동료평가 시스템에서의 상황맥락 요인과 평가행동

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

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

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 McEvoy, G.M., "User Acceptance of Peer Appraisals in an Inderstrial Setting" 40 : 785-797, 1987

2 Murphy, K.R., "Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social, Organizational, and Goal-Based Perspectives" Sage 1995

3 Banks, C.G., "Toward Narrowing the Research-Practice Gap in Performance Appraisal" 38 : 335-348, 1985

4 Snyder, M., "The Self-Monitoring of Expressive Behavior" 30 : 527-535, 1974

5 Landy, F.J., "The Measurement of Work Performance" Academic Press 1983

6 Sanders, L.W., "The Impact of Performance Appraisal Interviews on Organizational Trust and Motivation for Learning" The University of Texas at Austin 1993

7 Riggs, M.L, "The Impact of Perceived Group Success-Failure on Motivational Beliefs and Attitudes : A Causal Model" 81 : 187-198, 1994

8 Barrick, M.R, "The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance : A Meta-Analysis" 44 : 1-26, 1991

9 Morahan-Martin, J, "Should Peers' Evaluations be Used in Class Projects? Questions Regarding Reliability, Lenience, and Acceptance" 78 : 1243-1250, 1996

10 Bandura, A., "Self-Efficacy"Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change" 84 : 191-215, 1977

11 Bernardin, H.J., "Research Strems in Rater Self-Efficiency" 30 : 61-68, 2005

12 Murphy, K.R., "Raters Who Pursue Differnent Goals Give Different Ratings" 89 : 158-164, 2004

13 DeNisi, A.S., "Potential Problems with Peer Ratings" 26 : 457-464, 1983

14 Tziner, A., "Personality Moderates Relationship BetweenContext Facorts and Rating Behavior" 22 : 107-120, 2003

15 Wexley, K. N., "Performance Appraisal: An Update, In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management" JAI Press 35-79, 1984

16 Ilgen, D.R., "Performance Appraisal: A Process Focus, In Research in Organizational Behavior" JAI Press 1983

17 Bernardin, H.J., "Performance Appraisal, In Generalizing from Laboratory to Field Settings" Lexington Books 1986

18 Saavedra, R., "Peer Evaluations in Self-Managing Work Groups" 78 : 450-462, 1993

19 Zammuto, R.F., "Organization and Rater Differences inPerformance Appraisals" 35 : 643-658, 1982

20 Snyder, M., "On the Nature of Self-Monitoring : Matters of Assessment, Matters of Validity" 51 : 125-139, 1986

21 Kane, J.S., "Methods of Peer Assessment" 85 : 555-586, 1978

22 Watson, W., "Member Competence, Group Interactions, and Group Decision Making : A LongitudinalStudy" 76 : 803-809, 1991

23 Roberts, G.E., "Maximizing Performance Appraisal System Acceptance Perspective from Municipal Government Personnel Administrators" 23 : 525-549, 1994

24 Campbell, B.C., "How Extensively are Human Resource Management Practices being Utilized by the Practitioners?" 27 : 67-71, 1982

25 Snyder, M., "Focusing on the Exterior and Interior : Two Investigations of the Initiation of PersonalRelationships" 48 : 1437-1458, 1985

26 Tziner, A., "Contextual and Rater Factors AffectingRating Behavior" 30 : 89-98, 2005

27 Bernadin, H.J., "Conscientiousness and Agreeableness asPredictos of Rating Leniency" 85 : 232-236, 2000

28 Peiperl, M.A., "Conditions for the Success of Peer Evaluation" 10 : 429-458, 1999

29 Jawahar, I.M, "Attitudes, Self-Monitoring, and Appraisal Behaviors" 86 : 875-883, 2001

30 Frayne, C.A., "Application of Social Training Theory to Employer Self-Management of Attendance" 72 : 387-392, 1987

31 Cederblom, D., "An Investigation of User Acceptance of Peer Evaluations" 33 : 567-579, 1980

32 DeNisi, A.S., "An Analysis of Peer Ratings as Predictors and Criterion Measurs and a Proposed New Application" 3 : 369-374, 1978

33 Tziner, A., "Additional Evidence of Attitudinal Influences in Performance Appraisal" 13 : 407-420, 1999

34 Tziner, A., "A New Old Question : Do Contextual Factors Relate to Rating Behavior : An Investigation with Peer Evaluations" 16 : 59-67, 2008