I Think (I Am Doing Well), Therefore I Am: Assessing the Validity of Administrators' Self-Assessments of Performance

International Public Management Journal

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 1-27

  Meier, Kenneth J ^a,b   O'Toole, Laurence J ^c  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84879132673     PISSN: 10967494     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10967494.2013.796253     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Andrews, R., G. A. Boyne, and R. M. Walker. 2006. "Subjective and Objective Measures of Organizational Performance: An Empirical Exploration." Pp. 14 - 34 in G. A. Boyne, K. J. Meier, L. J. O'Toole, Jr., and R. M. Walker, eds., Public Service Performance: Perspectives on Measurement and Management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2. Andrews, R., G. A. Boyne, M. J. Moon, and R. M. Walker. 2010. "Assessing Organizational Performance: Exploring Differences Between Internal and External Measures." International Public Management Journal 13: 105 - 129.
3. Babcock, P. and J. R. Betts. 2009. "Reduced Class Distinctions: Effort, Ability, and the Education Production Function." Journal of Urban Economics 65: 314 - 322.
4. Baer, M. and M. Frese. 2003. "Innovation Is Not Enough: Climates for Initiative and Psychological Safety, Process Innovations, and Firm Performance." Journal of Organizational Behavior 24: 45 - 68.
5. Bazerman, M. H. 2005. Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, 6th ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
6. Berry, W. D. 1993. Understanding Regression Assumptions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
7. Bommer, W. H., J. L. Johnson, G. A. Rich, P. M. Podsakoff, and S. B. MacKenzie. 1995. "On the Interchangeability of Objective and Subjective Measures of Employee Performance: A Meta-analysis." Personnel Psychology 48: 587 - 605.
8. Botha, R. J. 2011. "Contextual Factors in the Assessment of the Effect of School-based Management on School Effectiveness." Journal of Social Science 27 (1): 15 - 23.
9. Brewer, G. A. 2006. "All Measures of Performance Are Subjective: More Evidence on US Federal Agencies." Pp. 35 - 54 in G. A. Boyne, K. J. Meier, L. J. O'Toole and R. M. Walker, eds., Public Service Performance: Perspectives on Measurement and Management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10. Burtless, G. 1996. Does Money Matter? Washington, DC: Brookings.
11. Caliendo, M. and S. Kopeinig. 2008. "Some Practical Guidance for the Implementation of Propensity Score Matching." Journal of Economic Surveys 22(1): 31-72.
12. Campbell, D. T. and D. W. Fiske. 1959. "Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix." Psychological Bulletin 56 (2): 81 - 105.
13. Cote, J. A. and M. R. Buckley. 1987. "Estimating Trait, Method, and Error Variance: Generalizing Across 70 Construct Validation Studies." Journal of Marketing Research 24 (3): 315 - 8.
14. Dehejia, R. 2005. "Practical Propensity Score Matching: A Reply to Smith and Todd." Journal of Econometrics 125: 355 - 364.
15. Dehejia, R. and S. Wahba. 2002. "Propensity Score Matching Methods for Nonexperimental Causal Studies." The Review of Economics and Statistics 84 (1): 151 - 161.
16. Delaney, J. T. and M. A. Huselid. 1996. "The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Perceptions of Organizational Performance." Academy of Management Journal 39 (4): 949 - 969.
17. Dess, G. G. and R. B. Robinson, Jr. 1984. "Measuring Organizational Performance in the Absence of Objective Measures." Strategic Management Journal 5 (3): 265 - 273.
18. Dollinger, M. J. and P. A. Golden. 1992. "Interorganizational and Collective Strategies in Small Firms: Environmental Effects and Performance." Journal of Management 18 (4): 695 - 715.
19. Doty, D. H. and W. H. Glick. 1998. "Common Methods Bias: Does Common Methods Variance Really Bias Results?" Organizational Research Methods 1 (4): 374 - 406.
20. Guthrie, J. P. 2001. "High-Involvement Work Practices, Turnover, and Productivity: Evidence from New Zealand." Academy of Management Journal 44 (1): 180 - 190.
21. Hanushek, E. A. and S. G. Rivkin. 2010. "Generalizations About Using Value-Added Measures of Teacher Quality." American Economic Review 100 (2): 267 - 271.
22. Hastie, R. and R. M. Dawes. 2001. Rational Choice in an Uncertain World. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
23. Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. 2000. Choices, Values, and Frames. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24. Long, J. S. and J. Freese. 2006. Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata. College Station, TX: STATA Press.
25. Meier, K. J. and A. Hicklin. 2008. "Employee Turnover and Organizational Performance: Testing a Hypothesis from Classical Public Administration." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18: 573 - 590.
26. Meier, K. J. and L. J. O'Toole, Jr. 2013. "Subjective Organizational Performance and Measurement Error: Common Source Bias and Spurious Relationships." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23: 429 - 456.
27. Miles, R. E. and C. C. Snow. 1978. Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
28. Moynihan, D. 2008. The Dynamics of Performance Management. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
29. Pfeiffer, F. and K. Reuß. 2008. "Age Dependent Skill Formation and Returns to Education." Labour Economics 15: 631 - 646.
30. Pitts, D. 2009. "Diversity Management, Job Satisfaction, and Performance: Evidence from U.S. Federal Agencies." Public Administration Review 69 (March/April): 328 - 338.
31. Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J.-Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. "Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies." Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5): 879 - 903.
32. Powell, T. C. 1992. "Organizational Alignment as Competitive Advantage." Strategic Management Journal 13(2): 119-134.
33. Rosenbaum, P. R. and D. B. Rubin. 1985. "Constructing a Control Group Using Multivariate Matched Sampling Methods that Incorporate the Propensity Score." The American Statistician 39 (1): 33 - 38.
34. Schachter, H. L. 2010. "Objective and Subjective Performance Measures: A Note on Terminology." Administration & Society 42 (5): 550 - 567.
35. Smith, K. B. 2003. The Ideology of Education: The Commonwealth, the Market and America's Schools. Albany: SUNY Press.
36. Smith, J. A. and P. E. Todd. 2001. "Reconciling Conflicting Evidence on the Performance of Propensity-Score Matching Methods." American Economic Review 91 (May): 112 - 118.
37. Somech, A. 2010. "Participative Decision Making in Schools." Educational Administration Quarterly 46 (2): 174 - 209.
38. Spillane, J. P., L. M. Parise, and J. Z. Sherer. 2011. "Organizational Routines as Coupling Mechanisms." American Educational Research Journal 48 (June): 586 - 619.
39. Taylor, S. E. 1989. Positive Illusions: Creative Self-deception and the Healthy Mind. New York: Basic Books.
40. Todd, P. E. and K. I. Wolpin. 2003. "On the Specification and Estimation of the Production Function for Cognitive Achievement." The Economic Journal 113 (February): F3 - F33.
41. Torenvlied, R. and A. Akkerman. 2009. "Subjective and Objective Agency Performance: A Multilevel-Multistage Approach." Paper presented at the 10th Public Management Research Conference, Columbus, Ohio, October 1-3.
42. Walker, R. M. and G. A. Boyne. 2006. "Public Management Reform and Organizational Performance: An Empirical Assessment of the U.K. Labour Government's Public Service Improvement Strategy." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 25 (2): 371 - 393.
43. Wall, T. D., J. Michie, M. Patterson, S. J. Wood, M. Sheehan, C. W. Clegg, and M. West. 2004. "On the Validity of Subjective Measures of Company Performance." Personnel Psychology 57: 95 - 118.
44. Zeller, R. A. and E. G. Carmines. 1980. Measurement in the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45. *We ran 18 different propensity score models; the range of correlations across the models was very small. For TAKS, the range was -.051 to -.097; for college-bound performance, the range was -.011 to +.035; and for overall quality, -.025 to +.003. The most negative correlations occurred with the propensity scores that did not use the low-income student variable.