2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2016.01.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

How control system design affects performance evaluation compression: The role of information accuracy and outcome transparency

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

5
99
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 73 publications
(105 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
5
99
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…First, we conclude that transparency due to the provision of peer information does not enhance negative or mitigate positive effects of centrality bias. This finding appears particularly noteworthy in light of a recent study by Bol et al (2016). They find that the simultaneous increase of information accuracy and outcome transparency may incentivize managers to provide less compressed ratings.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 66%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…First, we conclude that transparency due to the provision of peer information does not enhance negative or mitigate positive effects of centrality bias. This finding appears particularly noteworthy in light of a recent study by Bol et al (2016). They find that the simultaneous increase of information accuracy and outcome transparency may incentivize managers to provide less compressed ratings.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…Taken together, our study provides insights into the behavioural implications of centrality bias that go beyond the suggestions by economic theory. In this way, we complement the prior literature on centrality bias which mostly assumes negative effects on work effort and therefore focuses on its determinants (Bol 2011;Bol et al 2016;Breuer et al 2013;Chen 2014;Moers 2005;Woods 2012). This paper is structured as follows.…”
mentioning
confidence: 85%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…While prior research on biases has mainly focused on the determinants and consequences of rating errors, very little attention has been paid to the mechanisms firms use to reduce these errors (recent exceptions are Bol et al (2016), and Demeré et al (2015)). Our results indicate that a firm's calibration committee provides implicit incentives to supervisors to mitigate rating errors by incorporating supervisors' evaluation behavior with respect to their subordinates in their own performance evaluation outcomes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%