Performance appraisal evaluation has focused on psychometric refinements. This
paper proposes an alternative method of evaluation by concentrating on the dimen
sions on the appraisal instrument. These dimensions are compared with organization
members' constructs for productive behavior. To the extent that the constructs and the
dimensions are similar, the system will be more effective in evaluating productive be
havior. Implications for the evaluation of performance appraisal systems are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bannister, D. (1985). The patient's point of view In D. Bannister (Ed.), Issues and approaches in personal construct theory (pp. 1-14). London: Academic Press, Inc.
2.
Bantz, C.R. (1983). Naturalistic research traditions In L. L. Putnam and M. E. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
3.
Barge, J.K. (1985, November). The systemic nature of conversational leadership : A preliminary investigationPaper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Denver, CO
4.
Bernardin, H.J. (1979). Rater training: A critique and reconceptualizationProceedings of the Academy of Management , 216-220.
5.
Bernardin, H.J., & Beatty, R.W. (1984). Performance appraisal: Assessing human behavior at workBoston: Kent Publishing.
6.
Bernardin, H.J., & Pence, E.C. (1980). Effects ofrater training: Creating new response sets and decreasing accuracyJournal of Applied Psychology , 65, 60-66.
7.
Borman, W.C. (1979). Format and training effects on rating accuracy and rater errorsJournal of Applied Psychology , 64, 410-421.
8.
Burke, R.S., Weitzel, W., & Weir, T. (1978). Characteristics of effective employee performance review and development interviews: Replication and extensionPersonnel Psychology, 31 , 903-919.
9.
Burke, R.S. & Wilcox, D.S. (1969). Characteristics of effective employee performance and development interviewsPersonnel Psychology , 22, 291-305.
10.
Cooper, W.H. (1981). Conceptual similarity as a source of illusory halo in job performance ratingsJournal of Applied Psychology , 66, 302-307.
11.
Crockett, W.H. (1982). The organization of construct systems: The organization corollary In J. C. Mancuso and J. R. Adams-Webber (Eds.). The construing person. New York: Praeger.
12.
Dipboye, R.L., & Pontbriand, R. (1981). Correlates of employee reactions to performance appraisals and appraisal systemsJournal of Applied Psychology, 66, 248-251.
13.
Dickinson, T.L. (1987). Designs for evaluating the validity and accuracy of performance ratingsOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40, 1-21.
14.
Eisenberg, E.M., Monge, P.R., & Farace, R.V. (1984). Coorientation on communication rules in managerial dyadsHuman Communication Research, 11(2), 261-271.
15.
Feldman, J.M. (1981). Beyond attribution theory: Cognitive processes in performance appraisalJournal of Applied Psychology , 66, 127-148.
16.
Harris, L.M., & Cronen, V.E. (1979). Arules based model for the analysis and evaluation of organizational communicationCommunication Quarterly , 27, 12-28.
17.
Kavanagh, M.J. (1971). The content issue in performance appraisal: AreviewPersonnel Psychology, 24, 653-668.
18.
Kavanagh, M.J. (1973). Rejoinder to Brumback: "The content issue in performance appraisal: A review."Personnel Psychology , 26, 163-166.
19.
Kelly, G.A. (1955). A theory of personality (2 vols.). New York: Norton.
20.
Kikoski, J.F., & Litterer, J.A. (1983). Effective communication in the performance appraisal processPublic Personnel Management , 12, 33-42.
21.
Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1984, August). Two ways to evaluate your performance appraisal systemTraining and Development Journal , 38-40.
22.
Kleiman, L.S., & Faley, R.H. (1986). Process-oriented variables and measurement of job performance: An examination of raters' weighting strategyPsychological Reports, 59 , 923-932.
23.
Laird, P.A. (1982). Coordinated management of meaning: An empirical investigation of communication and productive action in two organizations Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas,Lawrence.
Latham, G.P., Saari, L.M., & Fay, C.H. (1980). BOS, BES and Baloney: Raising Kane with BernardinPersonnel Psychology, 33, 815-821.
26.
Latham, G.P., & Wexley, N. (1980). Increasing productivity through performance appraisalReading, MA: Addison Wesley.
27.
Latham, G.P., Wexley, K.N., & Pursell, E.D. (1975). Training managers to minimize rating errors in the observation of behaviorJournal of Applied Psychology , 60, 550-555.
28.
Locher, A.H., and Teel K.S. (1977). Performance appraisal—A survey of current practicesPersonnel Journal, 56, 245-247.
29.
Mount, M.K. (1984). Satisfaction with a performance appraisal system and appraisal discussionJournal of Occupational Behavior , 5, 271-279.
30.
O'Keefe, B.J., & Delia, J.C. (1979). Construct comprehensiveness and cognitive complexity as predictors of the number and strategic adaption of arguments and appeals in a persuasive messageCommunication Monographs , 46, 231-240.
31.
Pacanowsky, M.E., & O'Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1982). Communication and organizational culturesWestern Journal of Speech Communication , 46, 115-230.
32.
Putnam, L.L. (1983). The interpretive perspective: An alternative to functionalism In L. L. Putnam and M. E. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach , Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
33.
Schall, M.S. (1983). A communication-rules approach to organizational cultureAdministrative Science Quarterly , 28, 557-581.
34.
Smith, P.C., & Kendall, L.M. (1963). Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scalesJournal of Applied Psychology, 47, 149-155.
35.
Sypher, B., & Zorn, T.E. (1988). Individual differences and construct system content in descriptions of liked and disliked co-workersInternational Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 1, 37-51.
36.
Zammuto R.F., London, M., & Rowland, K.M. (1982). Organization and rater differences in performance appraisalsPersonnel Psychology, 35, 643-658.
