Motivating raters through work design: Applying the job characteristics model to the performance appraisal context
2021-02-06 13:21

Abstract: In general, raters are responsible for evaluating their subordinates’ performance and delivering their final performance ratings. As most organizations prefer accurate ratings, past research has focused on encouraging raters to produce more accurate appraisals. Extant research on rater motivations has highlighted the various factors affecting rating accuracy, but the job characteristics of appraisals represent an unexplored area. The current study attempts to extend the rater motivation research by introducing a work design perspective of appraisal and exploring the ways in which the job characteristics of appraisals can be used to motivate raters. First, rater motivation theory and Hackman and Oldham’s job characteristics model (JCM) are reviewed. Then, the current study illustrates how the JCM can be applied to the performance appraisal context. 

摘要 :通常,评估者负责评估其下属的绩效并提供最终的绩效评估。由于大多数组织都喜欢准确的评分,因此过去的研究集中在鼓励评分者进行更准确的评估。虽然对评估者动机的现有研究已经强调了影响评估准确性的各种因素,但是评估的工作特征代表了一个尚未探索的领域。当前的研究试图通过引入评估的工作设计视角,并探索利用评估的工作特征来激励评估者的方式来扩展评估者动机研究。首先,回顾了评价动机理论以及哈克曼和奥尔德姆的工作特征模型( JCM )。然后,当前的研究说明了如何将JCM 应用于绩效评估环境。 


Subjects: Introductory Work/Organizational Psychology; Industrial/Organization Psychology Tests and Assessments; Organizational Communication

学科:介绍性工作/ 组织心理学;工业/ 组织心理学测试和评估;组织沟通 

Keywords: performance appraisal; job characteristics model; rater accountability


 1. Introduction

1、 介绍   

 Performance appraisal is one of the core tasks of a manager with supervisory status. In general, supervisors are responsible for evaluating their subordinates’ performance and delivering their final performance ratings. Performance ratings and appraisal information from the appraisal process are commonly used for administrative decisions, including promotions, salary increases, performancebased pay, transfers, and training (Campbell, Campbell, & Chia, 1998; Cleveland, Murphy, & Williams, 1989; Coens & Jenkins, 2000; Meyer, 1975). Furthermore, contemporary research has begun to emphasize the link between individual-level performance management based on performance appraisals and organizational-/firm-level performance (DeNisi & Smith, 2014). Consequently,performance appraisals can be regarded as important tools with which supervisors can motivate employees, improve employee performance, and distribute rewards, all of which affect both individual and organizational performances (Buller & McEvoy, 2012; Fletcher, 2001).

绩效评估是具有监督地位的管理层人员的核心任务之一。通常,主管负责评估其下属的绩效。绩效评估和评估过程中的评估信息通常用于行政决策,包括晋升,加薪,基于绩效的薪酬、调动和培训(墨菲和威廉姆斯,1989;科恩斯和詹金斯,2000;迈耶 1975).此外,当代研究已经开始强调基于绩效评估的个人级绩效管理与组织/公司级绩效管理之间的联系(丹尼斯&史密斯,2014)。 


As supervisors (i.e. raters) play a central role in the appraisal process, promoting rater accuracy has been an important issue in the organizational/personnel psychology literature. Early research on rating accuracy assumed that raters are willing to make accurate appraisals but unintentionally make rating errors as a result of invalid rating instruments or their own cognitive limitations (Lahuis & Avis, 2007; Murphy & Cleveland, 1995; Wang, Wong, & Kwong, 2010). More recent research, shifting its attention to the rater’s intentional actions in the appraisal process, has investigated the effects of rater motivation on appraisal accuracy (Harris, 1994; Mero & Motowidlo, 1995; Murphy & Cleveland, 1991; Wang et al., 2010). Nevertheless, even though appraisals are a type of supervisory task, the work design aspect of performance appraisals has been an unexplored area in the literature.

由于主管(即评估者)在评估过程中起着核心作用,因此提高评估者的准确性一直是组织/人员心理学文献中的重要问题。早期关于评分准确性的研究,评分者愿意进行准确的评估,但由于评分工具无效或他们自身的认知局限性而无意中导致评分错误(拉回斯和艾维斯,2007;墨菲和克利夫兰,1995;王黄,2010)。最近的研究将注意力转移到评估者在评估过程中的故意行为,研究了评估者动机对评估准确性的影响(哈里斯,1994;麦日 和 莫特威力,1995;墨菲和克利夫兰,1991;王 等,2010)。然而,尽管评估是一种监督任务,但是绩效评估的工作设计方面在文献中仍是未曾探讨过的领域。 

The current study attempts to extend rater motivation research by introducing the work design perspective of performance appraisals and exploring the ways in which the job characteristics of appraisals can be used to motivate raters. First, the current paper provides a brief history of rater motivation theory to summarize past research trends. Second, Hackman and Oldham (1976)’s job characteristics model (JCM), one of the most widely recognized and cited work design models in the literature, is reviewed. The current study then illustrates how JCM can be applied to the performance appraisal context. Lastly, theoretical and organizational implications and avenues for future research are provided.

当前的研究试图通过引入绩效评估的工作设计视角,并探索利用评估的工作特征来激励评估者的方法,来扩展评估者的动机研究。首先,本文提供了评级动机理论的简要历史,以总结过去的研究趋势。第二,哈克曼 和 奥尔德姆(1976)的工作特征模型(JCM)是文献中最广泛认可和引用的工作设计模型之一。当前的研究说明了如何将 JCM 应用于绩效评估环境。最后,提供了未来研究的理论和组织意义以及途径。 

2. Rater motivation theory 


Scholarly interest in rater motivation has been a recent phenomenon over the past two decades. From the 1950s to the late 1970s, early research on rating accuracy primarily focused on issues such as rating format and scale until the work of Landy and Farr (1980) and Decotiis and Petit (1978) changed the paradigm of rating accuracy research (Arvey & Murphy, 1998; Ferris, Judge, Rowland, & Fitzgibbons, 1994; Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). Landy and Farr (1980) suggested that researchers shift their attention from rating scales and rating formats (e.g. forced choice rating and ranking) to the rater’s cognition and information processing (Arvey & Murphy, 1998). The body of research following Landy and Farr (1980) produced a number of topics such as the rater’s cognitive process (DeNisi, 1996; DeNisi & Peters, 1996), rater memory (Murphy & Balzer, 1986), and rater training (Bernardin & Buckley, 1981; Roch, Woehr, Mishra, & Kieszczynska, 2012). Despite the contributions of the early research and subsequent studies following Landy and Farr (1980), research continued to assert that rating errors and inaccurate appraisals were not the result of deliberate actions but the result of invalid rating instruments or the raters’ cognitive limitations (Lahuis & Avis, 2007; Murphy & Cleveland, 1995; Wang et al., 2010).

在过去的二十年中,学者一直在研究评估者的动机。从 1950 年代到 1970 年代后期,有关评级准确性的早期研究主要集中于评级格式和规模等问题,直到兰迪和发(1980),戴克提斯和佩提(1978)改变了评级准确性研究的范式(阿维和墨菲,1998;墨菲和克利夫兰,1995)。 兰迪和法尔(1980)建议研究人员将注意力从评分量表和评分格式(例如,强制选择评分和排名)转移到评分者的认知和信息处理上(阿维&墨菲,1998)。紧接着兰迪和发(1980)提出了许多主题,例如评分者的认知过程(丹尼斯,1996;德尼西和彼得斯,1996),评估者记忆(墨菲和布兰斯,1986)和评估者培训(伯纳丁和巴克利,1981)。尽管兰迪和发(1980)在他们的研究中断言,评分错误和不正确的评估不是故意采取行动的结果,而是评分工具无效或评分者的认知局限性的结果(拉回斯和阿维斯,2007;墨菲和克利夫兰,1995;王等,2010)。 

The work of Decotiis and Petit (1978) and the stream of research following it challenged the premise that raters are willing to do their best to produce accurate appraisals. Decotiis and Petit (1978, p. 636), stressed that “consideration must be given to what energizes rater behavior, what determines the direction of such behavior and how this behavior is sustained” and introduced the concept of rater motivation. According to rater motivation theory, raters make intentional decisions based on individual motives that eventually affect performance rating accuracy (Levy & Williams, 2004). Thus, the common theme of rater motivation studies has concerned identifying the motivational factors (e.g. accountability and rating consequences) of appraisals and to use those factors to minimize rating distortions and to maximize rating accuracy. Popular topics include comprehensive rater motivation models (RMMs) (Harris, 1994; Murphy & Cleveland, 1991), rater goals (Murphy, Cleveland, Skattebo, & Kinney, 2004; Wang et al., 2010), rater accountability (Mero & Motowidlo, 1995; Mero, Motowidlo, & Anna, 2003; Roch, 2005), organizational politics in appraisals (Longenecker, Sims, & Gioia, 1987), the effect of rating discomfort on leniency (Villanova, Bernardin, Dahmus, & Sims, 1993), and rating inflation to increase unit (subordinate) performance (Ilgen, Mitchell, & Fredrickson, 1981).However, most research has explained rater motivation by examining a limited number of factors and their effects on rating accuracy. Few scholars, such as Murphy and Cleveland (1991, 1995) and Harris (1994) have proposed comprehensive RMMs that depict various motivating factors in the appraisal process (Park, 2014).

戴克提斯和佩提(1978)的研究成果以及一系列研究工作挑战了这个前提,即评估者愿意尽最大努力来进行准确的评估。戴克提斯和佩提(1978,p.636),强调“必须给予激励评估者采取行为的动力,并对这种行为的方向以及如何维持这种行为做出考虑”,并引入了评估者动机的概念。根据评估者动机理论,评估者根据最终影响绩效评估准确性的个人动机做出针对性的决策(莱维&威廉,2004)。因此,评估者动机研究的主题涉及确定评估的动机因素(例如问责制和评估结果),并使用这些因素来最小化评估失真并最大化评估准确性。热门主题包括综合评分者激励模型( RMM )(哈里斯,1994;墨菲和克利夫兰,1991),评分者目标(墨菲,克里夫兰,斯卡特伯和金妮,2004;王等,2010),评估者责任制(美日和莫特威力,1995;美日,莫特威力和安娜,2003;罗奇 2005),评估中的组织政策(朗基尼克,斯木斯和乔尼亚,1987),评分不恰当对宽大处理的影响,并对通货膨胀进行评级,以提高单位(下属)的绩效。但是,大多数研究通过检查有限数量的因素及其对评分准确性的影响来解释评分者的动机。很少有学者,例如墨菲和克利夫兰(1991, 1995)和哈里斯(1994)提出了全面的 RMM,以描述评估过程中的各种激励因素(帕克,2014)。 

First, Harris (1994, p. 739) constructed an integrated RMM using the five situational antecedents (accountability, organizational human resource management (HRM) strategy, task/outcome dependence, trust, and forms) and three personal antecedents (amount of information, self-efficacy, and mood) of motivational factors (rewards, negative consequences, and impression management) that result in performance appraisal behaviors (observation, storage, retrieval, integration, rating, and feedback). However, the complex relationships between the eight antecedents and three motivational factors were insufficiently addressed. In addition, the dependent variable is unclear, as all six stages of rating (from observation to feedback) were separately set as dependent variables. Additionally, even if all the appraisal behavior variables were accepted as dependent variables, questions still remain about whether the three motivational factors repeatedly affect each stage of rating behavior. Consequently, despite its contribution, Harris’ RMM (1994) presents a number of limitations.

首先,哈里斯(1994,p.739)使用五个情境先例(问责制,组织人力资源管理(HRM)策略,任务/结果依赖,信任和形式)和三个个人先决条件(信息量,自我效能感和心情)构建了一个集成的RMM,决定绩效评估行为(观察,存储,检索,整合,评分和反馈)的动机因素(奖励,负面影响和印象管理)出现。但是,八个条件和三个动机因素之间的复杂关系没有得到充分解决。此外,因变量尚不明确,因为评级的所有六个阶段(从观察到反馈)都分别设置为因变量。此外,即使所有评估行为变量都被接受为因变量,关于三个动机因素是否反复影响评分行为的每个阶段仍然存在疑问。因此,尽管做出了贡献,哈里斯的 RMM(1994)存在许多局限性。 

Murphy and Cleveland’s RMM (1991, 1995, p. 243) argues that rating behaviors are determined by combining the two types of rater motivations: (1) the motivation to rate accurately and (2) the motivation to distort ratings. The authors used Vroom’s expectancy theory (1964) to explain the motivational variation in both types. According to Murphy and Cleveland (1991), raters will be motivated to rate accurately if rewards exist for accurate ratings and if the possibility of receiving such rewards is correlated with rating accuracy. Rewards for accurate ratings, although rarely provided in practice, include “salary increases, promotions, and assignment to choice positions,” which partly depend on the rater’s accurate performance appraisals (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995, p. 259). Raters are also motivated to inflate (distort) ratings if assigning accurate ratings has negative consequences and if the possibility of facing such consequences is high. For example, negative consequences include discouraging employees who get negative ratings, damaging interpersonal relationships with subordinates, losing rewards (e.g. salary increases and promotions) based on the rater’s unit performance (i.e. subordinate performance), and inducing negative reactions from subordinates during appraisal feedback (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). Murphy and Cleveland (1995, p. 242) stress that although raters are capable of making accurate appraisals, they willingly alter the accuracy of ratings to attain rewards and to avoid negative consequences as there are “surprisingly few good reasons to give accurate ratings.” Therefore, the authors assume that rating distortions can be prevented by reducing the negative consequences of providing accurate ratings, which will decrease the raters’ willingness to distort ratings. Consequently, discussions about how to encourage raters to make accurate appraisals and to build an appraisal system that positively affects raters have been scarce.

墨菲和克利夫兰的 RMM(1995,p.243)认为,评级行为是通过结合两种类型的评级者动机来确定的:准确评级的动机和扭曲评级的动机。作者使用了乌日木的期望理论(1964)来解释这两种类型的动力变化。根据墨菲和克利夫兰(1991)的观点,如果存在提供给准确评分的奖励,并且如果获得此类奖励的可能性与评分准确性相关,则将激励评分者进行准确评分。准确评分的奖励(尽管实际上很少提供)包括 “加薪,晋升和分配给选择职位”,这部分取决于评分者的准确绩效评估(墨菲和克利夫兰,1995,p.259)。如果分配准确的评分会带来负面影响,并且导致此类后果的可能性很高,那么评估者也会积极提高(扭曲)评分。例如,负面后果包括获得负面评分的员工有挫败感,破坏与下属的人际关系,基于评估者的单位绩效(即下属绩效)失去奖励(例如,薪水增加和晋升),以及在评估反馈中引起下属的负面反应(墨菲和克利夫兰,1995)。墨菲和克利夫兰(1995,p.242 )强调,尽管评估者有能力做出准确的评估,但他们愿意改变评估的准确性以获得奖励并避免负面影响,因为“令人惊讶的是,很少有充分的理由给出准确的评估”。因此,作者认为,可以通过降低准确评分的负面影响来防止评分失真,这将削弱评分者扭曲评分的意愿。因此,关于如何鼓励评估者进行准确评估和建立对评估者产生积极影响的评估系统的讨论很少。 

Past studies related to rater motivation, even the comprehensive ones, have not considered the approach of defining performance appraisal as the supervisor’s job and using such job characteristics to investigate rater motivation. Several studies have indicated that, for most raters, conducting performance appraisals is a mandatory but occasional and insignificant task; thus, raters often invest limited effort, rigor, and time in preparing for and performing appraisals (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995; Roberts, 1998; Tziner, Murphy, Cleveland, Beaudin, & Marchand, 1998). Nevertheless, these studies do not provide a framework for identifying the job characteristics of appraisals that may affect the raters or possible solutions to raters’ negative reactions to appraisals as a task. Accordingly, establishing an effective job design model that can motivate raters to put more effort into the appraisal process can serve as a new extension of the rater motivation literature. In the following sections, the JCM and its application in the performance appraisal context are introduced.

过去与评估者动机相关的研究,甚至是综合性研究,都没有考虑将绩效评估定义为主管的工作,并采用这种工作特征来调查评估者动机。多项研究表明,对于大多数评估者而言,进行绩效评估是一项强制性任务,也是不重要的任务。因此,评估者通常会花费有限的精力和时间来准备和执行评估(墨菲和克利夫兰,1995;罗伯茨1998;齐纳,墨菲,克利夫兰,博丹和马尔尚,1998)。但是,这些研究没有提供一个框架来识别可能影响评估者的评估工作特征的因素,或者是评估者对评估工作的负面反应的可能解决方案。因此,建立有效的工作设计模型以激励评估者将更多的精力投入到评估过程中,可以作为评估者动机理论文献的新扩展。在以下各节中,将介绍 JCM 及其在绩效评估环境中的应用。 

3. Job characteristics model 


Since its introduction almost four decades ago, Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) JCM has continued to have a strong influence on the job design theory literature (George, 2009). Hackman and Oldham’s(1976) JCM explains the job characteristics that strengthen employees’ internal work motivations, implying that, “rather than being motivated by, say, the promise of rewards or the prospect of receiving (avoiding) supervisory attention, people would try to perform well simply because it felt good when they did—and it felt bad when they did not” (Oldham & Hackman, 2010, p. 464). The JCM was originally introduced to “specify the conditions under which individuals will become internally motivated to perform their jobs” (Hackman & Oldham, 1976, p. 250). According to the authors, the core logic of the JCM is that an employee’s job characteristics ultimately affect work outcomes and that his or her psychological states act as a mediator between the job characteristics and work outcomes.

自大约 40 年前问世以来,哈克曼和奥尔德姆(1976)认为JCM 继续对工作设计理论文献产生重大影响(乔治,2009)。哈克曼和奥尔德姆(1976)认为JCM 解释了增强员工内部工作动机的工作特征,这意味着,“人们不会因为奖励的承诺或受到(避免)监督的注意而受到激励,而是仅仅因为表现出色,当他们这样做时感觉很好,而当他们不这样做时感觉不好”(奥尔德姆&哈克曼,2010,p.464)。最初引入JCM 是为了“规定个人在哪些条件下变得有内在动力来完成工作”(哈克曼&奥尔德姆,1976,p.250)。这组作者认为,JCM 的核心逻辑是,雇员的工作特征最终会影响工作成果,而他或她的心理状态则充当工作特征与工作成果之间的中介者。

In the original work of Hackman and Oldham (1976, p.256), the first part of the model explains how the five perceived “core job dimensions” (skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback) determine the three “critical psychological states” as follows: (1) skill variety, task identity, and task significance result in “experienced meaningfulness of the work”; (2) autonomy contributes to “experienced responsibility for outcomes of the work”; and (3) feedback leads to “knowledge of the actual results of the work activities.” Next, the three critical psychological states collectively affect the four personal and work outcomes (internal work motivation, quality of work performance, work satisfaction, and low absenteeism and turnover) (Parker, Wall, & Cordery, 2001). Lastly, “employee growth need strength” acts as a moderator: (1) at the link between core job dimensions and critical psychological states and (2) at the link between critical psychological states and outcome variables. In sum, the assumption implied in the JCM is that the job characteristics influence the employees to “consciously think and feel certain things about their jobs (e.g. feel accountable or responsible for their work, know how well they are doing, and think the work is meaningful), and it is these conscious thoughts and feelings that ultimately lead to personal and work outcomes (e.g. job satisfaction and job performance)” (George, 2009, p. 3).

在哈克曼和奥尔德姆的原始作品中(1976,p.256),模型的第一部分说明了五个感知的“核心工作维度”(技能多样性,任务身份,任务重要性,自主性和反馈)以及如何确定三种“关键心理状态”,如下所示:(1)技能的多样性,任务的身份和任务的重要性导致“经验丰富的工作意义”;(2)自治有助于“对工作成果有经验的责任”;(3)反馈导致“对工作活动的实际结果有所了解”。接下来,三个关键的心理状态共同影响四个个人的工作成果(内部工作动机,工作质量,工作满意度以及低缺勤率和离职率)(帕克,沃和科德瑞,2001)。最后,“员工成长需要力量”充当调节器:在核心工作维度与关键心理状态之间的联系,以及在关键心理状态与结果变量之间的联系。总而言之,JCM 所隐含的假设是,工作特征会影响员工“有意识地思考并感觉到有关其工作的某些事情(例如,对自己的工作负责,知道自己的工作状况如何),并认为工作上这些有意义的想法和感觉最终会影响个人及工作成果(例如,工作满意度和工作绩效)”(乔治,2009,p.3)。

Since the introduction of the JCM, research has sought to verify the model’s assumptions. In one of first extensive reviews and meta-analyses of the JCM literature, Fried and Ferris (1987) found general support for the links among job characteristics, psychological states, and work outcomes in the JCM model (Johns, Xie, & Fang, 1992; Tiegs, Tetrick, & Yitzhak, 1992). In a more recent metaanalysis of 677 articles, Humphrey, Nahrgang, and Morgeson (2007) replicated and expanded the work of Fried and Ferris (1987) to include recent research on the JCM. Humphrey et al. (2007) found strong support for the positive relationship between the five core job dimensions and work outcomes (job satisfaction, growth satisfaction, internal work motivation, and job performance), with absenteeism as the only exception. Next, the authors validated the simultaneous mediating role of the three critical psychological states between the four core job dimensions (skill variety, task identity, task significance, and autonomy) and work outcomes. However, employees’ psychological states did not mediate the relationship between feedback and work outcomes. 

自从 JCM 引入以来,一直研究试图验证模型的假设。在 JCM 文献的首次广泛讨论和分析之中,弗瑞得和福瑞斯(1987)在JCM 模型中发现了对工作特征,心理状态和工作成果之间普遍联系的支持(约翰,谢和方,1992);最近在对677篇文章的分析中,汉弗莱,纳赫冈和莫格森(2007)复制并扩展了弗瑞得和福瑞斯(1987),并且包括有关JCM 的最新研究。汉弗莱等人(2007)强烈支持五个核心工作维度与工作成果(工作满意度,成长满意度,内部工作动力和工作绩效)之间的动态联系,唯一的例外是旷工。接下来,作者验证了三种关键心理状态同时在四个核心工作维度(技能多样性,任务认同,任务重要性和自主性)与工作成果之间的中介作用。但是,员工的心理状态并未调解反馈与工作成果之间的关系。

The moderating effect of the growth need strength (GNS) has been a rather diminished area of interest in the JCM literature. A series of studies found weak empirical support for the moderating role of the GNS in the JCM (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Johns et al., 1992; O’brien, 1982; Tiegs et al., 1992). Thus, the JCM model was often empirically tested and found to be valid without including GNS as a moderator (Graen, Scandura, & Graen, 1986; Renn & Vandenberg, 1995). In sum, the JCM and its components have found strong support, and, except for GNS, they continue to be widely used in the literature.

在 JCM 文献中,增长需求强度(GNS)的调节作用已逐渐降低。一系列研究发现,对于 JNS 中 GNS 的调节作用,经验支持不强(弗瑞得&福瑞斯,1987;约翰斯等,1992;奥布莱恩 1982;提格斯等,1992)。因此,JCM 模型通常经过经验测试,并且在不包括 GNS 作为主导的情况下被认为是有效的(格润,1986;雷恩和范登堡,1995)。总而言之,JCM 及其组件得到了有力的支持,除 GNS 之外,它们在文献中继续得到广泛使用。

The current paper, based on Hackman and Oldham’s original work (1976), applies the core job characteristics, critical psychological states, and work outcomes of the JCM to the context of performance appraisal. The JCM in the appraisal context is depicted in Figure 1. Although the JCM has been repeatedly tested and modified since its development, the model has not been applied to performance appraisal context. Thus, the current study uses the original JCM to break new ground using work design to internally motivate raters to make accurate appraisals.

本论文基于哈克曼和奥尔德姆的原创作品(1976),将 JCM 的核心工作特征,关键的心理状态和工作成果应用于绩效评估。评估环境中的 JCM 如图所示。尽管 JCM 自开发以来就经过反复测试和修改,但该模型尚未应用于绩效评估环境。因此,当前的研究使用原始的 JCM 通过工作设计开创了新局面,以激励内部评估者做出准确的评估。


Figure 1. Job characteristics model in the appraisal context.


4. Experienced meaningfulness of work 

4、 工作经验丰富的意义

According to Hackman and Oldham (1976, p. 256), experienced meaningfulness of work is “the degree to which the individual experiences the job as one which is generally meaningful, valuable, and worthwhile.” The job characteristics of skill variety, task identity, and task significance determine the meaningfulness of work, as explained below. 

根据哈克曼和奥尔德姆(1976, p.256),工作经历的意义是“个人经历一项工作的程度,通常是有意义的,有价值的”。技能种类,任务身份和任务重要性的工作特征决定了工作的意义,如下所述。

4.1. Skill variety


 Hackman and Oldham (1976, p. 257) define skill variety as “the degree to which a job requires a variety of different activities in carrying out the work, which involve the use of a number of different skills and talents of the person.” The authors argue that if employees find that they need to challenge or stretch their skills and abilities, they will find their jobs meaningful. In contemporary organizations, performance appraisals are not only used for employee evaluations but also for employee development, reward distribution, and the integration of employee performance and organizational performance for better performance management (Fletcher, 2001). Thus, raters are expected to account for the various purposes of appraisals, and such expectations make the job itself challenging, resulting in high skill variety. The level of perceived skill variety will depend on the number of skills and talents that raters use for conducting performance appraisals. Such skills and talents, including the collection, storage, and retrieval of information on employee performance, require the raters to utilize various observational skills, information processing skills, and their cognitive abilities to promote rating accuracy (DeNisi & Peters, 1996; Harris, 1994; Landy & Farr, 1980; Woehr & Huffcutt, 1994). Second, raters have to use both objective and subjective performance measures, which are usually not interchangeable, meaning that they have to understand and use both types of measures to evaluate a single employee (Arvey & Murphy, 1998; Bommer, Johnson, Rich, Podsakoff, & Mackenzie, 1995). Third, raters are often responsible for managing employee participation during the appraisal process by setting performance standards and goals (e.g. management-by-objectives) with their subordinates (McConkie, 1979; Roberts, 2003). Lastly, interpersonal skills and communication are necessary, as the appraisal process is affected by the social context in organizations (Levy & Williams, 2004). In short, raters who extensively use their skills and abilities may perceive the task of appraisal to be meaningful, according to the logic of Hackman and Oldham (1976, p. 257), who claim that “when a job draws upon several skills of an employee, that individual may find the job to be of enormous personal meaning-even if, in any absolute sense, it is not of great significant or importance.” 

哈克曼和奥尔德姆(1976, p.257)将技能多样性定义为“一项工作在执行时需要进行各种不同活动的程度,其中涉及使用人的多种不同技能和才能。”作者认为,如果员工发现他们需要挑战或扩展自己的技能和能力,他们会发现自己的工作有意义。在当代组织中,绩效评估不仅用于员工评估,还用于员工发展,奖励分配以及员工绩效与组织绩效的评判,以实现更好的绩效管理(弗莱彻,2001).因此,期望评估者考虑评估的各种目的,并且这种期望使工作本身具有挑战性,从而导致技能多样化。所感知的技能多样性的水平将取决于评估者用于进行绩效评估的技能和才能的数量。此类技能和才能,包括收集,存储和检索有关员工绩效的信息,要求评估者利用各种观察技能,信息处理技能及其认知能力来提升评分准确性(丹尼斯&彼得,1996;哈里斯,1994;兰迪与法尔,1980;沃尔&哈夫科特, 1994)。其次,评估者必须同时使用客观和主观绩效指标,这通常是不能互换的,这意味着他们必须理解和使用两种指标来评估单个员工(阿维&墨菲,1998;保莫,乔森,1995)。第三,评估者通常负责通过与下属(迈克康克,1979;罗伯茨 2003)。最后,人际交往技巧和沟通是必要的,因为评估过程受组织中社会环境的影响(莱维&威廉,2004)。简而言之,根据哈克曼和奥尔德汉姆的逻辑,广泛使用其技能和能力的评估者可能认为评估任务是有意义的。他声称“当一项工作利用员工的多种技能时,该员工可能会发现该工作具有巨大的个人意义,即使从绝对意义上来说,它也不是很重要或不重要的”。

4.2. Task identity 


Hackman and Oldham (1976, p. 257) define task identity as “the degree to which the job requires completion of a ‘whole’ and identifiable piece of work; that is, doing a job from beginning to end with a visible outcome.” The authors also argue that individuals who are responsible for a larger part of a “whole” task will consider that work more meaningful than the individuals with smaller parts. Therating task provides high task identity to raters who are involved in the performance appraisal from the beginning to the end. In general, according to Storey and Sisson (1993) and Brown and Benson (2005), the performance appraisal process includes three stages: objective setting, monitoring (feedback), and evaluation. In the objective setting stage, raters are responsible for starting the appraisal process, either by imposing objectives or setting goals with the employees’ participation. In the second stage, raters monitor whether the employees are doing well in achieving the goals set in the previous stage and provide formal or informal mid-term progress feedback to the employees. Lastly, in the third stage, raters finally evaluate their employees’ performances during the appraisal cycle and assign performance ratings. As raters inevitably participate in all appraisal processes, the level of perceived task identity will be linked to the absolute amount of rater participation. For instance, raters who invest more time and effort in objective or goal setting and in mid-term progress feedback will have higher levels of task identity than others who spend less time on these tasks. 

哈克曼和奥尔德姆(1976, p.257)将任务特性定义为这项工作要求完成“整体”和可识别的工作的程度;也就是说,从头到尾地完成一项工作并获得明显的结果。 作者还认为,负责“整体”任务较大部分的个人将比具有较小部分的个人认为工作更有意义,这为从头到尾参与绩效评估的评估者提供了高度的任务认同感。一般来说,根据斯托瑞和斯森(1993)以及布朗和本森(2005),绩效评估过程包括三个阶段:目标设定,监控(反馈)和评估。在目标设定阶段,评估者负责通过员工设定目标或设定目标来启动评估过程。在第二阶段,评估者监视员工在实现上一阶段设定的目标方面是否做得很好,并向员工提供正式或非正式的中期进度反馈。最后,在第三阶段,评估者最终在评估周期中评估其员工的绩效并给出绩效评级。由于评估者不可避免地会参与所有评估过程,因此感知到的任务特性级别将与评估者参与的绝对数量相关。例如,与在其他任务上花费较少时间的评估者相比,在目标或目标设定和中期进度反馈上投入更多时间和精力的评估者将具有更高的任务识别级别。

4.3. Task significance 

4.3 任务意义

Task significance is “the degree to which the job has a substantial impact on the lives or work of other people, whether in the immediate organization or in the external environment” (Hackman & Oldham, 1976, p. 257). Thus, the authors also stress that “when an individual understands that the results of his work may have a significant effect on the well-being of other people, the meaningfulness of that work usually is enhanced.” As a task, the performance appraisal, which usually results in performance ratings, has a substantial impact on both the employees and the organization. First, with regard to the impact on employees, the most evident purpose of performance appraisals is to inform administrative decisions, such as promotions, salary increases, disciplinary action (e.g. termination), pay-for-performance, employee transfers, and employee development and training (Bretz, Milkovich, & Read, 1992; Cleveland et al., 1989; Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). Next, many contemporary organizations include performance appraisals in the broad frame of performance management, as one of the goals of performance appraisals is to improve employee performance (Gruman & Saks, 2011; Spence & Keeping, 2011). Accordingly, performance appraisals are used to manage employee and organizational performances and to integrate these two performance types (Fletcher, 2001). Therefore, depending on the extent of appraisal usage within their organizations, raters can easily recognize the importance of appraisals and perceive higher levels of task significance. 

任务意义是“无论在直接组织中还是在外部环境中,工作对他人的生活或工作产生实质性影响的程度”(哈克曼&奥尔德姆,1976, p.257)。作者还强调说:“当一个人了解自己的工作成果可能对他人的福祉产生重大影响时,该工作的意义通常会增强。”作为一项任务,绩效评估通常会产生绩效评级,对员工和组织都有重大影响。首先,关于对员工的影响,绩效考核的最明显的目的是告知行政决策,例如晋升,加薪,纪律处分(例如解雇),绩效工资,员工调动,员工发展和培训(布瑞特&瑞德,1992;克利夫兰,1989;墨菲和克利夫兰,1995)。接下来,许多同时代组织将绩效评估纳入了绩效管理的广泛框架,因为绩效评估的目标之一是提高员工绩效(格如曼&赛克斯,2011;斯潘斯 & 凯平,2011)。因此,绩效评估可用于管理员工和组织的绩效,并整合这两种绩效类型(弗莱彻,2001)。因此,根据组织内部评估使用的程度,评估者可以轻松地认识到评估的重要性,并可以感知更高级别的任务重要性。

5. Experienced responsibility for work outcome


 Experienced responsibility for work outcome refers to “the degree to which the individuals feels personally accountable and responsible for the results of the work he or she does” (Hackman & Oldham, 1976, p. 256). According to the authors, an individual’s autonomy in his or her job is the single determinant of experienced responsibility. 

对工作成果负有责任的经验是指“个人对自己的工作成果负有责任并对其负责的程度”(Hackman&Oldham, 1976, p.256).作者认为,个人在工作中的自主是经验的唯一决定因素。

5.1. Autonomy 


Autonomy is “the degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out” (Hackman & Oldham, 1976, p. 258). To the authors, a high level of autonomy means that the task’s outcome is primarily determined by the individual’s effort and decisions rather than the supervisor’s guidance or job procedure manuals. In the appraisal process, the immediate supervisor (i.e. the rater) is mainly responsible for assessing the employee’s performance during the evaluation period and for assigning final performance ratings. However, a rater’s autonomy in the appraisal may decrease if other parties (e.g. subordinates or the rater’s supervisor) participate in the appraisal process. Under a 360-degree appraisal or a multi-source rating system, in addition to the rater’s appraisal, his or her subordinates, supervisors, and peers can participate in the appraisal process (Conway & Huffcutt, 1997; van der Heijden & Nijhof, 2004). Nevertheless, the 360-degree appraisal system is usually used for developmental purposes and has a limited influence on final performance ratings, as its effectiveness has been contested (DeNisi & Kluger, 2000; DeNisi & Pritchard, 2006). Also, depending on the appraisal system settings, in some organizations, the rater’s direct supervisor may review and validate the final ratings. In such case, although rare in practice, the rater’s supervisor is likely to provide some form of guidance or comment (Harris, 1994).

自主是“在安排工作和确定执行工作所使用的程序时,为工作人员提供充分的自由,独立和自由发挥的程度”(哈克曼&奥尔德姆,1976, p.258)。对于作者来说,高度的自主意味着任务的结果主要由个人的努力和决定,而不是由上级指导或工作程序手册决定。在评估过程中,直属上级(即评估者)主要负责评估员工在评估期内的绩效并分配最终绩效评级。但是,如果其他方(例如下属或评估者的主管)参与评估过程,评估者在评估中的自主可能会降低。在360度评估或多源评估系统下,除了评估者的评估外,他或她的下属,主管和同龄人还可以参与评估过程(康威和哈夫科特,1997;范德海登&尼乔夫,2004)。尽管如此,360度评估系统通常用于发展的目的,并且由于其有效性受到争议,因此对最终绩效评级的影响有限(丹尼斯&克拉格,2000;德尼西和普里查德,2006)。同样,根据评估系统的设置,在某些组织中,评估者的直接主管可以审查和验证最终评估。在这种情况下,尽管在实践中很少见,但评估者的主管很可能会提供某种形式的指导或评论(哈里斯,1994)。

6. Knowledge of results

6、 结果知识

 Knowledge of results is “the degree to which the individual knows and understands, on a continuous basis, how effectively he or she is performing the job” (Hackman & Oldham, 1976, p. 257). The authors propose feedback as a job characteristic that fosters knowledge of results. 

对结果的了解是“个人连续不断地了解和理解其执行工作的效率的程度”(哈克曼&奥德汉姆,1976, p.257)。审核员建议将反馈作为一种工作特征来培养员工对结果的了解。

6.1. Feedback 


Hackman and Oldham (1976, p. 258) define feedback as “the degree to which carrying out the work activities required by the job results in the individual obtaining direct and clear information about the effectiveness of his or her performance.” Recently, in an updated study on the JCM, Oldham and Hackman (2010) stressed that although the JCM includes some social dimensions of work in the feedback characteristics, these social aspects have been neglected in the JCM literature. According to Oldham and Hackman (2010, p. 468), because the social dimensions of work can contribute to “the motivation, performance, and well-being of jobholders,” future research may want to consider incorporating social aspects into the JCM. In the current study, following the recommendation of Oldham and Hackman (2010), the social dimension of performance appraisals as a task has been incorporated into the feedback characteristics by adapting the theories of rater accountability to the JCM. In this section, rater accountability is only used to discuss the relationship between feedback and knowledge of results in the appraisal context. The effect of accountability on rating performance is addressed in the next section. In general, organizational accountability involves “an actor or agent in a social context who potentially is subject to observation and evaluation by some audiences, including oneself” (Frink & Klimoski, 2004, p. 3). The audience (e.g. supervisors, subordinates, or customers) and the employees held accountable form a social system founded on shared expectations and rules that that guide work decisions and actions (Breaux, Munyon, Hochwarter, & Ferris, 2009; Frink & Klimoski, 1998, 2004). For that reason, accountability in organizations is assumed to affect the work performance of those held accountable (Antonioni, 1994; Hochwarter et al., 2007; Tetlock, 1985, 1992). In the performance appraisal context, accountability is operationalized as rater accountability, which is defined as the “perceived potential to be evaluated by someone and being held responsible for one’s decision or behaviors” (Levy & Williams, 2004, p. 887). The potential audiences in the performance appraisal process usually consist of two players: the supervisor and the subordinate. How, then, do the raters receive feedback on their performance of appraisals as a task? First, the rater’s supervisor may question the quality of performance ratings (Ferris, Munyon, Basik, & Buckley, 2008). For example, in organizations in which the raters’ supervisors review and approve the performance ratings, raters can receive information about their effectiveness in the appraisal process. Second, employees’ direct feedback on the raters’ effectiveness can occur on two occasions: (1) when reacting to the feedback session or interview and (2) when engaging in the appeal process. Before explaining direct feedback, it is worth mentioning that the employee’s attitudes and behaviors due to such appraisals, such as job dissatisfaction, work motivation, trust in the appraisal system, and absenteeism, are not directly and clearly provided to the rater; they are instead an indirect indication of the rater’s appraisal quality. Accordingly, following Hackman and Oldham (1976)’s definition of feedback, the employee’s indirect feedback is excluded from discussion. Past research has indicated that appraisal reactions are important criteria when assessing appraisal effectiveness (Williams & Levy, 2000). Overall, compared with poor performers, highly rated employees tend to show more accuracy in self-appraisals (Mitchell, Green, & Wood, 1981; Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). Consequently, the rater and the high-performing employee are likely to agree on the assigned performance rating, resulting in the employee’s favorable reactions during the appraisal session (Dorfman, Stephan, & Loveland, 1986). Thus, the raters receive feedback from high performers about their appraisal effectiveness in the form of positive reactions. On the contrary, poorly rated employees tend to rate themselves higher than ratings by their supervisors and react negatively or defensively during their appraisal sessions (Facteau & Craig, 2001; Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988; Mount, 1984). In such cases, direct feedback from the employees is provided in the form ofnegative reactions as they perceive that the raters showed poor performance in conducting appraisal by assigning lower ratings than expected. The next type of feedback is the formal appeal process, which allows employees to have a voice during the appraisal process (Korsgaard & Roberson, 1995). If employees believe that their performance ratings are incorrect or unfair, they can go through formal appeal process (Thurston & McNall, 2010). Hence, if employees decide to appeal their ratings to higher authorities, such as human resource department and the performance evaluation committee, they provide direct feedback to their rater about his or her appraisal quality.

哈克曼和奥尔德姆(1976, p.258)将反馈定义为“工作执行所需的工作活动导致个人获得有关其绩效有效性的直接而明确的信息的程度。”最近,在有关 JCM 的最新研究中,奥尔德姆和哈克曼(2010)强调,尽管 JCM 在反馈特征中包含了工作的某些社会维度,但这些社会方面在 JCM 文献中已被忽略。根据奥尔德姆和哈克曼(2010, p.468),因为工作的社会层面可以促进“工作人员的动力”,所以未来的研究可能要考虑将社会方面纳入 JCM。在本研究中,根据奥尔德姆和哈克曼的建议(2010),通过JCM 调整评估者责任理论,将绩效评估作为一项任务的社会层面纳入了反馈特征。在本节中,评估者责任制仅用于讨论评估环境中反馈与结果知识之间的关系。下一部分将讨论问责制对评级绩效的影响。

一般而言,组织问责制涉及“在社会背景下可能会受到包括自己在内的某些受众观察和评估的参与”(福瑞克&克里莫司基,2004, p.3)。听众(例如,上司,下属或客户)和员工负有责任,形成了一种基于共同的期望和规则的社会系统,这种期望和规则指导着工作决策和行动。因此,假设组织中的问责制会影响那些被追究责任的人的工作绩效(安东尼奥,1994;郝沃特等,2007;特洛克 1992)。在绩效评估的背景下,问责制是指评估者问责制,它被定义为“被某人评估并对自己的决定或行为负责的感知潜力”(莱维&威廉,2004, p.887).绩效评估过程中的潜在受众通常由两个角色组成:主管和下属。那么,评估者如何从评估任务中获得反馈呢?

首先,评估者的主管可能会对绩效评估的质量提出质疑( 菲瑞斯, 巴克利,2008).例如,在评估者的主管审查和批准绩效评估的组织中,评估者可以接收有关其在评估过程中有效性的信息。其次,员工对评估者有效性的直接反馈可能发生在两种情况下:(1)对反馈会议或访谈进行回应时;(2)在进行申诉过程时。在解释直接反馈之前,值得一提的是,由于这种评估而导致的员工态度和行为,例如工作不满,工作动机,对评估系统的信任和旷工等,没有直接明确地提供给评估者;相反,它们是评估者评估质量的间接指标。因此,跟随哈克曼和奥尔德姆(1976)的反馈定义,则员工的间接反馈不包括在内。



7. Work outcomes 


Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) original JCM offers internal motivation, work performance, work satisfaction, and absenteeism and turnover as the final personal outcomes. In the first meta-analysis of the JCM literature, Fried and Ferris (1987) categorized the outcomes into overall job satisfaction, growth satisfaction, internal work motivation, job performance, and absenteeism. In the next and most recent meta-analysis, Humphrey et al. (2007) re-sorted the four work outcomes into behavioral outcomes (work performance, absenteeism, and turnover intentions) and attitudinal outcomes (job satisfaction and internal work motivation). A common thread ties this research together: the core psychological states are seen to affect the internal motivation of employees, resulting in higher quality work outcomes and greater overall job satisfaction (Oldham & Hackman, 2010). In the current paper, only work performance is discussed as a work outcome because the goal of providing raters with internal motivation is to encourage them to make accurate appraisals. Outcomes such as absenteeism and turnover intentions are excluded because individuals are unlikely to leave their organizations because of the job characteristics of appraisals, which are commonly the task of supervisors. In addition, job satisfaction is also excluded, as performance appraisals only constitute a small fraction of supervisors’ tasks. According to Mintzberg (1975, p. 55), supervisors perform various interpersonal (figurehead, leader, and liaison), informational (monitor, disseminator, and spokesperson), and decision-related (entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator, and negotiator) roles. As such, the effect of appraisals on supervisors’ job satisfaction is limited. In the appraisal context, work performance is represented by the level of performance appraisal accuracy. All five job characteristics, mediated by psychological states, internally motivate the raters and influence the accuracy of performance appraisals. First, conducting appraisals requires a variety of skills, and such requirements can make the job more challenging and meaningful, leading to increased rating accuracy. Second, task identity is represented by the raters’ responsibility through the entire performance appraisal process, which has a visible outcome in the form of performance ratings. As previously noted, if individuals perceive that they are performing a task that is whole and complete, the work matters more to them; thus, higher work performance is achieved (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski, 2010). Third, the task significance of appraisals is reflected in performance ratings’ significant impact on personnel decisions and employee development. The more ratings are used in various HRM practices, the more raters are motivated to rate accurately. Fourth, raters, depending on their level of autonomy in rating their employees’ performances, are likely to feel responsible and attempt to invest more effort to make better appraisals. Lastly, receiving direct feedback from their supervisors and subordinates, raters acquire knowledge about their task results and eventually attempt to improve their work performance by increasing their accuracy. Notwithstanding, depending on the institutional settings or rating systems, raters may sometimes distort ratings in response to such feedback. We can assume that raters in almost all organizations are expected to administer accurate appraisals. If raters do not meet these expectations, they may be required to justify their rating decisions to their audience (e.g. supervisors or subordinates); thus, rater accountability functions as a motivating factor in appraisals (Mero & Motowidlo, 1995; Mero, Guidice, & Brownlee, 2007). When raters are held accountable to their supervisors, they tend to conduct accurate appraisals by preparing to justify their ratings with the most relevant performance information and by processing the information in a consistent manner (Mero & Motowidlo, 1995). However, when evaluatingsubordinates using a rating appraisal system with absolute standards, raters often inflate ratings to avoid confrontations with subordinates, to manage subordinates’ impressions, and to maintain subordinates’ motivation (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995; Spence & Keeping, 2011; Wayne & Kacmar, 1991). Therefore, raters tend to become more accurate in their appraisals when justifications are provided to their superiors (supervisors) compared with when justifications are provided to their subordinates (Ferris et al., 2008). By contrast, under a forced distribution rating system (FDRS), raters are motivated to be as accurate as possible in their appraisals. The FDRS is an appraisal system in which the rater is obligated to assign performance ratings based on a predetermined distribution (e.g. normal distribution); the raters are thus forced to avoid lenient appraisals (Schleicher, Bull, & Green, 2009). Accordingly, the FDRS encourages raters to distinguish between high performers and low performers, resulting in a high-performance and high-talent culture in which poor performances are penalized and honest appraisal feedback is expected (Guralnik, Rozmarin, & So, 2004; Meisler, 2003; Schleicher et al., 2009; Scullen, Bergey, & Aiman-Smith, 2005). As low performers are likely to respond negatively to appraisal results and require justification for their ratings, raters must be as accurate as possible (Facteau & Craig, 2001; Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988; Mount, 1984). In short, in the case of subordinate feedback, raters’ attempts to make accurate appraisals are affected by whether the organization uses an absolute standard or fixed distribution rating system. 

哈克曼和奥尔德姆(1976)在最初的JCM提出内部动力,工作绩效,工作满意度,缺勤和离职作为最终的个人成果。在JCM文献的首次分析中,弗瑞得和菲瑞斯(1987)将结果分为整体工作满意度,成长满意度,内部工作动机,工作绩效和旷工。在下一个和最新的分析中,哈佛瑞等人将这四个工作成果重新分类为行为成果(工作绩效,旷工和离职意图)和态度成果(工作满意度和内部工作动机)。一个共同的线索将这项研究联系在一起:核心心理状态被认为会影响员工的内部动机,从而导致更高质量的工作成果和更高的整体工作满意度(奥尔德姆&哈克曼,2010)。在当前文件中,仅将工作绩效作为工作成果进行了讨论,因为为评估者提供内部动机的目的是鼓励他们进行准确的评估。诸如旷工和离职意向之类的结果被排除在外,因为个人由于评估的工作特征而不太可能离开组织,这通常是主管的任务。此外,工作绩效也被排除在外,因为绩效评估只占主管任务的一小部分。根据明茨伯格(1975, p.55),主管执行各种人际(人头,领导和联络),信息(监视器,传播者和发言人)以及与决策相关的职责(企业家,干扰处理者,资源分配者和谈判者)。因此,评估对主管工作满意度的影响是有限的。




相比之下,在强制分配评级系统(FDRS)下,激励评级员尽可能准确地进行评估。FDRS 是一种评估系统,评估者必须根据预定的分布(例如正态分布)分配绩效评估;因此,评估者被迫避免进行宽大的评估。因此,FDRS 鼓励评估者区分高绩效者和低绩效者,从而形成了一种高绩效,高才干的文化,在这种文化中,不良的表现会受到惩罚,并且期望得到诚实的评估反馈。由于绩效不佳的人可能会对普遍评价的结果产生负面反应,并要求对其评级进行辩护,因此评分者必须尽可能准确(哈里斯与绍布罗克,1988)。简而言之,在次等反馈的情况下,评估者进行准确评估的尝试会受到组织使用绝对标准还是固定分布评估系统的影响。

8. Conclusion 


The current research applies Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) JCM to the performance appraisal context to reveal new perspectives on improving rater accuracy. To date, extant research on rater motivation has highlighted various motivational factors that affect rating accuracy, but the job characteristics of appraisals have constituted an unexplored area. The current paper offers a first step in considering the work design aspect of appraisals and illustrates how raters can be internally motivated to perform more accurate appraisals. 


9. Implications for research

9、 研究的意义

 The current study examines appraisals as the task of supervisors and explores the ways in which raters are internally motivated to increase appraisal accuracy. Several interesting research questions may be addressed in future research. First and foremost, future research must acknowledge that raters respond to performance appraisals as a job that has its own characteristics. Past research on rater accuracy focused on issues such as rating instruments, rater error, raters’ cognitive processes, and rater motivation, which assumed that raters had good intentions in the appraisal process and simply fell short of expectations for other reasons. Therefore, traditional concerns about rater accuracy neglected the work design aspect of appraisals. Second, the significance of appraisals as a task must be reexamined. Although conducting appraisals is a typical task for supervisors, little research has addressed the importance of the appraisal task to raters. Few studies have found that raters consider the task appraisal an insignificant job (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995; Roberts, 1998; Tziner et al., 1998). However, as performance appraisal is one of the crucial aspects of the organizational performance management process, determining how to increase raters’ perceived significance of appraisals is certainly important. Third, future research may want to reassess the adoption of 360-degree appraisal system, which is often used to increase employees’ rating acceptance and to provide multiple source feedback on employee performance (Antonioni & Park, 2001; DeNisi & Kluger, 2000; Latham & Wexley, 1982). Through the lens of the JCM, the 360-degree appraisal system seemingly deteriorates the rater’s autonomy in making appraisal decisions, resulting in decreased responsibility for rating accuracy (work outcome). Accordingly, the relationship between a rater’s autonomy and multi-source ratings can be further investigated. Fourth, the current study proposes that the various skills (e.g. interpersonal and information processing skills) that raters are required to use for appraisals and ways to enhance those skills should be identified. According to the JCM, individuals respond differently to work designs; thus, work outcomes are affected by individual-level differences (George, 2009). Similarly, in theappraisal context, the required skills for conducting appraisals may be similar but the outcomes depend on the raters’ individual differences. For instance, although almost all raters engage in performance measurement and feedback, some raters may be good at measuring performance but not so good at inducing employees’ acceptance of ratings. Accordingly, developing a framework to identify a common set of required skills for appraisals and to resolve individual variations that may discourage accuracy may yield valuable insights into managing and improving rater skills. 




第三,未来的研究可能希望重新评估360度评估系统的采用,该系统通常用于提高员工的评价接受度并提供有关员工绩效的多种来源反馈(德尼西和克鲁格,2000)。从 JCM 的角度来看,360度评估系统似乎使评估者在做出评估决定时的自发性恶化,从而降低了对评分准确性(工作成果)的责任。因此,可以进一步研究评估者的自主与多源评估之间的关系。第四,当前的研究建议应确定评估者需要用于评估的各种技能(例如人际交往和信息处理技能)以及增强这些技能的方法。据 JCM 称,个人对工作设计的反应不同。因此,工作成果会受到个人水平差异的影响(乔治,2009)。同样,在评估背景,进行评估所需的技能可能相似,但结果取决于评估者的个体差异。例如,尽管几乎所有评估者都参与绩效评估和反馈,但一些评估者可能擅长评估绩效,但不擅长促使员工接受评估。因此,开发一个框架以识别一套通用的评估技能,并解决可能妨碍准确性的个体差异,可能会产生宝贵的见解,有助于管理和提高评估者技能。

10. Implications for practice 


The current study offers several recommendations for HRM practices. First, rater training, including programs and contents about the significance of appraisals, can be developed and used to internally motivate raters. Although popular rater training methods, such as the frame-of-reference (FOR) method, are useful in increasing rater accuracy (London, Mone, & Scott, 2004; Roch et al., 2012), they do not show the rater why appraisal is important for the organization and what role appraisal plays in performance management. Thus, organizations can train raters by providing information about how individual-level performance affects overall organizational performance and strategic management to emphasize the task significance of appraisals. Second, organizations may consider using the FDRS over the absolute rating system. If the organization’s goal is to encourage accurate and honest appraisals, the FDRS is the better option because it controls the rater’s desire to inflate ratings. Some scholars argue that the FDRS has positive effects, such as motivating high performers, eliminating or penalizing low performers, and installing a climate of meritocracy and performance-oriented culture in organizations (Blume, Baldwin, & Rubin, 2009; Scullen et al., 2005; Welch, 2001). However, some studies claim that the FDRS undermines productivity, discourages collaboration, results in unfair appraisals, and forces high-performing employees to underperform (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000; Scullen et al., 2005). Therefore, organizations should carefully think about their ultimate goals before adopting the FDRS. Third, additional work is required to develop organizational policies that provide direct feedback to the raters regarding their rating accuracy. As previously noted in the “feedback” section, raters only receive direct feedback from their supervisors and subordinates after the final rating decisions have been made. Such feedback only allows the raters to incorporate these comments into the next performance evaluation period, which usually occurs only once or twice a year. Hence, more frequent feedback (e.g. midterm evaluations or review sessions between evaluation periods) can be used to provide raters with direct feedback about their appraisal decisions. Based on the feedback received from their supervisors and subordinates, raters can thus correct potential problems prior to making their final rating decisions at the end of the evaluation period.


其次,组织可以考虑在绝对评级系统上使用 FDRS。如果机构的目标是鼓励进行准确和诚实的评估,则FDRS是更好的选择,因为它控制了评估者提高评级的愿望。一些学者认为,FDRS 具有积极的作用,例如激励高绩效的员工,消除或惩罚低绩效的员工,以及在组织中建立精英风范和注重绩效的文化氛围(韦尔奇 2001)。但是,一些研究声称FDRS破坏了生产力,阻碍了合作,导致不公平的评估,并迫使高绩效员工表现不佳。因此,组织在采用FDRS之前应仔细考虑其最终目标。第三,需要开展其他工作来制定组织政策,以向评估者提供有关其评估准确性的直接反馈。如之前在“反馈”部分所述,评估者仅在做出最终评估决定后才从其主管和下属那里获得直接反馈。这样的反馈仅允许评估者将这些评论纳入下一个绩效评估期,该评估期通常每年一次或两次。因此,可以使用更频繁的反馈(例如,中期评估或评估期之间的反馈)来为评估者提供有关评估决策的直接反馈。基于从其主管和下属收到的反馈,评估者可以在评估期结束前做出最终评估决定之前纠正潜在问题。



Antonioni, D. (1994). The effects of feedback accountability on upward appraisal ratings. Personnel Psychology, 47, 349– 356. 


Antonioni, D., & Park, H. (2001). The relationship between rater affect and three sources of 360-degree feedback ratings. Journal of Management, 27, 479–495.

安东尼奥尼(D.)和公园(H.)(2001)。评估者情感与360度反馈评估的三个来源之间的关系。管理杂志,27,479–495 。

Arvey, R. D., & Murphy, K. R. (1998). Performance evaluation in work settings. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 141–168. 

RD 的阿维和KR的墨菲(1998),工作环境中的绩效评估。心理学年度评论,49,141–168。

Bernardin, H. J., & Buckley, M. R. (1981). Strategies in rater training. Academy of Management Review, 6, 205–212. 

伯纳德&巴克莱,MR (1981),评估者培训的策略。管理评论学院,第6卷,第205-212页。

Blume, B. D., Baldwin, T. T., & Rubin, R. S. (2009). Reactions to different types of forced distribution performance evaluation systems. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 77–91.


Bommer, W. H., Johnson, J. L., Rich, G. A., Podsakoff, P. M., & Mackenzie, S. B. (1995). On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 48, 587–605. 


Breaux, D. M., Munyon, T. P., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2009). Politics as a moderator of the accountability–job satisfaction relationship: Evidence across three studies. Journal of Management, 35, 307–326. 

DM 的布瑞,TP 的木永,华盛顿的豪沃特和GR的菲利斯(2009)。政治作为问责制与工作满意度关系的调节者:三项研究的证据。管理学报,35,307–326。

Bretz, R. D., Milkovich, G. T., & Read, W. (1992). The current state of performance appraisal research and practice: Concerns, directions, and implications. Journal of Management, 18, 321–352. 


Brown, M., & Benson, J. (2005). Managing to overload?: Work overload and performance appraisal processes. Group & Organization Management, 30, 99–124. 


Buller, P. F., & McEvoy, G. M. (2012). Strategy, human resource management and performance: Sharpening line of sight. Human Resource Management Review, 22, 43–56.


Campbell, D. J., Campbell, K. M., & Chia, H. (1998). Merit pay, performance appraisal, and individual motivation: An analysis and alternative. Human Resource Management, 37, 131–146. 


Cleveland, J. N., Murphy, K. R., & Williams, R. E. (1989). Multiple uses of performance appraisal: Prevalence and correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 130–135. 


Coens, T., & Jenkins, M. (2000). Abolishing performance appraisals: Why they backfire and what to do instead. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. 


Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. (1997). Psychometric properties of multisource performance ratings: A metaAnalysis of subordinate, supervisor, peer, and selfratings. Human Performance, 10, 331–360. 

JM 的康威和AI的哈夫科特(1997)。多源绩效评估的心理计量学特性:对下属,主管,同伴和自我评估分析。人类绩效,第10期,331-360。

Decotiis, T., & Petit, A. (1978). The performance appraisal process: A model and some testable propositions. Academy of Management Review, 3, 635–646. 

戴克提斯和佩提(1978)。绩效评估过程:一个模型和一些可验证的 命题。管理评论学会,3 ,635–646。

DeNisi, A. S. (1996). A cognitive approach to performance appraissal: A program of research. London: Routledge.


DeNisi, A. S., & Kluger, A. N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved? Academy of Management Perspectives, 14, 129–139. 


 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.


DeNisi, A. S., & Pritchard, R. D. (2006). Performance appraisal, performance management and improving individual performance: A motivational framework. Management and Organization Review, 2, 253–277. 

AS 的丹尼斯和RD的普瑞查德(2006),绩效评估,绩效管理和提高个人绩效:激励框架。管理与组织评论,第2卷,第253-277页。

DeNisi, A., & Smith, C. E. (2014). Performance appraisal, performance management, and firm-level performance: A review, a proposed model, and new directions for future research. The Academy of Management Annals, 8, 127– 179. 

丹尼斯和史密斯(2014),绩效评估,绩效管理和公司层面的绩效:回顾,提议的模型以及未来研究的新方向。管理学会年鉴,第8卷,第 127-179 页。

Dorfman, P. W., Stephan, W. G., & Loveland, J. (1986). Performance appraisal behaviors: Supervisor perceptions and subordinate reactions. Personnel Psychology, 39, 579–597.


Facteau, J. D., & Craig, S. B. (2001). Are performance appraisal ratings from different rating sources comparable? Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 215–227.


Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M., & Fitzgibbons, D. E. (1994). Subordinate influence and the performance evaluation process: Test of a model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 101–135.


Ferris, G. R., Munyon, T. P., Basik, K., & Buckley, M. R. (2008). The performance evaluation context: Social, emotional, cognitive, political, and relationship components. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 146–163.

费里斯,穆尼翁和巴西克&巴克利,(2008)绩效评估环境:社会,情感,认知,政治和关系组成部分。人力资源管理评论,第18期,第146-163 页。

Fletcher, C. (2001). Performance appraisal and management: The developing research agenda. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 473–487. 


Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322.


Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resource management. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 16, pp. 1–51). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. 

Frink,DD和Klimoski,RJ(1998)。建立组织和人力资源管理中的问责制理论。在GR 福瑞斯(编辑)的《人事和人力资源管理研究》(第16卷,第1至51页)中。康涅狄格州斯坦福德:JAI出版社。

Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Advancing accountability theory and practice: Introduction to the human resource management review special edition. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 1–17.


George, J. M. (2009). The illusion of will in organizational behavior research: Nonconscious processes and job design. Journal of Management, 35, 1318–1339. 


Graen, G. B., Scandura, T. A., & Graen, M. R. (1986). A field experimental test of the moderating effects of growth need strength on productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 484–491.


Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Performance management and employee engagement. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 123–136. 


Guralnik, O., Rozmarin, E., & So, A. (2004). Forced distribution: Is it right for you? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 339–345. 


Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279. 


Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 


Harris, M. (1994). Rater motivation in the performance appraisal context: A theoretical framework. Journal of Management, 20, 737–756.


Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43–62.


Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., Gavin, M. B., Perrewé, P. L., Hall, A. T., & Frink, D. D. (2007). Political skill as neutralizer of felt accountability—job tension effects on job performance ratings: A longitudinal investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 226–239. 


Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332–1356. 


Ilgen, D. R., Mitchell, T. R., & Fredrickson, J. W. (1981). Poor performers: Supervisors’ and subordinates’ responses. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27, 386–410. 


Johns, G., Xie, J. L., & Fang, Y. (1992). Mediating and moderating effects in job design. Journal of Management, 18, 657–676. 


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.


0 条评论