Interpersonal Affect: Does It Really Bias Performance Appraisals?
- 17 Downloads
Interpersonal affect, a like-dislike relationship between a supervisor and his/her subordinate, has traditionally been conceptualized as a source of bias in performance appraisals. However, some researchers have argued that affect may not be a bias, especially where it develops as a result of past performance. In this field study, using data from 190 supervisors, we further delineate the relationship between affect and performance ratings. Both affect and performance level were found to have significant effects on performance ratings. Results also indicated that raters are able to separate their liking for a subordinate from actual performance when assigning performance ratings, suggesting that affect may not operate as a bias in the appraisal process.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Cardy, Robert L. “The Effect of Affect on Performance Appraisal.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic University, 1982.Google Scholar
- Carey, James A. “Factors Affecting the Influence of Liking on Observation and Evaluation Accuracy in Performance Appraisal.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Tempe: Arizona State University, 1997.Google Scholar
- Dipboye, Robert L. “Some Neglected Variables in Research on Discrimination in Appraisals.” Academy of Management Review 10 (January 1985): 116–27.Google Scholar
- Dobbins, Gregory H. “The Effect of Leader Performance and Leader Likeableness Upon Ratings of Leader Behavior.” Unpublished master’s thesis. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic University, 1982.Google Scholar
- Graen, George. “Role Making Processes Within Complex Organizations.” In Marvin D. Dunette, ed. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976, pp. 1201–45.Google Scholar
- Ilgen, Daniel R. and Jack M. Feldman. “Performance Appraisal: A Process Focus.” Research in Organizational Behavior 5 (Annual 1983): 141–97.Google Scholar
- Katz, Irwin and David C. Glass. “An Ambivalence-Amplification Theory of Behavior Toward the Stigmatized.” In William G. Austin and Stephen Worshel, eds. Social Psychology of Intergroup Rrelations. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole, 1979, pp. 55–70.Google Scholar
- Latham, Gary P. and Kenneth N. Wexley. Improving Performance Through Effective Performance Appraisal. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1981.Google Scholar
- and Mariangela Battista. “Potential Sources of Bias in Supervisor Ratings Used for Test Validation.” Journal of Business and Psychology 9 (1995): 389–414.Google Scholar
- Lombardo, Michael M. and Morgan W. McCall, Jr. “Leader on the Line: Observations from a Simulation of Managerial Work.” In cJames G. Hunt, Uma Sekaran, and Chester A. Schriesheim, eds. Leadership: Beyond Establishment Views. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1982, pp. 50–67.Google Scholar
- Thibodeaux, Henry F. and Rosemary H. Lowe. “Convergence of Leader-Member Exchange and Mentoring: An Investigation of Social Influence Patterns.” Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 11 (March 1996): 97–114.Google Scholar
- Trost, Melanie R., Angelo J. Kinicki, and Gregory E. Prussia. “Chronic Category Accessibility and Mood Influence Accuracy of Appraisal Ratings.” Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, Washington, DC, August, 1989.Google Scholar
- Williams, Kevin J. and George M. Alliger. “Affect and the Cognitively Active Rater: Examining the Role of Affect in Performance Decisions.” In Robert L. Cardy, Symposium conducted at the Academy of Management Meeting, Washington, DC, 1989 on “The Theoretical and Applied Utility of Cognitive Personnel Research.”Google Scholar
- Winer, Benjamin J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.Google Scholar