Appraisal Ratings, Halo, and Selection: A Study Using Sales Staff
Abstract
Summary: Supervisor ratings are useful criteria for the validation of selection instruments but may be limited because of the presence of rating errors, such as halo. This study set out to show that supervisor ratings which are high in halo remain successful criteria in selection. Following a thorough job analysis, a customer service questionnaire was designed to assess the potential of retail sales staff on three “orthogonal” subscales labelled Dealing with people, Emotions and energy, and Solitary style. These subscales were uncorrelated with supervisor ratings made about 8 weeks later. However, the supervisor ratings were correlated with an overall scale derived from the three scales of the customer service questionnaire. These results support the view that supervisor ratings generally consist of global impressions and suggest that these global impressions are useful measures of overall performance. This field study confirms laboratory results that halo does not necessarily reduce rating accuracy.
References
References
Balzer, W.K. Sulsky, L.M. (1992). Halo and performance appraisal research: A critical examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 975– 985Borman, W.C. (1977). Consistency of rating accuracy and rating errors in the judgement of human performance. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 20, 238– 252Carmen, J. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment of the SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66, 33– 35Cooper, W.H. (1981). Ubiquitous halo. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 218– 244Costa, P. McCrae, R. (1989). The NEO-PI/NEO-FFI Manual supplement . Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment ResourcesFeldman, J.M. (1981). Beyond attribution theory: Cognitive processes in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 127– 148Fisicaro, S.A. (1988). A reexamination of the relation between halo error and accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 239– 244Flanagan, J.C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327– 358Frei, R.L. McDaniel, M.A. (1998). Validity of customer service measures in personnel selection: A review of criterion and construct evidence. Human Performance, 11, 1– 27Furnham, A. (1994). The validity of the SHL customer Service Questionnaire (CSQ). International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 2, 157– 165Furnham, A. Coveney, R. (1996). Personality and customer service. Psychological Reports, 79, 675– 681Hoffman, C.C. Nathan, B.R. Holden, L.M. (1991). A comparison of validation criteria: Objective versus subjective performance measures and self-versus supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 44, 602– 619Hogan, J. Roberts, B.W. Issues and non-issues in the fidelity-bandwidth trade-off. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 627– 637Jackson, C.J. (1996). An individual differences approach to the halo-accuracy paradox. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 947– 957Kozlowski, S.W. Kirsch, M.P. (1987). The systematic distortion hypothesis, halo and accuracy: An individual level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 252– 261Lance, C.E. LaPointe, J.A. Stewart, A.M. (1994). A test of the context dependency of three causal models of halo rating error. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 332– 340Landy, F.J. Farr, J.L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72– 107Murphy, K.R. Balzer, W.K. (1986). Systematic distortions in memory-based behaviour ratings and performance evaluation: Consequences for rating accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 39– 44Murphy, K.R. Cleveland, J.N. (1991). Performance appraisal: An Organizational perspective . Boston: Allyn and BaconNathan, B.R. Alexander, R.A. (1988). A comparison of criteria for test validation: A meta-analytical investigation. Personnel Psychology, 41, 517– 535Nathan, B.R. Tippins, N. (1990). The consequences of halo “error” in performance ratings: A field study of the moderating effects of halo on test validation results. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 290– 296Ones, D.S. Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in personality measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 609– 626Parasuraman, A. Zeithaml, V. Berry, L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of marketing, 49, 41– 50Parasuraman, A. Zeithaml, V. Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 67, 420– 450Schneider, R.J. Hough, L.M. Dunnette, M.D. (1996). Broadsided by broad traits: How to sink science in five dimensions or less. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 639– 655
