to train raters to take into account situational constraints when making perform-
ance evaluations.
- 1 Teams
People rarely work alone. Invariably they are members of one or more teams.
Hence, eVective performance management requires coaching and appraising both
the individual and the team as a whole. For example, in the current dynamic
environment in which most individuals and teams operate, both the individual and
the team as a whole must possess the knowledge, skills, and eYcacy beliefs that
enable adaptability (Chen et al. 2005 ).
It is likely that Wherry and Bartlett’s ( 1982 ) theory of rating is as applicable to the
appraisal of a team as it is to appraising an individual. However, the metrics for
evaluating a team may diVer from those used for appraising an individual member.
For instance at the individual level, mental models involve knowledge coherence,
or the extent to which the relatedness among pairs of concepts reXects a consistent
structure. On the other hand, team mental models reXect inter-member similarity
in terms of the extent to which the same knowledge base is shared and embraced.
Both Chen et al. ( 2004 ) and Kozlowski and Klein ( 2000 ) argued that team mental
models capture qualitatively diVerent constructs from their individual-level ana-
logues. Performance ratings of the adaptive performance may not capture the same
construct as do objective performance ratings of an individual’s outputs used to
assess a team’s adaptive performance (Chen et al. 2005 ).
18.5 Step 4 :MakeaDecision
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
Yet to be incorporated into performance management is the decision-making
literature. The necessity for doing so is that decision-making is embedded in
appraisals of employees. What rating should be assigned? What aspects of
a person’s performance could beneWt from coaching? Who should be given add-
itional responsibility? Who should be given a salary increase? Who should be
removed from the team, transferred, or promoted to a new team?
The decision-making literature is replete with empirical demonstrations of
heuristics or ‘rules of thumb’ that entrap decision makers (Kahneman and
Frederick 2002 ). For example, knowledge of performance outcomes strongly aVects
how an employee is appraised. Positive outcomes, in contrast to negative
ones, increase the probability that an employee’s past decisions/behaviors will be
376 g a r y l a t h a m e t a l.