Intragroup peer evaluations used for performance appraisal and compensation decisions are becoming an integral part of today's team-based organizations. However, the research on the validity of peer evaluation ratings in a team context is limited. This study contributes to the literature on peer-to-peer performance appraisal by applying social style theory to predict potential rater bias. The study employed an ex post facto design in a university setting to examine the effect of social style on peer evaluation ratings at the completion of a business communication team project. The findings suggest that rating bias based on a personality dimension, such as social style, can influence intragroup peer evaluations. Implications for organizations and suggestions for training to reduce rater bias are discussed.
Antonioni, D.,& Park, J. (2001). The effects of personality similarity on peer ratings of contextualwork behaviors. Personnel Psychology, 54, 331-360.
2.
Baltes, B. B., Parker, C. P., Young, L. M., Huff, J. W., & Altmann, R. (2004). The practical utility of importance measures in assessing the relative importance of work-related perceptions and organizational characteristics on work-related outcomes. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 326-340.
3.
Barclay, J. H., & Harland, L. K. (1995). Peer performance appraisals: The impact of rater competence, rater location, and rating correctability on fairness perceptions. Group& Organization Management, 20(1), 39-60.
4.
Bolton, R.,& Bolton, D. G. (1996). People styles at work: Making bad relationships good and good relationships better. New York: Amacon–American Management Association.
5.
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.
6.
Brown, D. J. (2005). Elaborating the construct of transformational leadership: The role of affect. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 245-272.
7.
Cannon, M. D., & Witherspoon, R. (2005). Actionable feedback: Unlocking the power of learning and performance improvement. Academy of Management Executive, 19(2), 120-134.
8.
Caudron, S. (1998). Keeping team conflict alive. Training and Development, 52(9), 48-52.
9.
DeNisi, A. S.,& Kluger, A. N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved?Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 129-139.
10.
Drexler, J. A., Jr., Beehr, T. A., & Stetz, T. A. (2001). Peer appraisals: Differentiation of individual performance on group tasks. Human Resource Management, 40, 333-345.
11.
Duffy, M. K., Shaw, J. D.,& Stark, E. M. (2000). Performance and satisfaction in conflicted interdependent groups: When and how does self-esteem make a difference?Academy of Management Journal, 43, 772-783.
12.
Edwards, M. R.,& Ewen, A. J. (1996). How to manage performance and pay with 360-degreee feedback. Compensation & Benefits Review, 28(3), 41-46.
13.
Elliott, J. R.,& Smith, R. A. (2004). Race, gender, and workplace power. American Sociological Review, 69, 365-386.
14.
Falchikov, N., & Magin, D. (1997). Detecting gender bias in peer marking of students' group process work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 22, 385-396.
15.
Farh, J., Cannella, A. A.,& Bedeian, A. G. (1991). Peer ratings: The impact of purpose on rating quality and user acceptance. Group & Organization Studies, 16, 367-386.
16.
Fedor, D. B., Bettenhausen, K. L.,& Davis, W. (1999). Peer reviews: Employees'dual roles as raters and recipients. Group & Organization Management, 24, 92-120.
17.
Fox, S., Zeev, B., & Yinon, Y. (1989). Perceived similarity and accuracy of peer ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 781-786.
18.
Geddes, D.,& Konrad, A. M. (2003). Demographic differences and reactions to performance feedback. Human Relations, 56, 1485-1496.
19.
Ghorpade, J. (2000). Managing five paradoxes of 360-degree feedback. Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 140-150.
20.
Ghorpade, J.,& Lackritz, J. (2001). Peer evaluation in the classroom: A check for sex and race/ethnicity effects. Journal of Education for Business, 76, 274-281.
21.
Gomez, C., Kirkman, B. L.,& Shapiro, D. L. (2000). The impact of collectivism and in-group/out-group membership on the evaluation generosity of team members. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1097-1106.
22.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (1988). Evaluating employee performance: Does the appraisal instrument make a difference?Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 9, 155-172.
23.
Gueldenzoph, L. E.,& May, G. L. (2002). Collaborative peer evaluation: Best practices for group member assessments. Business Communication Quarterly, 65, 9-20.
24.
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
25.
Heslin, P. A. (2005). Conceptualizing and evaluating career success. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(2), 113-127.
26.
Ilgen, D. R., Barnes-Farrell, J. L.,& McKellin, D. B. (1993). Performance appraisal process research in the 1980s: What has it contributed to appraisals in use?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 321-368.
27.
Johnson, C. B., & Smith, F. I. (1997). Assessment of a complex peer evaluation instrument for team learning and group processes. Accounting Education, 2(1), 21-41.
28.
Kane, J. S.,& Lawler, E. E. (1978). Methods of peer assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 555-586.
29.
Katzenback, J. R.,& Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high performance organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
30.
Latham, G. P., & Wexley, K. N. (1982). Increasing productivity through performance appraisal. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
31.
Latham, G. P., Wexley, K. N.,& Pursell, E. D. (1975). Training managers to minimize rating errors in the observation of behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 530-555.
32.
Leimbach, M. (1991). Research use of the social style profile. Edina, MN: Wilson Learning Research and Development Corp.
33.
Leonard, J. S., Levine, D. I.,& Joshi, A. (2004). Do birds of a feather shop together? The effects on performance of employees' similarity with one another and with customers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 731-754.
34.
Locke, E. A. (1986). Generalizing fromlaboratory to field settings. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
35.
Malos, S. (1998). Current legal issues in performance appraisal. In J. Smither (Ed.), Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice(pp. 49-94). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
36.
Mauer, G. W. (1992). Conflict management: From adversary to advocate. Peer review and employee advocacy. CUPA Journal, 43(1), 35-41.
37.
Merrill, D. W.,& Reid, R. H. (1999). Personal styles and effective performance. New York: CRC Press.
38.
Merva, M. (2003). Grades as incentives: A quantitative assessment with implications for study abroad programs. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(2), 149-156.
39.
Mitchell, J. V., Jr. (1992). Interrelationships and predictive efficacy for indices of intrinsic, extrinsic, and self-assessed motivation for learning. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 25(2), 149-155.
40.
Mumford, J. D. (1983). Social comparison theory and the evaluation of peer evaluations: A review and some applied implications. Personnel Psychology, 36, 867-881.
41.
Pulakos, E. D., White, L. A., Oppler, S. H.,& Borman, W. C. (1989). Examination of race and sex effects on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 770-780.
42.
Scott, S. G.,& Einstein, W. O. (2001). Strategic performance appraisal in team-based organizations: One size does not fit all. Academy of Management Executive, 15(2), 107-116.
43.
Sherrard, W.,& Feraidoon, R. (1994). An empirical study of peer bias in evaluations: Students rating students. Journal of Education for Business, 70(1), 43-48.
44.
Smith, D. E. (1986). Training programs for performance appraisal: A review. Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 22-40.
45.
Strauss, J. P., Barrick, M. R., & Connerley, M. L. (2001). An investigation of personality similarity effects (relational and perceived) on peer and supervisor ratings and the role of familiarity and liking. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 637-657.
46.
Toegel, G., & Conger, J. A. (2003). 360-degree assessment: Time for reinvention. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2, 297-311.
47.
TRACOM. (1991). The social style profile–technical report: Development, reliability and validity. Denver, CO: The TRACOM Corporation.
48.
Tsui, A. S.,& Barry, B. (1986). Interpersonal affect and rating errors. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 586-599.
49.
Tziner, A., Murphy, K. R.,& Cleveland, J. N. (2002). Does conscientiousness moderate the relationship between attitudes and beliefs regarding performance appraisal and rating behavior?International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(3), 218-224.
50.
Waldman, D. A.,& Avolio, B. J. (1991). Race effects in performance evaluations: Controlling for ability, education, and experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 897-901.
51.
Williams, K. J. (1986, August). Interpersonal affect in performance appraisals: Evidence for the asymmetry of positive and negative affect. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago.
52.
Wilson Learning Corporation. (1990, January). The statistical adequacy of the social style profile. Edina, MN: Author.
53.
Wilson Learning Corporation. (2001). Social style series. Retrieved February 18, 2005, from http://portalcenter.wilsonlearning.com/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/WLC_WEB_SITE/FILE_HOLDER/28300_SSM.PDF
54.
Woehr, D. J., & Huffcutt, A. L. (1994). Rater training for performance appraisal: A quantitative review. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 4, 189-216.
55.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151-175.
