Nonperformance influences on performance evaluations: A laboratory phenomenon?

Abstract

A number of recent studies have investigated the effects of nonperformance factors (i.e., gender and race) on a variety of organizational criteria, including performance evaluations. It is argued that results from studies of this nature may be attributable to a research design that bears little resemblance to the performance appraisal process in real organizational contexts. Consequently, the present study was designed to examine the effects of two nonperformance factors (ratee race and rater race) and an index of ratee past performance on performance ratings in a real organizational setting. Results of a higher-order multivariate analysis of variance showed significant effects of ratee race, past performance, rater race, and a Ratee X Rater interaction. All of these sources of variance combined, however, accounted for no more than 4% of the total variance in performance ratings. Reasons for the low relationship between past performance and oral interview performance are discussed, and the generalizability of results from past laboratory studies to performance evaluation in real organizational environments is questioned.The past decade has witnessed much research aimed at defining and identifying both access and treatment discrimination in organizations. Many of these studies have focused on such issues as causal attributions of job behaviors (

Sex Bias at Work: The Effects of Attentional and Memory Demands on Performance Ratings of Men and Women1

“…For example, in this study actual ongoing work behavior was not observed; instead a vignette was read. Although the "paper person" paradigm has been the target of some criticism (Wendelken & Inn, 1981), recent research indicates that such concerns may be overstated. Murphy, Herr, Lockhart, and Maguire ( 1986), for example, conducted a meta-analysis of performance appraisal research that contrasted the effect sizes of "paper people" versus "behavior observation" studies.…”

A note on the role of laboratory methodologies in applied behavioural research: Don't throw out the baby with the bath water

“…Critics argue that given the massive differences between laboratory and field settings, it seems unlikely that the results obtained in laboratories will generalize to actual organizations (e.g. Ilgen and Favero, 1985;Wendelken and Inn, 1981).…”

“…The value of laboratory experimentation for studying work behaviour has often been debated (e.g. Dipboye and Flanagan, 1979;Landy and Bates, 1973;Wendelken and Inn, 1981). Although the criticisms of the laboratory have been refuted in the past (e.g.…”

Job Performance Measurement in the Military: A Classification Scheme, Literature Review, and Directions for Research

“…However, not all laboratory or field studies found these effects (Cascio & Phillips, 1979); in field studies such as those of Mobley (1982) and Wendelken & Inn (1981), only about 4% of the variance was due to these effects.…”

“…Wendelken and Inn (1981) noted this distinction, and conducted a major field study investigating race main effects and the interaction between raters and ratees.…”