MODESTY BIAS IN SELF-RATINGS OF PERFORMANCE: A TEST OF THE CULTURAL RELATIVITY HYPOTHESIS

Although self-ratings of performance are usually higher than ratings obtained from supervisors, Farh, Dobbins, and Cheng (1991) found that Taiwanese workers exhibited modesty bias (i.e., self-ratings that were lower than supervisory ratings). They explained their findings in terms of broad cultural differences between Taiwanese and Western workers. To test this cultural relativity hypothesis, we replicated their study using data from several organizations in mainland China. As is typically found in Western research, Chinese workers showed leniency in self-ratings (i.e., self-ratings that were higher than supervisor or peer ratings), which suggests that broad cultural factors do not explain the modesty bias reported by Farh et al.     

What is acceptable for women may not be for men: The effect of family conflicts with work on job‐performance ratings

We conducted a laboratory study examining the effect of a family conflict with work on performance appraisal ratings given to men and women. Overall, the experience of a family conflict was associated with lower performance ratings, and ratee sex moderated this relationship. Men who experienced a family conflict received lower overall performance ratings and lower reward recommendations than men who did not, whereas ratings of women were unaffected by the experience of a family conflict. The sex bias was not evident when performance was evaluated on the more specific dimension of planning. Neither rater gender nor work‐family role attitudes moderated the sex bias. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.     

“激将法”会激发还是打击员工?感知能力不被领导信任的“双刃剑”效应

感知能力不被领导信任是信任研究的重要内容。已有研究普遍认为感知不被领导信任会对员工的自我产生不利影响。相反, 传统领导方式“激将法”则认为领导的不信任可以刺激员工展现更好的自我。为了解释上述矛盾, 本研究基于自我评价理论和心理逆反理论, 采用实验研究和多源多时间点问卷调查研究方法, 探讨了感知能力不被领导信任对员工自我的“双刃剑”效应及边界条件。研究结果表明, 当员工感知领导能力较强时, 感知能力不被领导信任会通过降低员工的工作效能感削弱员工的工作努力和绩效表现; 当员工感知领导能力较弱时, 感知能力不被领导信任会通过增强员工证明自我能力动机提升员工的工作努力和绩效表现。     

CULTURAL RELATIVITY IN ACTION: A COMPARISON OF SELF-RATINGS MADE BY CHINESE AND U.S. WORKERS

Using a sample of 982 leader-subordinate dyads drawn from nine different organizations in the Republic of China (i.e., Taiwan), self-ratings of performance were compared with supervisory ratings of subordinate performance. Results indicated that Chinese employees rated their job performance less favorably than did their supervisors (i.e., they exhibited a modesty bias). This modesty bias occurred relatively uniformly across gender, various educational levels, and age groups. These results are contrary to the typically reported U.S. finding that self-ratings of performance are more lenient than are supervisory ratings. A further comparison of the means of supervisory and self-ratings between this study and previous U.S. research revealed that the modesty bias appeared to be produced by the lower self-ratings made by Chinese workers as compared to their U.S. counterparts. The findings suggest that culture plays a critical role in shaping workers' perceptions of their own work performance. Results of this study are discussed in terms of their implications for future research and practice in international human resource management.     

Dropped on the way to the top: Gender and managerial derailment

We attempt to make sense of ongoing gender disparities in the upper ranks of organizations by examining gender bias in leaders’ assessments of managers’ derailment potential. In a large managerial sample (Study 1: N ～ 12,500), we found that ineffective interpersonal behaviors were slightly less frequent among female managers but slightly more damaging to women than men when present. Evidence of bias was not found in performance evaluations but emerged when leaders were asked about derailment potential in the future. We replicated this pattern of effects in a second large managerial sample (Study 2: N ～ 35,500) and in two experimental studies (Studies 3 and 4) in which gender and interpersonal behaviors were manipulated. In Study 4, we also showed that when supervisors believe that a manager might derail in the future, they tend to withdraw mentoring support and sponsorship, which are especially critical for women's career advancement. Our research highlights the importance of leaders’ perceptions of derailment potential—which differ from evaluations of performance or promotability—both because they appear to be subject to stereotype‐based gender bias and because they have important implications for the mentoring and sponsorship that male and female managers receive.     

Abusive leadership versus objectifying job features: Factors that influence organizational dehumanization and workers’ self-objectification

Recent research has revealed that work often can undermine people's humanness by promoting a view of them as mere objects. In particular, the workers’ meta-perceptions of being treated as company resources (i.e., organizational dehumanization) and their self-perceptions of being instrument-like (i.e., self-objectification) could be triggered by several factors. Previous research has identified that abusive supervisors and engaging in objectifying (repetitive, fragmented and other oriented) tasks are two of the main key factors that affect worker's dehumanization. The present project aims to disentangle the extent both factors (perceptions of abusive leadership and performing objectifying tasks) contribute to created perceptions of organizational dehumanization and self-objectification among workers that, ultimately, affects workers job satisfaction. In Study 1 (N = 208 workers), we measured the extent perceived abusive supervisors and objectifying job features predicted organizational dehumanization, self-objectification, and job satisfaction. The results indicate that abusive supervisors predicted perceptions of organizational dehumanization and workers self-objectification in a higher extent than objectifying job features, while workers job satisfaction was predicted in a higher extent by objectifying job features. In Study 2 (N = 141), we experimentally manipulated the abusive (versus nonabusive) supervisors and the objectifying (versus nonobjectifying) tasks in a laboratory setting. Results also indicated that the abusive supervisor exerts a greater influence than performing objectifying tasks on organizational dehumanization, self-objectification, and job satisfaction. The detrimental effect of an abusive supervisor in comparison with other working conditions on workers’ humanness is discussed, and practical implications are highlighted.     

The implications of perceived leader favouritism in the context of leader-member exchange relationships

Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory suggests that supervisors have relatively high-quality exchange relationships with some employees and relatively low-quality relationships with others. Prior investigations indicate that employees who have high-quality LMX relationships with their supervisors benefit in terms of more positive work attitudes and higher performance than those who do not. However, when employees feel like their supervisors are favouring some employees over others, it is likely to undermine the positive effects of LMX (even among employees who have high-quality exchanges with their supervisor). Using data from 305 employees and their coworkers, we found that the positive effects of LMX (regarding organizational citizenship behaviour, withdrawal behaviour, and relative deprivation regarding one’s career) were weakened by perceived leader favouritism. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.     

The Joint Impact of Achievement Goals and Performance Feedback on Information Giving

This research examined how performance feedback moderates the effects of individuals' achievement goals on information exchange when carrying out a novel and complex task. Experiment 1 demonstrated that mastery goal individuals who received positive performance feedback gave less modified information about their task performance to their exchange partner relative to both mastery goal individuals who received negative feedback and performance goal individuals (who received either negative or positive feedback). In Experiment 2, we found that relative to performance goals, mastery goals led to a stronger reciprocity orientation and a weaker exploitation orientation. Also, mastery goal individuals provided information of higher quality than performance goal individuals, thereby explaining the observed findings in Experiment 1.     

Positivity bias in employees' self-ratings of performance relative to supervisor ratings: The roles of performance type,performance-approach goal orientation,and perceived influence

As hypothesized, data from two field studies among employees and their supervisors showed that employees are more likely to positively bias their self-ratings relative to supervisor ratings when creative performance rather than inrole performance is being evaluated. In addition, employees' performance-approach goal orientation and perceived influence were found to enhance positivity bias in self-ratings of creative performance. Moreover, performance-approach goal orientation and perceived influence appeared to combine and interact in their effects, such that the impact of perceived influence on positivity bias in self-ratings was larger when performance-approach goal orientation was weaker rather than stronger.     

Causal Attributions of Ghanaian Industrial Workers for Accident Occurrence

This study confirms the self-defensive attribution hypothesis on causal attributions of accidents in Ghana's work environment. In this investigation, Ghanaian industrial workers and their supervisors assigned causality to industrial accidents, and their responses were compared. The results showed that the victims attributed their accidents to external causes to a greater extent than did the supervisors, and to internal causes to a lesser extent than did the supervisors. This finding reflects the tendency toward self-protective bias, whereby people tend to project blame for their failures onto external circumstances.     

Local dominance in health risk perception

Local comparisons with a few people displace the influence of general comparisons with many people during self-evaluation of performance and ability. The current research examined whether this local dominance effect obtains in the domain of health risk perception, an outcome of critical importance given its direct relation to preventative health behaviours. Participants received manipulated feedback indicating that their risk of diabetes (Study 1) or a serious car accident (Study 2) ranked above average or below average relative to numerous peers. Additionally, some participants were told that their risk ranked highest or lowest relative to a few peers. Participants evaluated their risk as significantly higher when they only knew that it ranked above average than below average. However, this effect was eliminated among participants who received additional local comparison information. These findings highlight the potential biasing influence of local comparison on everyday health judgment and behaviour.     

The Influence of Self-Ratings versus Peer Ratings on Supervisors'' Performance Judgments

This study investigated the extent to which supervisors use feedback from outside sources in making performance judgments. A simulation was conducted in which participants with organizational supervisory experience made an initial performance judgment about a profiled employee. Participants then received additional information that was discrepant from their initial judgment (positive or negative) from one of two sources (the profiled employee himself or one of his peers). The direction of the discrepant information and its source interacted in determining final ratings, such that, participants were more likely to use discrepant information to alter their performance judgments in a consistent direction when the source was a peer than when the source was the employee himself. Furthermore, participants' opinions about the usefulness of peer information for performance judgments moderated this interaction. Specifically, participants who believed that information from an employee's peers was useful, were more likely to use discrepant information provided by a peer when making final performance judgments than were participants who did not believe that information from an employee's peers was useful.     

Leaders as Planners and Movers: Supervisors' Regulatory Modes and Subordinates' Performance

In three field studies, we found that leaders high in both locomotion and assessment tendencies (Studies 1 and 2: evaluated by subordinates; Study 3: evaluated by leaders themselves) elicited higher levels of performance from their subordinates (Studies 1 and 3: as assessed by the subordinates themselves; Study 2: as assessed by their supervisors) than leaders low in one or both of these tendencies. The research supports the notion that locomotion and assessment constitute critical regulatory functions whose conjunction is indispensible for successful performance, whether on the level of the individual (Kruglanski et al., 2000) or the group (Mauro et al., 2009).     

Preparing direct service staff to teach people with severe disabilities: A comprehensive evalution of an effective and acceptable training program

In light of the continuing need for residential, direct service staff to be able to teach people with severe disabilities, we comprehensively evaluated a program to train staff in behavioral teaching strategies. The program was developed and evaluated with attention given to recent concerns in the staff management literature regarding shortcomings with staff training research. The training program, involving a maximum of four, 2-hr classroom instruction sessions and three in vivo observation and feedback sessions, was evaluated in four studies. In Study 1, the program was shown to improve verbal skills of 13 direct service staff regarding behavioral teaching principles and terminology. In Study 2, the program was demonstrated to improve performance based teaching skills of nine staff and four staff supervisors. In Study 3, the program was shown to result in improvements in adaptive skills of three clients with severe disabilities when direct care staff used their newly acquired teaching skills with the clients. In Study 4, the training program was shown to be well received among 17 staff trainees, although the trainees were more accepting of some program components than others. Results of the studies are discussed in regard to the importance of agencies providing effective and acceptable staff training programs. Future research areas also are noted, focusing on the need to determine, and minimize where possible, the amount of time required to conduct successful staff training.     

“Walking the talk”: the role of frontline supervisors in preventing workplace accidents

ABSTRACT

Most existing safety research focuses on climate and leadership, with most leadership studies investigating transformational leadership, which is likely to be more impactful when exhibited by executives that by frontline supervisors. Therefore, focusing on frontline supervisors, we investigate how leaders who “walk the talk”, by directly modelling safety behaviours, might encourage subordinates to behave more safely. Using a three-level sample consisting of 579 employees and their supervisors working in 161 groups within 53 organizations, we test a multisource multilevel indirect effects model. Results indicate that safety climate and supervisors modelling safety compliance explain unique variance in safety outcomes. We then addressed an unanswered question concerning whether safety climate is best conceptualized as a group or organizational-level phenomenon, finding that the group-level assessment of safety climate explained more variance in safety outcomes than the organizational-level assessment of safety climate. Both sets of results are consistent with social information processing theory and social learning theory, which highlight the immediate social environment’s influence on employees’ behaviour.     

“Forgive Me,I'm New”: Three Experimental Demonstrations of the Effects of Attempts to Excuse Poor Performance

Three experiments were conducted to examine subjects’ impressions of the performance of employees believed to be new to their jobs. Experiment 1 was a laboratory experiment in which 88 undergraduate students evaluated the performance of an instructor giving a lecture. Experiment 2 was a naturalistic field experiment in which 118 shoppers at a discount store evaluated the performance of the employees who bagged their orders. Finally, Experiment 3 was a field experiment in which 69 people responding to a telephone survey evaluated the performance of the interviewer. In all three experiments, participants who were not adversely affected by the workers’ job performance evaluated the workers more highly when they were believed to be new than when they had no knowledge of workers’ experience. In this case, the positive impressions sought by identifying one's newness were observed. These effects were also found among subjects rating workers who performed their jobs well despite their new status, providing evidence of an augmentation effect. However, subjects who were adversely affected by the workers’ actions evaluated workers lower when they were believed to be new than when they had no knowledge of workers’ experience. As such, the desired impression management effects backfired. The practical implications of these findings are discussed.     

Too Old to Train or Reprimand: The Role of Intergroup Attribution Bias in Evaluating Older Workers

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to explore the role rater and target age play in the evaluations of poorly performing workers. Intergroup attribution theory suggests that rater age predicts the attributions made for the poor performance of older workers.

Design/Methodology/Approach

In this study, 203 supervisors in various industries completed measures of causal attribution and evaluations for a poorly performing hypothetical subordinate.

Findings

Compared to the poor performance of younger targets, the poor performance of older targets was more likely to be attributed to external and controllable causes by older raters and more likely to be attributed to stable causes by younger raters. These attributions predicted willingness to punish and likelihood to provide training.

Implications

Our findings were partially supported by intergroup attribution theory and suggest that this theory may be useful in understanding how older workers’ performance is evaluated.

Originality/Value

This is one of the first studies to utilize intergroup attribution theory among supervisors in exploring how older workers are evaluated in the workplace and to demonstrate that the theory predicts how older workers’ poor performance will be attributed. Our study provides evidence that when evaluating a poorly performing older target, older raters will be more inclined to attribute this performance to controllable causes and thus be more punitive than younger raters. Further, we provide some evidence that raters will be more punitive and less willing to provide training when evaluating poorly performing targets to whom they are similar.     

GETTING CREDIT FOR PROACTIVE BEHAVIOR:SUPERVISOR REACTIONS DEPEND ON WHAT YOU VALUE AND HOW YOU FEEL

Although proactive behavior is important in organizations, it is not always appreciated by supervisors. To explain when supervisors reward proactivity with higher overall performance evaluations, we draw on attribution theory. We propose that employees' values and affect send signals about their underlying intentions, which influence supervisors' attributions about whether employees deserve credit for proactive behaviors. More specifically, we hypothesize that if employees express strong prosocial values or low negative affect, the proactive behaviors of voice, issue-selling, taking charge, and anticipatory helping will have stronger relationships with supervisors' performance evaluations. We test these hypotheses with samples of 103 managers and their direct supervisors (Study 1) and 55 firefighters and their platoon supervisors (Study 2). The hypotheses were supported in both studies, suggesting that proactive behaviors are more likely to contribute to higher supervisor performance evaluations when employees express strong prosocial values or low negative affect.     

When Accomplishments Come Back to Haunt You: The Negative Effect of Competence Signals on Women's Performance Evaluations

This research explores the possibility that the very accomplishments that are critical to success during the hiring process (e.g., educational attainment, promotion history) can lead to a drop in future performance evaluations for women. We theorized that evaluators may see such competence signals as a threat to the traditional gender hierarchy, which leads to a negative bias when evaluating women's on‐the‐job performance. In Study 1, we examined this hypothesis among commanding officers in the U.S. military, who gave lower performance ratings to female subordinates whose pay grade approached their own. The same was not true for male subordinates. Studies 2, 3a, and 3b experimentally tested the boundary conditions of this effect using two additional competence signals (educational attainment and past career successes) and 2 different populations. Across these studies, we replicated the negative relationship between competence signal strength and performance evaluations for female subordinates but only under conditions in which the evaluator would be particularly likely to experience gender hierarchy threat. Specifically, it emerged when the evaluator was male and high social‐dominance oriented and when the female subordinate's objective on‐the‐job performance was high. Finally, Study 3a demonstrated how organizations can mitigate this negative bias by using objective (rather than subjective) performance evaluations.     

(Still) Modern Times: Objectification at work

A great deal of research has investigated gender‐related objectification. In the current work, we aim to extend the empirical research on this phenomenon to the working domain. Consistent with several theoretical assumptions, we expected that factory workers would be objectified as a consequence of their work. In Study 1, we showed that each of the critical features of factory work (i.e., repetitiveness of movements, fragmentation of activities and dependence on the machine) significantly affected the view of the worker as an instrument (vs. a human being) and as less able to experience human mental states. Coherently, we found that factory workers, unlike artisans, were perceived as more instrument‐like (Study 2) and as less able to experience mental states (Study 3) when participants were asked to focus on the target's manual activities rather than on the target as a person. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are considered.