IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v104y2007i1p14-29.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why convene rater teams: An investigation of the benefits of anticipated discussion, consensus, and rater motivation

Author

Listed:
  • Roch, Sylvia G.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:104:y:2007:i:1:p:14-29
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749-5978(06)00075-6
    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. Vollrath, David A. & Sheppard, Blair H. & Hinsz, Verlin B. & Davis, James H., 1989. "Memory performance by decision-making groups and individuals," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 289-300, June.
    3. Waung, Marie & Highhouse, Scott, 1997. "Fear of Conflict and Empathic Buffering: Two Explanations for the Inflation of Performance Feedback," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 37-54, July.
    4. Padgett, Margaret Youtz & Ilgen, Daniel R., 1989. "The impact of ratee performance characteristics on rater cognitive processes and alternative measures of rater accuracy," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 232-260, October.
    5. Murphy, Kevin R., 1991. "Criterion issues in performance appraisal research: Behavioral accuracy versus classification accuracy," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 45-50, October.
    6. Salvemini, Nat J. & Reilly, Richard R. & Smither, James W., 1993. "The Influence of Rater Motivation on Assimilation Effects and Accuracy in Performance Ratings," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 41-60, June.
    7. Ilgen, Daniel R. & Barnes-Farrell, Janet L. & McKellin, David B., 1993. "Performance Appraisal Process Research in the 1980s: What Has It Contributed to Appraisals in Use?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 321-368, April.
    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. Steve Alpern & Vic Baston, 2017. "The Secretary Problem with a Selection Committee: Do Conformist Committees Hire Better Secretaries?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(4), pages 1184-1197, April.

    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. Jones, Keith T. & Hunt, Steven C. & Chen, Clement C., 2008. "Auditors’ performance evaluations: An experimental analysis of the effects of initial impressions and task-specific experience on information later recalled," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 213-224.
    4. Schleicher, Deidra J. & Day, David V., 1998. "A Cognitive Evaluation of Frame-of-Reference Rater Training: Content and Process Issues, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 76-101, January.
    5. Sprinkle, Geoffrey B., 2003. "Perspectives on experimental research in managerial accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 287-318.
    6. Prather, Larry J. & Middleton, Karen L., 2006. "Timing and selectivity of mutual fund managers: An empirical test of the behavioral decision-making theory," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 249-273, June.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Prather, Larry J. & Middleton, Karen L., 2002. "Are N+1 heads better than one?: The case of mutual fund managers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 103-120, January.
    10. Hinsz, Verlin B., 1999. "Group Decision Making with Responses of a Quantitative Nature: The Theory of Social Decision Schemes for Quantities, , , , , , , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 28-49, October.
    11. Schaerer, Michael & Kern, Mary & Berger, Gail & Medvec, Victoria & Swaab, Roderick I., 2018. "The illusion of transparency in performance appraisals: When and why accuracy motivation explains unintentional feedback inflation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 171-186.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:3:p:299-329 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. 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.
    16. Diana Schwenke & Maja Dshemuchadse & Cordula Vesper & Martin Georg Bleichner & Stefan Scherbaum, 2017. "Let’s decide together: Differences between individual and joint delay discounting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-15, April.
    17. Shujun Ding & Philip Beaulieu, 2011. "The Role of Financial Incentives in Balanced Scorecard‐Based Performance Evaluations: Correcting Mood Congruency Biases," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(5), pages 1223-1247, December.
    18. Adams, Renée B. & Ragunathan, Vanitha & Tumarkin, Robert, 2021. "Death by committee? An analysis of corporate board (sub-) committees," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(3), pages 1119-1146.
    19. DeVoe, Sanford E. & Iyengar, Sheena S., 2004. "Managers' theories of subordinates: A cross-cultural examination of manager perceptions of motivation and appraisal of performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 47-61, January.
    20. 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.
    21. Peter Cappelli & Martin J. Conyon, 2018. "What Do Performance Appraisals Do?," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 71(1), pages 88-116, January.

    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:104:y:2007:i:1:p:14-29. 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.