Although performance appraisal research has been ongoing for more than 50 years, the focus has largely been on the rater and the rating instruments. This study seeks to answer a more recent call by researchers to focus on contextual variables surrounding the performance appraisal process by analyzing two such variables: appraisal purpose and rater accountability. Results indicate that holding raters accountable for the accuracy of their ratings, especially when ratings are for administrative purposes, may be an effective strategy for reducing leniency error
Arvey, R. D., & Murphy, K. R. (1998). Performance evaluation in work settings. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 141-168.
2.
Bernardin, H. J., & Orban, J. A. (1990). Leniency effect as a function of rating format, purpose for appraisal, and rater individual differences. Journal of Business and Psychology, 5, 197-211.
3.
Bernardin, H. J., & Villanova, P. (1986). Performance appraisal. In E. Locke (Ed.) Generalizing from laboratory to field settings (pp. 43-62). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
4.
Blumberg, H. H. (1972). Communication of interpersonal evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 157-162.
5.
Farh, J., & Werbel, J. D. (1986). Effects of purpose of the appraisal and expectation of validation of self-appraisal leniency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 527-529.
6.
Gioia, D. A., & Longenecker, C. O. (1994). Delving into the dark side: The politics of executive appraisal. Organizational Dynamics, 22, 47-58.
7.
Glen, R. M. (1990). Performance appraisal: An unnerving yet useful process. Public Personnel Management, 19, 1-10.
8.
Harris, M. M., Smith, D. E., & Champagne, D. (1995). A field study of performance appraisal purpose: Research-versus administrative-based ratings. Personnel Psychology, 48, 151-160.
9.
Jawahar, I. M., & Williams, C. R. (1997). Where all the children are above average: The performance appraisal purpose effect. Personnel Psychology, 50, 905-925.
10.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
11.
Klimoski, R., & Inks, L. (1990). Accountability forces in performance appraisal. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 45, 194-208.
12.
Laud, R. L. (1984). Performance appraisal and its link to strategic management development. Journal of Management Development, 3(4), 3-11.
13.
Longenecker, C. O. (1989). Truth or consequences: Politics and performance appraisals. Business Horizons, 32, 76-82.
14.
Longenecker, C. O., & Gioia, D. A. (1994). The politics of executive appraisals. Journal of Compensation and Benefits, 10, 5-11.
15.
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.
16.
Martin, D. C., Bartol, K. M., & Kehoe, P. E. (2000). The legal ramifications of performance appraisal: The growing significance. Public Personnel Management, 29, 379-406.
17.
Mero, N. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1995). Effects of rater accountability on the accuracy and the favorability of performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 517-524.
18.
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Roberts, G. E. (1998). Perspectives on enduring and emerging issues in performance appraisals. Public Personnel Management, 27, 301-320.
20.
Simonson, I., & Nye, P. (1992). The effect of accountability on susceptibility to decision errors. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 416-446.
21.
Tessor, A., & Rosen, S. (1975). The reluctance to transmit bad news. In L Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 193-232). New York: Academic Press.
22.
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 297-332.
23.
Tziner, A., & Murphy, K. R. (1999). Additional evidence of attitudinal influences in performance appraisal. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13, 407-419.
24.
Villanova, P., & Bernardin, H. J. (1991). Performance appraisal. The means, motive, and opportunity to manage impressions. In R. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Applied impression management: How image-making affects managerial decisions (Vol. 135, pp. 81-96). Newbury Park, Sage.
