Peer Appraisals: Differentiation of Individual Performance on Group Tasks

Drexler, John A.; Beehr, Terry A.; Stetz, Thomas A.

doi:10.1002/hrm.1023

Cited by 24 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

Section: Peer Appraisalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, May (2006) cautions that unlike traditional supervisor-led appraisals, little research has been conducted on the validity and reliability of peer ratings. This is an important consideration given that peer ratings are likely to exhibit the same types of bias attributed to supervisor and selfratings such as gender (Drexler, Beehr and Stetz, 2001;Farh, Cannella and Bedeian, 1991;and Heslin, 2005).It has been argued that peer ratings are more likely to be affected by pro-male bias because their performance ratings will have fewer consequences than supervisors' ratings, in that supervisors are more aware of the legal implications involved. Pro-male bias can also occur in peer ratings when their male colleagues see women as competitors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gender differences within 360‐degree managerial performance appraisals

Millmore

Biggs

Morse³

2007

Women in Management Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

DisclaimerThe University of Gloucestershire has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights.The University of Gloucestershire accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR TEXT.This is a peer-reviewed, post-print (final draft post-refereeing) version of the following published document:Millmore, Mike and Biggs, David M. and Morse, Laura (2007). Gender differences within 360-degree managerial performance appraisals. Women in Management Review, 22 (7), 536-551.Published in Women in Management Review, and available online at:http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/09649420710825715We recommend you cite the published (post-print) version.The URL for the published version is http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09649420710825715 DisclaimerThe University of Gloucestershire has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights.The University of Gloucestershire accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR TEXT. Gender differences within Abstract Purpose of this paperThe study examines the impact of gender on the performance assessments of managers arising from the 360-degree scheme operated within the UK headquarters of a large multi-international financial services organisation. Design/methodology/approachA questionnaire approach was used to collect data on 66 managers (33 males and 33 females) against 4 broad capabilities on the 360-degree appraisal system. Data was gathered on each of the 66 managers from eight different sources including the individual being appraised, three of their peers, three of their direct reports (subordinates) and their manager (supervisor). FindingsPerformance ratings were either gender neutral or higher for female than for male managers. Within the case ...

show abstract

Section: Peer Appraisalmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences within 360‐degree managerial performance appraisals

Millmore

Biggs

Morse³

2007

Women in Management Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This increase has been largely attributed to the shift away from hierarchical organizational structures toward flatter, team, and project‐based organizations (Greguras, Robie, & Born, 2001; Viswesvaran, Schmidt, & Ones, 2002), and to the popularity of multisource feedback systems (London & Smither, 1995). Furthermore, evidence supports peer ratings as reliable, valid, and useful forms of performance criteria (Drexler, Beehr, & Stetz, 2001; Greguras & Robie, 1998; Kane & Lawler, 1978; Saavedra & Kwun, 1993).…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

“…What is critically needed is empirical work that explicitly examines the nature and determinants of peer ratings of performance (Drexler et al, 2001; Pulakos et al, 1996). Such research is important to theory and practice, as peers are frequently viewed as especially valuable sources of performance information (Greguras et al, 2001; Murphy & Cleveland, 1995) and are increasingly chosen to be providers of ratings (Maurer et al, 1998; Reilly & McGourty, 1998).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Placing Peer Ratings in Context: Systematic Influences Beyond Ratee Performance

Dierdorff

Surface²

2007

Personnel Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Performance evaluation research indicates that variance in ratings may be attributable to systematic sources beyond the actual performance of the ratee. However, the majority of prior work compares ratings across sources and uses ratings from a single rating event. Using confirmatory factor analysis and multivariate latent growth modeling (MLGM), we specifically examine peer ratings from 740 participants on 5 performance dimensions across 3 distinct performance situations for systematic sources of variance beyond ratee performance. Results demonstrate that both ratee performance and the performance context have systematic effects, with contextual effects varying by how "strong" or "weak" the situation is for a given performance dimension. Furthermore, MLGM results suggest that the influence of performance dynamism is only meaningfully interpreted when contextual effects are modeled.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, the presence of a situational context that blocks honest expression of a peer’s differential performance can lower evaluation accuracy. Unfortunately, there is a lack of peer assessment studies identifying the situational context within a group and the situation surrounding this topic is not yet understood clearly [34]. Such contextual errors were removed in this study, which enabled a strong explanatory power for nursing professionalism with the use of the average score from the peer review process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and validation of a nursing professionalism evaluation model in a career ladder system

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe clinical ladder system categorizes the degree of nursing professionalism and rewards and is an important human resource tool for managing nursing.AimWe developed a model to evaluate nursing professionalism, which determines the clinical ladder system levels, and verified its validity.MethodsData were collected using a clinical competence tool developed in this study, and existing methods such as the nursing professionalism evaluation tool, peer reviews, and face-to-face interviews to evaluate promotions and verify the presented content in a medical institution. Reliability and convergent and discriminant validity of the clinical competence evaluation tool were verified using SmartPLS software. The validity of the model for evaluating overall nursing professionalism was also analyzed.ResultsClinical competence was determined by five dimensions of nursing practice: scientific, technical, ethical, aesthetic, and existential. The structural model explained 66% of the variance. Clinical competence scales, peer reviews, and face-to-face interviews directly determined nursing professionalism levels.ConclusionsThe evaluation system can be used for evaluating nurses’ professionalism in actual medical institutions from a nursing practice perspective.Implications for nursing managementA conceptual framework for establishing a human resources management system for nurses and a tool for evaluating nursing professionalism at medical institutions is provided.

show abstract

Peer Appraisals: Differentiation of Individual Performance on Group Tasks

Cited by 24 publications

References 34 publications

Gender differences within 360‐degree managerial performance appraisals

Gender differences within 360‐degree managerial performance appraisals

Placing Peer Ratings in Context: Systematic Influences Beyond Ratee Performance

Development and validation of a nursing professionalism evaluation model in a career ladder system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About