Page 149 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

references 131
take place—in which case the research need in this domain will continue. If work and
organisational psychologists are to make a distinctive contribution to understanding
and improving PA in the future, it would seem important that they do not devote as
much time as in the past to “systems” perspectives (which has sometimes made their
work indistinguishable from that of human resource and general management studies
researchers) or to searching for the “perfect” rating scale. Instead, they might concentrate
more on doing what they are uniquely qualified to do—trying to understand, describe
and predict the appraisal interaction at an individual psychological level.

REFERENCES

Antonioni, D. (1996). Designing an effective 360-degree appraisal feedback process. Organiza-
tional Dynamics, 25, 24–38.
Arvey, R. D., & Murphy, K. R. (1998). Performance evaluation in work settings. Annual Review
Psychology, 49, 141–168.
Ashford, S. J. (1989). Self-assessments in organizations: A literature review and integrative model.
Research in Organizational Behaviour, 11, 133–174.
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies
of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 370–398.
Austin, J. T., & Villanova, P. (1992). The criterion problem, 1917–92. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 77, 836–74.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological:
Review, 84, 191–215.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance:
A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Bastos, M., & Fletcher, C. (1995). Exploring the individual’s perception of sources and credibility
of feedback in the work environment. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 3,
29–40.
Beer, M. (1981). Performance appraisal: Dilemmas and possibilities. Organizational Dynamics,
9, 24–36.
Beyer, S. (1990). Gender differences in accuracy of self evaluations of performance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 960–970.
Burke, R. J., & Wilcox, D. S. (1969). Effects of different patterns and degrees of openness in
superior–subordinate communication of subordinate job satisfaction. Academy of Management
Journal, 12, 319–326.
Burke, R. J., Weitzel, W., & Weir, T. (1978). Characteristics of effective employee performance
review and development interviews: Replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 31,
903–920.
Cascio, W. F. (1995). Whither industrial and organizational psychology in a changing world of
work? American Psychologist, 50, 928–939.
Cassidy, T., & Lynn, R. (1989). A multifactorial approach to achievement motivation: The devel-
opment of a comprehensive measure. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 301–312.
Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (1998). Participation in the performance appraisal
process and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 615–631.
Cederblom, D. (1982). The performance appraisal interview: A review, implications and sugges-
tions. Academy of Management Review, 7, 219–227.
Cleveland, J. N., & Murphy, K. R. (1992). Analyzing performance appraisal as goal-directed
behavior. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 10, 121–185.
Cummings, L. L., & Schwab, D. P. (1973). Performance in organizations: Determinants and
appraisal. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman & Co.
Cunningham-Snell, N., Anderson, N., Fletcher, C., & Gibb, A. (1998). What influences candidates’
perceptions of procedural fairness: Due process or final verdict? Paper presented at the British
Psychological Society Occupational Psychology Conference, Eastbourne.