PERFORMANS DEĞERLENDİRMEYE BİLİŞSEL YAKLAŞIM VE PSİKOMETRİK HATALAR

Performans değerlendirmesi, değerlendiriciler açısından bakıldığında başkaları ile ilgili yargılamalar yapmak amacıyla kullanılan sürekli bir bilgi işleme süreci olarak görülmektedir. Performans değerlendirmesini zihinsel bir süreç olarak ele alan bilişsel yaklaşım, değerlendiricilerin performansla ilgili yargılarını nasıl oluşturduklarını ortaya koymakta vedeğerlendiricilerin bilişsel yapılarını ve karar verme sürecini daha iyi anlamamızı sağlamaktadır. Ayrıca bu bilişsel yaklaşım değerlendirme sürecinde değerlendiricilerin insani özelliklerinden kaynaklanan hataların varlığını ortaya koyarak bu hataları "psikometrik hatalar" olarak kavramsallaştırmaktadır. Bahsi geçen değerlendirme hatalarının doğru bir biçimde anlaşılabilmesi, bu hataların minimize edilmesi ve değerlendirmelerin etkinliğinin arttırılabilmesi ancak konuya bilişsel bir bakış açısıyla yaklaşılması ile mümkün olabilmektedir. Çünkü insan davranışını daha iyi anlamamızı, açıklamamızı ve tahmin edebilmemizi değerlendirmeleri ile ilgili karmaşıklığın azaltılmasının, değerlendirme sistemlerinin daha iyi hazırlanmasının ve değerlendiricilerin daha objektif öngörülmektedir. Bu bağlamda uluslararası literatürde birçok araştırmaya konu olan bilişsel yaklaşım, psikoloji ve yönetim disiplinlerinin ortak bir çalışma alanı olarak önemli bir akım oluşturmuştur. Ancak Türkiye'deki akademik literatür incelendiğinde disiplinler arası bu konunun gözden kaçırıldığı ve konuya hak ettiği ilgi ve önemin henüz verilmediği görülmektedir. Yapılan bu teorik çalışma ile performans değerlendirmede değerlendiricilerin bilişsel bilgi işleme sürecinin; gözlemleme, kategorileme, depolama, geri çağırma ve karar verme aşamalarından oluştuğu ve bu sürecin psikometrik hatalara kaynak teşkil ettiği gerçeği ortaya konulmuştur. Aynı zamanda ülkemiz akademik literatüründe sistem ve değerlendirici hataları ana başlıkları altında incelenen performans değerlendirme hatalarının gelecek çalışmalar için psikometrik hatalar bağlamında da yeni bir açılımla ele alınması için gerekli teorik dayanaklar sunulmuştur

COGNITIVE APPROACH TO PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AND PSYCHOMETRIC ERRORS

Performance appraisal, in the viewpoint of rater, is seen as a continuous process of information processing in order to make judgements about others. The cognitive approach that considers performance appraisal as a cognitive process, shows how raters make their judgements about performance and provides a better understanding for raters’ cognitive structure and decision making process. Besides, this cognitive approach conceptualize the errors occurred from raters’ human nature in the process of appraisal as “psychometric errors”. Ability to correctly understand, minimize aforementioned errors and improve effectiveness of appraisals can be achieved only by approaching the subject with cognitive perspective. Because of this approach that helps us to understand, explain and predict human nature in a better way, it is predicted that complexity of performance appraisals will be reduced, appraisal systems will be prepared more effectively and raters will be able to appraise more objectively and accurately. In this regard, the cognitive approach discussed in numerous studies in the international literature, started a strong trend as an interdisciplinary area of psychology and administrative sciences. However, it can be seen that in Turkish literature this interdisciplinary subject is overlooked and could not get the attention and emphasis it deserves, yet. In this theoretical study, it is presented that the cognitive information process of raters in performance appraisal is consisted of observation, categorization, storing, recalling, and decision making stages and this process is the source of psychometric errors. Also, the theoretical basis were stated for that the performance appraisal errors considered in the frame of system and rater errors in Turkish academic literature should be addressed with a new point of view as psychometric errors in oncoming studies

___

  • Appelbaum, Steven H., Roy, Michel ve Gilliland, Terry (2011). “Globalization of Performance Appraisals: Theory and Applications”. Management Decision, 49 (4), 570-585.
  • Arvey, Richard D. ve Murphy, Kevin R. (1998). “Performance Evaluation in Work Settings”. Annual Review of Psychology, 49 (1), 141-168.
  • Ashauer, Shirley A. (2010). “An “Uneasy Look at Performance Appraisal”: Beliefs about Performance Appraisal Outcomes, Cognitive Appraisals, and Emotions as Antecedents of Upward Rating Distortion”. Graduate School of the University of Missouri, Doktora Tezi, St. Louis.
  • Baltes, Boris B. ve Parker, Christopher P. (2000). “Reducing the Effects of Performance Expectations on Behavioral Ratings”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82 (2), 237–267.
  • Banks, Cristina G. ve Murphy, Kevin R. (1985). “Toward Narrowing the Research-Practice Gap in Performance Appraisal”. Personnel Psychology, 38 (2), 335-345.
  • Bernardin, John H. ve Buckley, Ronald M. (1981). “Strategies in Rater Training”. Academy of Management Review, 6 (2), 205-212.
  • Bernardin, John H., Cardy, Robert L. ve Carlyle, Jamie J. (1982). “Cognitive Complexity and Appraisal Effectiveness: Back to the Drawing Board?”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67 (2), 151-160.
  • Bernardin, John H. ve Villanova, Peter (2005). “Research Streams in Rater Self-Efficacy”. Group and Organization Management, 30 (1), 61-88.
  • Bernardin, John H. ve Walter, C. S. (1977). “Effects of Rater Training and Diary-Keeping on Psychometric Error in Ratings”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (1), 64-69.
  • Bless, Herbert, Fiedler, Klaus ve Strack, Fritz (2004). “Social Cognition: How Individuals Construct Social Reality”. New York: Psychology Press: Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Boachie-Mensah, Francis O. ve Seidu, Peter A. (2012). “Employees’ Perception of Performance Appraisal System: A Case Study”. International Journal of Business and Management, 7 (2), 73-88.
  • Bowman, James S. (2010). “The Success of Failure: The Paradox of Performance Pay”. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 30 (1), 70-88.
  • Bretz, Robert D., Milkovich, George T. ve Read, Walter (1990). “Comparing the Performance Appraisal Practices in Large Firms with the Directions in Research Literature: Learning More and More about Less and Less”. Center for Advanced Human Resources Studies Working Papers Series Working Paper, #89-17.
  • Colella, Adrienne, DeNisi, Angelo ve Varma, Arup (1997). “Appraising the Performance of Employees with Disabilities: A Review and Model”. Human Resource Management Review, 7 (1), 27-53.
  • DeNisi, Angelo S., Cafferty, Thomas P. ve Meglino, Bruce M. (1984). “A Cognitive View of the Performance Appraisal Process: A Model and Research Propositions”. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33 (3), 360-396.
  • DeNisi, Angelo S. ve Peters, Lawrence H. (1996). “Organization of Information in Memory and the Performance Appraisal Process: Evidence From the Field”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (6), 717-737.
  • DeNisi, Angelo S., Robbins, Tina ve Cafferty, Thomas P. (1989). “Organization of Information Used for Performance Appraisals: Role of Diary-Keeping”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 (1), 124-129.
  • Eysenck, Michael W. ve Keane, Mark T. (2005). “Cognitive Psychology”. New York: Psychology Press: Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Feldman, Jack M. (1981). “Beyond Attribution Theory: Cognitive Processes in Performance Appraisal”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66 (2), 127-148.
  • Ferris, Gerald R., Munyon, Timothy P., Basik, Kevin ve Buckley, M. Ronald (2008). “The Performance Evaluation Context: Social, Emotional, Cognitive, Political, and Relationship Components”. Human Resource Management Review, 18 (3), 146-163.
  • Fleenor, John W., Smither, James W., Atwater, Leanne E., Braddy, Phillip W. ve Sturm, Rachel E. (2010). “Self–Other Rating Agreement in Leadership: A Review”. The Leadership Quarterly, 21 (6), 1005–1034.
  • Fletcher, Clive (2001). “Performance Appraisal and Management: The Developing Research Agenda”. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74 (4), 473-487.
  • Galambos, James A., Abelson, Robert P. ve Black, John B. (1986). “Knowledge Structures”. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc..
  • Hilgard, Ernest R. (1980). “The Trilogy of Mind: Cognition, Affection, and Conation”. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 16 (2), 107-117.
  • Ilgen, Daniel R., Barnes-Farrel, Janet L. ve McKellin, David B. (1993). “Performance Appraisal Process Research in the 1980s: What Has It Contributed to Appraisal in Use?”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54 (3), 321-368.
  • Ivancevich, John M. (1979). “Longitudinal Study of the Effects of Rater Training on Psychometric Error in Ratings”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64 (5), 502-508.
  • Jennings, Tiffany, Palmer, Jerry K. ve Thomas, Adrain (2004). “Effects of Performance Context on Processing Speed and Performance Ratings”. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18 (4), 453-463.
  • Judge, Timothy A. ve Ferris, Gerald R. (1993). “Social Context of Performance Evaluation Decisions?”. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (1), 80-105.
  • Kline, Theresa J. B. ve Sulsky, Lorne M. (2009). “Measurement and Assessment Issues in Performance Appraisal”. Canadian Psychology, 50 (3), 161-171.
  • Lance, Charles E., Woehr, David J. ve Fisicaro, Sebastiano A. (1991). “Cognitive Categorization Processes in Performance Evaluation: Confirmatory Tests of Two Models”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12 (1), 1-20.
  • Landy, Frank J. ve Farr, James L. (1980). “Performance Rating”. Psychological Bulletin, 87 (1), 72- 107.
  • Levy, Paul E. ve Williams, Jane R. (2004). “The Social Context of Performance Appraisal: A Review and Framework for the Future”. Journal of Management, 30 (6), 881-905.
  • Lord, Robert G. (1985). “Accuracy in Behavioral Measurement: An Alternative Definition Based on Raters’ Cognitive Schema and Signal Detection Theory”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70 (1), 66-71.
  • MacDonald, Heather A. ve Sulsky, Lorne M. (2009). “Rating Formats and Rater Training Redux: A Context-Specific Approach for Enhancing the Effectiveness of Performance Management”. Canadian Psychological Association, 41 (4), 227-240.
  • Mount, Michael K. (1984). “Supervisor, Self- and Subordinate Ratings of Performance and Satisfaction with Supervision”. Journal of Management, 10 (3), 305-320.
  • Myford, Carol M. (2012). “Rater Cognition Research: Some Possible Directions for the Future”. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 31 (3), 48-49.
  • Neck, Christopher P., Stewart, Greg L. ve Manz, Charles C. (1995). “Thought Self-Leadership as a Framework for Enhancing the Performance of Performance Appraisers”. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31 (3), 278-302.
  • Perry, Elissa L. ve Finkelstein, Lisa M. (1999). “Toward A Broader View of Age Discrimination in Employment-Related Decisions: A Joint Consideration of Organizational Factors and Cognitive Processes”. Human Resource Management Review, 9 (1), 21-49.
  • Rusli, Ahmad ve Nur Azman, Ali (2004). “Performance Appraisal Decision in Malaysian Public Service”. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17 (1), 48-64.
  • Saal, Frank E., Downey, Ronald G. ve Lahey, Mary A. (1980). “Rating the Ratings: Assessing the Psychometric Quality of Rating Data”. Psychological Bulletin, 88 (2), 413-428.
  • Solomonson, Andrew L. ve Lance, Charles E. (1997). “Examination of the Relationship between True Halo and Halo Error in Performance Ratings”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (5), 665-674.
  • Spence, Jeffrey R. ve Keeping, Lisa (2011). “Conscious Rating Distortion in Performance Appraisal: A Review, Commentary, and Proposed Framework for Research”. Human Resource Management Review, 21 (2), 85-95.
  • Spicer, David P. ve Ahmad, Rusli (2006). “Cognitive Processing Models in Performance Appraisal: Evidence from the Malaysian Education System”. Human Resource Management Journal, 16 (2), 214-230.
  • Thornton, George C. ve Zorich, Steven (1980). “Training to Improve Observer Accuracy”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65 (3), 351-354.
  • Walsh, James P. (1995). “Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Notes from a Trip Down Memory Lane”. Organization Science, 6 (3), 280-321.
  • Woehr, David J. (2008). “On the Relationship between Job Performance and Ratings of Job Performance: What Do We Really Know?”. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1 (2), 161-166.
  • Woehr, David J. ve Huffcutt, Allen I. (1994). “Rater Training for Performance Appraisal: A Quantitative Review”. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67 (3), 189- 205.
  • Wright, Robert P. (2004). “Mapping Cognitions to Better Understand Attitudinal and Behavioral Responses in Appraisal Research”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25 (3), 339-374.
  • Wright, Robert P. ve Cheung, Frenda, K. K. (2007). “Articulating Appraisal System Effectiveness Based on Managerial Cognitions”. Personnel Review, 36 (2), 206-230.