An Investigation on the Ratings from Four Sources for Different Positions in a 360 Degree Feedback System

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 3, 49 - 64, 15.12.2017

Emin Kahya , Fatih Çemrek

https://doi.org/10.17153/oguiibf.329898

Öz

The 360 ​​degrees performance appraisal system, which is considered as the most popular evaluation system today, is based on the idea that the evaluations obtained from different sources are more objective and comprehensive. Since the system gives the employee a chance to evaluate him/herself and others, it is commonly preferred. It is investigated whether rater has a similar effect on the leniency of ratings from four sources (self, supervisor, peer, and subordinate) in multi-source assessment process. In this study, the establishment and implementation of a 360-degree performance appraisal system for all task positions including both white and blue-collar personnel in a medium-sized furniture business is discussed. A total of 200 employees (39 white collar employees, 17 foremen and 144 workers) from all functional areas and reputational roles participated in the study. The findings indicate that the influence of bias on ratings was significantly greater in self, subordinate and peer feedback than in supervisor feedback.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Multi-Source Assessment Process, Performance Criteria, Job Performance, Experience, Education

360 Derece Performans Değerleme Sisteminde Farklı Pozisyonlar İçin Dört Kaynaktan Performanslar Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Öz

Günümüzde
en popular değerlendirme sistemi olarak kabul edilen 360 derece performans
değerleme sistemi, farklı kaynaklardan elde edilen değerlemelerin daha objektif
ve kapsamlı olduğu görüşüne dayanmaktadır. Bu system, çalışana kendisini ve
diğerlerini değerlendirme şansı tanıdığından, yaygın tercih edilmektedir. Çok
kaynaklı değerleme sürecinde, dört kaynaktan (kendisi, yönetici, arkadaş ve
ast)   değerlemelerinde değerleyicinin
aynı hoşgörüye sahip olup olmadığı araştırılmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, orta ölçekli
bir mobilya işletmesinde, hem beyaz hem de mavi yakalı personeli kapsayan tüm
görev pozisyonları için 360 derece performans değerleme sistemin kurulması ve
uygulaması ele alınmıştır. Tüm fonksiyonel alanlardan ve pozisyonlardan toplam
200 çalışan (39 beyaz yakalı, 17 ustabaşı, 144 işçi) çalışmaya katılmıştır.
Bulgular, değerlemelerde önyargı etkisinin, kendi, ast ve arkadaş
değerlemelerinde yönetici değerlemesinden daha fazla olduğunu göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çok Kaynaklı Değerleme Süreci, Performans Kriterleri, Iş Performansı, Deneyim, Eğitim

Kaynakça

• Akal, Z. (2005), İşletmelerde Performans Ölçüm ve Denetimi: Çok Yönlü Performans Göstergeleri, 6.Baskı, Milli Prodüktivite Merkezi Yayınları No: 473. Ankara.
• Akdemir, A. (2009), İşletmeciliğin Temel Bilgileri, Ekin Yayınları, Bursa.
• Antonioni, D. ; H. Park (2001), “The relationship between rater affect and three sources of 360-degree feedback ratings”, Journal of Management, 27: 479-495.
• Antonioni, D. ; D.J. Woehr (2000), “Improving the quality of multi-source rater performance”, In D.W. Bracken, C.W. Timmreck, and A.H. Church (Eds.). Handbook of Multisource Feed-back (pp. 114-129). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Atwater, L.E.; C. Ostroff; F.J. Yammarino; J.W. Fleenor (1998), “Self-other agreement: Does it really matter?”, Personnel Psychology, 51 : 577-598.
• Baltacı, A. İ.; H.Burgazoğlu (2014), “Değerlendiriciler Arası Güvenilirlik ve Tatmin Bağlamında 360 Derece Performans Değerlendirme”, Marmara Üniversitesi Öneri Dergisi, 11 (41): 57-76.
• Barutçugil, İ. (2002), Performans Yönetimi, 2. Basım, Kariyer Yayıncılık, İstanbul.
• Beehr, T.A.; L. Ivanitskaya; C.P. Hansen; D. Erofeev; D. Gudanowski (2001), “Evaluation of 360 degree feedback ratings: Relationships with each other and with performance and selec-tion predictors”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 775-788.
• Bettenhausen, K.L.; D.B. Fedor (1997), “Peer and upward appraisals: A comparison of their benefits and problems”, Group and Organizational Management, 22: 236-263.
• Borman, W.C. (1974), “The rating of individuals in organizations: An alternative approach”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12: 105-124.
• Borman, W.C.; S.J. Motowidlo (1993), “Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance”, In N.Schmitt and W.C. Borman (Eds), Personnel Selection in Or-ganizations (pp. 71-98), New York, Jossey-Bass.
• Borman, W.C.; L.A. White; E.D. Pulakos; S.H. Oppler (1991), “Models of supervisory job per-formance ratings”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76 (6): 863-872.
• Brutus, S.; S. Petosa; E. Aucoin (2005), “Who will evaluate me? Rater selection in multi-source assessment contexts”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13 (2): 129-138.
• Cardy, R.L. and G.H. Dobbins (1986), “Affect and appraisal accuracy: Liking as an integral di-mension in evaluating performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 672-678.
• Coates, D.E. (1998), “Don’t tie 360 feedback to pay”, Training, 35: 68-78.
• Coleman, V.I. ; W.C. Borman (2000), “Investigating the underlying structure of the citizenship performance domain”, Human Resource Management Review, 10 (1) : 25-44.
• Decotiis, T. ; A.Petit (1978), “The performance appraisal process: A model and some testable propositions”, Academy of Management Review, 3: 635-646.
• DeNisi, A.S.; T.P. Cafferty; B.M. Meglino (1984), “A cognitive view of the performance apprai-sal process: a model and research propositions”, Organizational Behavior and Human Per-formance, 33 (3): 360-396.
• DeNisi, A.S. ; K.J. Williams (1988), “Cognitive approaches to performance appraisal”, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 6: 109-155.
• Feldman, J.M. (1981), “Beyond attribution theory: cognitive process in performance appraisal”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 66: 863-872.
• Ferris, G.R.; T.A. Judge; K.M. Rowland; D.E. Fitzgibbons (1994), “Subordinate influence and the performance evaluation process: Test of a model”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 58: 101-135.
• Fletcher, C. ; C.Baldry (1999), “Multi-source feedback systems: A research perspective”, International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 14: 149-193.
• Goodman, S.A. ; D.J. Svyantek (1999), “Person-organization fit and contextual performance: Do shared values matter”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55: 254-275. Landy, F.J. ; J.L. Farr (1980), “Performance ratings”, Psychological Bulletin, 87: 72-107.
• London, M. ; R.W. Beatty (1993), “360-degree feedback as a competitive advantage”, Human Resource Management, 32: 353-372.
• Moorman, R.H.; D.L. Wells (2003), “Can electronic performance monitoring be fair? Exploring relationship among monitoring characteristics, perceived fairness, and job performance”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 20 (2): 2-16.
• Moser, K.; H. Schuler; U.Funke (1999), “The moderating effect of raters’ opportunities to ob-serve ratees’ job performance on the validity of an assessment centre”, International Jour-nal of Selection and Assessment, 7 (3): 133-141.
• Motowidlo, S.J.; W.C. Borman; M.J. Schmit (1997), “A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance”, Human Performance, 10 (2): 71-83.
• Murphy, K.R. ; J.N. Cleveland (1991), Performance appraisal: An organizational perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Murphy, K.R. ; J.N. Cleveland (1995), Understanding performance appraisal: Social organizatio-nal, and goal-based perspectives. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
• Robbins, T.L. ; A.S. DeNisi (1994), “A closer look at interpersonal affect as a distinct influence on cognitive processing in performance evaluations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 341-353.
• Robbins, T.L. ; A.S. DeNisi (1998), “Mood vs. interpersonal affect: Identifying process and rating distortions in performance appraisal”, Journal of Business and Psychology, 12 (3): 313-325.
• Sabuncuoğlu, Z. (2000), İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi, Ezgi Kitabevi, Bursa.
• Schmitt, N. ; I. Robertson (1990), “Personnel selection”, Annual Review of Psychology, 41: 289-319.
• Sundvik, L. ; M. Lindeman (1998); “Performance rating accuracy: Convergence between su-pervisor assessment and sales productivity”, International Journal of Selection and Assess-ment, 6 (1): 9-15.
• Tornow, W.W. (1993), “Editor’s note: Introduction to special issue on 360-degree feedback”, Human Resource Management, 32: 211-220.
• Tsui, A.S. ; B.Barry (1986), “Interpersonal affect and rating errors”, Academy of Management Journal, 29 (3): 586-599.
• Uygur, A. ; S. Sümerli Sarıgül (2015), “360 Derece Performans Değerleme ve Geri Bildirim Sistemi”, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 33: 189-201.
• Van Scotter, J.R. (2000), “Relationships of task performance and contextual performance with turnover, job satisfaction, and affective commitment”, Human Resource Management Re-view, 10 (1): 79-95.
• Waldman, D.A.; L.E. Atwater; D. Antonioni (1998), “Has 360-degree feedback gone amok?” Academy of management Executive, 12: 86-94.
• Varma, A.; S.Pichler; E.S. Srinivas (2005), “The role of interpersonal affect in performance appraisal : Evidence from two samples – the US and India”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(11): 2029-2044.
• Werner, J.M. (2000), “Implications of OCB and contextual performance for human resource management”, Human Resource Management Review, 10 (1): 3-24.
• Witt, L.A.; K.M.Kacmar; D.S. Carlson; S. Zivnuska (2002), “Interactive effects of personality and organizational politics on contextual performance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 911-926.
• Yun, G.J., L.M.Donahue; N.M. Dudley; L.A. McFarland (2005), “Rater personality, rating format, and social context: Implications for performance appraisal ratings”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13 (2): 97-107.
• Zajonc, R.B. (1980), “Feeling and thinking: Preferences need to inferences”, American Psycho-logist, 35: 151-175.