Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information (한국컴퓨터정보학회논문지)

Korean Society of Computer Information (한국컴퓨터정보학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Contextual Factors and Rating Behavior in the Peer Evaluation System

동료평가 시스템에서의 상황맥락 요인과 평가행동

  • Received : 2012.01.26
  • Accepted : 2012.02.06
  • Published : 2012.03.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The study investigates peer rating, one of the most commonly used sources of performance rating other than those of supervisors. On the whole, both field and laboratory studies indicate that peer assessment is a valid and reliable evaluation procedure, but on average, peer rating is not usually accurate. The aim of the investigation is to explore the relationship of beliefs and attitude about the performance appraisal system as well as a dispositional characteristic as self-monitoring with rating behavior. In particular, the study tests whether the relationship between rating context variables-appraisal self efficacy and appraisal validity- and rating behavior depends in part on the personality of the rater. Data from 445 undergraduate students are analyzed for hypotheses testing. The study finds evidences that the high on appraisal self efficacy and appraisal validity are more likely to affect discriminating rating tendency and to reduce rating level. Results also show that self-monitoring make the moderating effects between contextual factors and rating behaviors. Some implications, future research directions, and limitations are discussed.

본 연구는 동료평가 시스템의 활용도 제고 방안을 모색하기 위한 목적으로 수행되었다. 동료평가는 신뢰성과 타당성을 확보함에도 불구하고 평가 참여자의 측정치 왜곡 등 부정확한 평가결과로 폭넓게 활용되지 못하고 있다. 최근의 성과평가 연구에서는 평가가 이루어지는 프로세스에 대한 이해를 도모하기 위해 조직차원의 상황맥락에 주목하고 있다. 본 연구는 평가행동에 영향을 미치는 상황맥락요인으로 평가 자신감 및 평가 타당성을, 개인 성격 특성으로 자기모니터링을 채택하고 평가행동에 미치는 영향을 검증하였다. 445명의 학생을 대상으로 자료를 수집하여 가설을 검증한 결과, 평가 자신감 및 평가 타당성은 정확한 평가행동을 유인함이, 또한 자기모니터링은 조절효과를 가짐이 검증되었다. 기타 시사점 및 향후 연구를 위한 제언도 포함하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Campbell, B.C. and C.L. Barron, "How Extensively are Human Resource Management Practices being Utilized by the Practitioners?", Personnel Administrator, 27, 1982, pp.67-71.
  2. Sanders, L.W., "The Impact of Performance Appraisal Interviews on Organizational Trust and Motivation for Learning", Ph.D Dissertation, 1993, The University of Texas at Austin.
  3. Banks, C.G. & K.R. Murphy, "Toward Narrowing the Research-Practice Gap in Performance Appraisal", Personnel Psychology, 38, 1985, pp.335-348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1985.tb00551.x
  4. Ilgen, D.R. and J.M. Feldman, "Performance Appraisal: A Process Focus", In Cummings, L. and B. Straw(Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1983.
  5. Landy, F.J. and J.L. Farr, "The Measurement of Work Performance", San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1983.
  6. Peiperl, M.A., "Conditions for the Success of Peer Evaluation", The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10, 1999. pp.429-458. https://doi.org/10.1080/095851999340413
  7. Zammuto, R.F., M. London, and K.M., Rowland, "Organization and Rater Differences in Performance Appraisals", Personnel Psychology, 35, 1982, pp.643-658. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1982.tb02216.x
  8. Wexley, K. N. and R. Klimoski, "Performance Appraisal: An Update," In K. Rowland & G. Ferris(Eds.) Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 2, 35-79. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1984.
  9. McEvoy, G.M. and P.F. Buller, "User Acceptance of Peer Appraisals in an Inderstrial Setting", Personnel Psychology, 40, 1987, 785-797. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00624.x
  10. DeNisi, A.S., W.A. Randolph, and A.G. Blencoe, "Potential Problems with Peer Ratings", Academy of Management Journal, 26, 1983, pp.457-464. https://doi.org/10.2307/256256
  11. Kane, J.S. and E.E. Lawler, "Methods of Peer Assessment," Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1978, pp.555-586. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.85.3.555
  12. DeNisi, A.S., and J.L. Mitchell, "An Analysis of Peer Ratings as Predictors and Criterion Measurs and a Proposed New Application", Academy of Management Review, 3, 1978, pp.369-374.
  13. Murphy, K.R. and J.N. Cleveland, "Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social, Organizational, and Goal-Based Perspectives", Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995.
  14. Tziner, A., K.R. Murphy, & J.N. Cleveland, "Contextual and Rater Factors Affecting Rating Behavior", Group and Organization Management, 30, 2005, 89-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601104267920
  15. Bernardin, H.J. and P. Villanova, "Performance Appraisal", In E. Locke(Ed.) Generalizing from Laboratory to Field Settings, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1986.
  16. Murphy, K.R., J.N. Cleveland, A.L. Skattebo, and T.B. Kenney, "Raters 쫴 Pursue Differnent Goals Give Different Ratings", Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 2004, pp.158-164. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.158
  17. Tziner, A., K.R. Murphy, J.N. Cleveland, A. Yavo, and E. Hayoon, "A New Old Question: Do Contextual Factors Relate to Rating Behavior: An Investigation with Peer Evaluations", International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 2008, pp.59-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00409.x
  18. Frayne, C.A. and G.P. Latham, "Application of Social Training Theory to Employer Self-Management of Attendance", Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 1987, pp.387-392. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.3.387
  19. Bernardin, H.J. and P. Villanova, "Research Strems in Rater Self-Efficiency", Group and Organization Managment, 30, 2005, pp.61-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601104267675
  20. Roberts, G.E., "Maximizing Performance Appraisal System Acceptance Perspective from Municipal Government Personnel Administrators", Public Personnel Management, 23, 1994, pp.525-549. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102609402300402
  21. Barrick, M.R. and M.K. Mount, "The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis", Personnel Psychology, 44, 1991, pp.1-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
  22. Bernadin, H.J., D.K. Cooke, and P. Villanova, "Conscientiousness and Agreeableness as Predictos of Rating Leniency", Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 2000, pp.232-236. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.232
  23. Snyder, M., "The Self-Monitoring of Expressive Behavior", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 1974, pp.527-535.
  24. Snyder, M., E. Berscheid, and P. Glick, "Focusing on the Exterior and Interior: Two Investigations of the Initiation of Personal Relationships", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1985, pp.1437-1458.
  25. Jawahar, I.M., "Attitudes, Self-Monitoring, and Appraisal Behaviors", Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 2001, pp.875-883. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.875
  26. Saavedra, R. and S.K. Kwun, "Peer Evaluations in Self-Managing Work Groups," Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 1993, pp.450-462. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.3.450
  27. Bandura, A., "Self-Efficacy" Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change", Psychological Review, 84, 1977, pp.191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
  28. Riggs, M.L. & A.J. Knight, "The Impact of Perceived Group Success-Failure on Motivational Beliefs and Attitudes: A Causal Model", Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 1994, pp.187-198.
  29. Cederblom, D. and J.W. Lounsbury, "An Investigation of User Acceptance of Peer Evaluations", Personnel Psychology, 33, 1980, pp.567-579. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1980.tb00484.x
  30. Snyder, M. and S. Gangestad, "On the Nature of Self-Monitoring : Matters of Assessment, Matters of Validity", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1986, pp.125-139. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.1.125
  31. Tziner, A. and K.R. Murphy, "Additional Evidence of Attitudinal Influences in Performance Appraisal", Journal of Business and Psychology, 13, 1999, pp.407-420. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022982501606
  32. Tziner, A., K.R. Murphy, & J.N. Cleveland, "Personality Moderates Relationship Between Context Facorts and Rating Behavior", Advances in Psychology Research, 22, 2003, pp.107-120.
  33. Morahan-Martin, J., "Should Peers' Evaluations be Used in Class Projects? Questions Regarding Reliability, Lenience, and Acceptance," Psychological Reports, 78, 1996, pp.1243-1250. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1996.78.3c.1243
  34. Watson, W., L.K. Michaelsen, and W. Sharp, "Member Competence, Group Interactions, and Group Decision Making: A Longitudinal Study," Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 1991, pp.803-809. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.803

Cited by

  1. 팀제 하에서의 정치적 성과평가 vol.19, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.9708/jksci.2014.19.2.201