Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:20:44.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perspectives on the Relationship Between Job Performance and Ratings of Job Performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Kevin R. Murphy
Kevin R. Murphy*
Affiliation:
The Pennsylvania State University
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, Moore Building, University Park, PA, 16802
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The comments and suggestions prompted by K. R. Murphy’s (2008) description of alternate models of the relationship between job performance and ratings of job performance reflect 3 broad themes: (a) the relationship between performance appraisal and performance measurement, (b) the best psychometric models for understanding performance ratings, and (c) the appropriateness of static measures for dynamic phenomena. This paper comments on these 3 themes and suggests directions for future research and practice in performance appraisal that focuses on rater goals, organizational interventions to improve the accuracy and value of ratings, and assessments of the value of performance ratings as criteria.

Type
Response
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , June 2008 , pp. 197 - 205
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University

References

Austin, J. T., & Villanova, P. (1992). The criterion problem 1917–1992. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 836–874.10.1037/0021-9010.77.6.836Google Scholar
Banks, C., & Murphy, K. R. (1985). Toward narrowing the research-practice gap in performance appraisal. Personnel Psychology, 38, 335–345.10.1111/j.1744-6570.1985.tb00551.xGoogle Scholar
Binning, J. F. & Barrett, G. V. (1989). Validity of personnel decisions: A conceptual analysis of the inferential and evidential bases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 478–494.10.1037/0021-9010.74.3.478Google Scholar
Bjerke, D. C., Cleveland, J. N., Morrison, R. F., & Wilson, W. C. (1987). Officer fitness report evaluation study (Report No. TR 88–4). San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.Google Scholar
Cleveland, J. N., & Murphy, K. R. (1992). Analyzing performance appraisal as goal-directed behavior. In Ferris, G. & Rowland, K. (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 10, pp. 121–185). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., Rajaratnam, N., & Gleser, G. C. (1965). Theory of generalizability: A liberalization of reliability theory. The British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 16, 137–163.10.1111/j.2044-8317.1963.tb00206.xGoogle Scholar
DeCotiis, T., & Petit, A. (1978). The performance appraisal process: A model and some testable propositions. Academy of Management Review, 3, 635–646.10.2307/257552Google Scholar
DeNisi, A. S. (1996). Cognitive processes in performance appraisal: A research agenda with implications for practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dimitrov, D. M. (2002). Reliability: Arguments for multiple perspectives and potential problems with generalization across studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 783–801.10.1177/001316402236878Google Scholar
Fisher, C. D. (2008). What if we took within-person performance variability seriously? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 185–189.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00036.xGoogle Scholar
Graham, J. M. (2006). Congeneric and (essentially) tau-equivalent estimates of score reliability: What they are and how to use them. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 930–944.10.1177/0013164406288165Google Scholar
Harris, M. M., Ispas, D., & Schmidt, G. F. (2008). Inaccurate performance ratings are a reflection of larger organizational issues. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 190–193.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00037.xGoogle Scholar
Hollenbeck, G. P. (2008). Commentary on Murphy, K. R. “When I use a word …” Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 183–184.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00035.xGoogle Scholar
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Judiesch, M. K. (1990). Individual differences in output variability as a function of job complexity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 28–42.10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.28Google Scholar
Jawahar, I. M. (2005). Do raters consider the influence of situational factors on observed performance when evaluating performance? Evidence from three experiments. Group and Organization Management, 30, 6–41.10.1177/1059601104267664Google Scholar
King, J. F. (2008). How managers think: Why the mediated model makes sense. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 180–182.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00034.xGoogle Scholar
Kraiger, K., & Teachout, M. S. (1990). Generalizability theory as construct-related evidence of the validity of job performance ratings. Human Performance, 3, 19–36.10.1207/s15327043hup0301_2Google Scholar
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72–107.10.1037/0033-2909.87.1.72Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Meyer, H. H., Kay, E., & French, J. (1965). Split roles in performance appraisal. Harvard Business Review, 43, 123–129.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R. (2008). Explaining the weak relationship between job performance and ratings of job performance. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 148–160.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00030.xGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-oriented perspectives. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R., Cleveland, J. N., Skattebo, A. L., & Kinney, T. B. (2004). Raters who pursue different goals give different ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 158–164.10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.158Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R., & DeShon, R. (2000a). Inter-rater correlations do not estimate the reliability of job performance ratings. Personnel Psychology, 53, 873–900.10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb02421.xGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K. R., & DeShon, R. (2000b). Progress in psychometrics: Can industrial and organizational psychology catch up? Personnel Psychology, 53, 913–924.10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb02423.xGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K. R., & Shiarella, A. (1997). Implications of the multidimensional nature of job performance for the validity of selection tests: Multivariate frameworks for studying test validity. Personnel Psychology, 50, 823–854.10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb01484.xGoogle Scholar
Nunnally, J. (1975). Psychometric theory 25 years ago and now. Educational Researcher, 4, 7–14, 19–21.Google Scholar
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (2008). No new terrain: Reliability and construct validity of job performance ratings. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 174–179.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00033.xGoogle Scholar
Putka, D. J., Ingerick, M., & McCloy, R. A. (2008). Integrating traditional perspectives on error in ratings: Capitalizing on advances in mixed-effects modeling. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 167–173.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00032.xGoogle Scholar
Reb, J., & Greguras, G. J. (2008). Dynamic performance and the performance–performance rating relation. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 194–196.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00038.xGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. (2000). Reliability is not validity and validity is not reliability. Personnel Psychology, 53, 901–912.10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb02422.xGoogle Scholar
Tziner, A., Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (2001). Relationships between attitudes toward organizations and performance appraisal systems and rating behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 226–239.10.1111/1468-2389.00176Google Scholar
Tziner, A., Murphy, K. R., Cleveland, J. N., Beaudin, G., & Marchand, S. (1998). Impact of rater beliefs regarding performance appraisal and its organizational contexts on appraisal quality. Journal of Business and Psychology, 12, 457–467.10.1023/A:1025003106150Google Scholar
Woehr, D. J. (2008). On the relationship between job performance and ratings of job performance: What do we really know? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 161–166.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00031.xGoogle Scholar