1. Performance Appraisal & Workplace Performance
CIPD, Applied Research Conference 19 December 2016, London

2. Postgraduate Course

3. Postgraduate Course

5. CEBMa: what we do Promote (seminars, papers, blogs, tweets)
Educate (universities & business schools)
Train & coach (companies > projects)
Conduct (and teach) REAs

6. Evidence-based practice Central Premise:
EBP: what is it?
Evidence-based practice
Central Premise:
Decisions should be based on
the ‘best available evidence‘.

7. critically evaluated evidence
EBP: what is it?
Best available =
critically evaluated evidence
from multiple sources

8. Evidence?
information, facts or data supporting (or contradicting) a claim, assumption or hypothesis

9. Sources of evidence Practitioners Scientific literature
problem
solution
Practitioners
professional expertise
Organization internal data
Stakeholders
values and concerns
Scientific literature
empirical studies
Ask
Acquire
Appraise
Aggregate
Apply
Assess

13. Claims

14. Claims

15. Claims

16. Claims

17. Claims

19. Sources of evidence Practitioners Scientific literature
problem
solution
Practitioners
professional expertise
Organization internal data
Stakeholders
values and concerns
Scientific literature
empirical studies
Ask
Acquire
Appraise
Aggregate
Apply
Assess

20. Problem 1: volume ABI/INFORM: more than 5,000 publications
(BTW, most of it is crap)

21. Problem 2: incomprehensible

22. Problem 3
It depends …

23. GREAT! NOW WHAT?

24. Systematic Review (SR)
We need evidence summaries!
Systematic Review (SR)
The agreed-upon standard approach to scientific evidence assessment across fields as diverse as medicine, education, criminal justice etc. and follows a transparent structured methodology for reviewing an entire body of relevant research evidence

25. Rapid Evidence Assessment (SR light)
We need evidence summaries!
Rapid Evidence Assessment (SR light)
Searching: consulting a limited number of databases, and excluding unpublished research. Sometimes an REA may be limited to only meta-analyses or controlled studies.
Data Extraction: only extracting a limited amount of key data, such as year, population, sector, sample size, moderators/mediators, main findings, and effect size.
Critical Appraisal: limiting quality appraisal to methodological appropriateness and methodological flaws.

27. Step 1: ASK
What is known in the scientific literature about the impact of performance appraisal on workplace performance?
What is performance appraisal?
How is it supposed to work?
What is the effect on workplace performance?
What is known about possible moderators and/or mediators
What is known about the reliability and validity?

28. Search for the best available scientific evidence
PRESENTATION ONE
8/05/2018
Step 2: ACQUIRE
Search for the best available scientific evidence
Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice

29. Step 2: ACQUIRE ABI, BSP, PsycINFO Scholarly journals, peer reviewed
PRESENTATION ONE
8/05/2018
Step 2: ACQUIRE
ABI, BSP, PsycINFO
Scholarly journals, peer reviewed
English, scholarly journals, peer-reviewed
1980 to 2016 for meta-analyses; 2000 to 2016 for primary studies
Key words: performance appraisal, performance review, performance evaluation, annual review, and employee evaluation.
Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice

30. PRESENTATION ONE
8/05/2018
Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice

31. step 3: APPRAISE PRESENTATION ONE 8/05/2018
Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice

32. step 3: APPRAISE PRESENTATION ONE 8/05/2018
Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice

33. PRESENTATION ONE
8/05/2018
Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice

34. Oh, and we never look at the p-value, only at the effect sizes
PRESENTATION ONE
8/05/2018
Oh, and we never look at the p-value, only at the effect sizes
Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice

36. PRESENTATION ONE
8/05/2018
Q1: What is it?
‘An evaluation process in which quantitative scores based on pre-determined criteria are assigned and shared with the employee being evaluated’
(e.g. DeNisi & Pritchard, 2006)
Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice

37. Q2: How does it work? PRESENTATION ONE 8/05/2018
Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice

38. Q2: how is it supposed to work?
PRESENTATION ONE
8/05/2018
Q2: how is it supposed to work?
Social comparison theory: individuals tend to compare themselves with others in order to make judgments regarding their performance.
They are concerned not only about their performance in an absolute sense, but also about how they measure up in relation to relevant peers.
Feedback intervention theory: suggests that when confronted with a discrepancy between what they wish to achieve and the feedback received, individuals are strongly motivated to attain a higher level of performance
Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice

39. Q3: Does it work? PRESENTATION ONE 8/05/2018
Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice

40. Q4: Moderators and mediators?
PRESENTATION ONE
8/05/2018
Q4: Moderators and mediators?
Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice

41. Q4: Moderators and mediators?
PRESENTATION ONE
8/05/2018
Q4: Moderators and mediators?
Reactions to feedback, rather than the feedback itself, influence performance (level A)
The perceived fairness of the performance appraisal process has a medium to large moderating effect on future performance (level A)
Negative feedback adversely affects perceived fairness (level C*), whereas feedback that focusses only on positive aspects has a medium positive effect on both perceived fairness and overall job performance (level A*)
Participation has a medium to large moderating effect on perceived fairness (level B).
The quality of the relationship between manager and employee has a substantial moderating effect on the perceived fairness of the performance appraisal (level B)
Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice

42. Q5: Reliability & validity?
PRESENTATION ONE
8/05/2018
Q5: Reliability & validity?
Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice

43. Q5: Rater centric errors
PRESENTATION ONE
8/05/2018
Q5: Rater centric errors
Employees’ contextual performance has a large positive effect on job performance ratings (level A).
Managers’ implicit person theory regarding the malleability of personal attributes has a large effect on how they rate their employees (level A).
Rater training has medium to large positive effects on rating accuracy (level A).
The outcome of managers’ own performance appraisal has a large effect on the way in which they evaluate their employees (level A).
Male employees who experience a conflict between family and work receive lower performance ratings (level A)
Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice

44. Q5: Ratee centric errors
PRESENTATION ONE
8/05/2018
Q5: Ratee centric errors
Employees’ tactics for influencing raters such as ingratiation or self- promotion have a moderate effect on performance ratings (level C).
Employees’ organizational citizenship behaviour has a moderate to large positive effect on performance ratings (level A).
Employees’ political skills have a small positive effect on performance ratings (level C).
Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice

45. Q5: System centric errors
PRESENTATION ONE
8/05/2018
Q5: System centric errors
The purpose of the performance (administrative vs developmental) moderates the performance rating (level A).
The reliability of individual performance measures depends on the type of measurement, the source of measurement and the level of job complexity (level A/B).
Accountability substantially affects both rating outcomes and rating accuracy (level A).
Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice

46. Step 4: Synthesize PRESENTATION ONE 8/05/2018
Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice

47. Step 5: Apply PRESENTATION ONE 8/05/2018
Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice

48. Reactions
Who knew?