Performance appraisal (PA) plays a strategic role in public sector human resource management (HRM), acting as a driver for better performance. Drawing from previous theoretical research on the social context of performance appraisal systems and their effectiveness, the study develops a generalizable theoretical framework for classifying performance appraisal systems according to their structural and process proximal variables: purpose, rating source, and structured face-to-face feedback sessions. Through a multiple case study analysis, the theoretical framework has been applied to a sample of Italian PA systems for senior civil servants, aiming to explore the relationship between the structural and process proximal variables of PA systems and rating discriminability, intended as a measurement of performance effectiveness. The results show that the framework accurately represents the variation of the design of performance appraisal systems in the Italian context, highlighting the central role played by multi-source feedback and face-to-face rater-ratee interactions in promoting rating discriminability.
Abu-DolehJ.WeirD. (2007). Dimensions of performance appraisal systems in Jordanian private and public organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 75–84.
2.
BelleN.CantarelliP. (2015). Monetary incentives, motivation, and job effort in the public sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35(2), 99–123.
3.
BernardinH. J.CookeD. K.VillanovaP. (2000). Conscientiousness and agreeableness as predictors of rating leniency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 232–236.
4.
BernardinH. J.VillanovaP. (2005). Research streams in rater self-efficacy. Group & Organization Management, 30(1), 61–88.
5.
BhaveD. P. (2014). The invisible eye? Electronic performance monitoring and employee job performance. Personnel Psychology, 67(3), 605–635.
6.
BondC. F.AndersonE. L. (1987). The reluctance to transmit bad news: Private discomfort or public display?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23(2), 176–187.
7.
BoswellW. R.BoudreauJ. W. (2000). Employee satisfaction with performance appraisals and appraisers: The role of perceived appraisal use. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(3), 283–299.
8.
BoswellW. R.BoudreauJ. W. (2002). Separating the developmental and evaluative performance appraisal uses. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(3), 391–412.
9.
BrettJ. F.AtwaterL. E. (2001). 360° feedback: Accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 930–942.
10.
BretzR.MilkovichT. (1990). Performance appraisal in large organizations: Practice and research implications. Center for Advance Human Resource Studies, Cornell University.
11.
BretzR. D.MilkovichG. T.ReadW. (1992). The current state of performance appraisal research and practice: Concerns, directions, and implications. Journal of Management, 18(2), 321–352.
12.
BrumbackG. B. (1988). Some ideas, issues and predictions about performance management. Public Personnel Management, 17, 387–402.
13.
CambonL.SteinerD. D. (2015). When rating format induces different rating processes: The effects of descriptive and evaluative rating modes on discriminability and accuracy. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(4), 795–812.
14.
CardyR. L.DobbinsG. H. (1994). Performance appraisal: Alternative perspectives. South-Western Publishing.
15.
CawleyB. D.KeepingL. M.LevyP. E. (1998). Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 615–633.
16.
ClevelandJ. N.MurphyK. R.WilliamsR. E. (1989). Multiple uses of performance appraisal: Prevalence and correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 130–135.
17.
CookeF. L. (2018). Concepts, contexts, and mindsets: Putting human resource management research in perspectives. Human Resource Management Journal, 28(1), 1–13.
18.
DaleyD. M. (1992). Performance appraisal in the public sector: Techniques and applications. Quorum.
19.
DeNisiA.SmithC. E. (2014). Performance appraisal, performance management, and firm-level performance: A review, a proposed model, and new directions for future research. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 127–179.
20.
DeNisiA. S.MurphyK. R. (2017). Performance appraisal and performance management: 100 years of progress?Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 421–433.
21.
DeNisiA. S.PetersL. H. (1996). Organization of information in memory and the performance appraisal process: Evidence from the field. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 717–737.
22.
DunnetteM. D. (1993). My hammer or your hammer?Human Resource Management, 32, 373–384.
23.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
24.
ElickerJ. D.LevyP. E.HallR. J. (2006). The role of leader-member exchange in the performance appraisal process. Journal of Management, 32, 531–551.
25.
EllingtonJ. K.WilsonM. A. (2017). The performance appraisal milieu: A multilevel analysis of context effects in performance ratings. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32, 87–100.
26.
ErdemliC.SomerH.BilgicR. (2007). A comparison of written feedback and written plus verbal feedback methods in performance management. Turkish Journal of Psychology, 22, 71–85.
27.
FacteauJ. D.CraigS. B. (2001). Are performance appraisal ratings from different rating sources comparable?Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 215–227.
28.
FedorD. B.BettenhausenK. L.DavisW. (1999). Peer reviews: Employees’ dual roles as raters and recipients. Group & Organization Management, 24, 92–120.
29.
FisherC. D. (1979). Transmission of positive and negative feedback to subordinates: A laboratory investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(5), 533–540.
30.
FletcherC.BaldryC. (2000). A study of individual differences and self-awareness in the context of multi-source feedback. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 303–319.
31.
FlintD. H. (1999). The role of organizational justice in multi-source performance appraisal: Theory-based applications and directions for research. Human Resource Management Review, 9(1), 1–20.
32.
FoxS.BizmanA.GartiA. (2005). Is distributional appraisal more effective than the traditional performance appraisal method?European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 165–172.
33.
FoxS.CaspyT.ReislerA. (1994). Variables affecting leniency, halo and validity of self-appraisal. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(1), 45–56.
34.
GerringJ.CojocaruL. (2016). Selecting cases for intensive analysis: A diversity of goals and methods. Sociological Methods & Research, 45(3), 392–423.
35.
GolmanR.BhatiaS. (2012). Performance evaluation inflation and compression. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(8), 534–543.
36.
GreenbergJ. (2004). Stress fairness to fair no stress: Managing workplace stress by promoting organizational justice. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 352–365.
37.
GregurasG. J.RobieC.SchleicherD. J.IiiM. G. (2003). A field study of the effects of rating purpose on the quality of multisource ratings. Personnel Psychology, 56(1), 1–21.
38.
HainesV. Y.IIISt-OngeS. (2012). Performance management effectiveness: Practices or context?The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(6), 1158–1175.
39.
HarariM. B.RudolphC. W. (2017). The effect of rater accountability on performance ratings: A meta-analytic review. Human Resource Management Review, 27(1), 121–133.
40.
HarariM. B.RudolphC. W.LaginessA. J. (2015). Does rater personality matter? A meta-analysis of rater big five-performance rating relationships. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(2), 387–414.
41.
HuberV. L. (1983). An analysis of performance appraisal practices in the public sector: A review and recommendations. Public Personnel Management, 12(3), 258–267.
42.
IkramullahM.ShahB.KhanS.Ul HassanF. S.ZamanT. (2012). Purposes of performance appraisal system: A perceptual study of civil servants in district Dera Ismail Khan Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(3), 142–151.
43.
IkramullahM.Van ProoijenJ.ZahidM.FaqirI.Ul-HassanS. (2016). Effectiveness of performance appraisal: Developing a conceptual framework using competing values approach. Personnel Review, 45(2), 334–352.
44.
IlgenD. R.Barnes-FarrellJ. L.McKellinD. B. (1993). Performance appraisal process research in the 1980s: What has it contributed to appraisals in use?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54(3), 321–368.
JawaharI. M.WilliamsC. R. (1997). Where all the children are above average: The performance appraisal purpose effect. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 905–925.
47.
KlimoskiR.InksL. (1990). Accountability forces in performance appraisal. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45(2), 194–208.
48.
KuvaasB. (2006). Performance appraisal satisfaction and employee outcomes: Mediating and moderating roles of work motivation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(3), 504–522.
49.
KuvaasB. (2008). A test of hypotheses derived from self-determination theory among public sector employees. Employee Relations, 31(1), 39–56.
50.
LandyF. J.FarrJ. L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87(1), 72–107.
LarsonJ. R.Jr. (1984). The performance feedback process: A preliminary model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33(1), 42–76.
53.
LawlerE. E.III. (1967). The multitrait-multirater approach to measuring managerial job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 369–381.
54.
LevyP. E.WilliamsJ. R. (2004). The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the future. Journal of Management, 30(6), 881–905.
55.
LinderbaumB. A.LevyP. E. (2010). The development and validation of the Feedback Orientation Scale (FOS). Journal of Management, 36(6), 1372–1405.
56.
LondonM. (2003). Job feedback: Giving, seeking, and using feedback for performance improvement. Psychology Press.
57.
LondonM.SmitherJ. W. (1995). Can multi-source feedback change perceptions of goal accomplishment, self-evaluations, and performance-related outcomes? Theory-based applications and directions for research. Personnel Psychology, 48, 803–839.
58.
McEvoyG. M.BeattyR. W. (1989). Assessment centers and subordinate appraisals of managers: A seven-year examination of predictive validity. Personnel Psychology, 42, 37–52.
59.
MeroN. P.MotowidloS. J.AnnaA. L. (2003). Effects of accountability on rating behavior and rater accuracy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(12), 2493–2514.
60.
MeyerH. H.KayE.FrenchJ. (1965). Split roles in performance appraisal. Harvard Business Review, 43(1), 123–129.
61.
MoersF. (2005). Discretion and bias in performance evaluation: The impact of diversity and subjectivity. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(1), 67–80.
62.
MurphyK. R.BalzerW. K. (1989). Rater errors and rating accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 619–624.
MurphyK. R.ClevelandJ. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal. Social, organizational and goal setting. Sage Publications.
65.
MurphyK. R.ClevelandJ. N.SkatteboA. L.KinneyT. B. (2004). Raters who pursue different goals give different ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 158–164.
66.
NgK. Y.KohC.AngS.KennedyJ. C.ChanK. Y. (2011). Rating leniency and halo in multisource feedback ratings: Testing cultural assumptions of power distance and individualism-collectivism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1033–1044.
67.
OECD. (2016). Strategic human resource management survey. Author.
68.
OngaroE. (2010). The Napoleonic administrative tradition and public management reform in France, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. In: PainterM.PetersB.G. (eds) Tradition and Public Administration (pp. 174–190). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
69.
OstroffC. (1993). Rater perceptions, satisfaction and performance ratings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66(4), 345–356.
70.
ParkS.BerryF. (2014). Successful diffusion of a failed policy: The case of pay-for-performance in the US federal government. Public Management Review, 16(6), 763–781.
71.
PearceJ. L.XuQ. J. (2012). Rating performance or contesting status: Evidence against the homophily explanation for supervisor demographic skew in performance ratings. Organization Science, 23(2), 373–385.
72.
PerryJ. L.EngbersT. A.JunS. Y. (2009). Back to the future? Performance-related pay, empirical research, and the perils of persistence. Public Administration Review, 69, 39–51.
73.
RaineyH. G.JungC. S. (2015). A conceptual framework for analysis of goal ambiguity in public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 71–99.
74.
RandallR.SharplesD. (2012). The impact of rater agreeableness and rating context on the evaluation of poor performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85(1), 42–59.
75.
RobertsG. E.ReedT. (1996). Performance appraisal participation, goal setting and feedback: The influence of supervisory style. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 16(4), 29–60.
76.
RubinE. V.EdwardsA. (2020). The performance of performance appraisal systems: Understanding the linkage between appraisal structure and appraisal discrimination complaints. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(15), 1938–1957.
77.
RuggH. (1921). Is the rating of human character practicable?Journal of Education & Psychology, 12(9), 485–501.
78.
SchleicherD. J.BaumannH. M.SullivanD. W.LevyP. E.HargroveD. C.Barros-RiveraB. A. (2018). Putting the system into performance management systems: A review and agenda for performance management research. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2209–2245.
79.
SchleicherD. J.BaumannH. M.SullivanD. W.YimJ. (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of performance management: A 30-year integrative conceptual review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(7), 851–887. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000368
80.
SeawrightJ.GerringJ. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 294–308.
81.
SpenceJ. R.KeepingL. M. (2013). The road to performance ratings is paved with intentions: A framework for understanding managers’ intentions when rating employee performance. Organizational Psychology Review, 3, 360–383.
82.
TaylorE. K.WherryR. J. (1951). A study of leniency in two rating systems. Personnel Psychology, 4, 39–47.
83.
TornowW. W. (1993). Perceptions or reality: Is multi-perspective measurement a means or an end?Human Resource Management, 32, 221–229.
84.
TzinerA.MurphyK. R.ClevelandJ. 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.
85.
TzinerA.MurphyK. R.ClevelandJ. N. (2005). Contextual and rater factors affecting rating behavior. Group & Organization Management, 30, 89–98.
86.
van DierendonckD.HaynesC.BorrillC.StrideC. (2007). Effects of upward feedback on leadership behaviour toward subordinates. The Journal of Management Development, 26, 228–238.
87.
WaungM.HighhouseS. (1997). Fear of conflict and empathic buffering: Two explanations for the inflation of performance feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71(1), 37–54.
88.
WherryR. J. (1952). The control of bias in ratings: VIII. A theory of rating (PRB report no. 922, contract no. DA-49-083 OSA69, Department of the Army). Ohio State University Research Foundation.
89.
WhitingS. W.PodsakoffP. M.PierceJ. R. (2008). Effects of task performance, helping, voice, and organizational loyalty on performance appraisal ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 125–139.
90.
WilliamsJ. R.LevyP. E. (2000). Investigating some neglected criteria: The influence of organizational level and perceived system knowledge on appraisal reactions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(3), 501–513.
91.
WongK. F. E.KwongJ. Y. Y. (2007). Effects of rater goals on rating patterns: Evidence from an experimental field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 577–585.
92.
YinR. K. (1994). Case study research design and methods: Applied social research and methods series (2nd ed.). Sage Publications Inc.
93.
YuklG.FalbeC. M. (1991). Importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 416–423.
