Rater reactions to forced distribution rating systems

Journal of Management

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 899-927

  Schleicher, Deidra J ^a   Bull, Rebecca A ^a   Green, Stephen G ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Fairness; Forced distribution ratings; Performance appraisal; Rater reactions

Indexed keywords

EID: 70249102497     PISSN: 01492063     EISSN: 15571211     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0149206307312514     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Balzer, W. K., & Sulsky, L. M. 1990. Performance appraisal effectiveness. In K. R. Murphy & F. E. Saal (Eds.), Psychology in organizations: Integrating science and practice: 133-156. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3. Bandura, A. 1982. Self-efficacy mechanisms in human agency. American Psychologist, 37: 122-147.
4. Banks, C. G., & Murphy, K. R. 1985. Toward narrowing the research-practice gap in performance appraisal. Personnel Psychology, 38: 335-345.
5. Bannister, B. D., & Balkin, D. B. 1990. Performance evaluation and compensation feedback messages: An integrated model. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63: 97-111.
6. Bates, S. 2003. Forced rankling. HR Magazine, 48: 62-68.
7. Bernardin, H. J., Cooke, D. K., & Villanova, P. 2000. Conscientiousness and agreeableness as predictors of rating leniency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 232-236.
8. Bernardin, H. J., & Orban, J. A. 1990. Leniency effect as a function of rating format, purpose for appraisal, and rater individual differences. Journal of Business and Psychology, 5: 197-211.
9. Blume, B. D., Baldwin, T. T., & Ruben, R. S. 2005. Forced ranking: Who is attracted to it? A study of performance management system preferences. Paper presented at the 65th annual Academy of Management Conference, Honolulu, HI.
10. Blume, B. D., Baldwin, T. T., & Ruben, R. S. 2006. All forced distribution systems are not created equal: A policy capturing study. Paper presented at the 66th annual Academy of Management Conference, Atlanta, GA.
11. Boyle, M. 2001. Performance reviews: Perilous curves ahead. Fortune, 143(11): 187.
12. Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. 2001. Emotion and motivation I: Defensive and appetitive reactions in picture processing. Emotion, 1: 276-298.
13. Brett, J. F., & Atwater, L. E. 2001. 360-degree feedback: Accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 930-942.
14. Bretz, R. D., Milkovich, G. T., & Read, W. 1992. The current state of performance appraisal research and practice: Concerns, directions, and implications. Journal of Management, 18: 321-352.
15. Brown, M., & Benson, J. 2003. Rated to exhaustion? Reactions to performance appraisal processes. Industrial Relations Journal, 34: 67-81.
16. Cardy, R. L., & Dobbins, G. H. 1994. Performance appraisal: Alternative perspectives. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
17. Chatterjee, S., & Heath, T. B. 1996. Conflict and loss aversion in multiattribute choice: The effects of trade-off size and reference dependence on decision difficulty. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67: 144-155.
18. Cheung, S. F., Chan, D. K.-S., & Wong, Z. S.-Y. 1999. Reexamining the theory of planned behavior in understanding wastepaper recycling. Environment and Behavior, 31: 587-612.
19. Cleveland, J. N., Morrison, R., & Bjerke, D. 1986. Rater intentions in appraisal ratings: Malevolent manipulation or functional fudging. Paper presented at the first annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago.
20. Cleveland, J. N., Murphy, K. R., & Williams, R. E. 1989. Multiple uses of performance appraisal: Prevalence and correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 130-135.
21. Cobb, A. T., & Frey, F. M. 1996. The effects of leader fairness and pay outcomes on superior/subordinate relations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26: 1401-1426.
22. Colquitt, J. A. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 386-400.
23. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C., & Ng, K. 2001. Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 425-445.
24. Condrey, S. E. 1995. Reforming human resource management systems: Exploring the importance of organizational trust. American Review of Public Administration, 25: 341-354.
25. Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. 2000. A meta-analysis of response rates in Web- or Internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60: 821-836.
26. Deckop, J. R., Mangel, R., & Cirka, C. C. 1999. Getting more than you pay for: Organizational citizenship behavior and pay-for-performance plans. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 420-428.
27. Dickson, J. M., & MacLeod, A. K. 2004. Anxiety, depression, and approach and avoidance goals. Cognition and Emotion, 18: 423-430.
28. Diener, E., Smith, H., & Fujita, F. 1995. The personality structure of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69: 130-141.
29. Dillman, D. A. 2000. Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: John Wiley.
30. Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. 2002. Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82: 804-818.
31. Erdogan, B. 2002. Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in performance appraisals. Human Resource Management Review, 12: 555-578.
32. Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. 2001. Procedural justice as a two-dimensional construct: An examination in the performance appraisal account. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37(2): 205-222.
33. Fedor, D. B., Bettenhausen, K. L., & Davis, W. 1999. Peer reviews: Employees' dual roles as raters and recipients. Group & Organization Management, 24: 92-120.
34. Findley, H. M., Giles, W. F., & Mossholder, K. W. 2000. Performance appraisal process and system facets: Relationships with contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 634-640.
35. Fletcher, C. 2001. Performance appraisal and management: The developing research agenda. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74: 473-487.
36. Folger, R., Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. 1992. A due process metaphor for performance appraisal. Research in Organizational Behavior, 14: 129-177.
37. Fusaro, P. C., & Miller, R. M. 2002. What went wrong at Enron: Everyone's guide to the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
38. Gati, I., Krausz, M., & Osipow, S. H. 1996. A taxonomy of difficulties in career decision making. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43: 510-526.
39. Graen, G., & Scandura, T. 1987. Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9: 175-208.
40. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member-exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 219-247.
41. Greenberg, J. 1986. Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 340-342.
42. Greenberg, J. 1990. Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 561-568.
43. Guralnik, O., Rozmarin, E., & So, A. 2004. Forced distribution: Is it right for you? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15: 339-345.
44. Harris, M. M. 1994. Rater motivation in the performance appraisal context: A theoretical framework. Journal of Management, 20: 737-756.
45. HayGroup. 2002. Achieving outstanding performance through a "culture of dialogue". Working paper, HayGroup, Philadelphia.
46. Hillman, C. H., Rosengren, K. S., & Smith, D. P. 2004. Emotion and motivated behavior: Postural adjustments to affective picture viewing. Biological Psychology, 66: 51-62.
47. Houston, D. A., Sherman, S. J., & Baker, S. M. 1991. Feature matching, unique features, and the dynamics of the choice process-Predecision conflict and postdecision satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27: 411-430.
48. Ilgen, D. R., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & McKellin, D. B. 1993. Performance appraisal process research in the 1980's: What has it contributed to appraisals in use? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54: 321-368.
49. Jawahar, I. M., & Williams, C. R. 1997. Where all the children are above average: The performance appraisal purpose effect. Personnel Psychology, 50: 905-925.
50. Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., & Levine, R. 2004. A comparison of Web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68: 94-102.
51. Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. 2000. Performance appraisal reactions: Measurement, modeling, and method bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 708-723.
52. Korsgaard, M. A., & Roberson, L. 1995. Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions. Journal of Management, 21: 657-669.
53. Lee, M., & Son, B. 1998. The effects of appraisal review content on employees' reactions and performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9: 203-214.
54. Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. 2004. The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the future. Journal of Management, 30: 881-905.
55. London, M., Casey, J., Chatterjee, S., & Hurley, A. 1997. Effects of information frame, response frame, and goal on personnel decision making. Journal of Psychology, 131: 225-240.
56. Longenecker, C. O., Sims, H. P., & Gioia, D. A. 1987. Behind the mask: The politics of employee appraisal. Academy of Management Executive, 1: 183-193.
57. Maroney, B. P., & Buckely, M. R. 1992. Does research in performance appraisal influence the practice of performance appraisal? Regretfully not! Public Personnel Management, 21: 185-196.
58. McBriarty, M. A. 1988. Performance appraisal: Some unintended consequences. Public Personnel Management, 17: 421-434.
59. Meisler, A. 2003. Dead man's curve. Workforce, 82: 44-49.
60. Meyer, H. H., Kay, E., & French, R. P. 1965. Split roles in performance appraisal. Harvard Business Review, 43: 123-129.
61. Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. 1991. Performance appraisal: An organizational perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
62. Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. 1995. Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
63. Nalbandian, J. 1981. Performance appraisal: If only people were not involved. Public Administration Review, 41: 392-396.
64. Napier, N. K., & Latham, G. P. 1986. Outcome expectancies of people who conduct performance appraisals. Personnel Psychology, 39: 827-837.
65. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879-903.
66. Scullen, S. E., Bergey, P. K., & Aiman-Smith, L. 2005. Forced distribution rating systems and the improvement of workforce potential: A baseline simulation. Personnel Psychology, 59: 1-32.
67. Sears, D., & McDermott, D. 2003. The rise and fall of rank and yank. Information Strategy: The Executive's Journal, 19: 6-11.
68. Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O'Connor, C. 1987. Emotion knowledge-Further exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52: 1061-1086.
69. Shiloh, S., Koren, S., & Zakay, D. 2001. Individual differences in compensatory decision-making style and need for closure as correlates of subjective decision complexity and difficulty. Personality and Individual Differences, 30: 699-710.
70. Smither, J. W. 1998. Lessons learned: Research implications for performance appraisal and management practice. In J. W. Smither (Ed.), Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice: 537-548. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
71. Taylor, M. S., Masterson, S. S., Renard, M. K., & Tracy, K. B. 1998. Managers' reactions to procedurally just performance management systems. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 568-579.
72. Taylor, M. S., Tracy, K. B., Renard, M. K., Harrison, J. K., & Carroll, S. J. 1995. Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 495-523.
73. Terry, D. J., & O'Leary, J. E. 1995. The theory of planned behaviour: The effects of perceived behavioural control and self-efficacy. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34: 199-220.
74. Thomas, S. L., & Bretz, R. D. 1994. Research and practice in performance appraisal: Evaluating employee performance in America's largest companies. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 59: 28-34.
75. Townley, B. 1999. Practical reason and performance appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 36: 287-306.
76. Trafimow, D., Sheeran, P., Conner, M., & Finlay, K. A. 2002. Evidence that perceived behavioural control is a multidimensional construct: Perceived control and perceived difficulty. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41: 101-121.
77. Tziner, A., & Kopelman, R. E. 2002. Is there a preferred performance rating format? A non-psychometric perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51(3): 479.
78. Tziner, A., Kopelman, R., & Joanis, C. 1997. Investigation of raters' and ratees' reactions to three methods of performance appraisal: BOS, BARS, and GRS. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14(4): 396.
79. Tziner, A., Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. 2005. Contextual and rater factors affecting rating behavior. Group & Organization Management, 30: 89-98.
80. Welch, J., & Welch, S. 2005. Winning. New York: Harper Business.
81. Zakay, D., & Wooler, S. 1984. Time pressure, training and decision effectiveness. Ergonomics, 27: 273-284.
82. Zenger, T. R. 1992. Why do employers only reward extreme performance? Examining the relationships among performance, pay, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 198-219.
83. Zhang, Y., & Mittal, V. 2005. Decision difficulty: Effects of procedural and outcome accountability. Journal of Consumer Research, 32: 465-472.