Performance Appraisals and the Impact of Forced Distribution—An Experimental Investigation

References

• Abeler J, Altmann S, Kube S, Wibral M. Gift exchange and workers' fairness concerns—When equality is unfair. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. (2010) 8(6):1299–1324Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arvey RD, Murphy KR. Performance evaluation in work settings. Annual Rev. Psych. (1998) 49:141–168Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bellemare C, Shearer B. Gift giving and worker productivity: Evidence from a firm-level experiment. Games Econom. Behav. (2009) 67(1):233–244Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernardin HJ, Cooke DK, Villanova P. Conscientiousness and agreeableness as predictors of rating leniency. J. Appl. Psych. (2000) 85(2):232–236Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blanco M, Engelmann D, Normann H-T. A within-subject analysis of other-regarding preferences. Games Econom. Behav. (2010) 72(2):321–338Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bol JC. The determinants and performance effects of managers' performance evaluation biases. Accounting Rev. (2011) 86(5):1549–1575Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bolton GE, Ockenfels A. ERC—A theory of equity, reciprocity and competition. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2000) 90(1):166–193Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bretz RD, Milkovich GT, Read W. The current state of performance appraisal research and practice: Concerns, directions, and implications. J. Management (1992) 18(2):321–352Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G. Attribution and reciprocity in an experimental labor market. J. Labor Econom. (2004) 22(3):665–688Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Rabin M. Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quart. J. Econom. (2002) 117(3):817–869Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clark AE, Masclet D, Villeval MC. Effort and comparison income: Experimental and survey evidence. Indust. Labor Relations Rev. (2010) 63(3):407–426Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohn A, Fehr E, Goette L. Fairness and effort: Evidence from a field experiment. (2009) . Working paper, University of Zurich, ZurichGoogle Scholar
• Dannenberg A, Riechmann T, Sturm B, Vogt C. Inequity aversion and individual behavior in public good games: An experimental investigation. (2007) . ZEW Discussion Paper 07-034, Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforchung, Mannheim, GermanyGoogle Scholar
• Engellandt A, Riphahn RT. Evidence on incentive effects of subjective performance evaluations. Indust. Labor Relations Rev. (2011) 64(2):241–257Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Schmidt KM. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quart. J. Econom. (1999) 114(3):817–868Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Gächter S, Kirchsteiger G. Reciprocity as a contract enforcement device—Experimental evidence. Econometrica (1997) 64(4):833–860Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Kirchsteiger G, Riedl A. Does fairness prevent market clearing? An experimental investigation. Quart. J. Econom. (1993) 108(2):437–460Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U. z-tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Econom. (2007) 10(2):171–178Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibbs M, Merchant KA, van der Stede WA, Vargus ME. Determinants and effects of subjectivity in incentives. Accounting Rev. (2003) 79(2):409–436Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, List JA. Putting behavioral economics to work: Testing for gift exchange in labor markets using field experiments. Econometrica (2006) 74(5):1365–1384Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greiner B. The online recruitment system ORSEE—A guide for the organization of experiments in economics. (2004) . Technical Report 2003-10, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Jena, GermanyGoogle Scholar
• Hannan RL, Kagel JH, Moser DV. Partial gift exchange in an experimental labor market: Impact of subject population differences, productivity differences, and effort requests on behavior. J. Labor Econom. (2002) 20(4):923–951Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harbring C, Irlenbusch B. Sabotage in tournaments: Evidence from a laboratory experiment. Management Sci. (2011) 57(4):611–627Link, Google Scholar
• Hennig-Schmidt H, Rockenbach B, Sadrieh A. In search of workers' real effort reciprocity—A field and a laboratory experiment. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. (2010) 8(4):817–837Google Scholar
• Holland K. Performance reviews: Many need improvement. New York Times (2006) September 10). http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/10/business/yourmoney/10mgmt.htmlGoogle Scholar
• Jawahar J, Williams CR. Where all the children are above average: A meta analysis of the performance appraisal purpose affect. Personnel Psych. (1997) 50(4):905–925Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kampkötter P, Sliwka D. Differentiation and performance—An empiricial investigation on the incentive effects of bonus plans. (2011) . Mimeo, University of Cologne, Cologne, GermanyGoogle Scholar
• Kane JS, Bernardin HJ, Villanova P, Peyrefitte J. Stability of rater leniency: Three studies. Acad. Management J. (1995) 38(4):1036–1051Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kube S, Maréchal MA, Puppe C. Do wage cuts damage work morale? Evidence from a natural field experiment. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. (2012) . ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
• Landy FJ, Farr JL. Performance rating. Psych. Bull. (1980) 87(1):72–107Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazear EP. Pay equality and industrial politics. J. Political Econom. (1989) 97(3):561–80Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazear EP, Rosen S. Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts. J. Political Econom. (1981) 89(5):841–864Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moers F. Discretion and bias in performance evaluation: the impact of diversity and subjectivity. Accounting, Organ. Soc. (2005) 30(1):67–80Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murphy KJ, Burns WJ. Performance measurement and appraisal: Motivating managers to identify and reward performance. Performance Measurement, Evaluation, and Incentives (1992) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston) 37–62Google Scholar
• Murphy KR, Cleveland JN. Understanding Performance Appraisal (1995) (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) Google Scholar
• Ockenfels A, Sliwka D, Werner P. Bonus payments and reference point violations. (2010) . IZA Discussion Paper 4795, Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn, GermanyGoogle Scholar
• Orrison A, Schotter A, Weigelt K. Multiperson tournaments: An experimental examination. Management Sci. (2004) 50(2):268–279Link, Google Scholar
• Prendergast C, Topel R. Favoritism in organizations. J. Political Econom. (1996) 104(5):958–978Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prendergast CJ. The provision of incentives in firms. J. Econom. Literature (1999) 37(1):7–63Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prendergast CJ, Topel RH. Discretion and bias in performance evaluation. Eur. Econom. Rev. (1993) 37(2):355–365Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rynes SL, Gerhart B, Parks L. Personnel psychology: Performance evaluation and pay for performance. Annual Rev. Psych. (2005) 56:571–600Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schleicher DJ, Bull RA, Green SG. Rater reactions to forced distribution rating systems. J. Management (2009) 35(4):899–927Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schotter A, Weigelt K. Asymmetric tournaments, equal opportunity laws, and affirmative action: Some experimental results. Quart. J. Econom. (1992) 107(2):511–539Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scullen SE, Bergey PK, Aiman-Smith L. Forced distribution rating systems and the improvement of workforce potential: A baseline simulation. Personnel Psych. (2005) 58(1):1–32Crossref, Google Scholar