IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v74y1998i3p212-228.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Influence of Self-Ratings versus Peer Ratings on Supervisors' Performance Judgments

Author

Listed:
  • Makiney, Jeanne D.
  • Levy, Paul E.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Makiney, Jeanne D. & Levy, Paul E., 1998. "The Influence of Self-Ratings versus Peer Ratings on Supervisors' Performance Judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 212-228, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:74:y:1998:i:3:p:212-228
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749-5978(98)92776-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klimoski, Richard & Inks, Lawrence, 1990. "Accountability forces in performance appraisal," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 194-208, April.
    2. Mellers, Barbara, 1986. "Test of a distributional theory of intuitive numerical prediction," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 279-294, December.
    3. Blakely, Gerald L., 1993. "The Effects of Performance Rating Discrepancies on Supervisors and Subordinates," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 57-80, February.
    4. Sorkin, Robert D. & Mabry, Thomas R. & Weldon, Mary Susan & Elvers, Greg, 1991. "Integration of information from multiple element displays," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 167-187, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thorsteinson, Todd J. & Breier, Jennifer & Atwell, Anna & Hamilton, Catherine & Privette, Monica, 2008. "Anchoring effects on performance judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 29-40, September.
    2. Chen, Zhe & Kemp, Simon, 2012. "Lie hard: The effect of self-assessments on academic promotion decisions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 578-589.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thorsteinson, Todd J. & Breier, Jennifer & Atwell, Anna & Hamilton, Catherine & Privette, Monica, 2008. "Anchoring effects on performance judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 29-40, September.
    2. Angelovski, Andrej & Brandts, Jordi & Sola, Carles, 2016. "Hiring and escalation bias in subjective performance evaluations: A laboratory experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 114-129.
    3. Puhani, Patrick A. & Yang, Philip, 2020. "Does increased teacher accountability decrease leniency in grading?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 333-341.
    4. Won Kwak & Suk Choi, 2015. "Effect of rating discrepancy on turnover intention and leader-member exchange," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 801-824, September.
    5. Roch, Sylvia G., 2007. "Why convene rater teams: An investigation of the benefits of anticipated discussion, consensus, and rater motivation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 14-29, September.
    6. Tim Hermans & Martine Cools & Alexandra Van den Abbeele, 2021. "The role of information accuracy and justification in bonus allocations," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 197-223, June.
    7. Eve, CHIAPELLO & Annick, BOURGUIGNON, 2003. "The role of Criticism in the Dynamics of Performance Evaluation Systems," HEC Research Papers Series 777, HEC Paris.
    8. Marios Kokkodis & Theodoros Lappas, 2020. "Your Hometown Matters: Popularity-Difference Bias in Online Reputation Platforms," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 412-430, June.
    9. Marchegiani, Lucia & Reggiani, Tommaso & Rizzolli, Matteo, 2016. "Loss averse agents and lenient supervisors in performance appraisal," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PA), pages 183-197.
    10. William T Self & Gregory Mitchell & Barbara A Mellers & Philip E Tetlock & J Angus D Hildreth, 2015. "Balancing Fairness and Efficiency: The Impact of Identity-Blind and Identity-Conscious Accountability on Applicant Screening," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, December.
    11. Blunden, Hayley & Steffel, Mary, 2023. "The downside of decision delegation: When transferring decision responsibility incurs interpersonal costs," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    12. Florian Hoos & Grégoire Bollmann, 2012. "Is accountability a double-edged sword? Experimental evidence on the effectiveness of internal controls to prevent fraud," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 115-132, November.
    13. Mina Ličen & Sergeja Slapničar, 2022. "Can process accountability mitigate myopic biases? An experimental analysis," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 1-26, March.
    14. Chen, Zhe & Kemp, Simon, 2012. "Lie hard: The effect of self-assessments on academic promotion decisions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 578-589.
    15. Carrie Dusterhoff & J. Cunningham & James MacGregor, 2014. "The Effects of Performance Rating, Leader–Member Exchange, Perceived Utility, and Organizational Justice on Performance Appraisal Satisfaction: Applying a Moral Judgment Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 119(2), pages 265-273, January.
    16. Lucia Marchegiani & Tommaso Reggiani & Matteo Rizzolli, 2013. "Severity vs. Leniency Bias in Performance Appraisal: Experimental evidence," BEMPS - Bozen Economics & Management Paper Series BEMPS01, Faculty of Economics and Management at the Free University of Bozen.
    17. Blunden, Hayley & Logg, Jennifer M. & Brooks, Alison Wood & John, Leslie K. & Gino, Francesca, 2019. "Seeker beware: The interpersonal costs of ignoring advice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 83-100.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:74:y:1998:i:3:p:212-228. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.