Skip to main content
Log in

Work planning and performance review as a basis for merit pay decisions: An evaluation

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

abstract

The Work Planning and Performance Review (WPPR) System, developed in a midwestern state as a basis for pay-for-performance decisions in the state government, is described. The WPPR's job relevance was evaluated in one state agency by comparing WPPR scores with scores on a behavioral checklist developed for that purpose. Supervisor and subordinate perceptions of the relevance of the two systems are described. Comparison and perception data indicate the WPPR lacks content validity. Probable impact on the merit pay system is discussed.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bernardin, H. J., and Beatty, R. W. (1984).Performance appraisal: Assessing human behavior at work, Boston: Kent Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borman, W. C. (1979). Format and training effects on rating accuracy and rater errors.Journal of Applied Psychology, 64: 410–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.Psychometrika, 16: 297–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fay, C. H., and Latham, G. P. (1982). Effects of training and rating scales on rating errors.Personnel Psychology, 35: 105–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique.Psychological Bulletin, 51: 327–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivancevich, J. M. (1979). Longitudinal study of the effects of rater training on psychometric error in ratings.Journal of Applied Psychology, 64: 502–508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivancevich, J. M., Donnelley, J. H., and Lyon, H. L. (1970). A study of the impact of management by objectives on perceived need satisfaction.Personnel Psychology, 23: 139–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kentucky Legislative Research Commission (1983).Forty-Nine state survey, Frankfort, KY.

  • Kentucky Legislative Research Commission. Program Review and Investigations Committee (1983).Employee survey on the state's new personnel system, Frankfort, KY.

  • Latham, G. P. and Wexley, K. N. (1981).Increasing productivity through performance appraisal. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latham, G. P., Fay, C. H., and Saari, L. M. (1979). The development of behavioral observation scales for appraising the performance of foremen.Personnel Psychology, 32: 299–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. C. (1976). Behaviors, results, and organizational effectiveness: The problem of criteria. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • SPSSX users manual (1983). New York: McGraw Hill.

  • Wallace, M. J., Jr., and Fay, C. H. (1983).Compensation: Theory and practice, Boston: Kent Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fay, C.H., Clark, R.G. Work planning and performance review as a basis for merit pay decisions: An evaluation. J Bus Psychol 1, 276–290 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01020816

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01020816

Keywords

Navigation