Bir Kamu Örgütünde Performans Değerleme Hataları: Ampirik Bir Araştırma

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, Türkiye’de bir Kamu Kuruluşunda kullanılan Performans Değerleme Sisteminde olası performans değerlendirme hatalarının varlığını tespit etmektir. Araştırmada, hale etkisi, horn etkisi, benzerlik etkisi, sıkı değerlendirici etkisi, gevşek değerlendirici etkisi ve benzerlik etkisi olmak üzere altı adet değerleme hatasının mevcudiyeti sorgulanmıştır. Konuyla ilgili teorik çerçevenin ortaya konulmasından sonra, 150 kamu personelinden oluşan bir örneklem kullanılarak, performans değerlendirme sisteminde değerlendirici ve değerlendirilen olarak yer alan personelin altı adet değerleme hatasına yönelik tutumları, araştırmanın hipotezleri çerçevesinde test edilmiştir. Araştırmanın sonuçlarına göre, kamu personeli performans değerleme sisteminde altı adet değerleme hatasının var olduğuna inanmaktadırlar. Araştırmaya dahil edilen personelin değerleme hatalarına ilişkin tutumları statülerine göre anlamlı düzeyde farklılaşmaktadır. Yaş demografik değişkenine göre ise anlamlı bir faklılaşma tespit edilememiştir.

Keywords

• Performans Değerlendirme, Başarı Değerleme, Performans Değerlendirme Hataları, Kamu Örgütleri

Performance Appraisal Biases In A Public Organization: An Emprical Study

Abstract

The objective of the present investigation is to find out the existence of performance appraisal errors or biases in a public organization in Turkey. Magnitude of six types of appraisal errors was studied: the halo effect, the horn effect, the recency effect, the error of strictness, the leniency error and similarity effect. After the theoretical framework was provided, attitudes of the personnel towards to the six appraisal biases tried to be determined in the context of the research hypotheses using sample data collected from 150 public personnel, who are the rater and the ratees in the system. According to the results of the study, personnel who work in the organization think that six performance appraisal errors or biases are present in the public performance appraisal system. Attitudes of the public persons concerning the appraisal errors are significantly varied according to their status, but their ages. Implications for the appraisal errors are discussed, limitations of the study are revealed, and future research directions offered

Keywords

• Performance Appraisal, Performance Evaluation, Performance Appraisal Biases, Public Organizations

References

1. Akın, Adnan, “İşletmelerde İnsan Kaynakları Performansını Değerleme Sürecinde Coach- ing (Özel Rehberlik)”, C.Ü.İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 3 (1), 2002, 97 – 113.
2. Anderson, D., Performance Appraisal, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,63(4), 1994.
3. Aplaki Soner, “A Methodology Proposal for Personal Appraisal System in Hierarchic Organizations”, (Unpublished Master Thesis), Yeditepe University Graduate Institute of Science and Engineering, İstanbul, 1999.
4. Arvey R.D and Campion JE. “The Employment İnterview: A Summary And Review Of Earlier Research”, Personnel Psychology, 35, 1982, 281-322.
5. Bakan İsmail and Kelleroğlu Hakan, “Performans Değerlendirmenin Etkinleştirilmesi Yönünde Çalışanların Düşünceleri: Tutumlar, Beklentiler ve Sonuçlar Konusunda Bir Alan Çalışması”, Yönetim ve Ekonomi – Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 2003, Cilt:10, Sayı:2, 63 - 74
6. “Benefits of Appraisal”. Available On Site: http://www.performanceappraisal.com/benefits.htm (28.02.2006).
7. Bernardin H.J. and Beatty R. W., Performance Appraisal: Assessing Human Behavior at Work , Boston: Kent Publishing Company, 1984.
8. Bernardin, H.J. and Pence, E.C. “Effects of Rater Training: Creating New Response Sets and Decreasing Accuracy”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, (1980), 60-66.

9. Bıçaksızi Adnan et al, “Personel Değerlendirme Sistemi Projesi”, Ankara, 2002.
10. Boland, Tony, and Fowler, Alan, “A Systems Perspective Of Performance Management In Public Sector Organizations”, The International Journal Of Public Sector Management, 2000, Vol:13, Iss:5, 417 - 430
11. Bowman JS, “Performance Appraisal: Verisimilitude Trumps Veracity”, Public Personnel Management, , 28, 1999, 557-577
12. Boyett Joseph H. and Conn, Henry P., Maximum Performance Management: How To Man- age And Compensate People To Meet World Competition, London: Gland bridge Pub- lishing Ltd., 1988.
13. Burke R. J., “Characteristics of Effective Employee Performance Reviews and Develop- ment Interviews: Replication and Extension”, Personnel Psychology, 31, 1978, 903-919.
14. Byham, W.C. and Thornton, G.CAssessment Centers. In R.A.Berk (Ed.), Performance As- sessment: Methods And Applications, London: The Jones Hopkins University Press, 1986.
15. Cardy R.L. and Dobbins, G.H. Performance Appraisal: Alternative Perspectives, Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing Co., 1994
16. Cascio, W.F., Managing Human Resources, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill, op.cit., 1995.
17. Cederblom D., “From Performance Appraisal To Performance Management; One Agency’s experience”, Public Personnel Management, Summer 2002, Vol:31, Iss:2, 131 - 141
18. Cleveland, J.N., Murphy, K.R. and Williams, R. E., “Multiple Uses Of Performance Ap- praisal: Prevalence And Correlates”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 1989, 130-135.
19. Corbett, Barry and Kenny, Brian, “Appraisal And Learning In A Government Agency”,The Learning Organization, 2001, Vol:8, Iss:1, 21 - 35
20. Cynthia D. Fisher, Lyle F. Schoenfeldt and James B. Show, Human Resource Management, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company Proud, 1996.
21. Daley D., Performance Appraisal in the Public Sector, Westport, Ct.:Quorum Books, 1992
22. David A Waldman; Leanne E Atwater, and David Antonio , 05/01/1998, Available On Site: http://www.zigonperf.com/resources/pmnews/360fb_amok.html (27.05.2006).
23. DC Freedman, Hj Arnold,’ Managing Individual and Group Behavior in Organizations,’’ McGraw Hill Book Co., Auckland, 1983.
24. Dessler, Garry., Human Resource Management, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2000.
25. Dicle, Ülkü.,Yönetsel Başarının Değerlendirilmesi Türkiye Uygulaması, Ankara : ODTÜ,İdari Bilimler Fakültesi,Yayın no.43, Ankara,1982.
26. Dornbush , S. M. and W. R Scott, Evaluation and the Exercise of Authority, Jossey-Bass, 1975
27. Erdoğmuş, Nihat and Beyaz Medihan, “Başarı Değerlemede Atfetme Hatası ve Bir Araştırma”, Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (3), 2002, 65-83
28. F. J. Landy, And Farr, J. L. “Performance Rating”, Psychological Bulletin, 87, 1980, 72-107
29. Forest Jourden and Chip Heath,’’The evaluation Gap in performance Perceptions: Il- losory Ideas or groups and Individuals”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (4), 1996, 369-379
30. Fox, S., & Dinur, Y.,“Validity Of Self Assessment: A Field Of Evaluation”, Personnel Psychology, 41, 1988, 141–56
31. Gilbert, Charles A., 13 December 1994, “Performance Appraisals: A Process Analysis of Existing Methods and Trends”, Available on Site:
32. http://home.fuse.net/cgilbert/appraise.htm (19.04.2006)
33. Grote, D., The Complete Guide to Performance Appraisal, New York: American Manage- ment Association, 1996
34. Harel, H. Gedaliahu, Tzafrir, S. Shay, “HRM Practices In The Public And Private Sec- tors: Differences and Similarities”, Public Administration Quarterly, Fall 2001 / Win- ter 2002, Vol:25, Iss: 3 / 4, 316 - 356
35. Hennessey H W Jr, Bernardin H John, “The Relationship Between Performance Appraisal Criterion Specificity And Statistical Evidence Of Discrimination”, Human Resourcee Management, Summer 2003, Vol:42, Iss:2, 143 - 158
36. Huber, V.L., “An Analysis of Performance Appraisal Practices in the Public Sector,” Pub- lic Personel Management Journal, November, 1983, 258-267
37. Hurley, Simon, “Application of team-based 360° feedback systems”, Team Performance Management, 4 (5), 1998, 202-210
38. Jai, Ghorpade, 02.01.2000, “Five Paradoxes of 360 Degree Feedback”, Available on Site: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~wstarbuc/mob/ghorpade.htm (06.06.2006)
39. Jansen E Pieter, “Performance Measurement In Govermental Organizations: A Contin- gent Approach To Measurement And Management Control”, Managerial Finance, 2004, Vol:30, Iss:8, 54 – 68
40. Jas Pauline and Skelcher Chris, “Performance Decline And Turnaraound In Public Or- ganizations: A Theoretical And Empical Analysis”, British Journal Of Management, September 2005, Vol:16, Iss:3, 195 - 211
41. Jawahar I.M. And Williams C.s,”Where All the Children Are Above Average: The Per- formance Appraisal Purpose Affect”, Personnel Psycology, 50, 1997, 905-925.
42. Kane J.S. and Lawler, C.E., “Performance Appraisal Effectiveness. Its Assessment and Determinants”, Research in Organizational Behavior, ed. B.M. Straw (Greenwich, Ct.: JAI Press, 1979).
43. Kane JS, Bernardin JH, Hagan C,and Ross S, “The Effects Of A 360-Degree Appraisal System On Managerial Performance”. In W.W. Tornow (Chair), Upward feedback: The ups and downs of it. Symposium, 10th Annual Conference, Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, Florida,1995
44. Kasten, R. And Weintrau, Z., “Rating Errors and Rating Accuracy: A Field Experimen”, Human Performance, 12 (2), 1999, 137-153
45. Kaynak, Tuğray et al., İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi, İstanbul : İ.Ü.İşletme Fakültesi, Yayın No:7, 2000.
46. Keany T.and Mcgann A., ‘’A comparison of behavioral Expectation Scales and Graphic Rating Scales”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 1975, 695-703.
47. Kluger, A. N., And Denisi, A., “The Effects Of Feedback İnterventions On Perform- ance: A Historical Review, A
48. Kunda, Z.. “The Case For Motivated Reasoning”,Psychological Bulletin, 108, 1990480-498.
49. Landy, F.J. and Farr, J.L., The Measurement of Work Performance: Methods, Theory and Applications, N.Y.: Academic Press. 1983.
50. Lefkowitz, J., “The Role of Interpersonal Affective Regard in Supervisory Performance Ratings: A Literature Review and Proposed Causal Model”, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 73 , 2000, 67-85.
51. Lepsinger, R. and Lucia D., ‘’Creating Champions For 360 Degree Feedback’’, Training and Development, Feb, .52, 1998, 49-52
52. Longenecker, C.O. and Ludwig, D.C. “Ethical Dilemmas in Performance Appraisal Revis- ited”, The Journal of Business Ethics, Number 9, 1990, pp. 53-61
53. Mani, G. Bonnie, “Performance Appraisal Systems,Productivity, And Motivation: A Case Study”, Public Personnel Management, Summer 2002, Vol:31, Iss:2, 141 - 160
54. Maroney, B.,and Bucakley R., “Does Research İn Performance Appraisal İnfluence The Practice Of Performance Appraisal? Regretfully Not”. Public Personnel Management, 21, 1992, 185-196.
55. Mathis, R.L. and Jackson, J.H., Human Resource Management, Min/St. Paul: West Publish- ing, 1994
56. McEvoy, G.M., “Evaluating the Boss”, Personnel Administration, September, 33 (9), 1988, 115-119
57. Meta-Analysis, And A Preliminary Feedback İntervention Theory” Psychological Bulle- tin, 119, 1996, 254–284.
58. Meyer,H. H. , Kay, E., & French, R. P., “Split Roles in performance Appraisal” , Harward Business Review, 65 (1), 1965, 123-9
59. Miceli, M.P., I. Jung, J.P. Near, and D.B. Greenberger. “Predictors and Outcomes of Re- actions to Pay-for-Performance Plans”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 1991, 508- 521.
60. Milkovich, G.M., & Boudreau, J.W, Human Resource Management, (8th ed.). Chicago: Irwin, 1997
61. Miller, E. Corey, Thornton, L. Carl, “How Accurate Are Your Performance Appraisals”, Public Personnel Management, Summer 2006, Vol:35, Iss:2, 153 - 163
62. Miner, .R. “Management Appraisal: A Capsule Review And Current References”, Business Horizon, October, 1968, 83-99
63. Mohrman, A.M., Resnick-West S.M. and Lawler, E.E. Designing Performance Appraisal Systems, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989
64. Mohrman, A., Lawler,E and Resnick,S., “Performance Appraisal Revisited”, Organizational Dynamics, 13 (2), 1984, 20-35,
65. Murphy K.R. and Cleveland, J.N. Performance Appraisal: An Organizational Perspective, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1991
66. Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N., Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social, Organ- izational, and goal-based perspectives, California: Sage, Thousand Oaks, 1995.
67. Ndambakuwa Y. and Mufunda J., “Performance Appraisal System Impact on University Academic Staff Job Satisfaction And Productivity”, Performance Improvement Quarterly, Spring 2006, Vol:19, Iss:1, 117 - 127
68. Noonan, L., and Sulsky, L.M. “Examination Of Frame-Of-Reference And Behavioural Ob- servation Training On Alternative Training Effectiveness Criteria İn A Canadian Military Sample”, Human Performance, 14, 2001. 3-26.
69. Örücü and Mortaş, “Kamu Kurumlarında İş Analizi Çalışmaları – Muğla Üniversitesi Örneği”, Yönetim ve Ekonomi – Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F. Der- gisi,2005,Cilt:12,Sayı:1, 25 –38
70. Örücü and et al, “KİT’lerde Performans Değerleme Çalışmalarına Astların Destek ve Güveni – Muğla / Yatağan Termik Santrali Örneği”, Yönetim ve Ekonomi – Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 2003, Cilt:10, Sayı:2, 51 - 62
71. Palmer, J.K. and Feldman, Jack M, “Accountability and Need for Cognition Effects on Contrast, Halo, and Accuracy in Performance Ratings”, Journal of Psychology, 139 (2), 2005, 119-137
72. “Performance Appraisal”, Available on Site:
73. http://www.performance
74. appraisal.com/basic.htm (10.09.2006)
75. Pulakos, Elaine D. and Wexley, Kenneth N. “The Relationship among Perceptual Similar- ity, Sex, and Performance Ratings in Manager-Subordinate Dyads”, Academy of Management Journal, 26 (1), 1983, 129-139
76. Redman and et al, “Performance Appraisal In An NHS Hospital”, Human Resource Man- agement Journal, 2000, 10 (1), 48 - 63
77. Reilly, R.R. & McGourty, Performance Appraisal In Team Setting, San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1998.
78. Roberts G.E., “The Influence of Participation, Goal Setting, Feedback and Acceptance on Measures of Performance Appraisal Effectiveness,”, Dissertation Abstracts In- ternational (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1990
79. Roch, S.G and O'Sullivan, B. J. “Frame Of Reference Rater Training İssues: Recall, Time And Behavior Observation Training”. International Journal of Training & Devel- opment, , 7(2), 2003, 93-107
80. Schuler, R. S., Managing Human Resource, Min Ist. Paul: West Publishing, 1995
81. Seyidoğlu, Halil Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yazma el Kitabı,Geliştirilmiş 8 nci baskı, İstanbul, 2000
82. Silverman S.B. and Wexley K.N, “Employees Reaction to Performance Appraisal Inter- views as a Function of Their Participation in Rating Scale Development,” Personnel Psychology, 37, 1984, 703-710.
83. Solomonson A. and Lance C., “Examination of the Relationship between True Halo and Halo Effort in Performance Ratings”, Journal of Academic Applied Psychology, 82 (5), 1997, 665–674.
84. Steers R.M. and Lee T.W., “Facilitating Effective Performance Appraisals: The Role of Employee Commitment and Organizational Climate,” in Performance Management and Theory, eds. E.J. Landy and S. Zedeck, (1983), 75-85.
85. Tak, Bilçin, “Performans Değerlendirme Sisteminin Toplam Kalite İlkeleri Açısından Analizi ve Uyumlaştırma Önerileriİ”, Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Hakemli Dergisi ÖNERİ, 19 (5), 2003, 55 – 65.
86. Tetlock, P. E., and Kim, J. “Accountability And Judgment İn A Personality Prediction Task”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Attitudes and Social Cognition, 52, 1987, 700-709.
87. Thorton, G., III,’’Psychometric Properties of Self-Appraisal of Job Performance,’’, Per- sonal psychology, 33 (2), 1980, 263-271.
88. Tracey, W. R., The Human Resources Glossary, Washington DC.:St. Lucie Press, 1998.
89. Tsui, A.S. and Barry, B. “Interpersonal Affect And Rating Errors”, Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 29, 1986, 586-599.
90. Tziner A. and Kopelman, R. E., “Is there a Preferred Performance Rating Format? A Non-psychometricPerspective”,AppliedPsychology, 51 (3), 2002, 479-503
91. Uyargil Cavide, İşletmelerde Performans Yönetimi Sistemi, İstanbul: İ.Ü. İşletme Fakültesi Yayınları, 1994.
92. Welbourne, T. M. &, Johnson, D.E, & Amir, E., “The Role-Based Performance Scale: Va- lidity Analysis of A Theory-Based Measure”, Academy of Management Journal, 41, 1998, 540 – 555.
93. Wexley, K. N., and G. P. Latham, Developing And Training Human Resources İn Organiza- tions. Dallas TX:Scott, 1981
94. Wiersma V.C. and Latham G.B. “The Practicability Of Behavior Observation Sacles, Be- havioral Expectation Scales, And Trait Scales”, Group And Organizaitonal Manage- ment, 20, 1986, 297-309
95. Williams, R., Performance Management, Thomson Learning Press: London, 1988.
96. Woods, H.Robert, Sciarini Michael and Breiter Deborah, “Performance Appraisal In Ho- tels”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 39 (2) 1998, 25-29.
97. Yalçın, Azmi, “Farklı Performans Değerleme Sistemlerine İlişkin İşgören Tercihlerinin Belirlenmesi Üzerine Bir Araştırma”, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2002, Cilt:9, Sayı:9, 3 - 17
98. Yücel, Recep, “İnsan Kaynakları Yönetiminde Başarı Değerlendirme”, Dokuz Eylül Üniver- sitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3 (1), 1999, 110 - 128
99. Zayonc, R.B. “Feeling And Thinking. Preferences Need No Inferences”, American Psy- chologist, 35, 1980, 151–175. Appendix-1
100. Demographics and Performance Appraisal Errors Scale Items Used As Measure Part 1: Demografics
101. Your Status a Managers b Employee
102. Number of years completed in the organization (tenure) a 6 and below
103. b Between 7 and 15 c 16 and above 3. Your age a 26 and below
104. b Between 27- 36 c 37-and above
105. Your Education level a
106. High school or below year col- lege college) e Ph.D.
107. Your gender a Male b Female
108. Part 2: Your Perceptions Concerning Performance Appraisal Errors
109. In this part, answer the following questions considering the behavior of your rater
110. superiors towards you, or other people in similar position to you, and your predictions
111. and perceptions on how such behavior may be reflected on your appraisal report.
112. Questions 6, 7 measure the halo perceptions.
113. How many of your rater-superiors to date have the tendency to view affirmatively
114. all behaviors or actions of a subordinate because the superior likes a particular be
115. havior or action of the subordinate? a Don’t know b None c Some d Most e All
116. How many of your rater-superiors to date have made clear by his words or acts
117. that he places special emphasis on one or several behaviors or qualities specified in
118. the evaluation form from the start of your working together? a Don’t know b None c Some d Most e All
119. Questions 8 measure the horn effect
120. How many of your rater-superiors to date have the tendency to view negatively
121. all behaviors or actions of a subordinate because the superior dislikes a particular
122. behavior or action of the subordinate? a Don’t know b None c Some d Most e All
123. Questions 9-10 measure the recency effect perceptions
124. How many of your rater-superiors to date do you think have been influenced by
125. frequent display of behaviors they like and the lack of behaviors they dislike in the
126. evaluation time? a Don’t know b None c Some d Most e All
127. How many of your work mates have spared more effort in the evaluation time
128. to display behaviors liked by the superiors and avoid errors disliked by the superi- ors? a Don’t know b None c Some d Most e All
129. Question 11 measures the error of strictness perceptions
130. Some raters called “tight raters” have very high evaluation standards. For ex
131. ample they may say “the highest I would give is ninety (out of a hundred). How
132. many of your rater-superiors would you qualify as “tight raters” to date? a Don’t know b None c Some d Most e All
133. Question 12 measures the leniency errorperceptions
134. Some raters called “loose raters” have the tendency to give top rating to all sub
135. ordinates unless they have a clear deficiency, or they may not want to “adversely
136. impact” the future of subordinates. How many of your rater-superiors would you
137. qualify as “loose raters” to date? a Don’t know b None c Some d Most e All
138. Questions 13-14 measure the similarity effect perceptions
139. How many of your rater-superiors have the tendency to give better rating to
140. those subordinates similar to themselves in behavior, tastes and tendencies? a Don’t know b None c Some d Most e All
141. How many of your work mates have made efforts to demonstrate that their be
142. haviors, tastes and tendencies match those of the superior or hide those not matching
143. with the superior’s, with the intention that such would please the superior and con
144. sequently receive better ratings? a Don’t know b None c Some d Most e All