Knowledge that Transforms

We examined the extent to which performance ratings obtained using a distributional rating format differ from ratings obtained using a more typical global rating scale format. We sought to determine whether a distributional format actually elicits different information than a global format and the extent to which measures of within performance variability derived from distributional ratings are related to levels of interrater agreement on global rating scales. Confirmatory factor analyses of three models of measurement equivalence indicated that a model of tau-equivalence in which the two rating formats provided similar measurements but with differing levels of measurement error provided the best fit to the data. Further, we found a large, significant relationship between measures of within dimension performance variabili5 and interrater agreement. Our results suggest that a distributional rating format is a viable alternative rating format that may provide a richer source of information than do more typical global rating scales.

This paper argues that an organization 's performance can influence the extent to which CEOs favor the importance and competence of one functional department above all others. Specifically, financial success induces such favoritism in CEOs, not in stable but in uncertain environments where there is a good deal of scope and motivation for attributional opportunism and superstitious learning. Financial weakness also induces functional favoritism on the part of CEOs, not in uncertain but in stable environments where conditions are right for escalation of commitment and threat-rigidity responses. These findings were confirmed using subgroup regressions, moderated regressions and two-group LISREL analyses.

Performance standards are reconceptualized as the interface between measurement and evaluation. A job’s performance standards are theorized to be equitable to the extent that they require levels of effectiveness equal to those collectively viewed as justified by the standing of the job’s pay rate relative to the labor market median. Methodology for creating equitable performance standards is presented, and the implications of implementing such performance standards are discussed in reference to compensation strategy and practice and to the potential financial benefits to organizations.

A multiple goal context was examined to assess the interaction of environment, person and behavior over time. Specifically, frequency of feedback was manipulated, and performance and goal commitment for a quality and a quantity goal were measured in a short-term, longitudinal study. One hundred fifteen participants were given the performance goals in a dynamic, decision-making task. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to test the hypotheses, which included both within and between person effects. Discussion focussed on the special issues related to the interpretation of these types of multi-level data and the self-regulating framework used to develop the hypotheses.

This paper proposes Hierarchical Linear Models as a procedure for investigating reciprocal interaction between individuals and their group context. This interaction is an important component of many theories of organizational behavior. A study of task-performing laboratory groups examined the relationship between individual affect and group cohesion over seven measurement occasions. A series of three HLM analyses was used to estimate the relationship between group cohesion and individual affect over time. The first analysis estimated a cross-level model of the impact of group cohesion of levels of individual affect in groups. The second analysis used the residual from the cross-level analysis as a predictor of subsequent levels of group cohesion for each of the seven time periods. The third analysis used HLM procedures to pool the results of the previous analyses over the seven measurement periods. Results of the HLM procedure provide a method for linking within-group measures to subsequent group level outcomes.