of the questionnaire were in Dutch to make it easier for managers to understand them. To make it easier for line managers to fill in the questionnaire, the new form „yearly conversations and personal development plan‟ was sent to everyone. This form includes directions for the appraisal conversations in the new performance appraisal system. Moreover, the questionnaire was anonymous to limit the non- response rate.
The questionnaire contained three general questions, forty- six statements, and one open question, and was built up from five variables that influence the degree of a rater‟s self- efficacy and the fairness of the performance appraisal, and one moderator (the quality of the leader- member relationship). An overview of the statements can be found in appendix I.
The link that led to the questionnaire was sent by e-mail to 71 managers. Nineteen of them participated immediately. After sending two reminder e-mails, finally 32 managers filled in the questionnaire. This has led to a response rate of 45%.
3.2. Respondents
Four of the 32 respondents work for the „cutting specialties‟ working field, seven are part of the „contemplative specialties‟ working field, ten are working for the work field „supportive intervention‟, and four for the working field „facilities‟. Six are working for the departments DBZA, I&MT or HRM, and one respondent is part of the Board of WFG.
The largest group, 47% of the respondents, has a length of job tenure less than or equal to five years. 16% has a job tenure between six and ten years, 19% between eleven and fifteen years, 6% between sixteen and twenty years and 12% of 21 years or longer.
3.3. Measures
Self- efficacy. Self- efficacy is measured by a revised ten item scale measure (PASE) of Wood
and Marshall (2008) and by a revised performance appraisal self- efficacy scale (PASES) for raters used by Bernardin and Villanova (2005). Two items of Bernardin and Villanova‟s scale are used: „process features of the appraisal‟ and „suggesting performance improvement‟, with an acceptable reliability of α = .68 and α = .73 respectively. Both scales are combined, which has resulted in six statements to measure line managers‟ self- efficacy in rating. Examples of statements are: I can gather
sufficient information to make an evaluation and I can give examples of behaviour to appraisees to support ratings.
Personal factors. Appraisal experience is measured by four statements based on the theory of
Peng (2008). One statement is about observational experience and one about enactive experience. The other two statements ask whether the experiences (of rating for performance or being rated for
performance) were positive.
In addition, to measure the need for appraisal training, a part of the questionnaire of Williams and Levy (1992), who based their questionnaire on items from Lawler (1981) and Nelson and Frew (1980), is used. An example of one of those items is: I would benefit from additional training in the
appraisal process. The internal consistency reliability was acceptable (α = .89).
A Likert five point scale is used to measure both personal factors, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Contextual factors. Items of Lawler (1981) and Nelson and Levy (1991) were also used to
measure the transparency of the appraisal guidelines and policies. Like said before, the internal consistency of these items is acceptable (α = .89). The items were combined with some measures Wood and Marshall (2008) used in their research and the items were translated into seven statements, like: I understand the objectives of the present performance appraisal system and I understand the
performance appraisal system being used in this organization.
To measure manager accountability, statements about this subject from the researches of Bernardin and Villanova (2005) are asked, with an acceptable reliability of α = .83. Furthermore, again some statements of Wood and Marshall (2008) were used. However, only four statements out of these researches were relevant for this research. An example is: I can explain to a person of higher authority
the reasons for assigned ratings.
For the third contextual factor, management support, five statements out of the research of Grover (1993), Krumwiede (1998) (with an acceptable internal scale reliability of α = .96) and Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1995) were used. Some examples are: Top management provided adequate
resources to support the new appraisal system implementation effort and Top management effectively communicated its support for the new appraisal system.
Quality of leader- member relationship. To measure the quality of the leader- member
relationship, multiple resources were used to come to ten statements (Graen and Uhl- Bien, 1995; Liden et al; 2006; Tziner, 1996; Bernardin and Villanova, 2005). The measure contained some reversed coded items like: Some of my employees are the kind of person I would like to have as a
friend, For some employees I will do more than for others and The employees with whom I have a better relationship I will give a better performance appraisal to . A five point Likert scale is used here
as well, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Fairness of given performance appraisal. To measure manager‟s rating accuracy directly,
five statements out of the research of Wood and Marshall (2008) and Villanova et al. (1993) were submitted. To answer the statements a Likert five point scale with a range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used. An example of one the five statements is: I can assign accurate
ratings.
3.4. Data analysis
Self- efficacy is the dependent variable and has an influence on the fairness of a performance appraisal. The personal and contextual factors that influence the degree of a rater‟s self- efficacy are independent variables. The variable „quality of the leader- member relationship‟ is the moderating variable that might influence the relationship between self- efficacy and the fairness of the
performance appraisal.
To find outhow the personal and work related variables influence a rater‟s self- efficacy, how this self- efficacy influences the fairness of the given performance appraisal and to determine the influence of the leader- member relationship, the statistical program SPSS is used.
To do a correlation analysis and regression analyses, the statements of the questionnaire were calculated into the seven variables explained before: experience, training, transparency, accountability, management support, self- efficacy, and fairness of the performance appraisal. Before the tests could have been done, the Cronbach Alpha‟s were measured. The Cronbach Alpha‟s indicate the extent to
which a set of test items can be treated as measuring a single latent variable. All of them were
sufficient (they were higher than 0.6), so the tests could be applied.
4. RESULTS
4.1. Correlation Analysis
Table 1 (Appendix II) represents the means, standard deviations and the results of the Pearson correlation analysis between the personal related variables, the contextual related variables, and rater self- efficacy. Furthermore, the Pearson correlation between self- efficacy and the fairness of the performance can be found in table 1 as well.
The results show a positive correlation (r = .345) between experience and self- efficacy. However, this relation is not significant. In addition, the need for training has a negative relationship with rater self- efficacy (r = -.267). This implies that managers who think they need training for an effective use of the new appraisal system have a lower self- efficacy. However, this relationship is not significant either. Of the contextual variables, transparency of the appraisal guidelines and policies is strong positive significantly related to rater self- efficacy (r = .508, p < .01), in accordance with hypothesis 3. Furthermore, according to hypothesis 4, appraisal accountability has a strong positive significant relation with rater self- efficacy (r = .596, p < .01). The third contextual variable,
management support, is positively related to rater self- efficacy as well (r = .238) but this relationship is not significant.
Remarkable is the relationship between experience and the fairness of the performance
appraisal. Although experience does not have a significant relationship with self- efficacy, it does have a significant relationship with the fairness of the performance appraisal (r = .416, p < .05). The
correlation between transparency and accountability is quite high (r = .563, p <.01) and significant, this is remarkable as well. Also a positive significant correlation exist between experience and accountability (r = .387, p <.05).
Furthermore, the correlation between self- efficacy and the fairness of the performance appraisal is quite high and significant (r = .648, p < .01), which is in accordance with hypothesis 1.
___________________________ Insert table 1 here
___________________________
4.2. Single Regression Analyses
The results of the regression analysis between rater self- efficacy and the fairness of the performance appraisal represent a positive significant causal relationship, in accordance with hypothesis 1. Therefore hypothesis 1, which states that the higher the self- efficacy of a rater is, the more fair the performance appraisal will be, can be accepted. A rater‟s self- efficacy explains 47.9% of the variance of the fairness of the performance appraisal (R2 = .479, F = 27.58, p = .000).
To determine the influence of each independent variable, five single regression analyses are applied. Experience explains almost 12% of the variance of a rater‟s self- efficacy, but there is not a significant relationship (R2 = .119, p = .053). The need for training does not have a significant influence either (R2
= .071, P = .139). The transparency of appraisal guidelines and policies explain 25.8% of the variance of a rater‟s self- efficacy and this is a positive significant causal relationship (R2 = .258, p = .003).
Accountability has a positive significant causal relationship with rater self- efficacy as well and explains 35.5% of the variance (R2 =.355, p = .000). These results imply that a higher transparency of
guidelines and policies leads to a higher self- efficacy of raters. In addition, holding managers
accountable for the given appraisals leads to a higher rater self- efficacy as well. Management support does not show a significant relationship (R2 =.057, p = .190). Therefore, a higher management support
will not lead to a higher self- efficacy of a rater.
___________________________ Insert tables 2 - 6 here ___________________________
4.3. Multiple Regression Analyses
Personal related variables and rater self- efficacy. The results of the regression analysis show
that the two personal factors together have a positive significant influence on rater self- efficacy (R2 =
.211, F = 3.875, p = .032). Experience and training together explain 21.1% of the variance of rater self- efficacy.
The results show a significant positive relation between appraisal experience and a rater‟s self efficacy (β = .371, t = 2.239, p = .033). This result is consistent with hypothesis 2: having experience with performance rating in this way (by making distinctions between employees) increases the self- efficacy of line managers. No significant relation is found between the need for training and a rater‟s self efficacy, so hypothesis 3 cannot be confirmed.
___________________________ Insert table 7 here
Contextual related variables and rater self- efficacy. The three contextual factors together have a
positive significant relationship with rater self- efficacy. They explain 42.5% of the variance (R2 =
.425, F = 6.903, p = .001). Although the contextual related variables together are significant, the results show only one significant positive relation. This concerns the relationship between the accountability of the manager and a rater‟s self- efficacy (β = .461, t = 2.655, p = .013). The
relationships with transparency of the system and management support are positive as well. However, these relationships are not significant. Therefore, the results imply that hypothesis 5 can be accepted: being accountable increases a line manager‟s self- efficacy in making accurate ratings. Hypotheses 4 and 6 cannot be confirmed.
___________________________ Insert table 8 here
___________________________
4.4. Moderator Analysis
Before applying the moderator analysis, the variables were centred to reduce the likelihood of multicollinearity problems. By running the regression the new created variables were used.
Self- efficacy and the quality of the relationship between the leader and the member explain 43.8% of the variance of the fairness of the performance appraisal and the relationship is significant (R2 = .438,
F = 7.264, p = .001).
However, while self- efficacy influences the fairness of the performance appraisal (β = .608, t = 3.979, p = .000), the quality of the LMX- relationship does not have a significant influence on this relationship. While a rater‟s self- efficacy does influence the fairness of the performance appraisal significantly positive, a rater‟s self- efficacy in combination with the leader- member exchange relationship shows a negative relationship. This implies that a higher self- efficacy leads to a more fair performance appraisal but when the leader- member exchange relationship is high, it will result in a less fair performance appraisal. However, this relation is not significant and therefore hypothesis 7 cannot be confirmed.
___________________________ Insert table 9 here
5. DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to investigate to what extent personal related and contextual related variables influence a rater‟s self efficacy and the fairness of the performance appraisals in
Westfriesgasthuis. Based on findings of previous studies, the focus in this study is on the personal related variables „appraisal experience‟ and „appraisal training‟, and on the contextual related variables „transparency of appraisal guidelines and policies‟, „appraisal accountability‟, and „management support‟. Furthermore, the impact of the quality of the leader- member exchange relationship has been determined. The results of the study should provide the human resource department of
Westfriesgasthuis a better insight in the factors that influence the self- efficacy of the line managers who are going to give the performance appraisals, which influences the fairness of the performance appraisals. Therefore, the results should make the human resource department of Westfriesgasthuis more able to take appropriate preparations before implementation of the performance appraisal system next year.
Previous studies have shown that experience, transparency of the appraisal guidelines and policies, accountability, and management support positively influence the self- efficacy of managers who have to give performance appraisals. For this reason, it was hypothesized that when one or more of these variables are present, the self- efficacy of a rater would increase. In contradiction to these expected positive relationships, it was hypothesized that a higher need for appraisal training would decrease a rater‟s self- efficacy. Furthermore it was expected that a higher rater self- efficacy would increase the fairness of the performance appraisals. In addition, it was hypothesized that when a line manager‟s self- efficacy is high, the kind of relationship he or she has with the subordinate will have less influence on the fairness of the performance appraisal.
5.1. Results and remarks
In accordance with the hypothesis, the correlation and regression analyses have shown a positive significant relationship between rater self- efficacy and the fairness of the performance appraisal.
Personal related variables. Positive experiences with the performance appraisal system (pay-
for- performance system) indeed increase manager‟s self- efficacy and the fairness of the appraisals. A positive significant relationship is found between these two variables. However, the single regression analysis did not show a significant relationship (a significance level of .053). By putting the variables „experience‟ and „need for training‟ together in a multiple regression analysis, the influence of experience became significant.
significant correlation exists between experience and accountability. This relation might be explained by the fact that line managers with performance appraisal experience find it easier to explain their motivations to different parties.
The other personal related variable, the need for appraisal training, does not show a significant relationship with a rater‟s self- efficacy. While previous studies mentioned a negative relation, in this study the need for training itself does not influence a rater‟s self- efficacy significantly. A possible explanation for the fact that no correlation is found could be that most line managers at WFG
understand the meaning of the appraisal system and think that the forms are clear enough. However, it might be that they do not really realize that the appraisal conversations require meaningful examples and directions because the system is not implemented yet. Managers might think they do not need a lot of training for increasing their self- efficacy and for giving more fair performance appraisals.
However, it could be the case that they underestimate the relevance of having the right skills to give accurate and objective ratings.
Contextual related variables. The variable transparency of the appraisal guidelines and
policies is highly correlated with self- efficacy. The single regression analysis represents a positive significant relationship. However, the multiple regression analysis does not show a significant relationship. This difference might be explained by the high correlation coefficient of the two variables transparency and accountability. This is called multicollinearity. Because the variables are highly correlated, they explain the same part of the variation of self- efficacy. Their explanatory power and the significance of the coefficients are „divided up‟ between transparency and accountability. However, because of the outcomes of the single regression analysis and of the answers on the open question at the end of the questionnaire, transparency seems to be important for a manager‟s feeling to give accurate, fair, and clear appraisals to their employees.
The regression analyses show that accountability is positive significantly related to rater‟s self- efficacy. When managers think they are allowed to give all parties (higher manager, other employees, HRM department) good reasons and motivations for the ratings they have given to their employees, they have a higher self- efficacy. This result is in contrast to some previous studies in which it is stated that the more an assessor is hold accountable to multiple constituencies, the more there is conflict and associated ambiguity for the assessor. While those studies say it will make assessors feel that they are less capable of fulfilling their own goals from appraisals which will decrease their self-efficacy, this study concluded the opposite.
Management support does not have a significant relationship with self- efficacy. While the answers of the respondents make clear that almost everyone thinks that the management („MT‟) must support the implementation of the system and must provide the necessary sources, the regression analyses show that it is not a necessary factor for increasing line manager‟s self- efficacy in rating.
The moderator. The quality of the LMX- relationship has a negative influence on the positive
self- efficacy leads to a more fair performance appraisal, but when the leader- member exchange relationship is high, it will result in a less fair performance appraisal. However, this relation is not significant. For this reason, the quality of the LMX- relationship cannot be seen as a moderating variable. The respondents think they will not be influenced by the kind of relationship they have with the employee by giving the performance appraisal.
5.2. Strengths and weaknesses
Besides the outcomes, it is also important to give attention to the strengths and weaknesses of the study. A strength of this study is the distinction of personal related and contextual related variables that might influence the self- efficacy of a rater. This distinction makes clear what kind of variables influences the self- efficacy of a rater most. This study shows that the contextual related variables influence the self- efficacy of raters more than do the personal related variables. In addition, it takes into account the quality of the relationship between the line manager and the employee which could have had an influence on the fairness of the performance appraisals.
As with most studies, this research has some limitations. The first limitation is the response rate of 45%. While this percentage is high enough to do a reliable research, the study would have been more reliable when the response rate would have been higher. The second limitation is that only five influencing factors on rater self- efficacy are investigated. Other variables, personality characteristics of a rater for example, also might influence self- efficacy, as is shown is past research (Ilgen and Favero, 1985; Bernardin et al., 2000). Furthermore, this research has taken into account the most important factors which in past research are found to have empirical evidence on the self- efficacy of raters and the fairness of performance appraisals. However, the variances (21.1% for the personal related and 43.8% for the contextual related variables) imply that more variables have their influence on the self- efficacy of a rater. Furthermore, the need for training could have been split in training for doing conversations with the employee, and training for giving a final appraisal. This study combines the two: while some might have difficulties with filling in the appraisal forms, others might have difficulties with presenting and motivating this appraisal to the employee. Finally, this study focuses on the situation in Westfriesgasthuis and does not take into account other organizations. People need to be aware of this when using the study results.
5.3. Main conclusions and recommendations
represent a significant relation in the multiple regression analysis, it does in the single regression analysis and therefore it should be wise for the HRM department to take a look at the performance appraisal system again, and especially to the appraisal form. The forms need to be focused, meaningful, and clear for the line managers to make effective use of it. Also important is a clear understanding of the form for the employees who will be appraised, so they will understand why they have received a certain appraisal and understand what they need to do to develop themselves and to receive a better performance appraisal next time. In this case, the education department plays an important role as well. The trainers should be aware of this and have to give special attention to it during the training sessions that are going to be given to the line managers. Furthermore, it is a possibility to let an employee appraise himself/ herself, and to discuss the differences between this self- appraisal and the appraisal given by the line manager during the third conversation of the year. Moreover, during the training sessions attention must be given to „how to fill in the performance appraisal form‟ and „how to have the most effective appraisal conversations with the employee‟ separately.
The results also imply that the line managers must be hold accountable, for both the appraisal procedure and the appraisal outcome. By their awareness of being accountable and the need to explain motivations and reasons for a certain performance appraisal to multiple constituencies, managers will be more motivated to consider their judgments. This will increase their self- efficacy and will
positively influence the fairness of the performance appraisal. It might be good to give attention to this during the training. It would be good to explain the line managers that they are accountable and need to be able to explain their judgments to different parties. It might be too time consuming to do this for every performance appraisal but it might be an idea to let the line managers explain the appraisals with a higher or lower outcome than average, or just a random selected number of appraisals.
Another difficulty that becomes clear after reading the answers of the open question, is the fact that some line managers have more employees to give performance appraisals to, than do have others. For these line managers, the new performance appraisal system will become a very time consuming activity. A possibility of solving this „problem‟ might be to delegate a number of performance
appraisals that have to be given to senior employees of the department. However, this case needs to be considered in advance to make sure that these senior employees have the chance to participate on the training sessions as well. A second benefit of delegating a number of performance appraisals which have to be given, is that these senior employees work with the other employees more often than does the line manager. This will make it easier to motivate an appraisal and to give examples of behaviour of the employees.
5.4. Final comments and future research
human resource department and the education department of WFG are able to give special attention to these influencing variables during presentations, manuals, and training sessions, before the appraisal system will be implemented officially.
REFERENCES
Alexander, E. R. and Wilkins, R. D. 1982. Performance rating validity: The relationship of objective and subjective measures of performance. Group & Organization Studies, 7: 485-496.
Athey, T. R. and McIntyre, R. M. 1987. Effect of rater training on rater accuracy: levels- of- processing theory and social facilitation theory perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72: 567-572.
Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. 1982. Self-efficacy mechanism human agency. American Psychologist. 37: 122-147.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. 1988. Self-efficacy conception of anxiety. Anxiety Research, 1: 77-98. Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. and Cervone, D. 1983. Self-evaluative and self- efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45: 1017-1028. Bandura, A. and Cervone, D. 1986. Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38: 92-113.
Bandura, A. and Locke, E. A. 2003. Negative self- efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88: 87-99.
Bernardin, H. J., Cooke, D. K., and Villanova, P. 2000. Conscientiousness and agreeableness as predictors of rating leniency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 232-236.
Bernardin H. J. and Villanova, P. 2005. Research streams in rater self- efficacy. Group &
Organization Management, 30: 61-88.
Brown, R. 2009. Why pay for performance merits your attention. Rural Telecom, 28 (5): 32-38. Brutus, S., Fletcher. C., and Baldry, C. 2009. The influence of independent self-construal on rater self- efficacy in performance appraisal. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20: 1999-2011.
Buchenroth, P. 2006. Driving performance: Making pay work for the organization. Compensation &
Benefits Review, 38 (3): 30-35.
Buelens M., Van den Broek H., and Van der Heyden, K. 2006. Organizational Behaviour. McGraw-Hill Education, Berkshire.
Cederblom, D. 1982. The performance appraisal interview: a review, implications and suggestions.
Academy of Management Review, 7: 219-227.
Cooper, R. G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. 1995. Benchmarking the firm‟s critical success factors in new product development. The journal of product innovation management, 12.5: 374-392.
Dansereau, F. Cashman, J., and Graen, G. 1973. Instrumentality theory and equity theory as
complementary approaches in predicting the relationships of leadership and turnover among managers.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10: 184-200.
Dhiman, A. and Singh, M. 2007. Appraisal politics: revisiting from assessor‟s perceptive. Vikalpa:
The Journal for Decision Makers, 32: 75-87.
Dienesch, R. M. and Liden, R. C. 1986. Leader–member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11: 618–634.
Duarte, N. T., Goodson, J. R., and Klich, N. R. 1991. When time heals all ratings: the interactive effects of time in the supervisor- subordinate relationship on the accuracy of performance appraisal.
Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings: 262-266.
Duchon, D., Green S. G., and Taber, T. D. 1986. Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 56-60.
Frayne, C. A. and Geringer, J. M. 2000. Self- management training for improving job performance: a field experiment involving salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 361-372.
Frink, D. and Klimoski, R. 1998. Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resources management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 16: 1-51. Garavan, T. N. 2001. Competencies and workplace learning: Some reflections on the rhetoric and the reality. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13: 144-164.
Gerstner, C. R. and Day, D. V. 1997. Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 827–844.
Ghorpade, J. and Chen, M.M. 1995. Creating quality-driven performance appraisal systems. Academy
of Management Executive, 9: 32–39.
Giles, W. F. and Mossholder, K. W. 1990. Employee reactions to contextual and session components of performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 371-377.
Gist, M. E. 1989. The influence of training method on self- efficacy and idea generation among managers. Personnel Psychology, 42: 787-805.
Gist, M. E. and Mitchell, T. B. 1992. Self- efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of management review, 17: 183-211.
Graen, G. 1976. Role-making processes within complex organizations. In Dunnette, M.D. (Eds.)
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: 1201-1245. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Graen, G. B. and Schiemann, W. 1978. Leader- member exchange: a vertical dyad linkage approach.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 63: 206-212.
Grover, V. 1993. An empirically derived model for the adoption of customer-based interorganizational systems. Decision Sciences, 24: 603–640.
Hendry, C., Bradley, P., and Perkins, S. 1997. Missed a Motivator?. People Management, 3: 21–25. Heneman, R. L., Greenberger, D. B., and Anonyuo, D. B. 1989. Attributions and exchanges: the effects of interpersonal factors on the diagnosis of employee performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 32: 466-476.
Holahan, C. K. and Holahan, C. J. 1987. Self-efficacy, social support, and depression in aging: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Gerontology, 42: 65-68.
Ilgen, D.R., Barnes-Farrell, J.L., and McKellin, D.B. 1992. „Performance appraisal process research in the 1980s: what has it contributed to appraisals in use?‟ Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 54: 321–368.
Ilgen, D.R. and Favero, J.L. 1985. Limits in generalization from psychological research to performance appraisal processes. Academy of Management Review, 10: 311-321.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., and Morgeson, F. P. 2007. Leader–member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 269–277.
Jacobs, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., and Rogers, R. W. 1984. Understanding persistence: An interface of control theory and self-efficacy theory. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5: 333-347.
Kanfer, R. and Zeiss, A. M. 1983. Depression, interpersonal standard-setting, and judgments of self-efficacy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92: 319-329.
Klein, H. J., Snell, S. A., and Wesley, K.N. 1987. Systems Model of the performance appraisal interview process. Industrial Relations, 26: 267-280.
Krumwiede, K. R. 1998. The implementation stages of activity based costing and the impact of contextual and organizational factors. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10: 239–277.
Landsberg, R.D. 2009. How to make pay for performance pay off. Journal of Financial Service
Professionals, 63 (6): 12-13.
Lawler, E. E. 1981. Pay and organization development. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesly. Lazarus, R. S. and Folkman, S. 1984. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Lerner, J. S. and Tetlock, P. E. 1999. “Accounting for the Effects of Accountability,” Psychological
Bulletin, 125: 255-275.
Liden, R.C. and Graen, G. 1980. Generalizability of the vertical dyadic linkage model of leadership.
Academy of Management Journal, 28: 291-308.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., and Wayne, S. J. 1997. Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Research in Human Resource Management, 15: 47-119.
Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., and Wayne, S. J. 2006. Leader- member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational
Longenecker, C. O. 1989. Truth or consequences: politics and performance appraisals. Business
Horizons, 32: 76.
Longenecker, C. O. 1997. Why managerial performance appraisals are ineffective: causes and lessons.
Career Development International, 2/5: 212-218.
Longenecker, C. O. and Fink, L. S. 1999. Creating effective performance appraisal. Industrial
Management, 41: 18.
Longenecker, C. O. and Gioia, D. A. 2000. Confronting the „politics‟ in performance appraisal.
Business Forum, 25: 17.
Martocchio, J. J. and Judge, T. A. 1997. Relationship between conscientiousness and learning in employee training: mediating influences of self- deception and self- efficacy. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82: 764-773.
Meichenbaum, D. H. 1977. Cognitive-behavior modification: An integrative approach. New York: Plenum Press.
Mero, N. P. and Motowidlo, S. J. 1995. “Effect of Rater‟s Accountability on Accuracy and Favourability of Performance Rating,”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80: 517-524.
Minder, J. B. 2005. Organizational Behavior: Essential theories of motivation and leadership. M. E. Sharpe, Inc., New York.
Montague, N. 2007. The performance appraisal: a powerful management tool. Management
Quarterly, 48: 40-53.
Murphy K. R. and Cleveland J. N. 1991. Performance appraisal: An organizational perspective.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Murphy K. R. and Cleveland J. N. 1995. Understanding performance appraisal – Social,
organizational, and goal-based perspectives. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Nelson, D. and Frew, M. K. 1980. Survey of opinion on performance appraisal methods and issues. Unpublished manuscript, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., and Wright, P. M. 2006. Human Resource Management. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Ostroff, C. 1993. Rater perceptions, satisfaction and performance ratings. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66: 345–356.
Ozer, E. and Bandura, A. 1989. Mechanisms governing empowerment effects: A self-efficacy
analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Peng, W. 2008. The mediational role of identification in the relationship between experience mode and self- efficacy: enactive role- playing versus passive observation. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11: 649-652.
Pulakos, E. D. 1984. A Comparison of Training Programs: Error Training and Accuracy Training,”
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 581-588.
Rusaw, C. 2009. Professionalism under the „Performace- Based- Pay‟ reform: A critical assessment and alternative development model. Public Personnel Management, 38 (4): 35-54.
Sarason, I. G. 1975. Anxiety and self-preoccupation. In L G. Sarason & D. C. Spielberger (Eds.),
Stress and anxiety (Vol. 2, p. 27-44). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., and Doherty, K. 1994. The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101: 632-652.
Schyns, N. T., Torka, N., and Gössling, T. Turnover intention and preparedness for change: Exploring leader- member exchange and occupational self- efficacy as antecedents of two employability
predictors. Career Development International, 12: 660-679.
Seigel-Jacobs, K. and Yates, J. F. 1996. Effects of Procedural and Outcome Accountability on Judgement Quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65: 1-17.
Tams, S. 2007. Constructing self- efficacy at work: a person- centered perspective. Personnel Review, 37: 165-183.
Tetlock, P. E. 1985. Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. p. 297-332 in B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 7. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Tetlock, P. E. and L Boettger, R. 1989. Accountability: A social magnifier of the dilution effect.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 388-398.
Tetlock, P. E., Skitka, L., and Boettger, R. 1989. Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: Conformity, complexity, and bolstering. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57: 632-640.
Tziner, A., Latham, G. P., and Price, B. S. 1996. Development and validation of a questionnaire for measuring perceived political considerations in performance appraisal. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 17: 179-190.
Vigoda, E. 2000. Organizational politics, job attitudes, and work outcomes: exploration and implications for the public sector. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57: 326–347.
Villanova, P., Bernardin, H. J., Dahmus, S. A., and Sims, R. L. 1993. Rater Leniency and Performance Appraisal Discomfort. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53: 789–799.
Weinberg, R. S., Gould, D., and Jackson, A. 1979. Expectations and performance: An empirical test of Bandura's self- efficacy theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1: 320-331.
Williams, J. 2006. Making the grade with pay for performance: 7 lessons from best- performing hospitals. Healthcare Financial Management, 60 (12): 78-85.
Williams, K., Cafferty T., and DeNisi, A. 1990. The effect of performance appraisal salience on recall and ratings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes: 46: 217-239.
Witt, L.A. 1998. Enhancing organizational goal congruence: a solution to organizational politics.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 666–674.
Wood, R. and Bandura, A. 1989. Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of
Wood, R. E. and Marshall, V. 2008. Accuracy and effectiveness in appraisal outcomes: the influence of self- efficacy, personal factors and organisational variables. Human Resource Management
