Page 187 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

170 analysis of performance potential
Higher-level managers are involved because they have greater knowledge of the overall
functions the organization has to fulfill and the required qualifications. In addition, they
have supposedly deeper insight into the ongoing changes of the company, its future
structure, and the abilities, knowledge and skills related to the procedure. In contrast to
the immediate superiors they are less likely expected to have own interests that might
affect the evaluation of an employee (e.g., their own career objectives or they do not
want to lose a competent employee).
Members of the human resources department should also be involved (Lattmann,
1994) as it is their task to organize the potential analysis system but, more importantly,
to secure a high performance level of the organization by means of planning the succes-
sion. Additionally, their educational and professional background not only secures the
state of the art with regard to the selection of the appropriate assessment procedures.
Their participation is actually indispensable because their competence as interpreter and
moderator in cases of contradicting judgments cannot be contributed by other observers.
Moreover, a meta-analysis by Thornton and colleagues (Thornton, Gaugler, Rosenthal,
& Bentson, 1992) showed that psychologists were able to give more valid predictions in
assessment center ratings than line managers.
Peer evaluations are the second most commonly used source in performance appraisals
(supervisory ratings being the most commonly used source; Viswesvaran et al., 1996),
and can help to obtain certain behavioral information (such as cooperation). Although
peers are capable of judging performance accurately in general (Fox, Ben-Nahum, &
Yinon, 1989), the accuracy of their ratings depends on the similarity of their performance
to the ratee’s performance (Saavedra & Kwun, 1993) and the purpose of the evaluation
(Farh, Cannella, & Bedeian, 1991). The influence of the relationship between colleagues
on peer evaluation is not completely settled (Landy & Farr, 1986); for example, evalu-
ations by peers might be lenient in case of a good personal relationship or too strict if
the situation furthers feelings of competition (Jochum, 1991). However, there are studies
which indicate that a positive relationship has no great effect on peer ratings (Borman
et al., 1995; Love, 1981).
The employment of self-ratings is discussed controversially. Cawley, Keeping, and
Levy (1998) report higher satisfaction of employees who participated in the performance
appraisal process. However, self-appraisals were less strongly related to overall reactions
(including satisfaction, motivation to improve, utility of appraisal, and fairness) than
value-expressive participation (participation “for the sake of voicing one’s opinion”,
p. 618) and participation intended to influence the appraisal. DeNisi and Shaw (1977)
found that correlations of self-reports of abilities and tests of abilities were too small
to have any practical significance and that self-reports could thus not substitute for
ability tests. Shore et al. (1998) report that candidates who assessed their potential in an
assessment center made use not only of their results in the exercises but also used their
extensive self-knowledge about past performance. This source could well be a major
benefit in predicting future performance. However, several researchers stress the fact
that self-evaluations tend to be more lenient in accordance with the purpose they are
made for (Heneman, 1974; Levine, 1980; Thornton, 1980; Zedeck & Cascio, 1982).
Ashford (1990) sees the motive for such a leniency in the individuals’ need to protect
themselves and Fox, Caspy, and Reisler (1994) add the argument that self-ratings might
be biased in order to reach a certain goal (e.g., a certain aimed-at position). See Moser
(1999) for an up-to-date overview on moderators of self-ratings.