Comparison of online and traditional performance appraisal systems

Journal of Managerial Psychology

Volumn 24, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 526-544

  Payne, Stephanie C ^a   Horner, Margaret T ^a   Boswell, Wendy R ^b   Schroeder, Amber N ^c   Stine Cheyne, Kelleen J ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c CLEMSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Communication technologies; Human resource strategies; Information systems; Performance appraisal

Indexed keywords

EID: 70349609611     PISSN: 02683946     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/02683940910974116     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Albert, S. and Dabbs, J. (1970), Physical distance and persuasion, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 15, No.3, pp. 265-70.
2. Antonioni, D. (1994), The effects of feedback accountability on upward appraisal ratings, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 47, No.2, pp. 349-56.
3. Beckers, A.M. and Bsat, M.Z. (2002), A DSS classification model for research in human resource information systems, Information Systems Management, Vol. 19, No.3, pp. 41-50.
4. Beckner, D., Highhouse, S. and Hazer, J.T. (1998), Effects of upward accountability and rating purpose on peer-rater inflation and delay: a field experiment, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, No.2, pp. 209-14.
5. Bernardin, H.J. and Beatty, R.W. (1984), Performance Appraisal: Assessing Human Performance at Work, Kent Publishing, Boston, MA.
6. Cardy, R.L. and Dobbins, G.H. (1994), Performance Appraisal: Alternative Perspectives, South-Western, Cincinnati, OH.
7. Carson, K.P., Cardy, R.L. and Dobbins, G.H. (1991), Performance appraisal as effective management or deadly management disease: two initial empirical investigations, Group & Organization Studies, Vol. 16, pp. 143-59.
8. Cawley, B.D., Keeping, L.M. and Levy, P.E. (1998), Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: a meta-analytic review of field investigations, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 615-33.
9. Chakraborty, I., Hu, P.J.-H. and Cui, D. (2008), Examining the effects of cognitive style in individuals' technology use decision making, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 45, pp. 228-41.
10. Church, A.H. and Bracken, D.W. (1997), Advancing the state of the art of 360-degree feedback, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 22, No.2, pp. 149-61.
11. Cole, M.S., Bedeian, A.G. and Feild, H.S. (2006), The measurement equivalence of web-based and paper-and-pencil measures of transformational leadership: a multinational test, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 9, No.3, pp. 339-68.
12. Compeau, D., Higgins, C.A. and Huff, S. (1999), Social cognitive theory and individual reaction to computing technology: a longitudinal study, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23, No.2, pp. 1-12.
13. Connors, K. (2001), Online learning can be cost-effective alternative to traditional training, Managed Healthcare Executive, Vol. 11, No.7, pp. 45-6.
14. Cook, J. and Crossman, A. (2004), Satisfaction with performance appraisal: a study of role perceptions, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19, No.5, pp. 526-41.
15. Curtis, A.B., Harvey, R.D. and Ravden, D. (2005), Sources of political distortions in performance appraisal, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 30, No.1, pp. 42-60.
16. Davis, F.D. (1989), Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13, pp. 319-39.
17. Dickinson, T.L. (1993), Attitudes about performance appraisal, Schiler, H., Farr, J.L., Smith, M. (Eds.), Personnel Selection and Assessment: Individual and Organizational Perspectives, pp. 141-61, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
18. Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S. and Sethna, B. (1991), The equalization of phenomenon: status effects in computer mediated and face-to-face decision making groups, Human Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No.2, pp. 119-46.
19. Fagan, M.H., Neill, S. and Wooldridge, B.R. (2008), Exploring the intention to use computers: an empirical investigation of the role of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and perceived ease of use, The Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 48, pp. 31-7.
20. Fisher, C.D. (1979), Transmission of positive and negative feedback to subordinates: a laboratory investigation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64, No.5, pp. 533-40.
21. Gaby, S.H. (2004), Summarizing and measuring participants' perceptions related to performance appraisal effectiveness, doctoral dissertation, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.
22. Gary, G.E. (2003), Employee performance appraisal system participation: a technique that works, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 32, No.1, pp. 89-97.
23. Giles, W.F. and Mossholder, K.W. (1990), Employee reactions to contextual and session components of performance appraisal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 371-7.
24. Greller, M.M. (1978), The nature of subordinate participation in the appraisal interview, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 21, No.4, pp. 646-58.
25. Gueutal, H.G. (2003), The brave new world of eHR, Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research, Vol. 3, pp. 13-36.
26. Hedge, J.W. and Borman, W.C. (1995), Changing conceptions and practices in performance appraisal, Howard, A. (Ed.), The Changing Nature of Work, pp. 451-81, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
27. Hollenbeck, J.R. (2002), Quasi-experimentation and applied psychology: introduction to a special issue of Personnel Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 566-7.
28. (The) Hunter Group (2001), 2000 human resources self-service survey, Doran, A. (Ed.), E-Work Architect: How HR Leads the Way Using the Internet, Rector Duncan & Associates, Austin, TX.
29. Huselid, M.A., Becker, B.E. and Beatty, R.W. (2005), The Workforce Scorecard: Managing Human Capital to Execute Strategy, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.
30. Ilgen, D.R. and Knowlton, W.A. (1980), Performance attributional effects on feedback from supervisors, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 25, No.3, pp. 441-56.
31. Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C.D. and Taylor, S.M. (1979), Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64, pp. 347-71.
32. Kavanagh, M.J., Thite, M. (Eds.) (2008), Human Resource Information Systems: Basics, Applications, & Directions, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
33. Keeping, L.M. and Levy, P.E. (2000), Performance appraisal reactions: measurement, modeling, and method bias, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 708-23.
34. Klimoski, R. and Inks, L. (1990), Accountability forces in performance appraisal, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 45, No.2, pp. 194-208.
35. Korsgaard, M.A. and Roberson, L. (1995), Procedural justices in performance evaluation: the role of instrumental and noninstrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions, Journal of Management, Vol. 21, pp. 657-69.
36. Krauss, A. and Snyder, L.A. (in press), Technology and performance management: what role does technology play in performance management?, Smither, J.W., London, M. (Eds.), Performance Management: Putting Research into Practice, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
37. Larson, J.R. (1984), The performance feedback process: a preliminary model, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 33, pp. 42-76.
38. Lawler, E.E. (1967), The multitrait-multirater approach to measuring managerial job performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 51, Nos 5/1, pp. 369-81.
39. Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum, New York, NY.
40. London, M., Smither, J.W. and Adsit, D.J. (1997), Accountability: the Achilles' heel of multisource feedback, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 22, No.2, pp. 162-84.
41. Marler, J., Fisher, S.L. and Ke, W. (2009), Employee self-service technology acceptance: a comparison of pre-implementation and post-implementation relationships, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 62, pp. 327-58.
42. Martinsons, M.G. and Chong, P.K.C. (1999), The influence of human factors and specialist involvement on information systems success, Human Relations, Vol. 52, No.1, pp. 123-52.
43. Meier, S.T. (1988), Predicting individual differences in performance on computer administered tests and tasks: development of the computer aversion scale, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 4, No.3, pp. 175-87.
44. Mero, N.P. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1995), Effects of rater accountability on the accuracy and the favorability of performance ratings, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80, No.4, pp. 517-24.
45. Murphy, K.R. and Cleveland, J.N. (1995), Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social, Organizational, and Goal-based Perspectives, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
46. Nathan, B.R., Mohrman, A.M. Jr and Milliman, J. (1991), Interpersonal relations as a context for the effects of appraisal interviews on performance and satisfaction: a longitudinal study, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 352-69.
47. Neary, D.B. (2002), Creating a company-wide, on-line, performance management system: a case study at TRW Inc, Human Resource Management, Vol. 41, No.4, pp. 491-8.
48. Ngai, E.W.T. and Wat, F.K.T. (2004), Human resource information systems: a review and empirical analysis, Personnel Review, Vol. 35, No.3, pp. 297-314.
49. Pearce, J.L. and Porter, L.W. (1986), Employee responses to formal performance appraisal feedback, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 211-8.
50. Penny, J.A. (2003), Exploring differential item functioning in a 360-degree assessment: rater source and method of delivery, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 6, No.1, pp. 61-79.
51. PeopleAdmin (2006), available at: www.peopleadmin.com/modules/pos-perf.html (accessed December 20, 2006), HR Modules: Position Management Module - Performance Evaluation, Human Resources Solutions.
52. Richman-Hirsch, W.L., Olson-Buchanan, J.B. and Drasgow, F. (2000), Examining the impact of administration medium on examinee perceptions and attitudes, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, No.6, pp. 880-7.
53. Rosen, L. and Maguire, P. (1990), Myths and realities of computerphobia: a meta-analysis, Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, Vol. 3, No.3, pp. 175-91.
54. Smither, J.W., Walker, A.G. and Yap, M.K.T. (2004), An examination of the equivalence of web-based versus paper-and-pencil upward feedback ratings: rater- and ratee-level analyses, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 64, No.1, pp. 40-61.
55. Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. (1986), Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication, Management Science, Vol. 32, No.11, pp. 1492-512.
56. Stone, D., Stone-Romero, E. and Wolfe, J. (2008), Privacy and ethics in e-HR, Kavanagh, M.J., Thite, M. (Eds.), Human Resource Information Systems: Basics, Applications & Directions, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
57. Tetlock, P.E. (1983), Accountability and the perseverance of first impressions, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 46, No.4, pp. 285-92.
58. Thompson, L.F., Surface, E.A., Martin, D.L. and Sanders, M.G. (2003), From paper to pixels: moving personnel surveys to the web, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56, No.1, pp. 197-227.
59. Venkatesh, V. and Bala, H. (2008), Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions, Decision Science, Vol. 39, No.2, pp. 273-315.
60. Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000), A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies, Management Science, Vol. 46, No.2, pp. 186-204.
61. Wexley, K.N. and Klimoski, R.J. (1984), Performance appraisal: an update, Ferris, G.R., Rowland, K.M. (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 2, pp. 35-79, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.