The Role of Calibration Committees in Subjective Performance Evaluation Systems

References

• Alchian AA, Demsetz H (1972) Production, information costs, and economic organization. Amer. Econom. Rev. 62(5):777–795.Google Scholar
• Arvey RD, Murphy KR (1998) Performance ratings in work settings. Annual Rev. Psych. 49:141–168.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baiman S, Rajan MV (1995) The informational advantages of discretionary bonus schemes. Accounting Rev. 70(4):557–579.Google Scholar
• Baker GP, Jensen MC, Murphy KJ (1988) Compensation and incentives: Practice vs. theory. J. Finance 43(3):593–616.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beaulieu PR (1994) Commercial lenders’ use of accounting information in interaction with source credibility. Contemporary Accounting Res. 10(2):557–585.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beaulieu PR (2001) The effects of judgments of new clients’ integrity upon risk judgments, audit evidence, and fees. Auditing J. Practice Theory 20(2):85–99.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH, Stenger SE (1979) Source credibility in social judgment: Bias, expertise, and the judge’s point of view. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 37(1):48–74.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bjerke D, Cleveland J, Morrison R, Wilson W (1987) Officer fitness report evaluation study. Navy Personnel Research and Development Center Report TR 88-4, Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.Google Scholar
• Bol JC (2008) Subjectivity in compensation contracting. J. Accounting Literature 27:1–24.Google Scholar
• Bol JC (2011) The determinants and performance effects of managers’ performance evaluation biases. Accounting Rev. 86(5):1549–1575.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bretz RD, Milkovich GT, Read W (1992) The current state of performance evaluation research and practice: Concerns, directions, and implications. J. Management 18(2):321–352.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cameron AC, Miller DL (2015) A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inferences. J. Human Resources 50(2):317–372.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campbell D (2008) Nonfinancial performance measures and promotion-based incentives. J. Accounting Res. 46(2):297–332.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chenhall RH (2003) Management control system design within its organizational context: Findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Accounting Organ. Soc. 28(2–3):127–168.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coletti AL, Sedatole KL, Towry KL (2005) The effect of control systems on trust and cooperation in collaborations. Accounting Rev. 80(2):477–500.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Colquitt JA (2001) On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. J. Appl. Psych. 86(3):386–400.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Colquitt JA, Conlon D, Wesson MJ, Porter COLH, Ng KY (2001) Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. J. Appl. Psych. 86(3):425–445.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Colquitt JA, Scott BA, Rodell JB, Long DM, Zapata CP, Conlon DE, Wesson MJ (2013) Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. J. Appl. Psych. 98(2):199–236.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Demeré BW, Krishnan R, Sedatole KL, Woods A (2016) Do the incentive effects of relative performance measurement vary with the ex ante probability of promotion? Management Accounting Res. 30:18–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dholakia RR, Sternthal B (1977) Highly credible sources: Persuasive facilitators or persuasive liabilities? J. Consumer Res. 3(4):223–232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dierdorff EC, Surface EA, Brown KG (2010) Frame-of-reference training effectiveness: Effects of goal orientation and self-efficacy on affective, cognitive, skill-based, and transfer outcomes. J. Appl. Psych. 95(6):1181–1191.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Engellandt A, Riphahn RT (2011) Evidence on incentive effects of subjective performance evaluations. Indust. Labor Relations Rev. 64(2):241–257.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fisher JG, Maines LA, Peffer SA, Sprinkle GB (2005) An experimental investigation of employer discretion in employee performance evaluation and compensation. Accounting Rev. 80(2):563–583.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Friedrich J (1993) Primary error detection and minimization (PEDMIN) strategies in social cognition: A reinterpretation of confirmation bias phenomena. Psychol. Rev. 100(2):298–319.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibbs M, Merchant KA, Van Der Stede WA, Vargus ME (2004) Determinants and effects of subjectivity in incentives. Accounting Rev. 79(2):409–436.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Giebe T, Gürtler O (2012) Optimal contracts for lenient supervisors. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 81(2):403–420.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Golman R, Bhatia S (2012) Performance evaluation inflation and compression. Accounting Organ. Soc. 37(8):534–543.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gow ID, Ormazabal G, Taylor DJ (2010) Correcting for cross-sectional and time-series dependence in accounting research. Accounting Rev. 85(2):483–512.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grabner I, Künneke J, Moers F (2018) How calibration committees can mitigate performance evaluation bias: An analysis of implicit incentives. Working paper, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
• Grant RM (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management J. 17(suppl 2):109–122.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grote D (2005) Forced Ranking (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Harris MM (1994) Rater motivation in the performance evaluation context: A theoretical framework. J. Management 20(4):737–756.Google Scholar
• Higgins ET, Bargh JA (1987) Social cognition and social perception. Annual Rev. Psych. 38:369–425.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Höppe F, Moers F (2011) The choice of different types of subjectivity in CEO annual bonus contracts. Accounting Rev. 86(6):2023–2046.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hopwood AG (1972) An empirical study of the role of accounting data in performance evaluation. J. Accounting Res. 10(Supplement):156–182.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huber VL (1989) Comparison of the effects of specific and general performance standards on performance appraisal decisions. Decision Sci. 20(3):545–557.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ittner CD, Larcker DF, Meyer M (2003) Subjectivity and the weighting of performance measures: Evidence from a balanced scorecard. Accounting Rev. 78(3):725–758.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1995) Specific and general knowledge, and organizational structure. J. Appl. Corporate Finance 8(2):4–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kane JS, Bernardin HJ, Villanova P, Peyrefitte J (1995) Stability of rater leniency: Three studies. Acad. Management J. 38(4):1036–1051.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kerr NL, Tindale RS (2004) Group performance and decision making. Annual Rev. Psych. 55:623–655.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lawler EE (1990) Strategic Pay: Aligning Organizational Strategies and Pay Systems (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).Google Scholar
• Levy PE, Williams JR (2004) The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the future. J. Management 30(6):881–905.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liberti JM, Mian AR (2009) Estimating the effect of hierarchies on information use. Rev. Financial Stud. 22(10):4057–4090.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lipe MG (1998) Individual investors’ risk judgments and investment decisions: The impact of accounting and market data. Accounting Organ. Soc. 23(7):625–640.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lowe RH, Vodanovich SJ (1995) A field study of distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction and organizational commitment. J. Bus. Psych. 10(1):99–114.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McDonald P (2003) Staffing today’s internal audit function: Audit executives need a realistic strategy for obtaining top talent to handle growing demands. Internal Auditor 60(5):46–51.Google Scholar
• McFarlin DB, Sweeney PD (1992) Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Acad. Management J. 35(3):626–637.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McGregor J (2006) The struggle to measure performance. Businessweek 3966:26–8.Google Scholar
• Merchant KA (1989) Rewarding Results (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Milkovich GT, Wigdor AK (1991) Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Evaluation and Merit Pay (National Academy Press, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Moers F (2005) Discretion and bias in performance evaluation: The impact of diversity and subjectivity. Accounting Organ. Soc. 30(1):67–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moers F (2006) Performance measure properties and delegation. Accounting Rev. 81(4):897–924.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mohrman AM, Resnick-West SM, Lawler EE (1989) Designing Performance Evaluation Systems: Aligning Appraisals and Organizational Realities (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).Google Scholar
• Murphy KR (2008) Explaining the weak relationship between job performance and ratings of job performance. Indust. Organ. Psych. 1(2):148–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murphy KR, Cleveland JN (1991) Performance Appraisal: An Organizational Perspective (Allyn and Bacon, Boston).Google Scholar
• Noonan LE, Sulsky LM (2001) Impact of frame-of-reference and behavioral observation training on alternative training effectiveness criteria in a Canadian military sample. Human Performance 14(1):3–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Petersen MA (2009) Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. Rev. Financial Stud. 22(1):435–480.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pornpitakpan C (2004) The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. J. Appl. Soc. Psych. 34(2):243–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prendergast C (1999) The provision of incentives in firms. J. Econom. Literature 37(1):7–63.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prendergast C (2002) The tenuous trade-off between risk and incentives. J. Political Econom. 110(5):1071–1102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prendergast C, Topel RH (1993) Discretion and bias in performance evaluation. Eur. Econom. Rev. 37:355–365.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prendergast C, Topel RH (1996) Favoritism in organizations. J. Political Econom. 104(2–3):958–78.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rajan MV, Reichelstein S (2006) Subjective performance indicators and discretionary bonus pools. J. Accounting Res. 44(3):585–618.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rajan MV, Reichelstein S (2009) Objective versus subjective indicators of managerial performance. Accounting Rev. 84(1):209–237.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reichert B, Woods A (2017) Does motivational orientation impact the effectiveness of incentive contracts? J. Management Accounting Res. 29(2):87–103.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Risher H (2011) Getting performance management on track. Compensation Benefits Rev. 43(5):273–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Risher H (2014) Reward management depends increasingly on procedural justice. Compensation Benefits Rev. 46(3):135–138.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saal FE, Landy FJ (1977) The mixed standard rating scale: An evaluation. Organ. Behav. Human Performance 18(1):19–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saal FE, Downey RG, Lahey MA (1980) Rating the ratings: Assessing the psychometric quality of rating data. Psychol. Bull. 88(2):413–428.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schappe P (1998) Understanding employee job satisfaction: The importance of procedural and distributive justice. J. Bus. Psych. 12(4):493–503.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schneider DE, Bayroff AG (1953) The relationship between rater characteristics and validity of ratings. J. Appl. Psych. 37(4):278–280.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sedatole K, Swaney A, Woods A (2016) The implicit incentive effects of horizontal monitoring and team member dependence on individual performance. Contemporary Accounting Res. 33(3):889–919.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith DE (1986) Training programs for performance appraisal: A review. Acad. Management Rev. 11(1):22–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Society for Human Resource Management (2011) SHRM poll: Performance management and other workplace practices. Accessed May 1, 2012, https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/employee-relations/pages/calibrateperformance.aspx.Google Scholar
• Spence JR, Keeping LM (2010) The impact of non-performance information on ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. J. Organ. Behav. 31(4):587–608.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tan H, Jamal K (2001) Do auditors objectively evaluate their subordinates’ work? Accounting Rev. 76(1):99–110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tziner A, Murphy KR, Cleveland JN (2005) Contextual and rater factors affecting rating behavior. Group Organ. Management 30(1):89–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Woehr DJ (1994) Understanding frame-of-reference training: The impact of training on the recall of performance information. J. Appl. Psych. 79(4):525–534.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Woehr DJ, Huffcutt AI (1994) Rater training for performance appraisal: A quantitative review. J. Occupational Organ. Psych. 67(3):189–205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Woods A (2012) Subjective adjustments to objective performance measures: The influence of prior performance. Accounting Organ. Soc. 37(6):403–425.Crossref, Google Scholar