Conditions for the success of peer evaluation

Peiperl, Maury

doi:10.1080/095851999340413

Cited by 34 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The 360 degree format of the LAQ allows the individual to compare feedback reports from several different teams. This helps us put together a fuller picture of the individual in a world where teams can be fluid and virtual, and allows us to avoid some of the possible pitfalls associated with using 360 degree measurements in organizations (Peiperl 1999).…”

Section: Mfr Kets De Vries Et Al 2850mentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and application of the Leadership Archetype Questionnaire

Vries

Vrignaud

Agrawal

et al. 2010

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The leadership assessment questionnaire (LAQ) is a 360 degree survey instrument designed to help organizational leaders identify their own style of leadership and formulate appropriate development objectives. It is designed to provide avenues for development of an executive team in which multiple leadership archetypes are represented. The LAQ is based on eight leadership archetypes -strategist, change-catalyst, transactor, builder, innovator, processor, coach, and communicator. These archetypes are representations of ways of leading in a complex organizational environment. In this article, we discuss the development, design, and psychometric analysis of the LAQ. We detail the conceptual foundations of the questionnaire and the psychometric methods used to confirm the validity and reliability of the instrument. We conclude with avenues for future research.

show abstract

Section: Mfr Kets De Vries Et Al 2850mentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and application of the Leadership Archetype Questionnaire

Vries

Vrignaud

Agrawal

et al. 2010

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The success of peer evaluation programs is dif…cult to determine, since objective performance measures are often lacking, motivating peer assesment to start with. Peiperl (1999) is one of the few empirical studies that looks into success factors of peer evaluation in business. Within a multinational service-sector organization managers were asked to identify units with (un)successful peer evaluation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Evaluation: Incentives and Co-Worker Relations

Sol

2010

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many workplaces co-workers have the best information about each other's e¤ort. Managers may attempt to exploit this information through peer evaluation. I study peer evaluation in a pure moral hazard model of production by two limitedly liable agents. Agents receive a signal about their colleague's e¤ort level, and are asked to report it to the principal. The principal may give an individual bonus for the receipt of a positive evaluation by a colleague, which stimulates e¤ort as long as signals are revealed truthfully. A cost of lying ascertains that there can be truthful revelation. I show that interpersonal relations between colleagues constrain the bonus for receiving a positive evaluation in order to keep evaluations truthful. Still, the principal will always include such a bonus in the optimal contract, and possibly complement it with a team bonus. Co-worker relations have non-monotic e¤ects on pro…ts in the optimal contract. JEL-codes: D86, J33, M50.

show abstract

“…Caution is needed when developing quantitative measures that use peers to rate complex humanistic qualities, and the complex nature of this field should be acknowledged 25. A common theme in the assessment literature is the question of self evaluation versus external evaluation and whether “others” can form judgments on differing facets of professional practice 26.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of instruments for peer assessment of physicians

Evans

Elwyn

Edwards

2004

BMJ

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To identify existing instruments for rating peers (professional colleagues) in medical practice and to evaluate them in terms of how they have been developed, their validity and reliability, and their appropriateness for use in clinical settings, including primary care. Design Systematic literature review. Data sources Electronic search techniques, snowball sampling, and correspondence with specialists. Study selection The peer assessment instruments identified were evaluated in terms of how they were developed and to what extent, if relevant, their psychometric properties had been determined. Results A search of six electronic databases identified 4566 possible articles. After appraisal of the abstracts and in depth assessment of 42 articles, three rating scales fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were fully appraised. The three instruments did not meet established standards of instrument development, as no reference was made to a theoretical framework and the published psychometric data omitted essential work on construct and criterion validity. Rater training was absent, and guidance consisted of short written instructions. Two instruments were developed for a hospital setting in the United States and one for a primary care setting in Canada. Conclusions The instruments developed to date for physicians to evaluate characteristics of colleagues need further assessment of validity before their widespread use is merited.

show abstract

Conditions for the success of peer evaluation

Cited by 34 publications

References 48 publications

Development and application of the Leadership Archetype Questionnaire

Development and application of the Leadership Archetype Questionnaire

Peer Evaluation: Incentives and Co-Worker Relations

Review of instruments for peer assessment of physicians

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About