Search

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to test alternative models of job performance based on competing categorization criteria. Design/methodological/approach: Survey-based data were collected from individuals in two separate studies. In Study 1, proficiency ratings of job performance were collected from individuals ( N = 553) across multiple jobs in four organizations in three Latin America countries. Similar data ( N = 489) were collected as part of a second study in order to provide additional support for the results observed in the first study. Findings: Modest support was obtained for performance models based on prior literature and a modified ten-factor solution. Follow-up analyses, on the basis of multidimensional scaling, suggested an alternative categorization that unveiled three underlying proficiency-dimensions. Emerging dimensions suggest that proficiency can be classified according to (a) the target of work behaviors (i.e., data, persons, and things), (b) the degree of influence behaviors convey (controlling others versus do-it-yourself), and (c) the degree of interaction involved (integration vs. working in isolation). Implications: The modest fit of the data with performance models derived from the extant literature calls for further investigations of the structure emerging from the current studies. Originality: These studies contrasted existing methods to categorize employee proficiency and provided empirical evidence of the shortcomings of these methods. Results also provided alternative criteria to discriminate performance behaviors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to examine employees’ reactions to the use of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) in performance evaluations. In addition, gender differences in such reactions were examined. Data were obtained from a sample of working adults ( n = 78) and a sample of students ( n = 249). In the first study, participants compared the fairness of 11 different weighting combinations of OCB and core task behavior, using a within-subjects design. In the second study, low, medium, and high weightings of OCB were compared using a between-subjects design. In both studies, participants reported that evaluating employees on OCB was fair. OCB weightings of 30– 50% were perceived as the most fair. Men felt that OCB weighting of 20–30% were the most fair and women felt that OCB weightings of 25–50% were the most fair. Considering that employees are evaluated on their OCB, it is important to know that they feel that it is fair to do so. Choosing how heavily to weigh OCB may be more difficult, although weightings of 25–30% OCB were perceived to be fair to both the men and women in this research. This is the first study to examine employee reactions to the use of OCB in performance evaluations and add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that there are gender differences in the perceptions of OCB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We isolate and describe four key elements that distinguish different forms of forced distribution systems (FDS). These key elements are the consequences for low performers, differentiation of rewards for top performers, frequency of feedback, and comparison group size. We examine how these elements influence respondents’ attraction to FDS. Undergraduate students ( n = 163) completed a policy capturing study designed to determine how these four FDS elements influence their attraction to FDS. We examine the relative importance of these elements that most influence attraction to different FDS, as well as individual attributes (i.e., cognitive ability, gender, and major) that may affect those preferences. Respondents were most attracted to systems with less stringent treatment of low performers, high differentiation of rewards, frequent feedback and large comparison groups. Consequences for low performers were nearly twice as influential as any other element. Respondents with higher cognitive ability favored high reward differentiation and males were less affected by stringent consequences for low performers. Before practitioners implement FDS, it would be prudent to consider all four elements examined in this study—with the treatment of low performers being the most salient issue. Future accounts of FDS should clarify the nature of these elements when reporting on FDS. Such precision will be useful in generating a knowledge base on FDS. We add precision to the discussion of FDS by identifying four key elements. This is one of the first studies to examine perceptions of FDS from a ratee perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research has demonstrated that performance information (e.g., prior supervisor ratings) can bias behavioral ratings. However, research has not fully explored the effects of performance cues on raters' memory. In addition, no studies have attempted to eliminate this performance cue effect. This study addressed these deficiencies by collecting both free recall and recognition memory measures while testing an unstructured free recall intervention. Results indicate that performance cues do affect the recall of performance relevant behaviors from memory. Contrary to expectations, free recall did not prove to be an effective intervention. Implications of these findings for future attempts to remove the performance cue effect are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The unique relationship of perceived pay level equity, perceived appraisal accuracy, merit increase satisfaction, trust in supervisor, and trust in top management to employee beliefs that pay is tied to performance was investigated in a sample of 658 managerial, professional, and clerical employees. Pay level equity, merit increase satisfaction, and trust in top management exhibited a significant unique relationship. Post hoc analysis found appraisal accuracy exhibited a significant unique relationship with belief that pay is tied to performance among employees receiving a lower or higher than expected performance appraisal, but not among employees receiving the expected performance appraisal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study re-examined the earlier conclusion by F. Schmidt and J. Hunter (1983) that incentive pay reduces between-worker differences in output, based on their finding that the standard deviation of employee output as a percentage of mean output (SDp) is smaller under piece-rate compensation than under hourly pay. Results of the present study indicate that while the average observed SDp is larger under hourly conditions, this difference disappears after correcting for unreliability in the output measures. It appears that the difference in mean observed SDp values is due to the fact that there is more measurement error in measures of output for employees working under nonincentive-based compensation conditions. This finding suggests that incentive pay may reduce random response variability in employee output but does not reduce differences between employees in work effort and motivation. This finding also suggests that type of compensation system does not affect the percentage output increases produced through improved selection. These findings have implications for theories of job performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]