Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring Accountability in the Performance Appraisal Context: Rater Status and Organization Culture as Determinants of Rater Accountability

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop a measure of rater accountability, test differences in raters and ratees’ perceived level of rater accountability, and examine the positive relationship between an organizational culture promoting accurate appraisals and rater accountability. A total of 374 surveys were collected from full-time civil servants working in four central government agencies and three local government offices in South Korea. The sample consisted of 254 men and 120 women, and the average organization tenure was 15 years. Rater accountability measures were developed by modifying felt accountability measures and showed internal reliability. The results of multiple regression analysis reveal that an organizational culture promoting accurate appraisals affects rater accountability. However, contrary to expectation, raters and ratees show no meaningful difference in their level of perceived rater accountability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Reference

  • Andersen, R. (2008). Modern methods for robust regression (no. 152). Thousand Oaks: Solid Action on Globalization and Environment.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Atwater, L. E., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F. J., & Fleenor, J. W. (1998). Self-other agreement: does it really matter? Personnel Psychology, 51(3), 577–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernardin, H. J. (1979). The predictability of discrepancy measures of role constructs. Personnel Psychology, 32(1), 139–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breaux, D. M., Munyon, T. P., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2009). Politics as a moderator of the accountability—job satisfaction relationship: evidence across three studies. Journal of Management, 35(2), 307–326. doi:10.1177/0149206308318621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 358–368.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, R. D., & Weisberg, S. (1983). Diagnostics for heteroscedasticity in regression. Biometrika, 70(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, A. B., Harvey, R. D., & Ravden, D. (2005). Sources of political distortions in performance appraisals: appraisal purpose and rater accountability. Group and Organization Management, 30(1), 42–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 619–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farh, J., & Werbel, J. D. (1986). Effects of purpose of the appraisal and expectation of validation on self-appraisal leniency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 527–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, G. R., Munyon, T. P., Basik, K., & Buckley, M. R. (2008). The performance evaluation context: social, emotional, cognitive, political, and relationship components. Human Resource Management Review, 18(3), 146–163. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleenor, J. W., Smither, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Braddy, P. W., & Sturm, R. E. (2010). Self–other rating agreement in leadership: a review. Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1005–1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frink, D. D., & Ferris, G. R. (1998). Accountability, impression management, and goal setting in the performance evaluation process. Human Relations, 51(10), 1259–1283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resources management. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 16). Stamford: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Advancing accountability theory and practice: introduction to the human resource management review special edition. Human Resource Management Review, 14(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frink, D. D., Hall, A. T., Perryman, A. A., Ranft, A. L., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., et al. (2008). Meso-level theory of accountability in organizations. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 27, 177–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelfand, M. J., Lim, B., & Raver, J. L. (2004). Culture and accountability in organizations: variations in forms of social control across cultures. Human Resource Management Review, 14(1), 135–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, M. C., Visser, P. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (2000). Coping with accountability cross-pressures: low-effort evasive tactics and high-effort quests for complex compromises. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(11), 1380–1391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, C. N. (1972). Relationships among role accuracy, compliance, performance evaluation, and satisfaction within managerial dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 15(2), 205–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guion, R. M. (1973). A note on organizational climate. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9(1), 120–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A. T., & Ferris, G. R. (2011). Accountability and extra-role behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 23(2), 131–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A., Frink, D., Ferris, G., Hochwarter, W., Kacmar, C., & Bowen, M. (2003). Accountability in human resources management. In C. Schriesheim & L. Neider (Eds.), New directions in human resource management (pp. 29–63). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A., Royle, T., Brymer, R., Perrewé, P., Ferris, G., & Hochwarter, W. (2006). Relationships between felt accountability as a stressor and strain reactions: the neutralizing role of autonomy across two studies. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(1), 87–99. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.11.1.87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., & Buckley, M. R. (2015). An accountability account: a review and synthesis of the theoretical and empirical research on felt accountability. Journal of Organizational Behavior. doi:10.1002/job.2052.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, L. C. (2006). Statistics with Stata: updated for version 9. Belmont: Thompson Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, M. M., Smith, D. E., & Champagne, D. (1995). A field study of performance appraisal purpose: research- versus administrative-based ratings. Personnel Psychology, 48(1), 151–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidemeier, H., & Moser, K. (2009). Self-other agreement in job performance ratings: a meta-analytic test of a process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 353–370.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Accountability at work: An examination of antecedents and consequences. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando.

  • Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewé, P. L., Hall, A. T., & Ferris, G. R. (2005). Negative affectivity as a moderator of the form and magnitude of the relationship between felt accountability and job tension. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(5), 517–534. doi:10.1002/job.324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., Gavin, M. B., Perrewé, P. L., Hall, A. T., & Frink, D. D. (2007). Political skill as neutralizer of felt accountability–job tension effects on job performance ratings: a longitudinal investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 226–239. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D. R., Peterson, R. B., Martin, B. A., & Boeschen, D. A. (1981). Supervisor and subordinate reactions to performance appraisal sessions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28(3), 311–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R., Choi, C. C., Ko, C. E., McNeil, P. K., Minton, M. K., Wright, M. A., et al. (2008). Organizational and psychological climate: a review of theory and research. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(1), 5–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korsgaard, M. A., Meglino, B. M., & Lester, S. W. (2004). The effect of other orientation on self–supervisor rating agreement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(7), 873–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255–275.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. (2004). The social context of performance appraisal: a review and framework for the future. Journal of Management, 30(6), 881–905. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, R. E. (2011). Accountability is key to effective performance appraisal systems. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4(2), 173–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lievens, F. (2001). Assessor training strategies and their effects on accuracy, interrater reliability, and discriminant validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 255–264.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J., & Siehl, C. (1983). Organizational culture and counterculture: an uneasy symbiosis. Organizational Dynamics, 12(2), 52–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menard, S. (1995). Applied logistic regression analysis: Sage University series on quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(4), 517–524. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mero, N. P., Motowidlo, S. J., & Anna, A. L. (2003). Effects of accountability on rating behavior and rater accuracy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(12), 2493–2514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mero, N. P., Guidice, R. M., & Anna, A. L. (2006). The interacting effects of accountability and individual differences on rater response to a performance-rating task. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(4), 795–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mero, N. P., Guidice, R. M., & Brownlee, A. L. (2007). Accountability in a performance appraisal context: the effect of audience and form of accounting on rater response and behavior. Journal of Management, 33(2), 223–252. doi:10.1177/0149206306297633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mero, N. P., Guidice, R. M., & Werner, S. (2014). A field study of the antecedents and performance consequences of perceived accountability. Journal of Management, 40(6), 1627–1652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MOSPA (Ministry of Security and Public Administration of Korea) (2013). 2013 Local government civil servant personnel administration manual (11–1311000–000122-14). http://www.mogaha.go.kr/frt/bbs/type001/commonSelectBoardArticle.do?bbsId=BBSMSTR_000000000012&nttId=35469. Accessed 07 Feb 2016.

  • MPAS (Ministry of Public Administration and Security) (2011). 2011 civil servant personnel administration manual. http://www.mogaha.go.kr/frt/bbs/type001/commonSelectBoardArticle.do?bbsId=BBSMSTR_000000000012&nttId=35422. Accessed 07 Feb 2016.

  • Mulvaney, R. R., Zwahr, M., & Baranowski, L. (2006). The trend toward accountability: what does it mean for HR managers? Human Resource Management Review, 16(3), 431–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality and Quantity, 41(5), 673–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S. (2014). Motivation of Public Managers as Raters in Performance Appraisal Developing a Model of Rater Motivation. Public Personnel Management, 43(4), 387–414. doi:10.1177/0091026014530675

  • Roch, S. G. (2005). An investigation of motivational factors influencing performance ratings: rating audience and incentive. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(8), 695–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roch, S. G., Woehr, D. J., Mishra, V., & Kieszczynska, U. (2012). Rater training revisited: an updated meta-analytic review of frame-of-reference training. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85(2), 370–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royle, M. T., Hall, A. T., Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewé, P. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2005). The interactive effects of accountability and job self-efficacy on organizational citizenship behavior and political behavior. Organizational Analysis, 13(1), 53–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 361–388.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shepperd, J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: a motivation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113(1), 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shore, T. H., & Tashchian, A. (2002). Accountability forces in performance appraisal: effects of self-appraisal information, normative information, and task performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2), 261–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, I., & Nye, P. (1992). The effect of accountability on susceptibility to decision errors. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51(3), 416–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: the neglected social context of judgment and choice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7(1), 297–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: toward a social contingency model. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 331–377). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turban, D. B., & Jones, A. P. (1988). Supervisor-subordinate similarity: types, effects, and mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 228–234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tziner, A., Murphy, K. R., Cleveland, J. N., & Roberts-Thompson, G. P. (2001). Relationships between attitudes toward organizations and performance appraisal systems and rating behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(3), 226–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, W., Volgering, M., & Hessels, M. (1998). Exploring the conceptual expansion within the field of organizational behaviour: organizational climate and organizational culture. Journal of Management Studies, 35(3), 303–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogt, P. W. (2005). Dictionary of statistics and methodology: a nontechnical guide for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks: Solid Action on Globalization and Environment.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wikhamn, W., & Hall, A. T. (2014). Accountability and satisfaction: organizational support as a moderator. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(5), 458–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Administration, Kwangwoon University, 20 Gwangun-ro, Nowon-Gu, Seoul, 01897, South Korea

    Seejeen Park

Authors
  1. Seejeen Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seejeen Park.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

The present Research has been conducted by the Research Grant of Kwangwoon University in 2016.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Park, S. Measuring Accountability in the Performance Appraisal Context: Rater Status and Organization Culture as Determinants of Rater Accountability. Curr Psychol 37, 162–171 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9499-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9499-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation