A comparison of adverse impact levels based on top‐down, multisource, and assessment center data: Promoting diversity and reducing legal challenges

Abstract

We compared levels of adverse impact (AI) against minorities and women based on three promotional decision methods for 428 associate store managers of a Fortune 500 retailer: top‐down appraisal (TDA), multisource appraisal (MSA), and an assessment center (AC). We found significant effects for race and minority status (favoring whites) but no significant effects for gender across all three methods. Comparisons were analyzed using two definitions of AI (four‐fifths rule and the Fisher Exact Test) with a selection ratio (SR) of .25. No evidence of AI was found against blacks for any of the methods. For Hispanics, AI was found under the four‐fifths rule for the AC. For women, the four‐fifths rule was violated using TDA. Results provide some partial support for the argument that diversity goals are more likely to be met using assessment centers compared to TDA when the preponderance of raters are white men. Our data also suggest that carefully crafted, job‐related, top‐down appraisal, combined with rater training, may be effective in facilitating the promotion of more women and minorities and reducing the probability of legal problems. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The implications of unconfounding multisource performance ratings.

“…Multisource ratings present a popular option, often for the purposes of employee development: highlighting their importance for the performance growth of organizations (Bernardin, Konopaske, & Hagan, 2012; Lance, Baxter, & Mahan, 2006; Zimmerman, Mount, & Goff, 2008). Given the central role that job performance measures play in both research and practice in applied psychology and management, much attention has been directed toward their measurement characteristics.…”

Implicit Bias in Judicial Performance Evaluations: We Must Do Better Than This

“…The literature on performance appraisal is diverse, spreading over a number of academic disciplines (Daley 1992). Much of the research on improving the reliability of performance appraisals concludes that evaluator training programs can help to minimize measurement error problems (Bernardin et al 2012;Daley 1992;Landy and Farr 1980;Martin and Bartol 1988;Morrisey 1983). About 90 percent of job performance appraisals of public sector workers are conducted by supervisors (Daley 1992).…”

Held to a different standard: Racial differences in the impact of lateness on advancement opportunity

“…Similar results (albeit smaller in magnitude) have been reported for Hispanic–White differences for ratings of job performance (Roth, Bobko, & Huffcutt, ). Because of a downward bias in promotion decisions for racial minorities (Bernardin, Konopaske, & Hagan, ; Castilla, ; Greenhaus et al ., ), we argue that lateness will negatively affect performance evaluations and subsequent advancement for Black and Hispanic to a greater extent than for White employees.

Hypothesis 3: The indirect effect of lateness on advancement opportunities through performance appraisal holds for Black people and Hispanics to a greater extent than for White people.

…”