TAXONOMY OF EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (INCLUDING EXTENT OF RESEARCH SUPPORT)

Full text



TAXONOMYOFEMPLOYEEPERFORMANCEMANAGEMENTPRACTICES
(INCLUDINGEXTENTOFRESEARCHSUPPORT)

RichardA.Posthuma
UniversityofTexasatElPaso
rposthuma@utep.edu

MichaelCharlesCampion
UniversityofTexasRioGrandeValley
michael@campion‐services.com

MichaelA.Campion
PurdueUniversity
campionm@purdue.edu


This online supplement corresponds to the following publication:
Posthuma, R. A., Campion, Michael Charles, & Campion, Michael A. (2018). A taxonomic
foundation for evidence-based research on employee performance management.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1438411

1

TAXONOMY
STRATEGIC CONNECTION
Research
Support
Well Aligned: The PM practices should be aligned with the business goals and objectives, and supported by top management.
Aguilar (2003); Appelbaum, Nadeau, & Cyr (2008); Bernardin (1992); Bernardin, Hagan, Kane, & Villanova (1998); Boice & Kleiner (1997);
Burke (1996); Darling, 2013; DeNisi & Pritchard (2006); DeNisi (2011); de Waal & Coevert (2007); Dorfman, Stephan, & Loveland (1986);
Giles, Findley, & Field (1997); Grote (2000); Halachmi (2005); Kozlowski, Chao, & Morrison (1998); Kuvaas (2007, 2011); Latham, Almost,
Mann, & Moore (2005); Najmi, Rigas, & Fan (2005); Nankervis & Compton (2006); O’Sullivan (2009); Paladino (2007); Rees & Porter
(2004); Reilly & McGourty (1998); Rhodes, Biondi, Gomes, Melo, Ohemeng, Perez-Lopez, Rossi, & Sutiyono (2012); Sauers, Lin, Kennedy,
& Schneider, White, & Paul (1998); Sauers, Lin, Kennedy, & Schrenkler (2009); Schweiger & Summers (1994); Soltani (2005); Tuytens &
Devos (2012); Zairi (1998).
Theoretical support
only
Internally Linked: PM practices should be linked to other HR systems (e.g., compensation, promotion, termination, career
development, etc.).
Aguilar (2003); Appelbaum, Roy, & Gilliland (2011); Aslam & Sarwar (2010); Banks & Murphy (1985); Bobko & Colella (1994); Boice &
Kleiner (1997); Boswell & Boudreau (2000); Bretz, Milkovich, & Read (1992); Catano, Darr, & Campbell (2007); Chiang & Birtch (2010);
Cleveland, Murphy, & Williams (1989); DeNisi & Pritchard (2006); DeNisi (2011); Dorfman, Stephan, & Loveland (1986); Downing (1994);
Fletcher (1995); Giles & Mossholder (1990); Gilliland & Langdon (1998); Gravina & Siers (2011); Greller (1978); Grote (2000); Heneman &
Gresham (1998); Korsgaard & Roberson (1995); Kurtzberg, Naquin, & Belkin (2005); Latham, Almost, Mann, & Moore (2005); Law (2007);
Martin & Bartol (1991); Martin, Bartol, & Levine (1986); Miller, Kaspin & Schuster (1990); Murphy & Murrmann (2009); Nankervis &
Compton (2006); O’Sullivan (2009); Pettijohn, Pettijohn, & d’Amico (2001); Pulakos, Hanson, Arad, & Moye, 2015; Reilly & McGourty
(1998); Sauers, Lin, Kennedy, & Schrenkler (2009); Scaduto, Hunt, & Schmerling (2015); Schleicher, Bull, & Green (2008); Schweiger &
Summers (1994); Selden & Sowa (2011); Soltani (2005); Squires & Adler (1998).
Directly tested
SOUND CONTENT
Expert Development: Subject matter experts, such as job incumbents or managers, should have input on the development of the
practices to ensure usability and acceptance.
Aguilar (2003); Bernardin (1992); Bretz, Milkovich, & Read (1992); Cawley, Keeping, & Levy (1998); Farris, Aken, Letens, Chearksul, &
Coleman (2011); Giles, Findley, & Field (1997); Gilliland & Langdon (1998); Goldstein (2001); Grote (2000); Halim & Abhyanker (2011);
Holley & Field (1977); Kleingeld, Tuijl, & Algera (2004); Kline & Sulsky (2009); Najmi, Rigas, & Fan (2005); O’Sullivan (2009); Paladino
Directly tested

2
(2007); Pettijohn, Pettijohn, & d’Amico (2001); Reilly & McGourty (1998); Roberts (2002); Schweiger & Summers (1994); Silverman &
Wexley (1984); Stoker & Heijden (2001); Taormina & Gao (2009); Tuytens & Devos (2012); Tziner, Murphy, & Cleveland (2005b).
Job Related Content: The content of the PM practices should be based on a job analysis or shown to be job related.
Appelbaum, Nadeau, & Cyr (2008); Aslam & Sarwar (2010); Banks & Murphy (1985); Barrett & Kernan (1987);Bernardin (1992); Bernardin,
Hagan, Kane, & Villanova (1998); Cascio & Bernardin (1981); Catano, Darr, & Campbell (2007); Church (1995); Cruz (1987); DeNisi &
Pritchard (2006); Dipboye & Pontbriand (1981); Field & Holley (1982); Gilliland & Langdon (1998); Grote (2000); Halachmi (2005); Halim
(2011); Halim & Abhyanker (2011); Hobson, Mendel, & Gibson (1981); Holley & Field (1975); Holley & Field (1977); Kleiman & Durham
(1981); Klein, Snell, & Wexley (1987); Kline & Sulsky (2009); Martin, Bartol, & Levine (1986); Nankervis & Compton (2006); Nieva &
Gutek (1980); O’Sullivan (2009); Pettijohn, Pettijohn, & d’Amico (2001); Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon (2000); Reilly & McGourty
(1998); Roberts (2002); Schweiger & Summers (1994); Sinclair & Zairi (1995); Spinks, Wells, & Meche (1999); Taormina & Gao (2009);
Taylor, Tracy, Renard, Harrison, & Carroll (1995); Thompson & Thompson (1985); Veglahn (1993); Viswesvaran, Schmidt, & Ones (2005);
Werner & Bolino (1997); Woehr (1994).
Directly tested
Work or Employee Attributes: Evaluations should normally evaluate employees in terms of either the work itself (e.g., responsibilities,
performance dimensions, etc.), employee attributes (e.g., skills, competencies, knowledge, dependability, motivation, etc.), outcomes
(e.g., productivity, quality, etc.), or a combination thereof.
Arvey & Murphy (1998); Aslam & Sarwar (2010); Banks & Murphy (1985); Bernardin (1992); Bernardin, Hagan, Kane, & Villanova (1998);
Bobko & Colella (1994); Bommer, Johnson, Rich, Podsakoff, & Mackenzie (1995); Burke & Wilcox (1969); Catano, Darr, & Campbell
(2007); DeNisi & Pritchard (2006); Fletcher (1995); Grote (2000); Halim & Abhyanker (2011); Heneman (1986); Hobson, Mendel, & Gibson
(1981); Johnson (2001); Nankervis & Compton (2006); O’Sullivan (2009); Pettijohn, Pettijohn, & d’Amico (2001); Pulakos, Arad, Donovan,
& Plamondon (2000); Shore & Thornton (1986); Thompson & Thompson (1985).
Directly tested
All Contributions: All aspects of contribution should be including in addition to task performance, such as teamwork, citizenship,
support for company culture, support for diversity, etc.
Allen & Rush (1998); Arvey & Murphy (1998); Aslam & Sarwar (2010); Bernardin (1992); Bernardin, Hagan, Kane, & Villanova (1998);
Catano, Darr, & Campbell (2007); DeNisi & Pritchard (2006); DeNisi (2011); Dyne, Graham, & Dienesch (1994); Findley, Giles, &
Mossholder (2000); Halim & Abhyanker (2011); Hobson, Mendel, & Gibson (1981); Johnson (2001); Kline & Sulsky (2009); Motowidlo &
Van Scotter (1994); O’Sullivan (2009); Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon (2000); Van Scotter & Motowidlo (1996); Shore & Thornton
(1986); Soltani (2005); Tuytens & Devos (2012); Tziner, Murphy, & Cleveland (2005/b); Viswesvaran, Schmidt, & Ones (2005); Waldman
(1994); Werner (1994); Zairi (1998).
Directly tested
Observed Behaviors: Evaluations should be based on observable job behaviors to the extent possible, as opposed to trait oriented.
Arvey & Murphy (1998); Banks & Murphy (1985); Benson, Buckley, & Hall (1988); Bernardin (1992); Bernardin, Hagan, Kane, & Villanova
(1998); Bretz, Milkovich, & Read (1992); Cascio & Bernardin (1981); Catano, Darr, & Campbell (2007); Cruz (1987); Fay & Latham (1982);
Field & Holley (1982); Gilliland & Langdon (1998); Grote (2000); Halim & Abhyanker (2011); Hobson, Mendel, & Gibson (1981); Holley &
Field (1975); Holley & Field (1977); Kline & Sulsky (2009); Kraiger & Ford (1985); Latham, Almost, Mann, & Moore (2005); MacDonald &
Sulsky (2009); Nankervis & Compton (2006); Nieva & Gutek (1980); O’Sullivan (2009); Pettijohn, Pettijohn, & d’Amico (2001); Pulakos
(1984, 1986); Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon (2000); Reilly & McGourty (1998); Schrader & Steiner (1996); Schweiger & Summers
Directly tested

3
(1994); Shore & Thornton (1986); Silverman & Wexley (1984); Sinclair & Zairi (1995); Thompson & Thompson (1985); Tuytens & Devos
(2012); Tziner & Kopelman (2002); Varma, DeNisi, & Peters (1996); Veglahn (1993); Woehr (1994).
Specific Detail: Evaluations should be specific rather than global and sufficiently detailed.
Arvey & Murphy (1998); Banks & Murphy (1985); Bernardin, Hagan, Kane, & Villanova (1998); Bobko & Colella (1994); Bretz, Milkovich,
& Read (1992); Cascio & Bernardin (1981); Catano, Darr, & Campbell (2007); Grote (2000); Halim & Abhyanker (2011); Hobson, Mendel, &
Gibson (1981); Holley & Field (1975, 1977); Kozlowski, Chao, & Morrison (1998); MacDonald & Sulsky (2009); Nankervis & Compton
(2006); Nieva & Gutek (1980); O’Sullivan (2009); Pettijohn, Pettijohn, & d’Amico (2001); Pulakos (1984); Reilly & McGourty (1998);
Schrader & Steiner (1996); Silverman & Wexley (1984); Sinclair & Zairi (1995); Thompson & Thompson (1985); Tuytens & Devos (2012);
Veglahn (1993); Wagner & Goffin (1997).
Directly tested
Objective Data: Objective performance data should be considered to the extent possible (e.g., productivity, quality, profits, customer
service, etc.).
Aguilar (2003); Appelbaum, Roy, & Gilliland (2011); Banks & Murphy (1985); Bernardin (1992); Bernardin, Hagan, Kane, & Villanova
(1998); Bobko & Colella (1994); Bommer, Johnson, Rich, Podsakoff, & Mackenzie (1995); Bretz, Milkovich, & Read (1992); Cascio &
Bernardin (1981); Dipboye (1985); Fletcher (1995); Halachmi (2005); Heneman (1986); Hobson, Mendel, & Gibson (1981); Holley & Field
(1975, 1977); Kleiman & Durham (1981); Miller, Kaspin & Schuster (1990); Najmi, Rigas, & Fan (2005); O’Sullivan (2009); Pettijohn,
Pettijohn, & d’Amico (2001); Reilly & McGourty (1998); Sinclair & Zairi (1995); Soltani (2005); Tuytens & Devos (2012); Veglahn (1993).
Directly tested
Multiple Sources: 360 feedback (e.g., from peers, subordinates, customers) should be collected and considered as appropriate either
formally (e.g., via survey) or informally (e.g., via oral input).
Appelbaum, Nadeau, & Cyr (2008); Appelbaum, Roy, & Gilliland (2011); Arvey & Murphy (1998); Bernardin (1992); Boice & Kleiner
(1997); Bracken & Rose (2011); Fletcher (1995); Gilliland & Langdon (1998); Grote (2000); Hoffman, Gorman, Blair, Meriac, Overstret, &
Atchley, (2012); Kline & Sulsky (2009); Kurtzberg, Naquin, & Belkin (2005); Latham, Almost, Mann, & Moore (2005); Nankervis &
Compton (2006); Ng, Koh, Ang, Kennedy, & Chan, (2011); Peretz & Fried (2012); Rees & Porter (2003, 2004); Reilly & McGourty (1998);
Soltani (2005); Stoker & Heijden (2001); Veronesi (2008).
Directly tested
Multiple Raters: If feasible, multiple evaluators should be used (e.g., panel review).
Appelbaum, Nadeau, & Cyr (2008); Banks & Murphy (1985); Boice & Kleiner (1997); Catano, Darr, & Campbell (2007); Church (1995);
Gilliland & Langdon (1998); Goldstein (2001); Holley & Field (1977); Kline & Sulsky (2009); Kozlowski, Chao, & Morrison (1998); Landy
& Farr (1980); Reilly & McGourty (1998); Soltani (2005); Vance, Winne, & Wright (1983); Veglahn (1993); Werner & Bolino (1997).
Directly tested
Self-Evaluations: Self-evaluations should be collected and considered as input to the performance reviews.
Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino, & Fleenor (1998); Bernardin, Hagan, Kane, & Villanova (1998); Boice & Kleiner (1997); Bretz, Milkovich, &
Read (1992); Burke (1970); Burke, Weitzel, & Weir (1978); Cawley, Keeping, & Levy (1998); Elicker, Levy, & Hall (2006); Findley, Giles,
& Mossholder (2000); Folger, Konovsky, & Cropanzano (1992); Gilliland & Langdon (1998); Greenberg (1986); Greller (1978); Grote
(2000); Hillery & Wexley (1974); Korsgaard & Roberson (1995); Latham, Almost, Mann, & Moore (2005); O’Sullivan (2009); Pettijohn,
Pettijohn, & d’Amico (2001); Rees & Porter (2003, 2004); Roberts (2002); Sauers, Lin, Kennedy, & Schrenkler (2009); Schrader & Steiner
(1996); Schweiger & Summers (1994); Shore & Thornton (1986); Stoker & Heijden (2001); Taylor, Tracy, Renard, Harrison, & Carroll
(1995); Veronesi (2008).
Directly tested

4
METICULOUS RATINGS
Distinguishable Levels: The format of rating scales (e.g., types, levels, etc.) should be tailored to distinguish between levels of
performance.
Appelbaum, Roy, & Gilliland (2011); Arvey & Murphy (1998); Aslam & Sarwar (2010); Athey & McIntyre (1987); Barrett & Kernan (1987);
Bartol, Durham, & Poon (2001); Benson, Buckley, & Hall (1988); Bernardin (1992); Bernardin, Hagan, Kane, & Villanova (1998); Bernardin
& Walter (1977); Boice & Kleiner (1997); Borman (1979); Bretz, Milkovich, & Read (1992); Catano, Darr, & Campbell (2007); Fay &
Latham (1982); Fox, Bizman, & Garti (2005); Goffin, Gellatly, Paunonen, Jackson, & Meyer (1996); Grote (2000); Ivancevich (1979); Jelley
& Goffin (2001); Jelley, Goffin, Powell, & Heneman (2012); Kline & Sulsky (2009); Landy & Farr (1980); MacDonald & Sulsky (2009);
Motowidlo & Van Scotter (1994); O’Sullivan (2009)’ Pulakos (1984, 1986); Roberts (2002); Sauers, Lin, Kennedy, & Schrenkler (2009);
Schrader & Steiner (1996); Schweiger & Summers (1994); Silverman & Wexley (1984); Tziner & Kopelman (2002); Woehr (1994); Yun,
Donahue, Dudley, & McFarland (2005).
Directly tested
Clear Criteria: Rating scales (criteria) should be clearly defined (e.g., using definitions, anchors, or similar methodology) and
understandable to managers and employees.
Aguilar (2003); Appelbaum, Roy, & Gilliland (2011); Arvey & Murphy (1998); Aslam & Sarwar (2010); Athey & McIntyre (1987); Bartol,
Durham, & Poon (2001); Benson, Buckley, & Hall (1988); Bernardin, Hagan, Kane, & Villanova (1998); Bernardin & Walter (1977); Boice &
Kleiner (1997); Borman (1979); Cascio & Bernardin (1981); Catano, Darr, & Campbell (2007); Church (1995); DeNisi & Pritchard (2006); de
Waal & Coevert (2007); Dipboye (1985); Farris, Aken, Letens, Chearksul, & Coleman (2011); Grote (2000); Halim & Abhyanker (2011);
Holley & Field (1977); Ivancevich (1979); Jelley & Goffin (2001); Kleiman & Durham (1981); Kline & Sulsky (2009); Landy & Farr (1980);
Latham, Almost, Mann, & Moore (2005); MacDonald & Sulsky (2009); Martin & Bartol (1991); Martin, Bartol, & Levine (1986); Motowidlo
& Van Scotter (1994); Nieva & Gutek (1980); O’Sullivan (2009); Pettijohn, Pettijohn, & d’Amico (2001); Pulakos (1984, 1986); Roberts
(2002); Sauers, Lin, Kennedy, & Schrenkler (2009); Schrader & Steiner (1996); Schweiger & Summers (1994); Silverman & Wexley (1984);
Tuytens & Devos (2012); Tziner & Kopelman (2002); Woehr (1994); Yun, Donahue, Dudley, & McFarland (2005).
Directly tested
Standardized Process: The rating process should be standardized (e.g., using forms, procedures, etc.) and reliable.
Appelbaum, Roy, & Gilliland (2011); Arvey & Murphy (1998); Aslam & Sarwar (2010); Athey & McIntyre (1987); Barrett & Kernan (1987);
Benson, Buckley, & Hall (1988); Bernardin, Hagan, Kane, & Villanova (1998); Bernardin & Walter (1977); Borman (1979); Catano, Darr, &
Campbell (2007); Church (1995); DeNisi & Pritchard (2006); Dipboye (1985); Folger, Konovsky, & Cropanzano (1992); Giles, Findley, &
Field (1997); Greenberg (1986); Grote (2000); Holley & Field (1975, 1977); Ivancevich (1979); Jelley & Goffin (2001); Kline & Sulsky
(2009); Korsgaard & Roberson (1995); Latham, Almost, Mann, & Moore (2005); MacDonald & Sulsky (2009); Martin, Bartol, & Kehoe
(2000); Martin, Bartol, & Levine (1986); Motowidlo & Van Scotter (1994); O’Sullivan (2009); Pulakos (1984, 1986); Reilly & McGourty
(1998); Sauers, Lin, Kennedy, & Schrenkler (2009); Schrader & Steiner (1996); Schweiger & Summers (1994); Selden & Sowa (2011);
Silverman & Wexley (1984); Smither (2015); Tuytens & Devos (2012); Tziner & Kopelman (2002); Veglahn (1993); Viswesvaran, Ones,
Schmidt (1996); Woehr (1994).
Directly tested
Absolute and Relative Comparisons: Feedback should include both an absolute performance appraisal (e.g., compared to
expectations) and a relative performance appraisal (e.g., compared to other employees).
Indirectly tested

5
Appelbaum, Nadeau, & Cyr (2008); Blume, Baldwin, & Rubin (2009); Catano, Darr, & Campbell (2007); Goffin, Jelley, Powell, & Johnston
(2009); Heneman (1986); Jelley & Goffin (2001); Kline & Sulsky (2009); Martin, Bartol, & Levine (1986); O’Sullivan (2009); Pearce &
Porter (1986); Schleicher, Bull, & Green (2008); Schrader & Steiner (1996); Scullen, Bergey, & Aiman-Smith (2005); Wagner & Goffin
(1997).
Differentiated Ratings: Ratings should adequately differentiate performance across employees by using ranking, a target distribution,
or similar approach, if needed.
Blume, Baldwin, & Rubin (2009); Chattopadhayay & Ghosh (2012); Church (1995); Goldstein (2001); Grote (2000); Halim & Abhyanker
(2011); Kline & Sulsky (2009); Nankervis & Compton (2006); Schleicher, Bull, & Green (2008); Schweiger & Summers (1994); Scullen,
Bergey, & Aiman-Smith (2005); Wagner & Goffin (1997).
Indirectly tested
Narrative Comments: Ratings should be supported by narrative comments that are adequately detailed and clearly written to serve
the purpose of the evaluation (e.g., to explain appraisal, give feedback, promote development, etc.).
Brutus (2010); Catano, Darr, & Campbell (2007); Cruz (1987); Holley & Field (1977); Latham, Almost, Mann, & Moore (2005); Martin,
Bartol, & Kehoe (2000); Spinks, Wells, & Meche (1999).
Directly tested
PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATION
Contextual Contingencies: Ratings of performance should be made with consideration of potential biasing factors (e.g., types of job,
business conditions, opportunity to perform, unexpected events, other constraints, etc.).
Avery, McKay, & Wilson (2008); Banks & Murphy (1985); Bernardin, Hagan, Kane, & Villanova (1998); Brown & Warren (2011); Cruz
(1987); Downing (1994); Barnes-Farrell, L'Heureux-Barrett, & Conway, (1991); Gilliland & Langdon (1998); Holley & Field (1975, 1977);
Jawahar (2005); Kline & Sulsky (2009); Latham, Budworth, Yanar, & Whyte (2008); Martin, Bartol, & Levine (1986); Nieva & Gutek (1980);
Rosen & Jerdee (1973); Rosen & Jerdee (1976a, 1976b): Sackett, DuBois, & Noe (1991); Schmitt & Lappin (1980); Soltani (2005); Spence &
Keeping (2010); Tackey (2001); Tziner, Murphy, & Cleveland (2005a, 2005b); Varma, DeNisi, & Peters (1996); Varma, Pichler, & Srinivas
(2005); Wang, Wong, & Kwong (2010); Woehr & Roch (1996).
Directly tested
Performance Observation: reviewers should have the opportunity to frequently observe the employees’ job performance or otherwise
be knowledgeable of employees’ performance through other means (e.g., by monitoring output).
Appelbaum, Roy, & Gilliland (2011); Banks & Murphy (1985); Bernardin (1992); Borman (1979); Bretz, Milkovich, & Read (1992); Catano,
Darr, & Campbell (2007); Findley, Giles, & Mossholder (2000); Fink & Longenecker (1998); Folger, Konovsky, & Cropanzano (1992); Giles,
Findley, & Field (1997); Gilliland & Langdon (1998); Greenberg (1986); Holley & Field (1975, 1977); Ilgen, Barnes-Farrell, & McKellin
(1993); Ilgen, Peterson, Martin, & Boeschen (1981); Kleiman & Durham (1981); Landy, Barnes, Murphy (1978); Latham, Almost, Mann, &
Moore (2005); Mobley (1982); Pulakos (1986); Taylor, Tracy, Renard, Harrison, & Carroll (1995).
Directly tested
Comparison Similarity: Evaluations should compare employees doing the same or similar work.
Church (1995); Kline & Sulsky (2009).
Theoretical support
only
Trained Evaluators: Evaluators should be trained in how to administer the evaluations (e.g., purpose, giving feedback, developing
employees, avoiding rating errors and bias, having proper frame-of-reference, etc.). Directly tested

6
Appelbaum, Roy, & Gilliland (2011); Arvey & Murphy (1998); Athey & McIntyre (1987); Avery, McKay, & Wilson (2008); Banks &
Murphy (1985); Barrett & Kernan (1987); Bernardin (1992); Bernardin & Villanova (2005); Bernardin & Walter (1977); Boice & Kleiner
(1997); Borman (1979); Bretz, Milkovich, & Read (1992); Burke (1996); Catano, Darr, & Campbell (2007); Dobbins, Cardy, & Vieno (1990);
Elicker, Levy, & Hall (2006); Fay & Latham (1982); Giles, Findley, & Field (1997); Gilliland & Langdon (1998); Hauenstein (1998); Hillery
& Wexley (1974); Holley & Field (1977); Ivancevich (1979); Jelley & Goffin (2001); Kleiman & Durham (1981); Kline & Sulsky (2009);
Kozlowski, Chao, & Morrison (1998); Kraiger & Ford (1985); Landy & Farr (1980); Latham, Almost, Mann, & Moore (2005); MacDonald &
Sulsky (2009); Martin, Bartol, & Levine (1986); Mobley (1982); Nankervis & Compton (2006); Nieva & Gutek (1980); O’Sullivan (2009);
Payne, Horner, Boswell, Schroeder, & Stine-Cheyne (2009); Pearce & Porter (1986); Pichler (2012); Pulakos (1984); Rees & Porter (2004);
Roberts (2002); Schweiger & Summers (1994); Selden & Sowa (2011); Selden, Sherrier, & Wooters (2012); Stamoulis & Hauenstein (1993);
Taylor, Tracy, Renard, Harrison, & Carroll (1995); Tuytens & Devos (2012); Tziner, Murphy, & Cleveland (2005b); Varma, Pichler, &
Srinivas (2005); Veglahn (1993); Wang, Wong, & Kwong (2010); Werner & Bolino (1997); Woehr (1994); Woehr & Huffcutt (1994); Woehr
& Roch (1996).
Motivated Evaluators: Evaluators should be motivated to conduct evaluations well through training, incentives, managing the social
context, considering individual differences of the reviewer, and other means.
Athey & McIntyre (1987); Banks & Murphy (1985); Bartol, Durham, & Poon (2001); Bernardin (1992); Bernardin & Villanova (2005); Bretz,
Milkovich, & Read (1992); Burke (1996); Curtis, Harvey, & Ravden (2005); Giles, Findley, & Field (1997); Jawahar (2005); Kozlowski,
Chao, & Morrison (1998); Mobley (1982); Schleicher, Bull, & Green (2008); Schweiger & Summers (1994); Spence & Keeping (2010);
Tziner, Murphy, & Cleveland (2005a, 2005b); Varma, Pichler, & Srinivas (2005); Yun, Donahue, Dudley, & McFarland (2005).
Directly tested
Clear Instructions: Evaluators should be given specific and clear instructions on procedures and completing forms.
Appelbaum, Roy, & Gilliland (2011); Barrett & Kernan (1987); Bernardin (1992); Bernardin & Walter (1977); Catano, Darr, & Campbell
(2007); Field & Holley (1982); Giles, Findley, & Field (1997); Martin, Bartol, & Levine (1986); Schrader & Steiner (1996); Schweiger &
Summers (1994); Taylor, Tracy, Renard, Harrison, & Carroll (1995); Werner & Bolino (1997).
Indirectly tested
Decision Timeliness: Evaluations should be conducted close to the time when the results will be used for personnel decisions.
Gilliland & Langdon (1998); Holley & Field (1977); Latham, Almost, Mann, & Moore (2005); Martin, Bartol, & Kehoe (2000); Schweiger &
Summers (1994).
Indirectly tested
Regularity: Evaluations should be conducted routinely, usually on an annual basis.
Boice & Kleiner (1997); Dobbins, Cardy, & Vieno (1990); Farris, Aken, Letens, Chearksul, & Coleman (2011); Folger, Konovsky, &
Cropanzano (1992); Giles, Findley, & Field (1997); Gilliland & Langdon (1998); Holley & Field (1977); Klein & Snell (1994); Korsgaard &
Roberson (1995); Landy, Barnes, Murphy (1978); Latham, Almost, Mann, & Moore (2005); Najmi, Rigas, & Fan (2005); O’Sullivan (2009);
Schweiger & Summers (1994); Selden & Sowa (2011); Veglahn (1993); Veronesi (2008).
Indirectly tested
Feedback Frequency: There should be a mid-year or other intermediate review during the year to ensure progress is being made and
to provide guidance. Ideally, feedback should be a regular, an on-going process.
Appelbaum, Roy, & Gilliland (2011); Aslam & Sarwar (2010); Boice & Kleiner (1997); Burke (1996); DeNisi & Pritchard (2006); DeNisi
(2011); Dobbins, Cardy, & Vieno (1990); Folger, Konovsky, & Cropanzano (1992); Gilliland & Langdon (1998); Kuvaas (2011); Latham,
Directly tested

7
Almost, Mann, & Moore (2005); Nankervis & Compton (2006); O’Sullivan (2009); Rees & Porter (2004); Roberts (2002); Schweiger &
Summers (1994); Soltani (2005); Spinks, Wells, & Meche (1999); Taylor, Tracy, Renard, Harrison, & Carroll (1995); Veronesi (2008).
Information Recording: Managers and employees should be encouraged to record performance related information throughout the
year as input to evaluations.
Arvey & Murphy (1998); Banks & Murphy (1985); Bernardin & Walter (1977); Bretz, Milkovich, & Read (1992); Gilliland & Langdon
(1998); Kuvaas (2011); MacDonald & Sulsky (2009); Spinks, Wells, & Meche (1999); Taylor, Tracy, Renard, Harrison, & Carroll (1995);
Varma, DeNisi, & Peters (1996).
Directly tested
User-friendly Software: PM practices should be enabled by user-friendly computer software to make them efficient and timely.
Appelbaum, Roy, & Gilliland (2011); Catano, Darr, & Campbell (2007); Grote (2000); Kurtzberg, Naquin, & Belkin (2005); Paladino (2007);
Payne, Horner, Boswell, Schroeder, & Stine-Cheyne (2009); Spinks, Wells, & Meche (1999).
Professional support
only
HR Monitoring: Administration of evaluations should be monitored by Human Resources.
Rees & Porter (2004).
Professional support
only
Efficient Process: The process should not be unduly burdensome in terms of time, costs, etc.
Catano, Darr, & Campbell (2007); Grote (2000); Najmi, Rigas, & Fan (2005); Payne, Horner, Boswell, Schroeder, & Stine-Cheyne (2009);
Rees & Porter (2004); Spinks, Wells, & Meche (1999).
Professional support
only
PROSPECTIVE DEVELOPMENT
Employee Development: Evaluations should be developmental (e.g., indicate how to improve) in addition to evaluative.
Aguilar (2003); Appelbaum, Roy, & Gilliland (2011); Aslam & Sarwar (2010); Barrett & Kernan (1987); Bartol, Durham, & Poon (2001);
Bernardin (1992); Bernardin, Hagan, Kane, & Villanova (1998); Boswell & Boudreau (2000); Bouskila-Yam & Kluger (2011); Bretz,
Milkovich, & Read (1992); Cleveland, Murphy, & Williams (1989); DeNisi & Pritchard (2006); DeNisi (2011); Dipboye & Pontbriand (1981);
Dorfman, Stephan, & Loveland (1986); Farris, Aken, Letens, Chearksul, & Coleman (2011); Fink & Longenecker (1998); Fletcher (1995);
Gravina & Siers (2011); Grote (2000); Halachmi (2005); Kleingeld, Tuijl, & Algera (2004); Kozlowski, Chao, & Morrison (1998); Kuvaas
(2007); Landy, Barnes, Murphy (1978); Najmi, Rigas, & Fan (2005); Nankervis & Compton (2006); Paladino (2007); Pettijohn, Pettijohn, &
d’Amico (2001); Rees & Porter (2003, 2004); Reilly & McGourty (1998); Sauers, Lin, Kennedy, & Schrenkler (2009); Selden & Sowa (2011);
Silverman & Wexley (1984); Stoker & Heijden (2001); Veronesi (2008).
Directly tested
Separate Development: Evaluations should be separate for development versus appraisal (e.g., separate meetings and forms, etc.).
DeNisi & Pritchard (2006); Fletcher (1995); Goldstein (2001). Directly tested
Planning Goals: Evaluations should usually include a performance planning or goal-setting component.
Aguilar (2003); Appelbaum, Nadeau, & Cyr (2008); Aslam & Sarwar (2010); Bernardin, Hagan, Kane, & Villanova (1998); Bobko & Colella
(1994); Bouskila-Yam & Kluger (2011); Bretz, Milkovich, & Read (1992); Brown & Benson (2005); Brown & Warren (2011); Buchner
(2007); Burke (1970, 1996); Burke, Weitzel, & Weir (1978); Burke & Wilcox (1969); Chiang & Birtch (2010); Cleveland, Murphy, &
Directly tested

8
Williams (1989); Cruz (1987); DeNisi & Pritchard (2006); DeNisi (2011); Dipboye & Pontbriand (1981); Dobbins, Cardy, & Vieno (1990);
Farris, Aken, Letens, Chearksul, & Coleman (2011); Findley, Giles, & Mossholder (2000); Fink & Longenecker (1998); Fletcher (1995); Giles
& Mossholder (1990); Gilliland & Langdon (1998); Gravina & Siers (2011); Greller (1978); Klein & Snell (1994); Kleingeld, Tuijl, & Algera
(2004); Korsgaard & Roberson (1995); Kozlowski, Chao, & Morrison (1998); Kuvaas (2004, 2011); Landy, Barnes, Murphy (1978); Latham,
Almost, Mann, & Moore (2005); Law (2007); MacDonald & Sulsky (2009); Najmi, Rigas, & Fan (2005); Nankervis & Compton (2006);
Paladino (2007); Roberts (2002); Sauers, Lin, Kennedy, & Schrenkler (2009); Schweiger & Summers (1994); Soltani (2005); Spinks, Wells, &
Meche (1999); Stoker & Heijden (2001); Tackey (2001); Tziner & Kopelman (2002); Veronesi (2008); Zairi (1998).
Constraint Management: Performance review meetings should provide an opportunity to identify and eliminate obstacles and
constraints to effective performance and development.
Bernardin (1992); Bernardin, Hagan, Kane, & Villanova (1998); Bobko & Colella (1994); Bouskila-Yam & Kluger (2011); Burke (1970);
Burke, Weitzel, & Weir (1978); Burke & Wilcox (1969); DeNisi & Pritchard (2006); Dorfman, Stephan, & Loveland (1986); Downing (1994);
Fink & Longenecker (1998); Goldstein (2001); Kleingeld, Tuijl, & Algera (2004); Kozlowski, Chao, & Morrison (1998); Nankervis &
Compton (2006); Paladino (2007); Stoker & Heijden (2001).
Directly tested
Career Development: Evaluations should usually include a discussion and possibly a plan for career development.
Burke (1996); Cleveland, Murphy, & Williams (1989); Dorfman, Stephan, & Loveland (1986); Fink & Longenecker (1998); Fletcher (1995);
Goldstein (2001); Nankervis & Compton (2006).
Indirectly tested
Performance Improvement Plan: A detailed remedial performance improvement plan should be developed if serious deficiencies exist,
with guidance from Human Resources.
Barrett & Kernan (1987); Blume, Baldwin, & Rubin (2009); Cleveland, Murphy, & Williams (1989); Fink & Longenecker (1998); Grote
(2000); Lee & Akhtar, 1996; McConnell, 2003; Nankervis & Compton (2006).
Indirectly tested
Promotability Potential: Evaluations should evaluate potential for higher level jobs if used as input to succession management.
Cleveland, Murphy, & Williams (1989); Fletcher (1995); Nankervis & Compton (2006).
Theoretical support
only
RICH COMMUNICATION
Process Communication: The policies, procedures, uses of the data, and other aspects of the process should be clearly communicated
to employees.
Appelbaum, Nadeau, & Cyr (2008); Avery, McKay, & Wilson (2008); Burke (1996); Chiang & Birtch (2010); Curtis, Harvey, & Ravden
(2005); Fink & Longenecker (1998); Folger, Konovsky, & Cropanzano (1992); Giles, Findley, & Field (1997); Gilliland & Langdon (1998);
Holley & Field (1977); Ilgen, Barnes-Farrell, & McKellin (1993); Kozlowski, Chao, & Morrison (1998); Levy & Williams (1998); Martin &
Bartol (1991); Nankervis & Compton (2006); Reilly & McGourty (1998); Schweiger & Summers (1994); Tuytens & Devos (2012); Tziner,
Murphy, & Cleveland (2005b); Veronesi (2008).
Directly tested
Expectation Communication: Performance expectations should be clearly communicated with employees at the beginning of the
appraisal period.
Directly tested

9
Appelbaum, Nadeau, & Cyr (2008); Appelbaum, Roy, & Gilliland (2011); Aslam & Sarwar (2010); Bobko & Colella (1994); Boice & Kleiner
(1997); Bretz, Milkovich, & Read (1992); Buchner (2007); Burke (1970); Burke, Weitzel, & Weir (1978); Cascio & Bernardin (1981);
Cawley, Keeping, & Levy (1998); Chiang & Birtch (2010); Cruz (1987); DeNisi & Pritchard (2006); Dorfman, Stephan, & Loveland (1986);
Fink & Longenecker (1998); Folger, Konovsky, & Cropanzano (1992); Gilliland & Langdon (1998); Holley & Field (1977); Kleingeld, Tuijl,
& Algera (2004); Kline & Sulsky (2009); Kuvaas (2004); Latham, Almost, Mann, & Moore (2005); Levy & Williams (1998); Martin & Bartol
(1991); Martin, Bartol, & Levine (1986); Nankervis & Compton (2006); Reilly & McGourty (1998); Sauers, Lin, Kennedy, & Schrenkler
(2009); Schweiger & Summers (1994); Spinks, Wells, & Meche (1999); Stoker & Heijden (2001); Taylor, Tracy, Renard, Harrison, & Carroll
(1995); Tuytens & Devos (2012); Tziner & Kopelman (2002); Veglahn (1993).
Feedback Discussion: Evaluation results should be fed back to (discussed with) employees, including strengths and weaknesses in
addition to the appraisal.
Appelbaum, Nadeau, & Cyr (2008); Aslam & Sarwar (2010); Barrett & Kernan (1987); Bobko & Colella (1994); Bouskila-Yam & Kluger
(2011); Bretz, Milkovich, & Read (1992); Buchner (2007); Burke (1970, 1996); Burke, Weitzel, & Weir (1978); Burke & Wilcox (1969);
Catano, Darr, & Campbell (2007); Cawley, Keeping, & Levy (1998); Chiang & Birtch (2010); Cleveland, Murphy, & Williams (1989); Cruz
(1987); Dorfman, Stephan, & Loveland (1986); Farris, Aken, Letens, Chearksul, & Coleman (2011); Field & Holley (1982); Findley, Giles, &
Mossholder (2000); Fink & Longenecker (1998); Folger, Konovsky, & Cropanzano (1992); Giles, Findley, & Field (1997); Gilliland &
Langdon (1998); Gravina & Siers (2011); Greenberg (1986); Halachmi (2005); Holley & Field (1977); Ilgen, Peterson, Martin, & Boeschen
(1981); Inderrieden, Keaveny, & Allen (1988); Kleiman & Durham (1981); Klein & Snell (1994); Kleingeld, Tuijl, & Algera (2004);
Korsgaard & Roberson (1995); Kuvaas (2004, 2011); Latham, Almost, Mann, & Moore (2005); Law (2007); Martin & Bartol (1991); Martin,
Bartol, & Levine (1986); Miller, Kaspin & Schuster (1990); Mobley (1982); Najmi, Rigas, & Fan (2005); Nankervis & Compton (2006);
O’Sullivan (2009); Paladino (2007); Pettijohn, Pettijohn, & d’Amico (2001); Pichler (2012); Rees & Porter (2003, 2004); Reilly & McGourty
(1998); Roberts (2002); Schweiger & Summers (1994); Selden & Sowa (2011); Shore & Thornton (1986); Spinks, Wells, & Meche (1999);
Stoker & Heijden (2001); Taylor, Tracy, Renard, Harrison, & Carroll (1995); Tziner & Kopelman (2002); Veronesi (2008); Werner & Bolino
(1997); Yun, Donahue, Dudley, & McFarland (2005); Zairi (1998).
Directly tested
Employee Interpretations: Employees should be allowed to suggest interpretations of their performance before the evaluation is
finalized.
Bartol, Durham, & Poon (2001); Bouskila-Yam & Kluger (2011); Buchner (2007); Burke (1970); Burke, Weitzel, & Weir (1978); Burke &
Wilcox (1969); Catano, Darr, & Campbell (2007); Cawley, Keeping, & Levy (1998); Chiang & Birtch (2010); Cruz (1987); DeNisi (2011);
Dipboye & Pontbriand (1981); Dobbins, Cardy, & Vieno (1990); Elicker, Levy, & Hall (2006); Findley, Giles, & Mossholder (2000); Folger,
Konovsky, & Cropanzano (1992); Giles, Findley, & Field (1997); Giles & Mossholder (1990); Gilliland & Langdon (1998); Greenberg (1986);
Greller (1978); Grote (2000); Hillery & Wexley (1974); Ilgen, Peterson, Martin, & Boeschen (1981); Kleiman & Durham (1981); Klein &
Snell (1994); Kleingeld, Tuijl, & Algera (2004); Korsgaard & Roberson (1995); Kozlowski, Chao, & Morrison (1998); Kuvaas (2004, 2011);
Landy, Barnes, Murphy (1978); Latham, Almost, Mann, & Moore (2005); Law (2007); Martin, Bartol, & Kehoe (2000); Najmi, Rigas, & Fan
(2005); Paladino (2007); Pearce & Porter (1986); Pettijohn, Pettijohn, & d’Amico (2001); Pichler (2012); Rees & Porter (2004); Roberts
(2002); Schweiger & Summers (1994); Shore & Thornton (1986); Soltani (2005); Stoker & Heijden (2001); Taylor, Tracy, Renard, Harrison,
& Carroll (1995); Veronesi (2008).
Directly tested
Participative Goals: Employee should be allowed to participate in the performance planning, goal setting, performance improvement,
development, etc., processes.
Directly tested

10
Bobko & Colella (1994); Bouskila-Yam & Kluger (2011); Brown & Benson (2005); Buchner (2007); Burke (1970, 1996); Burke, Weitzel, &
Weir (1978); Cawley, Keeping, & Levy (1998); Chiang & Birtch (2010); DeNisi & Pritchard (2006); Dobbins, Cardy, & Vieno (1990);
Dorfman, Stephan, & Loveland (1986); Findley, Giles, & Mossholder (2000); Fletcher (1995); Folger, Konovsky, & Cropanzano (1992);
Giles, Findley, & Field (1997); Giles & Mossholder (1990); Gilliland & Langdon (1998); Gravina & Siers (2011); Greller (1978); Hillery &
Wexley (1974); Inderrieden, Keaveny, & Allen (1988); Klein & Snell (1994); Kleingeld, Tuijl, & Algera (2004); Korsgaard & Roberson
(1995); Law (2007); Najmi, Rigas, & Fan (2005); Paladino (2007); Pichler (2012); Rees & Porter (2004); Roberts (2002); Schweiger &
Summers (1994); Soltani (2005).
Individual Differences: Employee individual differences should be considered when interpreting feedback (e.g., job, tenure, level,
culture, etc.).
Bobko & Colella (1994); Bretz, Milkovich, & Read (1992); Burke (1970); Burke, Weitzel, & Weir (1978); Chiang & Birtch (2010); Dyne,
Graham, & Dienesch (1994); Giles, Findley, & Field (1997); Greller (1978); Hillery & Wexley (1974); Ilgen, Peterson, Martin, & Boeschen
(1981); Korsgaard & Roberson (1995); MacDonald & Sulsky (2009); Milliman, Nason, Lowe, Kim, & Huo (1995); Motowidlo & Van Scotter
(1994); O’Sullivan (2009); Pearce & Porter (1986); Rhodes, Biondi, Gomes, Melo, Ohemeng, Perez-Lopez, Rossi, & Sutiyono (2012); Sauers,
Lin, Kennedy, & Schrenkler (2009); Tziner, Murphy, & Cleveland (2005b); Tackey (2001); Waldman (1994).
Directly tested
Organizational Vernacular: Evaluations should use the language of the organization (or written by those with organizational
knowledge).
Brutus (2010).
Professional support
only
REVIEW AND DOCUMENTATION
Calibrated Results: Results should be calibrated across employees and organizational units to ensure consistency.
Catano, Darr, & Campbell (2007); Church (1995); DeNisi & Pritchard (2006).
Theoretical support
only
Managerial Oversight: Evaluations should be reviewed with the next higher level of management to get input on performance, ensure
the process is administered consistently, gain approval, etc.
Barrett & Kernan (1987); Gilliland & Langdon (1998); Holley & Field (1977); Martin, Bartol, & Levine (1986); Mobley (1982); Najmi, Rigas,
& Fan (2005); Roberts (2002); Schweiger & Summers (1994).
Theoretical support
only
Appeal Mechanism: An appeal mechanism should be allowed for incumbents to raise concerns to a higher level of management or
outside authority if needed.
Barrett & Kernan (1987); Cascio & Bernardin (1981); Catano, Darr, & Campbell (2007); DeNisi (2011); Folger, Konovsky, & Cropanzano
(1992); Gilliland & Langdon (1998); Grote (2000); Kleiman & Durham (1981); Kline & Sulsky (2009); Latham, Almost, Mann, & Moore
(2005); Martin, Bartol, & Kehoe (2000); Martin, Bartol, & Levine (1986); Mobley (1982); Veglahn (1993).
Indirectly tested
Documented Process: The PM process and results should be documented (e.g., ratings, dates, narrative comments, action plans, etc.),
possibly including any data supporting the appraisal.
Barrett & Kernan (1987); Boice & Kleiner (1997); Cleveland, Murphy, & Williams (1989); Fink & Longenecker (1998); Martin & Bartol
(1991); Miller, Kaspin & Schuster (1990); Veglahn (1993).
Professional support
only

11
Process Review: The PM process should be reviewed on some regular basis to determine if it is effective and to identify improvements,
including analyzing the data for rating errors, subgroup differences, etc.
Cascio & Bernardin (1981); Church (1995); Giles, Findley, & Field (1997); Kleiman & Durham (1981); Kozlowski, Chao, & Morrison (1998);
Rees & Porter (2004); Roberts (2002); Schweiger & Summers (1994).
Theoretical support
only


12
ReferencesListedinthisTaxonomy

Aguilar, O. (2003). Creating business value through performance management. Corporate Finance
Review, 7(4), 5-12.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/198830058/fulltextPDF/497B867ED92E4F65PQ/1?account
id=13360
Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance
judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 247-
260.doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.247
Appelbaum, S. H., Nadeau, D., & Cyr, M. (2008). Performance appraisal in a matrix organization: A case
study (part two). Industrial and Commercial Training, 40(6), 295-299. doi:
10.1108/00197850810900048
Appelbaum, S. H., Roy, M., & Gilliland, T. (2011). Globalization of performance appraisals: Theory and
applications. Management Decisions, 49(4), 570-585. doi: 10.1108/00251741111126495
Arvey, R. D., & Murphy, K. R. (1998). Performance Appraisal in Work Settings. Annual Review of
Psychology, 49, 141-168. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.141
Aslam, H. D., & Sarwar, S. (2010). Improving performance management practices. Journal of
Management Research, 2(2), 1-15.
Athey, T. R., & McIntyre, R. M. (1987). Effect of rater training on rater accuracy: Levels-of-processing
theory and social facilitation theory perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 567-572.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.72.4.567
Atwater, L. E., Ostroff, C., Yamarino, F. J., Fleenor, J. W. (1998). Self-other agreement: Does it really
matter? Personnel Psychology, 51(3), 577-598. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00252.x

13
Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., & Wilson, D. C. (2008). What are the odds? How demographic similarity
affects the prevalence of perceived employment discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93(2), 235-249. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.235
Banks, C. G., & Murphy, K. R. (1985). Toward narrowing the research-practice gap in performance
appraisal. Personnel Psychology, 38, 335-345. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1985.tb00551.x
Barnes-Farrell, J. L., L'Heureux-Barrett, T. J., & Conway, J. M. (1991). Impact of gender-related job
features on the accurate appraisal of performance information. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 48, 23-35. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90003-C
Barrett, G. V., & Kernan, M. C. 1987. Performance appraisal and terminations: A review of court
decisions since Brito v. Zia with implications for personnel practices. Personnel Psychology, 40,
489-503. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00611.x
Bartol, K. M., Durham, C. C., & Poon, J. M. (2001). Influence of performance appraisal rating
segmentation on motivation and fairness perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6),
1106-1119. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1106
Bartol, K. M., Durham, C. C., & Poon, J. M. L. (2001). Influence of performance evaluation rating
segmentation on motivation and fairness perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6),
1106-1119. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1106
Benson, P. G., Buckley, R. M., & Hall, S. (1988). The impact of rating scale format on rater accuracy: An
appraisal of the mixed standard scale. Journal of Management, 14(3), 415-423. doi:
10.1177/014920638801400305
Bernardin, J. H. (1992). An "analytic" framework for customer-based performance content development
and appraisal. Human Resource Management Review, 2(1), 81-102. doi: 10.1016/1053-
4822(92)90019-M

14
Bernardin, J. H., Hagan, C. M., Kane, J. S., & Villanova, P. (1998). Effective performance management:
A focus on precision, customers, and situational constraints. In J. W. Smither (Eds.), Performance
Appraisal: State of the Art in Practice (pp. 3-48). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Bernardin, J. H., & Villanova, P. (2005). Research streams in rater self-efficacy. Group & Organization
Management, 30(1), 61-88. doi: 10.1177/1059601104267675
Bernardin, J. H., & Walter, C. S. (1977). Effects of rater training and diary-keeping on psychometric error
in ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(1), 64-69. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.62.1.64
Blume, B. D., Baldwin, T. T., & Rubin, R. S. (2009). Reactions to different types of forced distribution
performance appraisal systems. Journal of Business Psychology, 24, 77-91. doi: 10.1007/s10869-
009-9093-5
Bobko, P., & Colella, A. (1994). Employee reactions to performance standards: A review and research
propositions. Personnel Psychology, 47, 1-29.doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1994.tb02407.x
Boice, D. F., & Kleiner, B. H. (1997). Designing effective performance appraisal systems. Work Study,
46(6), 197-201. doi: 10.1108/00438029710367622
Bommer, W. H., Johnson, J. L., Rich, G. A., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1995). On the
interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance: A meta-
analysis. Personnel Psychology, 48, 587-605. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01772.x
Borman, W. C. (1979). Format and training effects on rating accuracy and rater errors. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 64(4), 410-421. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.64.4.410
Boswell, W. R., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). Employee satisfaction with performance appraisals and
appraisers: The role of perceived appraisal use. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(3),
283-299. doi: 10.1002/1532-1096(200023)11:3<283::AID-HRDQ6>3.0.CO;2-3

15
Bouskila-Yam, O., & Kluger, A. N. (2011). Strength-based performance appraisal and goal setting.
Human Resource Management, 21, 137-147. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.001
Bracken, D. W. & Rose, D. S. 2011. When does 360-degree feedback create behavior change? And how
would we know it when it does? Journal of Business & Psychology, 26, 183-192. doi:
10.1007/s10869-011-9218-5
Bretz, Jr., R. D., Milkovich, G. T., & Read, W. (1992). The current state of performance appraisal
research and practice: Concerns, directions, and implications. Journal of Management, 18(2),
321-352. doi: 10.1177/014920639201800206
Brown, M., & Benson, J. (2005). Managing to overload? Work overload and performance appraisal
processes. Group & Organization Management, 30(1), 99-124. doi: 10.1177/1059601104269117
Brown, T. C., & Warren, A. M. (2011). Performance management in unionized settings. Human Resource
Management Review, 21, 96-106. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.005
Brutus, S. (2010). Words versus numbers: A theoretical exploration of giving and receiving narrative
comments in performance appraisal. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 144-157. doi:
10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.06.003
Buchner, T. W. (2007). Performance management theory: A look from the performer's perspective with
implications for HRD. Human Resource Development International, 10(1): 59-73. doi:
10.1080/13678860601170294
Burke, R. J. (1970). Characteristics of effective performance appraisals interviews. Training and
Development Journal, 9-12.
Burke, R. J. (1996). Performance appraisal and counseling in a professional services firm. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 17(3), 21-26.

16
Burke, R. J., Weitzel, W., & Weir, T. (1978). Characteristics of effective employee performance review
and development interviews: Replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 31, 903-919. doi:
10.1111/j.1744-6570.1978.tb02130.x
Burke, R. J., & Wilcox, D. S. (1969). Characteristics of effective employee performance review and
development interviews. Personnel Psychology, 22, 291-305.doi: 10.1111/j.1744-
6570.1969.tb00334.x
Cascio, W. F., & Bernardin, J. H. (1981). Implications of performance appraisal litigation for personnel
decisions. Personnel Psychology, 34, 211-226. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1981.tb00939.x
Catano, V. M., Darr, W., & Campbell, C. A. (2007). Performance appraisal of behavior-based
competencies: A reliable and valid procedure. Personnel Psychology, 60, 201-230. doi:
10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00070.x
Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (1998). Participation in the performance appraisal process
and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(4), 615-633. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.615
Chattopadhayay, R., & Ghosh, A. K. (2012). Performance appraisal based on a forced distribution
system: Its drawbacks and remedies. International Journal of Productivity, 61(8): 881-896. doi:
10.1108/17410401211277138
Chiang, F. F., & Birtch, T. A. (2010). Appraising performance across borders: An empirical examination
of the purposes and practices of performance appraisal in a multi-country context. Journal of
Management Studies, 47(7): 1365-1393. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00937.x
Church, A. H. (1995). From both sides now performance appraisals: Political tools or effective measures?
Industrial and Organizational Psychologist, 33, 57-65.

17
Cleveland, J. N., Murphy, K. R., & Williams, R. E. (1989). Multiple uses of performance appraisal:
Prevalence and correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 130-135. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.74.1.130
Cruz, N. (1987). EEO implications of professional/managerial performance evaluations: A rational
approach. Labor Law Journal, 720-722. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1290649011?pq-
origsite=gscholar
Curtis, A. B., Harvey, R. D., & Ravden, D. (2005). Sources of political distortions in performance
appraisals: Appraisal purpose and rater accountability. Group & Organization Management,
30(1), 42-60. doi: 10.1177/1059601104267666
Darling, J. (2013). Reframing performance reviews for greater impact. People & Strategy, 36(2), 66-76.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1767144327?pq-origsite=gscholar
de Wall, A. A., & Coevert, V. (2007). The effect of performance management on the organizational
results of a bank. International Journal of Productivity & Performance Management, 56(5), 397-
416. doi: 10.1108/17410400710757114
DeNisi, A. S. (2011). Managing performance to change behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 31, 262-276. doi: 10.1080/01608061.2011.619414
DeNisi, A. S., & Pritchard, R. D. (2006). Performance appraisal, performance management, and
improving individual performance: A motivational framework. Management and Organization
Review, 2(2), 253-277. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00042.x
Dipboye, R. L. (1985). How I stopped worrying and learned to appreciate the gaps between academic
HRM and practice. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.). Reinventing human resource
management: Challenges and new directions (pp. 91-111). New York: Routledge.

18
Dipboye, R. L., & Pontbriand, R. (1981). Correlates of employee reactions to performance appraisals and
appraisal systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(2), 248-251. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.66.2.248
Dobbins, G. H., Cardy, R. L., & Platz-Vieno, S. J. (1990). A contingency approach to appraisal
satisfaction: An initial investigation of the joint effects of organizational variables and appraisal
characteristics. Journal of Management, 16(3), 619-632. doi: 10.1177/014920639001600307
Dorfman, P. W., Stephan, W. G., & Loveland, J. (1986). Performance appraisal behaviors: Supervisor
perceptions and subordinate reactions. Personnel Psychology, 39, 579-597.doi: 10.1111/j.1744-
6570.1986.tb00954.x
Downing, L. L. (1994). Criterion shaped behavior: Pitfalls of performance appraisal. Criterion Shaped
Behavior, 2(1), 1-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.1994.tb00124.x
Dyne, L., Graham, J. W. & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct
redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 765-802.doi:
10.2307/256600
Elicker, J. D., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). The role of leader-member exchange in the performance
appraisal process. Journal of Management, 32(4), 531-551. doi: 10.1177/0149206306286622
Farris, J. A., van Aken, E. M., Letens, G., Chearksul, P., & Coleman, G. (2011). Improving the
performance review process. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
31(4), 376-404. doi: 10.1108/01443571111119524
Fay, C. H., & Latham, G. P. (1982). Effects of training and rating scales on rating errors. Personnel
Psychology, 35, 105-116. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1982.tb02188.x

19
Field, H. S., & Holley, W. H. (1982). The relationship of performance appraisal system characteristics to
verdicts in selected employment discrimination cases. Academy of Management Journal, 25(2),
392-406. doi: 10.2307/255999
Findley, H. M., Giles, W. F., & Mossholder, K. W. (2000). Performance appraisal process and system
facets: relationships with contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 634-
640. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.634
Fink, L. S., & Longenecker, C. O. (1998). Training as a performance appraisal improvement strategy.
Career Development International, 3(6), 243-251. doi: 10.1108/13620439810234509
Fletcher, C. (1995). New directions for performance appraisal: Some findings and observations.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 3(3), 191-196. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-
2389.1995.tb00027.x
Folger, R., Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1992). A due process metaphor for performance
appraisal. Research in Organizational Behavior, 14, 129-177.
Fox, S., Bizman, A., & Garti, A. (2005). Is distributional appraisal more effective than the traditional
performance appraisal method? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 165-172.
doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.21.3.165
Giles, W. F., Findley, H. M., & Feild, H. S. (1997). Procedural fairness in performance appraisal: beyond
the review session. Journal of Business and Psychology, 11(4), 493-506. doi:
10.1007/BF02195894
Giles, W. F., & Mossholder, K. W. (1990). Employee reactions to contextual and session components of
performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(4), 371-377. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.75.4.371

20
Gilliland, S. W., & Langdon, J. C. (1998). Creating performance management systems that promote
perceptions of fairness. In J. W. Smither (Ed.), Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice
(pp. 209-243). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Goffin, R. D., Gellatly, I. R., Paunonen, S. V., Jackson, D. N., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Criterion validation
of two approaches to performance appraisal: The behavioral observation scale and the relative
percentile method. Journal of Business and Psychology, 11(1), 23-33. doi: 10.1007/BF02278252
Goffin, R. D., Jelley, B. R., Powell, D. M., & Johnston, N. G. (2009). Taking advantage of social
comparisons in performance appraisal: The relative percentile method. Human Resource
Management, 48(2), 251-268. doi: 10.1002/hrm.20278
Goldstein, H. (2001). Appraising the Performance of Performance Appraisal. IEEE Spectrum, 61-63. doi:
10.1109/6.963247
Gravina, N. E., & Siers, B. P. (2011). Square pegs and round holes: Ruminations on the relationship
between performance appraisal and performance management. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 31, 277-287. doi: 10.1080/01608061.2011.619418
Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71(2), 340-342. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.340
Greller, M. (1978). The nature of subordinate participation in the appraisal interview. Academy of
Management Journal, 21(4), 646-658. doi: 10.2307/255705
Grote, D. (2000). Public sector organizations: Today's innovative leaders in performance management.
Public Personnel Management, 29, 1-20. doi: 10.1177/009102600002900101
Halachmi, A. (2005). Performance measurement is only one way of managing performance. International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54(7), 502-516. doi:
10.1108/17410400510622197

21
Halim, A. H. (2011). Validation on behavioral competencies of a performance appraisal tool. Journal of
Psychological Research, 6(2), 281-290.
Halim, A. H. & Abhyanker, S. C. (2011). Validation on behavioral competencies of a performance
appraisal tool. Journal of Prosocial Research, 6(2), 281-290.
Hauenstein, N. M. (1998). Training raters to increase the accuracy of appraisals and the usefulness of
feedback. In J. W. Smither (Ed.), Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice (pp. 404-
405). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Heneman, R. L. (1986). The relationship between supervisory ratings and results-oriented measures of
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 811-826. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-
6570.1986.tb00596.x
Heneman, R. L., & Gresham, M. T. (1998). Performance-based pay plans. In J. W. Smither (Ed.),
Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice (pp. 496-497). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Hillery, J. M., & Wexley, K. N. (1974). Participation effects in appraisal interviews conducted in a
training situation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(2), 168-171. doi: 10.1037/h0036522
Hobson, C. J., Mendel, R. M., & Gibson, F. W. (1981). Clarifying performance appraisal criteria.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 164-188. doi: 10.1016/0030-
5073(81)90021-0
Hoffman, B. J.; Gorman, C. A.; Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., Overstret, B., & Atchley, E. K. (2012).
Evidence for the effectiveness of an alternative multisource performance rating methodology.
Personnel Psychology, 65(3), 531-563. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01252.x
Holley, W. H., & Feild, H. S. (1975). Performance appraisal and the law. Labor Law Journal, 423-430.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1290551023?pq-origsite=gscholar

22
Holley, W. H., & Feild, H. S. (1977). The law and performance appraisal in education: A review of court
cases and implications for use. Journal of Law & Education, 6, 427-448.
Ilgen, D. R., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & McKellin, D. B. (1993). Performance appraisal process research in
the 1980s: What had it contributed to appraisals in use? Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Process, 54, 321-368. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1993.1015
Ilgen, D. R., Peterson, R. B., Martin, B. A., & Boeschen, D. A. (1981). Supervisor and subordinate
reactions to performance appraisal sessions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
28, 311-330. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(81)90002-7
Inderrieden, E. J., Allen, R. E., & Keaveny, T. J. (2004). Managerial discretion in the use of self-
ratings in an appraisal system: The antecedents and consequences. Journal of Managerial
Issues, 460-482.
Ivancevich, J. M. (1979). Longitudinal study of the effects of rater training on psychometric error in
ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(3): 502-508. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.64.5.502
Jawahar, I. M. (2005). Do raters consider the influence of situational factors on observed performance
when evaluating performance? Evidence from three experiments. Group & Organization
Management, 30(1), 6-41. doi: 10.1177/1059601104267664
Jelley, B. R., & Goffin, R. D. (2001). Can performance-feedback accuracy be improved? Effects of rater
priming and rating-scale format on rating accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 134-
144. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.134
Jelley, B. R., Goffin, R. D., Powell, D. M., & Heneman, R. L. (2012). Incentives and alternative rating
approaches. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 11(4), 159-168. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000068

23
Johnson, J. W. (2001). The relative importance of task and contextual performance dimensions to
supervisor judgments of overall performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 984-996.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.984
Kleiman, L. S., & Durham, R. L. (1981). Performance appraisal, promotion, and the courts: A critical
review. Personnel Psychology, 34, 103-121. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1981.tb02181.x
Klein, H. J., & Snell, S. A. (1994). The Impact of Interview Process and Context on Performance
Appraisal Interview Effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 6(2), 160-175.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40604018.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ab5e9082b54595078709a0b
15d8933cd8
Klein, H. J., Snell, S. A., & Wexley, K N. (1987). Systems model of the performance appraisal interview
process. Industrial Relations, 26(3), 267-280. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-232X.1987.tb00711.x
Kline, T. J., & Sulsky, L. M. (2009). Measurement and assessment issues in performance appraisal.
Canadian Psychology, 50(3), 161-171. doi: 10.1037/a0015668
Kleingeld, A., Van Tuijl, H., & Algera, J. A. (2004). Participation in the design of performance
management systems: A quasi-experimental field study. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
25(7), 831-851. doi: 10.1002/job.266
Korsgaard, A. M., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice in performance appraisal: The role of
instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions. Journal of
Management, 21(4), 657-669. doi: 10.1016/0149-2063(95)90004-7
Kozlowski, S. W., Chao, G. T., & Morrison, R. F. (1998). Games raters play: Politics, strategies, and
impression management in performance appraisal. In J. W. Smither (Ed.), Performance
appraisal: State of the art in practice (pp. 163-208). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

24
Kraiger, K., & Ford, K. J. (1985). A meta-analysis of ratee race effects in performance ratings. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 70(1), 56-65. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.70.1.56
Kurtzberg, T. R., Naquin, C. E., & Belkin, L. Y. (2005). Electronic performance appraisals: The effects of
e-mail communication on peer ratings in actual and simulated environments. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 216-226. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.07.001
Kuvass, B. (2007). Different relationships between perceptions of developmental performance appraisal
and work performance. Personnel Review, 36(3), 378-397. doi: 10.1108/00483480710731338
Kuvaas, B. (2011). The interactive role of performance appraisal reactions and regular feedback. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 26(2), 123-137. doi: 10.1108/02683941111102164
Landy, F. J., Barnes, J. L., & Murphy, K. R. (1978). Correlates of perceived fairness and accuracy of
performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(6), 751-754. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.63.6.751
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87(1), 72-107. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.87.1.72
Latham, G. P., Almost, J., Mann, S., & Moore, C. (2005). New developments in performance
management. Organizational Dynamics, 34(1), 77-87. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2004.11.001
Latham, G. P., Budworth, M.-H., Yanar, B., & Whyte, G. (2008). The influence of a manager's own
performance appraisal on the appraisal of others. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 16(3), 220-228. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00428.x
Law, D. R. (2007). Appraising performance appraisals: A critical look at an external control management
technique. International Journal of Reality Therapy, 26(2), 18-25.
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=269dfe58-ee42-44e3-a8e6-
e2c3f3f43c93%40sessionmgr102

25
Lee, J. S.Y, & Akhtar, S. (1996). Determinants of employee willingness to use feedback for performance
improvement: Cultural and organizational interpretations. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 7(4), 878-890. doi: 10.1080/09585199600000161
Levy, P., Williams, J., 2004. The social context of performance appraisal: a review and
framework for the future. Journal of Management, 30 (6), 881–905.
McConnell, C. R. (2003). The manager’s approach to employee performance problems. Health Care
Manager, 22(1), 63-69.
MacDonald, H. A., & Sulsky, L. M. (2009). Rating formats and rater training redux: A context-specific
approach for enhancing the effectiveness of performance management. Canadian Journal of
Behavioral Science, 41(4), 227-240. doi: 10.1037/a0015165
Martin, D. C., & Bartol, K. M. (1991). The legal ramifications of performance appraisal: An update.
Employee Relations Law Journal, 17(2), 257-286. https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/docview/194229268?accountid=13360
Martin, D. C., Bartol, K. M., & Kehoe, P. E. (2000). The legal ramifications of performance appraisal:
The growing significance. Public Personnel Management, 29(3), 379-405. doi:
10.1177/009102600002900307
Martin, D. C., Bartol, K. M., & Levine, M. J. (1986). The legal ramifications of performance appraisal.
Employee Relations Law Journal, 12(3), 370-396.
Miller, C. S., Kaspin, J. A., & Schuster, M. H. (1990). The impact of performance appraisal methods on
age discrimination in employment act cases. Personnel Psychology, 43, 555-578. doi:
10.1111/j.1744-6570.1990.tb02396.x

26
Milliman, J. F., Nason, S., Lowe, K., & Huo, P. (1995, August). An empirical study of
performance appraisal practices in Japan, Korea, Taiwan and the US. In Academy of
Management Proceedings (Vol. 1995, No. 1, pp. 182-186). Academy of Management.
Mobley, W. H. (1982). Supervisor and employee race and sex effects on performance appraisals: A field
study of adverse impact and generalizability. Academy of Management Journal, 25(3), 598-606.
doi: 10.2307/256083
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished
from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475-480. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.79.4.475
Murphy, K. S., & Murrmann, S. (2009). The research design used to develop a high performance
management system construct for us restaurant managers. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 28, 547-555. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.03.003
Najmi, M., Rigas, J., & Fan, I.-S. (2005). A framework to review performance measurement systems.
Business Process Management Journal, 11(2), 109-122. doi: 10.1108/14637150510591129
Nankervis, A. R., & Compton, R.L. (2006). Performance management: Theory in practice? Asia Pacific
Journal of Human Resources, 44(1), 83-101. doi: 10.1177/1038411106061509
Ng, K. Y., Koh, C., Ang. S., Kennedy, J. C., Chang, K. Y. (2011). Rating leniency and halo in
multisource feedback ratings: Testing cultural assumptions of power distance and individualism-
collectivism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 1033-1044. doi: 10.1037/a0023368
Nieva, V. F. & Gutek, B. A. (1980). Sex effects on evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 5(2),
267-276.doi: 10.5465/AMR.1980.4288749
O'Sullivan, S. L. (2009). International performance appraisals: A review of the literature & agenda for
future research. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 14(2), 171-180.

27
Paladino, B. (2007). 5 key principles of corporate performance management. Strategic Finance, 89, 33-
41.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/229774419/fulltextPDF/A8DDB90DCBDD4D06PQ/1?acco
untid=13360
Payne, S. C., Horner, M. T., Boswell, W. R., Schroeder, A. N., & Stine-Cheyne, K. J. (2009). Comparison
of online and traditional performance appraisal systems. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
24(6), 256-544. doi: 10.1108/02683940910974116
Pearce, J. L., & Porter, L. W. (1986). Employee responses to formal performance appraisal feedback.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 211-218. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.211
Peretz, H., & Fried, Y. (2012). National cultures, performance appraisal practices, and organizational
absenteeism and turnover: A study across 21 countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2),
448-459. doi: 10.1037/a0026011
Pettijohn, C. E., Pettijohn, L. S., & d'Amico, M. (2001). Characteristics of performance appraisals and
their impact on sales force satisfaction. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(2), 127-146.
doi: 10.1002/hrdq.4
Pichler, S. (2012). The social context of performance appraisal and appraisal reactions: A meta-analysis.
Human Resource Management, 51(5), 709-732. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21499
Pulakos, E. D. (1984). A comparison of rater training programs: Error training and accuracy training.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(4), 581-588. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.69.4.581
Pulakos, E. D. (1986). The development of training programs to increase accuracy with different rating
tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 76-91. doi: 10.1016/0749-
5978(86)90027-0

28
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace:
Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4),
612-624. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.612
Pulakos, E. D., Hanson, R. M., Arad, S., & Moye, N. (2015). Performance management can be fixed: An
on-the-job experiential learning approach for complex behavior change. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 51-76. doi: 10.1017/iop.2014.2
Rees, D. W., & Porter, C. (2003). Appraisal pitfalls and the training implications – Part 1. Industrial and
Commercial Training, 35(7), 280-284. doi: 10.1108/00197850310501677
Rees, D. W., & Porter, C. (2004). Appraisal pitfalls and the training implications – Part 2. Industrial and
Commercial Training, 36(1), 29-34. doi: 10.1108/00197850410516094
Reilly, R. R., & McGourty, J. (1998). Performance appraisal in team settings. In J. W. Smither (Ed.),
Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice (pp. 244-275). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Rhodes, M. L., Biondi, L., Gomes, R., Melo, A. I., Ohemeng, F., Perez-Lopez, G., et al. (2012). Current
State of public sector performance management in seven selected countries. International Journal
of Productivity and Performance Management, 61(3), 235-271. doi:
10.1108/17410401211205632
Roberts, G. E. (2002). Employee performance appraisal system participation: A technique that works.
Public Personnel Management, 31(3), 333-342. doi: 10.1177/009102600203100306
Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. (1973). The influence of sex-role stereotypes on evaluations of male and
female supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(1), 44-48. doi:
10.1037/h0034198

29
Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. (1976a). The nature of job-related age stereotypes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 61(2), 180-183. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.61.2.180
Rosen, B. & Jerdee, T. H. (1976b). The influence of age stereotypes on managerial decisions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 61(4), 428-432. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.61.4.428
Sackett, P. R., & DuBois, C. L. (1991). Rater-ratee race effects on performance appraisal: Challenging
meta-analytic conclusions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 873-877. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.76.6.873
Sauers, D. A., Lin, S. C., Kennedy, J., & Schrenkler, J. (2009). A comparison of the performance
appraisal practices of us multinational subsidiaries with parent company and local Taiwanese
practices. Management Research News, 32(3), 286-296. doi: 10.1108/01409170910943138
Scanduto, A., Hunt, B., & Schmerling, D. (2015). A performance management solution: Productivity
measurement and enhancement system (ProMES). Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
8(1), 93-99. doi: 10.1017/iop.2015.4
Schleicher, D. J., Bull, R. A., & Green, S. G. (2008). Rater reactions to forced distribution rating systems.
Journal of Management, 35, 899-927. doi:10.1177/0149206307312514
Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer perceptions of
service quality: Tests of a causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 150-163. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.150
Schmitt, N., & Lappin, M. (1980). Race and sex as determinants of the mean variance of performance
ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(4), 428-435. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.65.4.428
Schrader, B. W., & Steiner, D. D. (1996). Common comparison standards: An approach to improving
agreement between self and supervisory performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81(6), 813-820. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.81.6.813

30
Schweiger, I., & Summers, G. E. (1994). Optimizing the value of performance appraisals. Managerial
Auditing Journal, 9(8), 3-7. doi: 10.1108/02686909410071124
Scullen, S. E., Bergey, P. K., & Aiman-Smith, L. (2005). Forced distribution rating systems and the
improvement of workforce potential: A baseline simulation. Personnel Psychology, 58, 1-32. doi:
10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00361.x
Selden, S., Sherrier, T., & Wooters, R. (2012). Experimental study comparing a traditional approach to
performance appraisal training to a whole-brain training method at C.B. Fleet Laboratories.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23(1), 9-34. doi: 10.1002/hrdq.21123
Selden, S., & Sowa, J. E. (2011). Performance management and appraisal in human service organizations:
Management and staff perspectives. Public Personnel Management, 40(3), 251-264. doi:
10.1177/009102601104000305
Shore, L. M. & Thornton, G. C. (1986). Effects of gender on self- and supervisory ratings. Academy of
Management Journal, 29(1), 115-129. doi: 10.2307/255863
Silverman, S. B., & Wexley, K. N. (1984). Reaction of employees to performance appraisal interviews as
a function of their participation in rating scale development. Personnel Psychology, 37, 703-710.
doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1984.tb00534.x
Sinclair, D., & Zairi, M. (1995). Benchmarking best-practice performance measurement within
companies using total quality management. Benchmarking for Quality Management &
Technology 2.3, 53, 1-11. doi: 10.1108/14635779510099248
Smither, J. W. (2015). The fate of performance ratings: Don’t write the obituary yet. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 77-80. doi: 10.1017/iop.2015.1
Soltani, E. (2005). Conflict between theory and practice: TQM and performance appraisal. International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 22(8), 796-818. doi: 10.1108/02656710510617238

31
Spence, J. R., & Keeping, L. M. (2010). The impact of non-performance information on ratings of job
performance: a policy-capturing approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 587-608. doi:
10.1002/job.648
Spinks, N., Wells, B., & Meche, M. (1999). Appraising the appraisals: Computerized performance
appraisal systems. Career Development International, 4(2), 94-100. doi:
10.1108/13620439910254713
Squires, P., & Adler, S. (1998). Linking appraisals to individual development and training. In J. W.
Smither (Ed.), Performance Appraisal: State of the Art in Practice (pp. 445). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Stamoulis, D. T., & Hauenstein, N. M. (1993). Rater training and rating accuracy: Training for
dimensional accuracy versus training for ratee differentiation. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78(6), 994-1003. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.994
Stoker, J. I., & Van der Heijden, B. (2001). Competence development and appraisal in organizations.
Journal of Career Development, 28(2), 97-113. doi: 10.1177/089484530102800202
Tackey, N. D. (2001). Eliminating bias in performance management. The British Journal of
Administrative Management, 27, 12-13.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/224620902/fulltextPDF/FF19B57FCD214817PQ/1?account
id=13360
Taormina, R. J., & Gao, J. H. (2009). Identifying acceptable performance appraisal criteria: An
international perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resource, 47(1), 102-125. doi:
10.1177/1038411108099292

32
Taylor, S. M., Tracy, K. B., Renard, M. K., Harrison, K. J., & Carroll, S. J. (1995). Due process in
performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 40, 495-523. doi: 10.2307/2393795
Thompson, D. E. & Thompson, T. A. (1985). Task-based performance appraisal for blue-collar jobs:
Evaluation of race and sex effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(4), 747-753. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.70.4.747
Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2012). Importance of system and leadership in performance appraisal.
Personnel Review, 41(6), 756-776. doi: 10.1108/00483481211263692
Tziner, A., & Kopelman, R. E. (2002). Is there a preferred performance rating format? A non-
psychometric perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51(3), 479-503. doi:
10.1111/1464-0597.00104
Tziner, A., Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (2005). Contextual and rater factors affecting rating
behavior. Group & Organization Management, 30(1), 89-98. doi: 10.1177/1059601104267920
Tziner, A., Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (2005). Performance appraisal: Evolution and change.
Group & Organization Management, 30(1), 4-5. doi: 10.1177/1059601104267659
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job education as separate
facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 525-531. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.525
Varma, A., DeNisi, A. S., & Peters, L. H. (1996). Interpersonal affect and performance appraisal: A field
study. Personnel Psychology, 49, 341-360. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01803.x
Varma, A., Pichler, S., & Srinivas, E. S. (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. doi: 10.1080/09585190500314904

33
Veglahn, P. A. (1993). Key issues in performance appraisal challenges: Evidence for court and arbitration
decisions. Labor Law Journal, 44(10), 595-606.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1290654901/fulltextPDF/769AD478A7DE4A40PQ/1?accou
ntid=13360
Veronesi, J. F. (2008). Stamping out the madness that is performance evaluations. Home Health Care
Management Practice, 20(3), 273-275. doi: 10.1177/1084822307309066
Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of the reliability of job
performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 557-574. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.81.5.557
Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (2005). Is there a general factor in ratings of job
performance? A meta-analytic framework for disentangling substantive and error influences.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 108-131. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.108
Wagner, S. H., & Goffin, R. D. (1997). Differences in accuracy of absolute and comparative performance
appraisal methods. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(2), 95-103. doi:
10.1006/obhd.1997.2698
Waldman, D. A. (1994). Designing performance management systems for total quality implementation.
Journal of Organizational Change, 7(2), 31-44. doi: 10.1108/09534819410056113
Wang, X. M., Wong, K. E., & Kwong, J. Y. (2010). The roles of rater goals and rate performance levels
in the distortion of performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 546-561. doi:
10.1037/a0018866
Werner, J. M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in-role and extrarole
behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 98-107. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.79.1.98

34
Werner, J. M., & Bolino, M. C. (1997). Explaining U.S. courts of appeals decisions involving
performance appraisal: Accuracy, fairness, and validation. Personnel Psychology, 50, 1-24. doi:
10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00898.x
Woehr, D. J. (1994). Understanding frame-of-reference training: The impact of training on the recall of
performance information. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 525-534. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.79.4.525
Woehr, D. J., & Huffcutt, A. I. (1994). Rater training for performance appraisal: A quantitative review.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 189-205. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-
8325.1994.tb00562.x
Woehr, D. J., & Roch, S. G. (1996). Context effects in performance appraisal: The impact of ratee sex and
performance level on performance ratings and behavioral recall. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Progress, 66(1), 31-41. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1996.0036
Yun, G. J., Donahue, L. M., Dudley, N. M., & McFarland, L. A. (2005). Rater personality, rating format,
and social context: Implications for performance appraisal ratings. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 13(2), 97-107. doi: 10.1111/j.0965-075X.2005.00304.x
Zairi, M. (1998). Building human resources capability in health care: A global analysis of best practice -
Part II. Health Manpower Management, 24(4), 128-138. doi: 10.1108/09552069810215728
