400:237 Performance Appraisal
Spring 2008 M,W 9:30-10:45 BAK 315
Textbook Smither, J. W. (Ed.) (1998).
Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Objectives
This course will examine theoretical and
empirical work pertaining to performance appraisal, employee development,
feedback, and related issues. Consistent with the scientist-practitioner model,
we will review, critique, and propose research, and use scientific theories and
empirical research to understand
and design appraisal systems. Performance Assessment Exams. The
first exam will
be multiple choice and will cover the topics in the Landy readings. The second
exam will cover job analysis and criteria and will be a combination of multiple
choice and essay questions. The first two exams are worth 50 points each. The final exam is a
an integrative, take home essay and is worth 100 points. Paper. In teams of two,
students will submit either a research proposal or a performance
appraisal system for their term paper. The research proposal should include a
methods section and measures. The performance appraisal system should include
copies of the appraisal forms. The paper should have a strong grounding in the
research literature. These papers will also be presented in class. The
paper/presentation is worth 100 points. Assignments. There are two
assignments due, one on job analysis and one on legal issues in appraisal. Each
is worth 25 points. Facilitator. Each student will
act as a class facilitator, leading discussion about one of the empirical
articles. Facilitation is worth 50 points. Participation. Students are
expected to have read the assignments and to be prepared to discuss them in
class. Participation is worth 50 points. Grading Final grades will be determined by
calculating the percentage of earned points and assigning a letter grade using
the "10% cut-off rule" (i.e., 90% for A, 80% for B, etc.). Pluses and
minuses will be given for scores in the upper and lower 2.5% of each grade level
(i.e., > 97.5% for A+, < 92.5% for A-). Policies Academic Ethics. Students must observe the
Professor
Adam Butler
Office
Baker
435
Hours
T,R
1-2; M,W 10:45-11:15; or by appointment
Phone
319.273.7293
Fax
319.273.6188
Email
adam.butler@uni.edu
Web
http://www.uni.edu/butlera
Accommodations for Special Needs. Students with a disability should contact the UNI Office of Disability Services.
Course Schedule
|
Week |
Reading |
Topic |
Notes |
| 1.14 | Ch. 4 | course introduction & overview | Read Landy & Conte 4.3, 4.4, 5.1-5.4 |
|
Criteria |
|||
| 1.21 | 1 | job analysis; O*NET | no class 1.21. Exam I 1.23 |
| 1.28 | 2-4 | criteria overview; alternative criteria | job analysis exercise due 1.28 |
| 2.4 | 5 | dynamic criteria | Exam II 2.6; 5. Evette |
|
Performance Appraisal |
|||
| 2.11 | Ch. 1; 6-7 | performance appraisal overview | |
| 2.18 | Ch. 11; 8 | cognitive perspective |
one page description of paper due 2.18; 8. Karolina |
| 2.25 | 9-10 | psychometric perspective | |
| 3.3 | 11-12 | psychometric perspective | 11. Jeannie; 12. Khasha |
| 3.10 | Ch. 2; 13 | social perspective: due process | legal issues exercise due 3.10 |
| 3.17 | Spring Break | ||
| 3.24 | Ch. 6, 14-15 | social perspective: due process | 15. Jeremy |
| 3.31 | 16 | social perspective: motivation | 16. Cassie; no class 4.2 |
| 4.7 | 17 | social perspective: motivation | no class 4.7; 17. Kama |
| 4.14 | Ch. 5; 18-19 | social perspective: politics | 19. Greg |
| 4.21 | 20-21 | feedback | 20. Amanda; 21. Kat |
| 4.28 | team reports | paper due 4.28 | |
| 5.7 | Exam III 10am Wed | ||
Note. Numbers not preceded by "Ch." refer to readings below.
1. Sackett, P. R., & Laczo, R. M. (2003). Job and work analysis. In W. C. Borman et al. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (vol. 12, pp. 21-38). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
2. Cascio, W. (1998). Applied psychology in human resource management (pp. 41-57). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman & Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98).
4. Cleveland, J. (2005). What is success? Who defines it? Perspectives on the criterion problem as it relates to work and family. In E. E. Kossek and S. J. Lambert (Eds.), Work and life integration: organizational, cultural, and individual perspectives (pp. 319-346). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Sturman, M. C., Cheramie, R. A., & Cashen, L. H. (2005). The impact of job complexity and performance measurement on the temporal consistency, stability, and test-retest reliability of employee job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 269-283.
6. Cascio, W. (1998). Applied psychology in human resource management (pp. 58-79). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
7. Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives (pp. 1-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8. DeNisi, A. S. & Peters, L. H. (1996). Organization of information in memory and the performance appraisal process: Evidence from the field. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 717-.737.
9. Murphy, K. R., Jako, R. A., & Anhalt, R. L. (1993). Nature and consequences of halo error: A critical analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 218-225.
10. Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (2005). Is there a general factor in ratings of job performance? A meta-analytic framework for disentangling substantive and error influences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 108-131.
11. Facteau, J. D., & Craig, S. B. (2001). Are performance appraisal ratings from different rating sources comparable? Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 215-227.
12. Greguras, G. J., Robie, C., Schleicher, D. J., & Goff, M. (2003). A field study of the effects of rating purpose on the quality of multisource ratings. Personnel Psychology, 56, 1-21.
13. Werner, J. (1997). Explaining U.S. courts of appeal decisions involving performance appraisal: Accuracy, fairness and validation. Personnel Psychology, 50, 1-24.
14. Folger, R., Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1992). A due process metaphor for performance appraisal. In B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organziational behavior (vol. 13, pp. 129-177). Greenwhich, CT: JAI Press.
15. Taylor, M. S., Tracy, K. B., Renard, M. K., Harrison, J. K., & Carroll, S. J. (1995). Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 495-523.
16. 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, 517-524.
17. Wong, K. F. E., Kwong, J. Y. Y. (2007). Effect of rater goals on rating patterns: Evidence from an experimental field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 577-585.
18. Longenecker, C. O., Sims, H. P., & Gioia, D. A. (1987). Behind the mask: The politics of employee appraisal. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183-193.
19. Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123-136.
20. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback intervention on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.
21. Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58, 33-66.