INDUSTRIAL PSYCH EXAM QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS WITH COMPLETE SOLUTIONS VERIFIED
Schmidt & Hunter 1998
This article discusses quantifying the dollar amount each employee produces as a performance indicator.
(Liana)
Is it possible to quantify this amount?
Is there anything that might be missed when quantifying each employee's contribution?
What would be the best method of quantifying an employee's dollar amount produced?
If you successfully quantify the dollar amount each employee produces, are there any problems that may
arise? (e.g., Nordstrom Employee working commission).
Performance on the job was typically measured by supervisor ratings. What are our thoughts on this
method? Other measures used were production records, sales records. (Liana).
The article discusses reference checks, indicating that at the time of publication employers avoided
providing negative information about former employees due to legal concerns (being sued). This
measure provided a 12% increase in validity over the GMA measure. (Liana)
Has this changed? Are employers now more willing to provide negative information about applicants?
Do you believe reference checks are useful?
Denisi & Murphy (2017)
We review 100 years of research on performance appraisal and performance management, highlighting
the articles published in JAP, but including significant work from other journals as well. We discuss
trends in eight substantive areas: (1) scale formats, (2) criteria for evaluating ratings, (3) training, (4)
,reactions to appraisal, (5) purpose of rating, (6) rating sources, (7) demographic differences in ratings,
and (8) cognitive processes, and discuss what we have learned from research in each area. We also focus
on trends during the heyday of performance appraisal research in JAP (1970-2000), noting which were
more productive and which potentially hampered progress. Our overall conclusion is that JAP's role in
this literature has not been to propose models and new ideas, but has been primarily to test ideas and
models proposed elsewhere. Nonetheless, we conclude that the papers published in JAP made
important
contribution to the filed by addressing many of the critical questions raised by others. We also suggest
several areas for future research, especially research focusing on performance management.
Our title included a question mark suggesting potential doubts
about whether the substantial body of research published in the last
100 years in JAP has made a substantial contribution to our
understanding of performance appraisal and performance management.
The answer is both "yes" and "no." It should be clear that we
have come a long way from examining rating scale formats to
determine their effects on rating errors, and JAP has contributed
substantially to this progress. We have certainly learned that the
specific format of the rating scale used is not the most important
consideration in developing appraisal systems and that traditional
error measures are not the best way to evaluate such systems. We
have learned that demographic characteristics may have less influence
on ratings than we had believed, that some rater cognitive
,processes are related to appraisal decisions, and that it is possible
to train rates to do a better job. Certainly, these accomplishments
can be considered progress.
However, perhaps the most significant progress we have made
during this time is to come to better appreciate the critical influence
of the context in which performance appraisal occurs on the
process and outcomes of appraisal (Murphy & DeNisi, 2008), and
the role of JAP in this area is smaller and more indirect. Performance
appraisal is used for a variety of purposes in organizations
(Cleveland et al., 1988), and these purposes influence the way
performance is defined (e.g., task performance vs. contextual performance;
Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997) and the way
raters and ratees approach the task of performance appraisal (Murphy
& Cleveland, 1995). The appraisal effectiveness model proposed
by Levy and Williams (2004) summarizes much of the
research on the role of social context and emphasizes the importance
of rate reactions to appraisals and the acceptability of ratings,
and some of the work summarized in this review has appeared in
JAP. However, most of the research published in JAP has been
decontextualized, examining different facets of the rating process
(e.g., cognitive processes, rating scales, rater training) in isolation,
and it has become clear that we will not make progress in understanding
how or why appraisals succeed without considering why
appraisals are done in the first place, and how the climate, culture,
, norms, and beliefs in organizations shape the appraisal process and
the outcomes of appraisals.
Contextualizing performance appraisal research implies paying
attention to when and why performance appraisal is carried out and
the contextual variables that are likely to be important range from
quite distal (e.g., national cultures) to quite proximal (e.g.,
supervisor-subordinate relationships). For example, there may be
aspects of national culture (or organizational culture) that make it
less acceptable to give anyone negative feedback, and this may put
pressure on raters to intentionally inflate ratings. In fact, we know
little about how culture and societal norms really affect appraisal
decisions and processes; JAP has made few contributions here.
There is descriptive research that indicates that different practices
and policies are more likely in some parts of the world than in
others (e.g., Varma, Budhwar, & DeNisi, 2008), but we do not
fully understand how cultural norms may make certain practices
more or less effective. Also, we need more research on the effectiveness
of individual-level performance management techniques
in different cultures. The archive for this issue also includes a
model of various factors that might affect performance appraisal
processes and changes in individual performance. This model is
adapted from Murphy and DeNisi (2008).
At the most fundamental level, the question mark in our title
ANSWERS WITH COMPLETE SOLUTIONS VERIFIED
Schmidt & Hunter 1998
This article discusses quantifying the dollar amount each employee produces as a performance indicator.
(Liana)
Is it possible to quantify this amount?
Is there anything that might be missed when quantifying each employee's contribution?
What would be the best method of quantifying an employee's dollar amount produced?
If you successfully quantify the dollar amount each employee produces, are there any problems that may
arise? (e.g., Nordstrom Employee working commission).
Performance on the job was typically measured by supervisor ratings. What are our thoughts on this
method? Other measures used were production records, sales records. (Liana).
The article discusses reference checks, indicating that at the time of publication employers avoided
providing negative information about former employees due to legal concerns (being sued). This
measure provided a 12% increase in validity over the GMA measure. (Liana)
Has this changed? Are employers now more willing to provide negative information about applicants?
Do you believe reference checks are useful?
Denisi & Murphy (2017)
We review 100 years of research on performance appraisal and performance management, highlighting
the articles published in JAP, but including significant work from other journals as well. We discuss
trends in eight substantive areas: (1) scale formats, (2) criteria for evaluating ratings, (3) training, (4)
,reactions to appraisal, (5) purpose of rating, (6) rating sources, (7) demographic differences in ratings,
and (8) cognitive processes, and discuss what we have learned from research in each area. We also focus
on trends during the heyday of performance appraisal research in JAP (1970-2000), noting which were
more productive and which potentially hampered progress. Our overall conclusion is that JAP's role in
this literature has not been to propose models and new ideas, but has been primarily to test ideas and
models proposed elsewhere. Nonetheless, we conclude that the papers published in JAP made
important
contribution to the filed by addressing many of the critical questions raised by others. We also suggest
several areas for future research, especially research focusing on performance management.
Our title included a question mark suggesting potential doubts
about whether the substantial body of research published in the last
100 years in JAP has made a substantial contribution to our
understanding of performance appraisal and performance management.
The answer is both "yes" and "no." It should be clear that we
have come a long way from examining rating scale formats to
determine their effects on rating errors, and JAP has contributed
substantially to this progress. We have certainly learned that the
specific format of the rating scale used is not the most important
consideration in developing appraisal systems and that traditional
error measures are not the best way to evaluate such systems. We
have learned that demographic characteristics may have less influence
on ratings than we had believed, that some rater cognitive
,processes are related to appraisal decisions, and that it is possible
to train rates to do a better job. Certainly, these accomplishments
can be considered progress.
However, perhaps the most significant progress we have made
during this time is to come to better appreciate the critical influence
of the context in which performance appraisal occurs on the
process and outcomes of appraisal (Murphy & DeNisi, 2008), and
the role of JAP in this area is smaller and more indirect. Performance
appraisal is used for a variety of purposes in organizations
(Cleveland et al., 1988), and these purposes influence the way
performance is defined (e.g., task performance vs. contextual performance;
Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997) and the way
raters and ratees approach the task of performance appraisal (Murphy
& Cleveland, 1995). The appraisal effectiveness model proposed
by Levy and Williams (2004) summarizes much of the
research on the role of social context and emphasizes the importance
of rate reactions to appraisals and the acceptability of ratings,
and some of the work summarized in this review has appeared in
JAP. However, most of the research published in JAP has been
decontextualized, examining different facets of the rating process
(e.g., cognitive processes, rating scales, rater training) in isolation,
and it has become clear that we will not make progress in understanding
how or why appraisals succeed without considering why
appraisals are done in the first place, and how the climate, culture,
, norms, and beliefs in organizations shape the appraisal process and
the outcomes of appraisals.
Contextualizing performance appraisal research implies paying
attention to when and why performance appraisal is carried out and
the contextual variables that are likely to be important range from
quite distal (e.g., national cultures) to quite proximal (e.g.,
supervisor-subordinate relationships). For example, there may be
aspects of national culture (or organizational culture) that make it
less acceptable to give anyone negative feedback, and this may put
pressure on raters to intentionally inflate ratings. In fact, we know
little about how culture and societal norms really affect appraisal
decisions and processes; JAP has made few contributions here.
There is descriptive research that indicates that different practices
and policies are more likely in some parts of the world than in
others (e.g., Varma, Budhwar, & DeNisi, 2008), but we do not
fully understand how cultural norms may make certain practices
more or less effective. Also, we need more research on the effectiveness
of individual-level performance management techniques
in different cultures. The archive for this issue also includes a
model of various factors that might affect performance appraisal
processes and changes in individual performance. This model is
adapted from Murphy and DeNisi (2008).
At the most fundamental level, the question mark in our title
