This study investigated nurses’ reactions to a peer rating system. Their level of system acceptance was assessed with both quantitative and qualitative measures. In addition, participants were asked, in an open response format, what issues and concerns they had regarding peer appraisals. The results indicate that those who perceived the system to be more for developmental feedback purposes, who had positive experiences as raters or as recipients of peer feedback, and who felt the system gave them a chance to voice concerns about performance reported higher levels of acceptance. Content analysis of the participants’ comments revealed four main concerns: the need for additional training, biases believed to influence peer ratings, the time required to perform the ratings, and the criteria used for those ratings. Acceptance, perceived purpose, recipient outcomes, and voice were related to the specific concerns participants mentioned. The theoretical and practical implications of this research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Amabile, T. M.
(1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
2.
Antonioni, D.
(1996, Autumn). Designing an effective 360-degree appraisal process. Organizational Dynamics, 25, 24-38.
3.
Ashford, S. J.
(1986). Feedback seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 465-487.
4.
Barclay, J. H.
, & Harland, L. K. (1995). Peer performance appraisals. Group & Organization Management, 20, 39-60.
5.
Baron, R. A.
(1988). Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 199-207.
6.
Baron, R. A.
(1990). Counteracting the effects of destructive criticism: The relative efficacy of four interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 235-245.
7.
Berger, P. L.
, & Luckman, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Press.
8.
Bernardin, H. J.
, & Cooke, D. K. (1992). The effects of appraisal of discriminability and accuracy of ratings. Psychological Reports, 70, 1211-1215.
9.
Bettenhausen, K. L.
, & Fedor, D. B. (1997). Peer and upward appraisal: A comparison of their benefits and problems. Group and Organization Management, 22, 236-263.
10.
Bies, R.
, & Shapiro, D. (1988). Voice and justification: Their influence on procedural fairness judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 676-685.
11.
Cardy, B.
, & Dobbins, G. (1993). The changing face of performance appraisal: Customer evaluations and 360 appraisals. Human Resource Division News, 16, 17-18.
12.
Cederblom, D.
, & Lounsbury, J. W. (1980). An investigation of user acceptance of peer evaluations. Personnel Psychology, 33, 567-579.
13.
Cobb, A. T.
, Wooton, K. C., & Folger, R. (1995). Justice in the making: Toward understanding the theory and practice of justice in organizational change and development. In W. A. Pasmore & R.W.Woodman(Eds.), Researchinorganizationalchangeanddevelopment (Vol.8,pp.243-295). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
14.
Cropanzano, R.
, Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159-180.
15.
DeNisi, A. S.
, & Mitchell, J. L. (1978). An analysis of peer ratings as predictors and criterion measures and a proposed new application. Academy of Management Review, 3, 369-374.
16.
Eder, R. W.
, & Fedor, D. B. (1989). Priming performance self-evaluations: Moderating effects of rating purpose and judgment confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 474-493.
17.
Farh, J.
, Cannella, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1991). Peer ratings: The impact of purpose on rating quality and user acceptance. Group and Organization Studies, 16, 367-386.
18.
Fazio, R. H.
, & Zanna, M. P. (1981). Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 161-202.
19.
Fedor, D. B.
, & Bettenhausen, K. L. (1989). The impact of purpose, participant preconceptions, and rating level on the acceptance of peer evaluations. Group & Organization Studies, 14, 182-197.
20.
Guzzo, R. A.
, & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307-338.
21.
Herold, D. M.
, & Parsons, C. K. (1985). Assessing the feedback environment in work organizations: Development of the job feedback survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 290-305.
22.
Ilgen, D. R.
, Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349-377.
23.
Jordan, J. L.
, & Nasis, D. B. (1992). Preferences for performance appraisal based on method used, type of rater, and purpose of evaluation. Psychological Reports, 70, 963-969.
24.
Kane, J. S.
, & Lawler, E. E. (1978). Method of peer assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 555-586.
25.
Kelley, H. H.
, & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 457-501.
26.
Klimoski, R. J.
, & London, M. (1974). Role of the rater in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 445-451.
27.
Korsgaard, M. A.
, & Robertson, L. (1995). Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The role of instrumental and noninstrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions. Journal of Management, 21, 657-669.
28.
Lawler, E. E.
(1971). Pay and organizational effectiveness: A psychological view. New York: McGraw-Hill.
29.
Lawler, E. E.
, Mohrman, S., & Ledford, B. (1995). Creating high performance organizations: Practices and results of employee involvement and TQM in Fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
30.
Lawler, E. E.
, Mohrman, S., & Ledford, G. (1992). Employee involvement and total quality management: Practices and results in Fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
31.
Liden, R. C.
, & Mitchell, T. R. (1985). Reactions to feedback: The role of attributions. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 291-308.
32.
Lind, E.
, Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952-959.
33.
Love, K. G.
(1981). Comparison of peer assessment methods: Reliability, validity, friendship bias, and user reaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 451-457.
34.
Maslyn, J. M.
, & Fedor, D. B. (in press). Perceptions of politics: Does measuring different foci matter?Journal of Applied Psychology.
35.
Maurer, T. J.
, & Tarulli, B. A. (1996). Acceptance of peer/upward performance appraisal systems: Role of work context factors and beliefs about managers’ development capability. Human Resource Management, 35, 217-241.
36.
McEvoy, G. M.
, & Buller, P. F. (1987). User acceptance of peer appraisal in an industrial setting. Personnel Psychology, 40, 785-797.
37.
Milliman, J. F.
, Zawacki, R. A., Norman, C., Powell, L., & Kirksey, J. (1994). Companies evaluate employees from all perspectives. Personnel Journal, 73, 99-103.
38.
O’Keefe, D. J.
(1990). Persuasion: Theory and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
39.
Pollack, D. M.
, & Pollack, L. J. (1996). Using 360-degree feedback in performance appraisal. Public Personnel Management, 25, 507-528.
40.
Roadman, H. E.
(1964). An industrial use of peer ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48, 211-214.
41.
Saavedra, R.
, & Kwun, S. K. (1993). Peer evaluations in self-managing work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 450-462.
42.
Shalley, C. E.
(1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 483-503.
43.
Westerman, J. W.
, & Rosse, J. G. (1997). Reducing the threat of rater nonparticipation in 360-degree feedback systems. Group & Organization Management, 22, 288-309.
44.
Wexley, K. N.
, & Klimoski, R. (1984). Performance appraisal: An update. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 2, pp. 35-79). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
45.
Yin, R. K.
(1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
46.
Zhou, J.
(1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 261-276.
