Theory and research suggest that both person and situation influence observed performance. System or situational factors can either enhance or constrain performance. If raters do not compensate for the influence of situational factors, ratings will be contaminated with situational influences and will fail to validly reflect the true level of performance. Whether or not raters incorporate the influence of the conditions under which performance is achieved when evaluating employee performance is a fundamental issue with broad implications. Three experiments were conducted to directly examine if raters adjust their ratings to account for the influence of situational conditions. Results of Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrate that raters, in fact, adjust ratings to incorporate situational influences, and results of Experiment 3 indicate that raters who are high self-monitors are better than low self-monitors in terms of incorporating situational influences into ratings. Implications of results for the broader performance-appraisal literature are discussed, and suggestions are offered to practitioners.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.
2.
Ajzen, I., Timko, C., & White, J. B. (1982). Self-monitoring and the attitude-behavior relation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 426-435.
3.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big 5 personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 41, 1-26.
5.
Bernardin, H. J. (1989). Increasing the accuracy of performance measurement: A proposed solution to erroneous attributions. Human Resource Planning, 12, 239-250.
6.
Bernardin, H. J., & Buckley, R. W. (1981). Strategies in rater training. Academy of Management Review, 6, 205-212.
7.
Bernardin, H. J., & Villanova, P. (1986). Performance appraisal. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field settings (pp. 43-62). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
8.
Blumberg, M., & Pringle, C. D. (1982). The missing opportunity in organizational research: Some implications for a theory of work performance. Academy of Management Review, 7, 560-569.
9.
Borman, W. C., & Hallam, G. L. (1991). Observation accuracy for assessors of work-sample performance: Consistency across task and individual differences correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 11-18.
10.
Bowman, J. S. (1994). At last, an alternative to performance appraisal: Total quality management. Public Administration Review, 54(2), 129-136.
11.
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.
12.
Caldwell, D., & O’Reilly, C. (1982). Boundary spanning and individual performance: The impact of self-monitoring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 124-127.
13.
Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational Psychology (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 687-732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
14.
Cardy, R. L., Dobbins, G. H., & Carson, K. P. (1995). TQM and HRM: Improving performance appraisal research, theory and practice. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 12(2), 106-115.
15.
Cardy, R. L., Sutton, C. L., Carson, K. P., & Dobbins, G. H. (1998). Person and system effects in performance appraisal: Ratings as a function of the degree of performance responsibility and error fulness. Journal of Quality Management, 3(1), 79-99.
16.
Carles, E. M., & Carver, C. S. (1979). Effects of person salience versus role salience on reward allocation in the dyad. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2071-2080.
17.
Carlson, K. D. (2000, August). A model of the determinants of performance outcomes. Paper presented at the Annual Academy of Management Meetings, Toronto, Canada.
18.
Carson, K. P., Cardy, R. L., & Dobbins, G. H. (1991). Performance appraisal as effective management or deadly management disease: Two initial empirical investigations. Group and Organizational Studies, 16(2), 143-159.
19.
Crosby, P. B. (1986). Running things: The art of making things happen. New York: McGraw-Hill.
20.
Deming, D. E. (1986). Out of the crisis: Quality, productivity, and competitive position. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Feldman, J. (1994). On the synergy between theory and application: Social cognition and performance appraisal. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 339-397). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
Forgas, J. P. (1998). On being happy and mistaken: Mood effects on the fundamental attribution error. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 318-331.
23.
Funder, D. C. (1987). Errors and mistakes: Evaluating the accuracy of social judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 75-90.
24.
Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (1985). To carve nature at its joints: On the existence of discrete classes in personality. Psychological Review, 92, 317-349.
25.
Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (1991). Taxonomic analysis redux: Some statistical considerations for testing a latent class model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 141-146.
26.
Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 530-555.
27.
Gatewood, R. D., & Field, H. S. (2001). Human resource selection. Ft. Worth, TX: Dryden Press.
28.
Gilbert, D. T., & Jones, E. E. (1986). Perceiver-induced constraint: Interpretations of self-generated reality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 269-280.
29.
Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias: The what, when, how and why of unwarranted dispositional inference. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21-38.
30.
Gilbert, D. T., Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S. (1988). On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 733-740.
31.
Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12, 9-22.
32.
Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
33.
Hatcher, L., Prus, J. S., Englehard, B., & Farmer, T. M. (1991). A measure of academic situational constraints: Out-of-class circumstances that inhibit college student development. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 953-962.
34.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley.
35.
Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making. New York: Free Press.
36.
Jawahar, I. M. (2001). Attitudes, self-monitoring and appraisal behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 875-883.
37.
Jawahar, I. M. (2002). The influence of dispositional factors and situational constraints on end user performance: A replication and extension. Journal of End User Performance, 14(4), 17-36.
38.
Jawahar, I. M., & Mattsson, J. (in press). Sexism and beautyism effects in selection as a function of self-monitoring level of decision maker. Journal of Applied Psychology.
39.
Jawahar, I. M., & Stone, T. H. (1997). Appraisal purpose versus perceived consequences: The effects of appraisal purpose, perceived consequences, and rater self-monitoring on leniency of ratings and decisions. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 5(1), 33-54.
40.
Jawahar, I. M., & Williams, C. R. (1997). Where all the children are above average: The performance appraisal purpose effect. Personnel Psychology, 50, 905-925.
41.
Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 1-24.
42.
Juran, J. M. (1988). Juran on leadership for quality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
43.
Kane, J. S. (1997). Assessment of the situational and individual components of job performance. Human Performance, 10(3), 193-226.
44.
Kane, J. S., Bernardin, H. J., Villanova, P., & Peyrefitte, J. (1995). Stability of rater leniency: Three studies. Academy of Management Journal, 38(4), 1036-1051.
45.
Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23-34.
46.
Larkin, J. E., & Pines, H. A. (1994). Affective consequences of self-monitoring style in a job interview setting. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15(3), 297-310.
47.
Lerner, M. J. (1977). The justice motive: Some hypotheses as to its origins and forms. Journal of Personality, 45, 1-52.
48.
Lerner, M. J., & Whitehead, L. A. (1980). Procedural justice viewed in the context of justice motive theory. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 219-256). New York: Springer-Verlag.
49.
Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 92-131). New York: Academic Press.
50.
Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167-218). New York: Springer-Verlag.
51.
Longenecker, C. O., Sims, H. P., & Gioia, D. A. (1987). Behind the mask: The politics of employee appraisal. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183-193.
52.
McAllister, D. W., Mitchell, T. R., & Beach, L. R. (1979). The contingency model for the selection of decision strategies: An empirical test of the effects of significance, accountability and reversibility. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24, 228-244.
53.
McCloy, R. A., Campbell, J. P., & Cudek, R. (1994). A confirmatory test of a model of performance determinants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 493-505.
54.
Miller, A. G., Mayerson, N., Pogue, M., & Whitehouse, D. (1977). Perceivers’ explanations of their attributions of attitude. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 111-114.
55.
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
56.
Murphy, K. R., Herr, B. M., Lockhart, M. C., & Maguire, E. (1986). Evaluating the performance of paper people. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 654-661.
57.
Nagy, M. S. (2002). Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(1), 77-86.
58.
Peters, L. H., Chassie, M. B., Lindholm, H. R., O’Connor, E. J., & Kline, C. R. (1982). The joint influence of situational constraints and goal setting on performance and affective outcomes. Journal of Management, 8(2), 7-20.
59.
Peters, L. H., Fisher, C. D., & O’Connor, E. J. (1982). The moderating effect of situational control of performance variance on the relationship between individual differences and performance. Personnel Psychology, 35, 609-621.
60.
Peters, L. H., O’Connor, E. J., & Eulberg, J. R. (1985). Situational constraints: Sources, consequences, and future considerations. In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 3, pp. 79-114). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
61.
Peters, L. H., O’Connor, E. J., & Rudolph, C. J. (1980). The behavioral and affective consequences of performance relevant situational variables. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 79-96.
62.
Pulakos, E. D. (1986). The development of training programs to increase accuracy with different rating tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 76-91.
63.
Quattrone, G. A. (1982). Over attribution and unit formation: When behavior engulfs the person. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 593-607.
64.
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173-220). New York: Academic Press.
65.
Scarpello, V., & Campbell, J. P. (1983). Job satisfaction: Are all the parts there?Personnel Psychology, 36, 577-600.
66.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1981). Employment testing: Old theories and new research. American Psychologist, 36, 1128-1137.
67.
Scholtes, P. R. (1993). Total quality or performance appraisal: Choose one. National Productivity Review, 12(3), 349-363.
68.
Snyder, M. (1979). Self-monitoring process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 85-128). New York: Academic Press.
69.
Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances and private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New York: Freeman.
70.
Snyder, M., Berscheid, E., & Matwychuk, A. (1998). Orientations toward personnel selection: Differential reliance on appearance and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 972-979.
71.
Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. W. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 125-139.
72.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240-261.
73.
Steel, R. P., & Mento, A. J. (1986). Impact of situational constraints on subjective and objective criteria of managerial job performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 254-265.
74.
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Acountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48(3), 227-236.
75.
Trope, Y. (1986). Identification and inferential processes in dispositional attribution. Psychological Review, 93, 239-257.
76.
Trope, Y., & Gaunt, R. (1998). The use of situational information in dispositional inferences: Correction or integration? Unpublished manuscript.
77.
Trope, Y., & Gaunt, R. (1999). A dual-process model of overconfident attributional inferences. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 161-178). New York: Guilford.
78.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
79.
Tziner, A. (1999). The relationship between distal and proximal factors and the use of political considerations in performance appraisal. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14, 217-231.
80.
Tziner, A., Latham, G. P., Prince, B. S., & Haccoun, R. (1996). Development and validation of a questionnaire for measuring political considerations in performance appraisal. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 179-190.
81.
Tziner, A., & Murphy, K. R. (1999). Additional evidence of attitudinal influence in performance appraisal. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13(3), 407-419.
82.
Villanova, P. (1996). Predictive validity of situational constraints in general versus specific performance domains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 532-547.
83.
Villanova, P., Bernardin, H. J., Dahmus, S. A., & Sims, R. (1993). Rater leniency and performance appraisal discomfort. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 789-799.
84.
Villanova, P., & Roman, M. A. (1993). A meta-analytic review of situational constraints and work-related outcomes: Alternative approaches to conceptualization. Human Resource Management Review, 3, 147-175.
85.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley.
86.
Waldman, D. A. (1994). The contributions of total quality management to a theory of work performance. Academy of Management Review, 19(3), 510-536.
87.
Waldman, D. A., & Spangler, W. D. (1989). Putting together the pieces: A closer look at the determinants of job performance. Human Performance, 2, 29-59.
88.
Wanous, J. P., & Reichers, A. E. (1996). Estimating the reliability of single-item measure. Psychological Reports, 78(2), 631-634.
89.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures?Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 247-252.
90.
Wherry, R. J., & Bartlett, C. J. (1982). The control of rating bias in ratings: A theory of rating. Personnel Psychology, 35, 521-551.
91.
White, J. W., & Gerstein, L. H. (1987). Helping: The influence of anticipated social sanctions and self-monitoring. Journal of Personality, 55, 41-54.
