Rater Leniency and Performance Appraisal Discomfort

Abstract

This study investigated the predictability of rater leniency from scores on an instrument designed to measure rater discomfort with performance appraisal situations. The 20-item Performance Appraisal Discomfort Scale (PADS) was administered twice to a sample of 178 undergraduate business students who rated performance of group members on three group projects under conditions designed to emulate features of actual appraisal situations. Results supported the notion that rater leniency is stable and predictable from PADS scores. Also, principal-component extracted and varimax rotated factors of the PADS were interpreted as corresponding to four distinct situational demands placed on raters in the course of performance appraisal. The results of this limited demonstration of the validity of PADS suggest that future application of the PADS or some like instrument may be useful for enhancing the validity of appraisal ratings and feedback utility.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bernardin, H. J. (1987). Development and validation of a forced choice scale to measure job-related discomfort.Academy of Management Journal, 30, 162-173.

Bernardin, H. J. (1989). Innovative approaches to personnel selection and performance appraisal.Journal of Management Systems, 1, 25-36.

Bernardin, H. J. and Beatty, R. W. (1984). Performance appraisal: Assessing human behavior at work. Boston, MS: Kent.

Bernardin, H. J. and Orban, J. (1990). Leniency effect as a function of rating format, purpose for appraisal, and rater individual differences.Journal of Business and Psychology, 5, 197-211.

Bernardin, H. J. and Russell, J. (in press). Human resource management: An experiential approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bernardin, H. J. and Villanova, P. (1986). Performance appraisal. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field set- tings. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books,43-62.

Bretz, R. D. , Milkovich, G. T. and Read, W. (1992). The current state of performance appraisal research and practice: Concerns, directions, and implications.Journal of Management, 18, 321-352.

Drory, A. and Ben-Porat, A. (1980). Leadership style and leniency bias in evaluation of employees' performance.Psychological Reports, 46, 735-739.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

10.

Fleishman, E. A. (1957). A leader behavior description for industry. In R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (pp. 103-119). Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.

11.

Galin, A. (1989). The relevance of leadership variables for performance appraisal.Personnel Review, 18, 35-40.

12.

Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric method. NY: McGraw-Hill.

13.

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity.Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.

14.

Kingsbury, F. A. (1922). Analyzing ratings and training raters.Journal of Personnel Research, 1, 377-382.

15.

Klores, M. S. (1966). Rater bias in forced-distribution ratings.Personnel Psychology, 19, 411-421.

16.

Mandell, M. M. (1956). Supervisory characteristics and ratings: A summary of recent research.Personnel, 32, 435-440.

17.

Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire: Forn XII. Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.

18.

Villanova, P. and Bernardin, H. J. (1990). Work behavior correlates of interviewer job compatibility.Journal of Business and Psychology, 5, 179-195.

19.

Wexley, K. N. and Youtz, M. A. (1985). Rater beliefs about others: Their effects on rating errors and rater accuracy. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, 265-275.