appraisers. An appraiser’s behavior is a product of both. Consequently, future
training programs on maximizing objectivity should focus on the motivational
underpinnings of appraisal errors. Discovering ways of overcoming various
social and political factors that cause raters to intentionally give an inaccurate
appraisal would lead to a ‘quantum’ advance in the practical beneWts derived from
appraisal research.
In addition to a person’s age, race, sex, and ethnicity aVecting an appraisal
(Latham and Mann 2006 ), organizational politics are a factor (Tziner et al. 1996 ).
A supervisor’s positive regard for subordinates often results in leniency and halo
errors, and less inclination to punish poor performance (Lefkowitz 2000 ). This is
especially true with regard to perceived similarities regarding extroversion, con-
scientiousness, and emotional stability (Strauss et al. 2001 ).
One of the most studied motivational drivers is ratee gender. A review of
objective and subjective indicators of performance as a leader revealed that men
are usually evaluated as more eVective than women (Eagly et al. 1995 ). Societal
culture as a possible contextual variable (Fletcher 2001 ; Fletcher and Perry 2002 )
that aVects an appraiser’s rating of an employee also needs to be considered. It
seems likely that societal values aVect ways in which performance is both concep-
tualized and appraised. A collectivist culture may strongly weight competencies
(e.g. cooperation) relating to team performance (McIntyre and Salas 1995 ) when
evaluating a person’s overall performance. It may also favor intentionally commit-
ting a positive leniency error. Similarly, an individualistic culture that values
competition might promote the use of a comparative appraisal scale.
18.4 Step 3 : Give Feedback and Set Goals
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
Before taking this step, one must realize that diVerent stakeholders use diVerent
referents when evaluating performance. Schrader and Steiner ( 1996 ) suggested
that when making an appraisal, a manager may evaluate performance against
an absolute standard (e.g. the behavioral anchors on a BARS scale), a comparative
standard (e.g. other employees), or an individual standard (e.g. how performance
has changed within the individual over time). Moreover, they found evidence
suggesting that individuals prefer the standards that are most accessible
and available. For instance, a manager may decide an employee will be given
negative feedback based upon absolute standards, while the employee expects
positive feedback on the basis of constantly seeing how poorly their co-workers
are performing, and because the employee thinks his or her performance has
improved since the last appraisal period.
374 g a r y l a t h a m e t a l.