The Social Context of Performance Appraisal: A Review and Framework for the Future

By P. Levy, Jane R. Williams. 2004

820 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Management Information Systems, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3110732c60c970f75e2ef0df6920685078399072

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

In Management Information Systems

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

A test of hypotheses derived from self‐determination theory among public sector employees (2008, background): “Furthermore, whereas performance ratings by supervisors help rule out the validity threats of self-report and mono-method, performance appraisal research suggests that performance ratings conducted by supervisors may be even more biased than self-report measures (Levy and Williams, 2004).”
Perceived investment in employee development, intrinsic motivation and work performance (2009, methodology): “Furthermore, whereas performance ratings by supervisors help rule out the validity threats of self-report and the mono-method, performance appraisal research suggests that performance ratings conducted by supervisors may be even more biased than self-report measures (Levy and Williams, 2004; Murphy,”
Performance appraisal satisfaction and employee outcomes: mediating and moderating roles of work motivation (2006, methodology): “…and research have moved away from a narrow focus on psychometric and evaluation issues to developmental PA (e.g., Fletcher, 2001; Lefkowitz, 2000; Levy and Williams, 2004; Waal, 2003), which may be defined as any effort concerned with enriching attitudes, experiences, and skills that improves…”
Employees' Perception of Performance Appraisal System: A Case Study (2012, background): “Traditionally, researchers seemed to assume that raters were motivated to rate accurately, and that the problems with the appraisal process involved cognitive processing errors and complexities (Levy & Williams, 2004).”
Reflection as a strategy to enhance task performance after feedback (2009, methodology): “For this reason, calls have been made for research examining strategies to create an organizational environment that is more supportive of employee development in feedback processes (e.g., Levy & Williams, 2004; London & Smither, 2002; Seifert, Yukl, & McDonald, 2003).”
The Origin of Failure: A Multidisciplinary Appraisal of the Hubris Hypothesis and Proposed Research Agenda (2014, background): “While Li and Tang (2010) underscored that we may improve our understanding of managerial hubris if we consider its boundary conditions, we still lack a clear idea of how CEO actions may mitigate the impact of CEO overconfidence.”
Performance Appraisal, Performance Management and Improving Individual Performance: A Motivational Framework (2006, background): “Lastly, in the past few years, there has been growing interest in the practice community for what has been termed 'non-traditional' appraisal systems (e.g., Coens and Jenkins, 2000; Lawler, 2000).”
The Development and Validation of the Feedback Orientation Scale (FOS) (2010, background): “As human resources practices evolve, there is greater emphasis on using feedback for developmental purposes in addition to using it just for administrative or performance appraisal proposes (Levy & Williams, 2004).”
Multisource feedback: Lessons learned and implications for practice (2007, background): “The same is often true of performance appraisal feedback (Levy & Williams, 2004; London, 2003).”
Accountability in a Performance Appraisal Context: The Effect of Audience and Form of Accounting on Rater Response and Behavior (2007, background): “A recent review of the performance appraisal literature by Levy and Williams (2004) emphasized the need for research on the social context within which performance evaluations are made.”
Are you really doing good things in your boss's eyes? Interactive effects of employee innovative work behavior and leader–member exchange on supervisory performance ratings (2018, background): “This finding is important because it provides support for a cognitive perspective on performance evaluations suggesting that leader categorization processes shape how they perceive and assess innovative employee efforts (Levy & Williams, 2004).”