Explaining the Weak Relationship Between Job Performance and Ratings of Job Performance

By Kevin J. Murphy. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2008

207 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6aea11c61b32da4e93bfdef22ac8c35fe0e5ad14

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Getting Rid of Performance Ratings: Genius or Folly? A Debate (2016, background): “…was that rating scales probably do not have a large effect on the quality of rating data, perhaps amore important conclusion was that there are a number of variables other than job performance that have a clear influence on performance ratings (see also Murphy, 2008; Scullen, Mount, & Judge, 2003).”
The Modeling and Assessment of Work Performance (2015, background): “Murphy (2008) and Murphy &DeShon (2000) argue that they do not, and these authors call the construct validity of ratings into question.”
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,”
3 Staffing Twenty‐first‐century Organizations (2008, background): “In the context of performance appraisal, Murphy ( 2008 ) notes the weak relationship between job performance and performance ratings, and argues for more widespread use of multi‐factor models that place a premium on a careful analysis of the context within which performance is observed and ratings a”
Do Team and Individual Debriefs Enhance Performance? A Meta-Analysis (2013, background): “Second, although statistically straightforward, applying a correction to interrater reliabilities of supervisor ratings is conceptually problematic because it assumes that any disagreement is attributable to error and not to different perspectives on performance (Murphy, 2008).”
Let the evidence speak again! Financial incentives are more effective than we thought (2015, background): “As an example, Park and Shaw’s (2013) meta-analysis of the relationship between turnover rates and organisational performance revealed a stable, moderate-in-magnitude, literature-level correlation between these variables.”
Employability and Career Success: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Reality (2013, background): “Our experience is consistent with the research literature (see Murphy, 2008) and suggests that these decisions are typically less rational than one might hope.”