Peer Performance Appraisals

Abstract

Evidence suggests that peer performance appraisals are being increasingly used in organizations and that peers are accurate sources of performance information, yet empirical research on factors contributing to peer rating acceptability is sparse. This field experiment (using 359 public health nurses as subjects) used procedural justice theory as a framework for investigating the impact of the following three peer rating system characteristics on fairness perceptions: rater competence, rater location, and rating correctability (i.e., the opportunity to correct errors in the appraisal). Results supported the hypotheses that rater competence and rating correctability will positively influence fairness perceptions, but did not support the hypothesis that rating systems using external raters will be perceived as more fair. Additionally, the hypothesized interaction between rater competence and rating correctability was not supported.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 48 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.