Search

This study replicated and refined research on the effects of escalation of commitment in performance ratings. We utilized experimental manipulations in a laboratory setting to determine whether positive escalation or negative escalation (or both) could be responsible for the effect. In one session, participants (N = 210) were assigned to the perspective of the potential employee's supervisor and chose 1 of 2 candidates for a sales position. In a second session, participants rated the performance of (a) the individual they selected; (b) the individual they rejected; or (c) a third individual, whose preselection information they never viewed. Results replicated previous findings, such that ratings were biased upward when participants rated the performance of the salesperson they had originally selected. Results were not biased downward when individuals rated the performance of the salesperson they had rejected, however. Thus, our results suggest that positive escalation, and not negative escalation, was the cause of the bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Existing research has distinguished between typical and maximal performance. Performance variability is another potentially important aspect of performance that has been infrequently studied. Using longitudinal data from the National Basketball Association (N = 269), we address this gap by examining how these three conceptualizations of performance are related to how organizations compensate their employees. Results indicate that each of these performance aspects is bivariately related to compensation levels, accounting for between 32% and 58% of the variance in compensation. In addition, typical performance and performance variability incrementally predicts compensation levels, although maximal performance does not. Implications for research and practice are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]