open access
메뉴
open access
메뉴
ISSN : 1229-0696
The purpose of this study was to investigate the construct of performance evaluation effectiveness from evaluatee's perspective and to suggest its measurement tool for organizations to use it as a criterion of the performance system effectiveness. As the performance evaluation effectiveness from evaluatee's perspective is associated with attitudinal aspect that may be influenced by common method variances, the current study also included in the examination the emotional aspect of personality and the actual performance ratings appraised by supervisors. Through the three sub-studies in total, this research have tested the structure of the performance evaluation effectiveness construct by calibrating the measurement tool each time. Study 1 has started with a pilot research using a sample from various organizations, in which an initial measurement tool with procedural and distributive justice dimensions was set up, with an elimination of the interactional justice due to the unclear dimensional identity. The main analysis of study 1 was conducted using a sample from an electronic part production organization to test the five-dimensional structure of the performance evaluation effectiveness in which two justice dimensions, accuracy, utility, and satisfaction dimensions were included. The study examined a 5-factor model and a model of higher-order structure with the 5 factors under it. Although both models showed good fit indices, the 5-factor model was found as slightly better-fitted model. In the additional examination that included the method variance by emotional personality, the personality did not produce method bias to the structure of the construct. Study 2 was to re-examine the structure of the evaluation effectiveness construct, in which the 5-factor model fit was confirmed similar to study 1. In this study the actual performance record rated by supervisor was also examined to test if it affects as a significant method variance. The results showed that the actual performance had significant effects on both measurement model and structure model as well. In study 3, the construct and the measures were examined in terms of the generalizability across various organizations, as well as the satisfaction dimension was delved into more specifically by dividing it to system satisfaction and session satisfaction. The results of the study using a sample from various organizations confirmed the goodness-of-fit of the 6-factor structure, similar to the findings in study 1 and study 2. Suggestions for future research and practical implications were provided based on the findings.
경향신문, 2006, 12, 27일자
김정진 & 박경규 (2008). 다면평가 특성에 따른 평가결과 수용도 결정요인과 그 결과. 대한경영학회지, 21, 391-416.
이덕로 & 김한제 (2000). 인사고과의 특성이 피고과자의 고과결과 수용에 미치는 영향, 경영학연구, 29, 245-270.
이석환 & 조주연 (2010). 성과평가제도의 수용성에 영향을 미치는 요인에 대한 연구: 평가체계요인과 내부동기요인을 중심으로. 한국사회와 행정연구, 20, 269-291.
이순묵 (1994). 요인분석의 관행과 문제점. 한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직, 7, 1-27.
이호선 & 이재한 (2006). 다면평가제도에 대한 수용도가 행동계획수립과 조직몰입에 미치는 영향. 인사관리연구, 30, 135-157.
Alliger, G., & Janak, E. (1989). Kirkpatrick's levels of training criteria: Thirty years later. Personnel Psychology, 42, 331-342.
Bacal, R. “평범한 팀장이 비범한 성과를 내개 하는 성과관리의 기술 [Performance Management]”. (유규창 역), 서울: 지식공작소, 2005(원전은 2001년에 출판).
Balzer, W K., & Sulsky, L. M. (1990). Performance appraisal effectiveness. In K. Murphy & F. Saal (Eds.), Psychology in organizations: Integrating science and practice (pp. 133-156). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Banks, C. G., & Murphy, K. R. (1985) “Toward Narrowing the Research-Practice Gap in Performance Appraisal”. Personnel Psychology, 38, 335-345.
Bernardin, H. J., Hagan, C. M., Kane, J. S., & Villanova. P. (1998). Effective performance management: A focus on precision, customers, and situational constraints. In J. W. Smither (Ed.), Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice (pp.3-48). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bies, R. J. (2005). Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In J. Greenberg & J.A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp.85-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bowen, D. E., Lawler, E. E., (1992). The empowerment of service workers: What, why, how, and when. Sloan Management Review, 33, 31-40.
Cardy, R. L., & Dobbins, G. H. (1994). Performance Appraisal: Alternative perspectives. Cincinatti. OH: South-Western Publishing,
Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M. & Levy, P. E. (1998). Participation in the Performance Appraisal Process and Employee Reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83, 615-633.
Cohen-Charash, Y., Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.
Dipboye, R. L., dePontbriand, R. (1981). Correlates of employee reactions to performance appraisals and appraisal systems, Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 248-51.
Dorfman, P. W., Stephen, W. G., & Loveland, J. (1986). Performance appraisal behaviors: Supervisor perceptions and subordinate reactions. Personnel Psychology, 39, 579-597.
Dorty, H. D., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1, 374-406.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130.
Giles, W. F., & Mossholder, K. W. (1990). Employee reactions to contextual and session components of performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 371-377.
Gilliland, S. W., & Langdon, J. C. (1998) Creating performance management systems that promote perceptions of fairness. In James. W. Smither (Ed.), Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology. 71, 340-342.
Greenberg, J., Ashton-James, C. E., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2007). Social comparison processes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 22-41.
Greller, M. M. (1978). The nature of subordinate participation in the appraisal interview. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 646-658.
Hedge, J. W., and Borman, W. C., (1995). Changing conceptions and practices in performance appraisal. In Ann Howard, (Ed.), Frontiers of industrial and organizational psychology: The changing nature of work, Jossey- Bass.
Keeping, L. M. & Levy, P. E. (2000). Performance appraisal reactions: Measurement, modeling, and method bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 708-723.
Kluger, A.N., & DeNisi, A. 1996. Effects of feedback intervention on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119: 254-284.
Korsgaard, M. A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions. Journal of Management, 21, 657-669.
Landy, F. J., Barnes-Farrell, J., & Cleveland, J. (1980). Perceived fairness and accuracy of performance appraisals: A follow-up. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 355-356.
Latham, G., Almost, J., Mann, S., & Moore, C. (2005). New developments in performance management Organization Dynamics, 34, 77-87.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In Gergen, K. J., Greenberg, M. S., and Willis, R. H. (eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp.27–55)., Plenum Press, New York,
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845-855.
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pearce, J. L., and Porter, L. W (1986). Employee responses to formal appraisal feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 211-218.
Reb, J., Goldman, B., Kray, L, & Cropanzano, R.(2006). Different wrongs, different remedies? Reactions to organizational remedies after procedural and interactional justice, Personnel Psychology 59, 31-64.
Smither, J. W. (1998). Lessons learned: Research implications for performance appraisal and management practice. In James. W. Smither (Ed.), Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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.
Thurston, P. W. Jr. (2001). “Clarifying the structure of justice using fairness perceptions of performance appraisal practices”. Unpublished Ph. D Dissertation, Albany, NY, 2001.
Wherry, R. J. Sr. & Bartlett, C. J. (1982). The control of bias in ratings: A theory of rating. Personnel Psychology, 35: 521-551.
Williams, L. J. Gavin, M. B., & Williams, M. L. (1996). Measurement and nonmeasurement processes with negative affectivity and employee attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 88-101.