This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 30 October 2014, At: 09:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The International Journal of HumanResource ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

The influence of independent self-construal on rater self-efficacy inperformance appraisalStéphane Brutus a , Clive Fletcher b & Caroline Baldry ca John Molson School of Business, Concordia University , Montréal,Québec, Canadab Goldmiths' College London, and Warwick Business School , UKc School of Management, Queensland University of Technology ,Brisbane, AustraliaPublished online: 23 Sep 2009.

To cite this article: Stéphane Brutus , Clive Fletcher & Caroline Baldry (2009) The influence ofindependent self-construal on rater self-efficacy in performance appraisal, The InternationalJournal of Human Resource Management, 20:9, 1999-2011, DOI: 10.1080/09585190903142431

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190903142431

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

28 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

The influence of independent self-construal on rater self-efficacyin performance appraisal

Stephane Brutusa*, Clive Fletcherb and Caroline Baldryc

aJohn Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; bGoldmiths’College London, and Warwick Business School, UK; cSchool of Management, Queensland

University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

This paper extends current knowledge on the use of performance evaluations inorganizations by investigating the influence of self-construal on rater self-efficacy.Results from a survey completed by 105 experienced managers indicate thatindependent self-construal is related to various dimensions of rater self-efficacy.Moreover, experience with appraisals was found to moderate these relationships.The implications of these findings for the research and the practice of performanceappraisal are discussed.

Keywords: independence; performance appraisal; rater; self; self-efficacy

Introduction

Performance appraisal is a dynamic process that requires a rater to observe and record

the performance of others, to pose an evaluative judgment as to the quality of that

performance, to provide feedback to the individuals evaluated, and finally to outline

developmental opportunities to those same ratees (Murphy and Cleveland 1995). Much

energy is expended in organizations to help raters in this process and curtail rating

inflation. For one, much work focuses on the design of the mechanics of the evaluation

itself ranging from the format of the rating scale (Jelley and Goffin 2001; Kaiser and

Kaplan 2005; Yun, Donahue, Dudley and McFarland 2005) to the use of force-distribution

rating systems (Bretz, Milkovich and Read 1992; Schleicher, Bull and Green 2008). Also,

some systems rely on statistical corrections of ratings to remove some of the inflation

(Bernardin and Villanova 2005). Rater training represents a different approach by helping

evaluators use performance appraisal systems (Woehr and Huffcutt 1994; Bernardin,

Buckley, Tyler and Wiese 2000). Finally, incentives for raters and other accountability

mechanisms have also been used to compel evaluators to avoid rating inflation (London,

Smither and Adsit 1997; Shore and Tashchian 2002). Despite these efforts, many

performance appraisal systems fall short of achieving expected results (Bretz et al. 1992;

Coens and Jenkins 2000; Fletcher 2001); the most salient shortcomings being the tendency

for raters to provide higher evaluations than deserved. Rating inflation is a thorny issue

because on one hand it undermines the integrity of performance management systems by

preventing the just allocation of rewards and creating perceived inequity among

organizational members (Kane, Bernardin, Villanova and Peyrefitte 1995; Murphy and

Cleveland 1995) while on the other hand, this rating tendency has mainly positive

consequences for both raters and ratees. In other words, the issue of rating inflation is

ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online

q 2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09585190903142431

http://www.informaworld.com

*Corresponding author. Email: brutus@jmsb.concordia.ca

The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

Vol. 20, No. 9, September 2009, 1999–2011

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

28 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

paradoxical in that it hurts the organization but benefits individuals. In the next paragraph

we delineate the dynamics of rating inflation from the perspective of the rater.

Research has shown that there is a strong motivational component to performance

evaluations (Longnecker, Sims and Gioia 1987; Bernardin, Cooke, Ross and Villanova

2000). According to Murphy and Cleveland (1995) ‘Raters do not fail to yield accurate

ratings because they are incapable of accuracy but rather because they are unwilling to rate

accurately’ (p. 265). In many ways, undeserved elevated ratings protect raters as it allows

them to avoid the social costs related to the provision of low evaluations (Longnecker et al.

1987; Fried, Tiegs and Bellamy 1992). A few studies have looked at the underlying causes

of rating inflation. Rater personality and the context of the evaluation (i.e., public vs.

private) have both been found to strongly predict the tendency to provide elevated ratings

(Bernardin et al. 2000; Jawahar and Williams 1997). However, the determinant of rating

inflation that has received the most attention from the research community has been rater

self-efficacy. This construct, which represent the main variable of this study, is explained

in more detail in the following section.

Rater self-efficacy refers to raters’ beliefs that they can fulfill their role obligations as

pertain to the various phases of performance management (Bernardin and Villanova

2005). In many ways performance management relies on socially demanding behaviors,

albeit ones that some individuals believe themselves more capable of performing than

others. A self-efficacious rater feels more adept at recording other’s performance and

performing the evaluative, motivational, and conflict resolution functions inherent to

performance management (Bernardin and Villanova 2005). It is no surprise that rater self-

efficacy has been found to be highly correlated with rater affective reactions towards the

evaluation of others (Bernardin and Villanova 2005). In addition to obvious affective

implications, rater self-efficacy has also been linked to raters’ ability to discriminate

between both ratees and performance dimensions (Tziner and Murphy 1999). However,

the most reported (and probably the most important) behavioral outcome of rater self-

efficacy is rating inflation (Bernardin and Orban 1990; Villanova, Bernardin, Dahmus and

Sims 1993; Villanova et al. 1993; Bernardin et al. 2000; Bernardin and Villanova 2005).

Raters who are self-efficacious tend to be stricter in their evaluations of others. In other

words, rater self-efficacy provides the necessary ‘courage’ to evaluate others accurately.

Bernardin and Villanova (2005) found this ‘courage’ stems from raters management of the

different aspects of the process. First, more efficacious raters rely on higher-quality

information and are more confident in their ability to provide compelling justifications for

their evaluations. Second, they are more resolute in applying performance standards.

Third, they are better able to provide useful performance improvement information to

ratees (this ability is related to the first point). Finally, they are more capable of performing

those social behaviours related to the successful resolution of conflict (Bernardin and

Villanova 2005).

Given the clear importance and impact of rater self-efficacy, it would be valuable to

understand its antecedents. Some of these antecedents can be found at the organizational

level. A study by Smith, Harrington and Houghton (2000) found that organizational norms

in regards to performance appraisal accounted for a large portion of the variance in rater

self-efficacy. Other interesting antecedents are found at the individual level. These include

the anxiety associated with oral communication and experience in ratings (Smith et al.

2000) and personality characteristics (Bernardin et al. 2000). As indicated earlier, this

paper focuses on the role of self-construal as a determinant of rating self-efficacy. More

specifically, self-construal is used to develop a clearer understanding of the volitions

underlying rater self-efficacy.

S. Brutus et al.2000

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

28 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Self-construal and rater self-efficacy

The self, one of the most studied constructs in psychology, can be viewed as the

knowledge a person has about him- or herself. This knowledge covers many areas, many

of which in turn are work-related (i.e. self as a supervisor, an employee of company X,

etc.). Most of the literature on the self recognizes that it evolves from interaction with

others and functions as regulator of these social interactions (Sedikides and Gregg 2003).

Much research supports the claim that the self-concept is shaped by culture and mediates

the effects of cultural variability on psychological and behavioral variables (Triandis 1989

1994; Markus and Kitayama 1991; Markus, Mullally and Kitayama 1997; Earley and

Gibson 1998). At the individual level, culture influences one’s self-concept via the

environment in which one is raised and socialized. This environment is complex and spans

many spheres (e.g., family, country, religion, etc.) and variations in self-concept will

manifest themselves attitudinally, cognitively and behaviourally.

A major dimension of one’s self-concept focuses on the extent to which individuals

define and evaluate themselves in relation to significant others (Kagitcibasi 1997; Earley

and Gibson 1998; Oyserman, Coon and Kemmelmeier 2002). Such a perspective, with its

foundations in the considerable literature on individualism–collectivism (Oyserman et al.

2002), has given rise to the notion of self-construal. Self-construal conceptualizes the self

along two broad types: an independent or individualistic self and an interdependent or

collectivistic self (Triandis 1989; Markus and Kitayama 1991; Earley and Gibson 1998).

Variations in self-construal are reflected in people’s belief about their relationships and,

more precisely, the extent to which they see themselves as separate from others versus

connected with others. In their review of the voluminous research on individualism–

collectivism, Earley and Gibson (1998) commented on the ‘strong and impressive results’

(p. 291) obtained so far from the use of self-construal to understand the effect of culture on

individuals. In an influential article, Meglino and Korsgaard (2004) recently proposed a set

of theoretical propositions in which ‘others orientation’, a construct similar to self-

construal, was central to a wide-range of organizational phenomena, feedback dynamics

being one of them. In the next paragraph, we describe in more depth the nature of self-

construal, as it represents one of the main variable of the current study.

Independent self-construal is characterized by the extent to which individuals construe

an inherent separateness between themselves and others. In the words of Markus and

Kitayama (1991), ‘achieving the cultural goal of independence requires construing oneself

as an individual whose behaviour is organized and made meaningful primarily by

reference to one’s own internal repertoire of thoughts, feelings, and action, rather than

by reference to the thoughts, feelings, and actions of others’ (p. 226). At the individual

level, the self-regulatory aim of those high in independence is to discover, identify, and

express the positively valued attributes of the self (Heine, Lehman, Markus and Kitayama

1999). In contrast, those low on independence strive for a ‘fundamental connectedness’ of

individuals to one another. For these individuals, the normative imperative is to maintain

one’s status as a member of a larger social unit. Accordingly, there exists more pressure on

them not only to be responsive to their social environment but also to assume a shared

responsibility to be an active participant in the regulation of others, as a feedback provider

(Sully de Luque and Sommer 2000). However, this participation is a cautious one, relying

on subtle communication as opposed to more direct messages, as corrective feedback and

regulation should not come at the expense of group harmony. Research in communication

studies, for example, clearly support the fact that collectivism is related to one’s reliance

on indirect communication (Kim, Aune, Hunter, Kim and Kim 2001; Hara and Kim 2004).

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2001

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

28 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

In sum, the process of evaluating requires one to focus on others and evokes in raters a

consciousness of the boundaries between self and others. Independent self-construal

should thus be related to how comfortable one is in evaluating others.

Research questions

The aim of this investigation is to establish empirically the relationship between

independent self-construal and rater self-efficacy. In order to clarify the linkages

between self-construal and rater self-efficacy, we draw separate hypotheses for the

different components of rater self-efficacy.

We expect a positive relationship between independence and comfort with process

features of the appraisal. The detachment from others allows raters high on this construct

to be more comfortable with making performance judgments based on work-related

behavior. Their independence may allow them to better tease out work-related behaviors

from other, non work-related interpersonal behaviours. Although raters with lower

independent orientations are likely to be more observant of others and possess a wider pool

of observations on which to base their evaluations (Sully de Luque and Sommer 2000),

this additional information may not translate into greater comfort with the process. Thus

we pose that independence will be positively related to comfort in the process features of

the appraisal (Hypothesis 1).

In addition, we expect a positive relationship between independence and the other

three facets of rater self-efficacy (i.e., with rater subjectivity, with the appraisal discussion,

and with suggesting performance improvement). Those with an independent orientation

will be less likely to be prone to face saving concerns and needs to preserve interpersonal

harmony. An independent person will be less worried with ratees’ (i.e., ‘others’)

expectations and is more likely to dismiss the interpersonal biases related to evaluating

someone. Thus, we pose that independence will be related to comfort with dealing with

personal biases (Hypothesis 2), to comfort with the justification and explanation of one’s

evaluations in the discussion that follows the evaluations (Hypothesis 3) and to comfort

with the proposition of developmental pathways to ratees (Hypothesis 4). In addition

to these hypotheses, exploratory analyses will be conducted on the moderating influence

of rating experience on the above relationships. Past research has found that experience

with evaluations is related to rater self-efficacy (Smith et al. 2000; Bernardin and

Villanova 2005).

Hypothesis 1: Independence will be positively related to efficacy towards comfort with

the process features of the appraisal.

Hypothesis 2: Independence will be positively related to comfort with rater subjectivity.

Hypothesis 3: Independence will be positively related to comfort with the appraisal

discussion.

Hypothesis 4: Independence will be positively related to comfort with suggesting

performance improvement.

Methods

Sample

A total of 105 participants responded to an online survey. The sample was drawn from

individuals attending or recently graduated from postgraduate programmes in manage-

ment or management-related subjects in Canada (30), the UK (52) and Australia (23).

S. Brutus et al.2002

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

28 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

The gender breakdown was fairly even, with slightly more participants being male (54%).

Average age of respondents was 41 years (SD ¼ 13.4). A large proportion had at least a

bachelor’s degree (90%). It is important to underscore that the participants had substantial

work experience, with an average of 15 years in the workforce (SD ¼ 13.2).

Design and procedure

Potential participants were approached to take part in a web-based survey, the broad

purpose of which was explained and an offer of some feedback of individual results made.

In addition to demographic items, the survey contained measures of independent self-

construal, experience with appraisal, and rater self-efficacy.

Measures

Self-construal

Participants were asked to complete Singelis’ (1994) 12-item measure of independent self-

construal (see Appendix). Sample items included, ‘I am comfortable with being singled

out for praise or rewards’ and ‘I enjoy being unique and different from others in

many respects’. Responses could range from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’

(7). Participants’ responses were averaged to yield an index for independence (a ¼ .72).

This reliability is similar to the reliabilities observed in previous research (Singelis 1994;

Oyserman et al. 2002).

Experience with appraisals

In order to assess respondents’ experience with performance appraisals, they were asked

the following question at the beginning the survey: ‘Approximately, how many formal

performance evaluations have you conducted in your career?’ Responses indicates that

respondents had conducted an average of 32.79 evaluations in their careers (SD ¼ 42.35).

Rater self-efficacy

Participants completed the performance appraisal self-efficacy scale (PASES) (Bernardin

and Villanova 2005). Participants were asked to indicate the level of confidence they had

in being able to successfully perform the behaviors described in 12 separate statements.

Responses could range from ‘With no confidence’ (1) to ‘With great confidence’ (5). The

four subscales, each composed of three items, yielded acceptable reliability: ‘Process

features of the appraisal’ (a ¼ .68), ‘Rater subjectivity’ (a ¼ .85), ‘Appraisal discussion’

(a ¼ .83) and ‘Suggesting performance improvement’ (a ¼ .73).

Results

The mean and standard deviations for the main variables used in the study are presented in

Table 1. In order to test the hypotheses about the relative importance of independence and

interdependence for rater self-efficacy separate hierarchical regression analyses were

carried out for each facet of rater self-efficacy. For each analysis, demographic factors of

gender, age and level were entered first (Model 1), followed by independence and

experience with appraisals (Model 2). Interaction terms were added to test the moderating

effects of experience (Model 3).

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2003

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

28 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Tab

le1

.M

ean

s,st

and

ard

dev

iati

on

san

dco

rrel

atio

ns

bet

wee

nth

ev

aria

ble

sin

the

stu

dy

.

Va

ria

ble

Mea

ns

SD

12

34

67

89

10

1.

Gen

der

.44

.50

2.

Ag

e2

8.7

34

.75

2.0

53

.E

du

cati

on

alle

vel

3.4

5.8

12

.16

2.2

9*

*4

.In

dep

end

ence

4.9

9.7

8.0

1.1

32

.09

(.7

3)

6.

Ex

per

ien

cein

eval

uat

ing

23

.77

32

.28

2.2

3*

2.2

9*

*.2

3*

2.0

27

.P

roce

ssfe

atu

res

of

the

app

rais

al3

.79

.65

2.1

2.2

1*

2.0

3.5

0*

*.0

8(.

68

)8

.A

pp

rais

ald

iscu

ssio

n3

.70

.78

2.1

4.2

0*

2.0

9.4

4*

*.1

8.7

1*

*(.

85

)9

.R

ater

sub

ject

ivit

y3

.67

.79

2.0

5.1

62

.04

.43*

*.1

7.7

4*

*.7

7*

*(.

83

)1

0.

Su

gg

esti

ng

imp

rov

emen

t3

.53

.72

2.0

9.1

62

.01

.44*

*.1

3.6

2*

*.7

0*

*.6

4*

*(.

73

)

No

tes:

*p,

.05

;*

*p,

.01

;A

lphas

are

pre

sen

ted

on

the

dia

go

nal

.

S. Brutus et al.2004

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

28 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

The analyses for the process features of the appraisal, presented in Table 2, indicate

that the main effects for independence was significant in Model 2 (b ¼ .41; p , .001) and

in Model 3 (b ¼ .19; p , .05), the direction of the relationship is in the hypothesized

direction; thus these results support hypothesis 1. In addition, the interaction between

experience and independence (b ¼ .01; p , .01) was significant; this interaction is plotted

in Figure 1.

The analyses for rater subjectivity, presented in Table 3, indicate that the main effect

for independence was significant in Model 2 (b ¼ .44; p , .001) and Model 3 (b ¼ 23;

p , .05). These results lend support to hypothesis 2. Moreover, the interaction between

experience and independence (b ¼ .01; p , .05) was significant; this interaction is plotted

in Figure 2.

The results of the regression analyses for comfort with appraisal discussion, presented

in Table 4, indicate that the main effects for independence was significant in Model 2

(b ¼ .47; p , .001) and Model 3 (b ¼ 26; p , .05). These results lend support to

Hypothesis 3. Moreover, the interaction between experience and independence (b ¼ .01;

p , .05) was significant; this interaction is plotted in Figure 3.

The analyses for suggesting performance improvement, presented in Table 5, indicate

that the main effects for independence was significant in Model 2 (b ¼ .42; p , .001) and

Model 3 (b ¼ .26; p , .05). These results lend support to Hypothesis 4. The interaction

between experience and independence was not significant (b ¼ .00; ns).

Discussion

The key finding of this study is that independent self-construal has a relatively strong

association with rater self-efficacy. Given the link found in previous research between

rater self-efficacy and leniency (Bernardin and Orban 1990; Villanova et al. 1993; Tziner

and Murphy 1999; Bernardin et al. 2000; Bernardin and Villanova 2005), this study may

have uncovered a key predictor of rating inflation. Our results show an important effect: all

four facets of rater self-efficacy were highly related to independence. As stated earlier,

performance management relies on socially demanding behaviors, requiring that raters

observe and record the performance of others, pose an evaluative judgment as to the

quality of that performance, provide feedback to the individual evaluated, and finally

outline developmental opportunities to that same ratee (Murphy and Cleveland 1995).

Those raters with a strong independent orientation reported much more comfort with this

process than those with a weaker independent orientation. It appears that the social

Table 2. Results of hierarchical regression with process features of the appraisal.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B (SE) B (SE) B (SE)Gender 2 .12 (.13) 2 .06 (.11) 2 .06 (.11)Age .01* (.00) .01* (.00) .01** (.00)Level .03 (.08) .04 (.07) .05 (.07)Independence .41*** (.07) .19* (.10)Experience with appraisals .00 (.00) 2 .03** (.01)Independence £ Experience .01** (.00)

R2 .06 .32 .39Adjusted R2 .03 .28 .34R2 change .06 .26*** .06**

Note: *p , .05; **p , .01; ***p , .001.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2005

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

28 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

detachment associated with independence leads to an increase confidence in one’s

capacity to engage, as a rater, in the various facets of performance management processes.

Individuals may be less concerned with the emotional and interpersonal consequences of

evaluating others, and therefore be more comfortable and able to perform these functions.

Our results dovetail with the research that highlights substantial variations in the levels of

performance rating across cultures (Chow 1988; Farh, Dobbins, and Chen 1991; Shaikh

1995; Fletcher and Perry 2001). Although this line of research clearly shows the influence

of culture on rating inflation, the explanations offered for this relationship are mostly

speculative. The present study provides a clear and parsimonious explanation for rating

variations across cultures.

This study also points to an interesting interaction between experience and

independence on rater self-efficacy. It appears that the relationships between independence

and three facets of rater self-efficacy increase with rater experience. In other words, the

effect of independence on comfort with appraisal is strongest for most experienced raters.

This is somewhat surprising as one would expect that experience would serve as a buffer

to raters’ cultural inclinations. However, instead of increasing one’s comfort with the

appraisal process, experience appears to reinforce this discomfort, making it stronger.

It may be that there are real issues with evaluating others for those individuals and the

Figure 1. Moderating effect of experience on the relationship between independence and theprocess features of the appraisal.

Table 3. Results of hierarchical regression with rater subjectivity.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B (SE) B (SE) B (SE)Gender 2 .05 (.15) .07 (.14) .07 (.14)Age .01 (.00) .01* (.00) .01* (.00)Level .02 (.10) .02 (.09) .04 (.08)Independence .44*** (.09) .23* (.12)Experience with evaluations .01** (.00) 2 .03* (.01)Independence £ Experience .01* (.00)

R2 .02 .28 .31Adjusted R2 .00 .24 .27R2 change .02 .25*** .04*

Note: *p , .05; **p , .01; ***p , .001.

S. Brutus et al.2006

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

28 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

repetition of the process only serves to substantiate one’s reluctance to evaluate others.

Bernardin and Villanova (2005) did find that experience had complex effects on rater self-

efficacy. Additional research would be needed to understand better the phenomenon at

play here.

According to Bretz et al. (1992), 77% of companies believe that inflated ratings

endanger the validity of the performance appraisal system. The results of this study, in

combination with previous findings on individual antecedents and consequences of rater

self-efficacy, open up some interesting avenues for the human resources managers

wrestling with rating inflation. Traditional remedies used to curb rating inflation are

mechanical in nature. The most common (and drastic) approach, the use of forced-choice

format, is controversial and recent evidence has questioned its utility. Indeed, research has

shown that these systems are perceived as unfair, create much difficulties and unease for

raters, and may not have the long-term effects expected (Scullen, Bergey and Aiman-

Smith 2005; Schleicher et al. 2008). Other approaches, such ex post-facto statistical

adjustments of ratings not only undermine raters’ trust in the process but they also stand on

shaky legal grounds (Bernardin and Villanova 2005). Instead, the findings of this study fit

with a more formative, and rater-focused, approach to inflation. The role of independence

Figure 2. Moderating effect of experience on the relationship between independence and ratersubjectivity.

Table 4. Results of hierarchical regression with appraisal discussion.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B (SE) B (SE) B (SE)Gender 2 .19 (.15) 2 .07 (.14) 2 .08 (.13)Age .01 (.00) .01* (.00) .01* (.00)Level 2 .07 (.10) 2 .07 (.08) 2 .05 (.08)Independence .47*** (.08) .26* (.12)Experience with evaluations .01** (.00) 2 .03* (.02)Independence £ Experience .01* (.00)

R2 .05 .31 .35Adjusted R2 .02 .28 .31R2 change .05 .26*** .04*

Note: *p , .05; **p , .01; ***p , .001.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2007

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

28 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

in the evaluation process can be easily integrated within training programmes. In a recent

field experiment, Bernardin and Villanova (2005) demonstrated that a short training

programme aimed at enhancing rater self-efficacy led to a reduction in discomfort with

appraisal and, subsequently, a reduction in rating inflation. The effectiveness of the

programme was considerable: a third of the post training rating variance was accounted for

by the training intervention. In addition, an assessment of trainees’ self-construal and

subsequent feedback could raise their sensitivity and awareness to their styles and how

they can influence their appraisal behaviours. Indeed, the pre-course scores could also help

trainers tailor the course content according to the profile of the group.

Another practical implication, one that is more experimental, focuses on the priming of

independence. Research in cross-cultural psychology has shown that self-construal is

somewhat malleable and can be primed (i.e., activated in people) quite effectively by the

simple presentation of situational cues (Aaker and Lee 2001; Gardner, Gabriel and Lee

1999; Trafimow, Triandis and Goto 1991). Accordingly, an interesting organizational

intervention would be to evoke independence in raters (or suppress interdependent ones)

prior to the rating task in order to raise their comfort with the task. Empirical evidence

would be needed to validate the effectiveness of such an intervention.

Table 5. Results of hierarchical regression with suggesting performance improvement.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B (SE) B (SE) B (SE)Gender 2 .12 (.14) 2 .05 (.13) 2 .05 (.13)Age .01 (.00) .01 (.00) .01 (.00)Level .03 (.09) .04 (.08) .05 (.08)Independence .42*** (.08) .26* (.12)Experience with evaluations .00 (.00) 2 .02* (.01)Independence £ Experience .00 (.00)

R2 .02 .24 .27Adjusted R2 .00 .21 .23R2 change .02 .22*** .02

Note: *p , .05; **p , .01; ***p , .001.

Figure 3. Moderating effect of experience on the relationship between independence and appraisaldiscussion.

S. Brutus et al.2008

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

28 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Although our results point to a strong effect, it is important to probe further and

investigate the relationship between rating self-efficacy and a broader range of evaluation-

related behaviours. Although previous research did show that rater self-efficacy is a

determinant of rating elevation, it remains largely silent on its effect on the many

additional behaviors required by a rater in a performance appraisal process. It would be

worthwhile to extend this line of research and observe the influence of self-efficacy on how

the feedback session is conducted, the energy invested in following-up on development

and other important behaviors related to this process. Future research would also

benefit from separating the assessment of self-construal and rater self-efficacy as to

reduce common-method variance. As noted above, the priming of self-construal – instead

of measuring it with a self-report scale – represents an interesting avenue to circumvent

this issue.

In summary, our research does indicate that independent self-construal is related to

various dimensions of rater self-efficacy. As performance management systems become

more international and increasingly rely on evaluators of different cultural backgrounds

there is a greater need for research on how culture influences these evaluators. It is hoped

that this research effort is a step in this direction and that it will further stimulate such

efforts.

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by grant #410-2006-1484 from the Social Sciences and HumanitiesResearch Council of Canada.

References

Aaker, J.L., and Lee, A. (2001), ‘“I” Seek Pleasures and “We” Avoid Pains: The Role of Self-regulatory Goals in Information Processing and Persuasion,’ Journal of Consumer Research, 28,33–49.

Bernardin, H.J., Buckley, M.R., Tyler, C.L., and Wiese, D.S. (2000), ‘A Consideration ofStrategies in Rater Training,’ in Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management(vol. 18), ed. J. Ferris, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 221–274.

Bernardin, H.J., Cooke, D., Ross, S., and Villanova, P. (2000), ‘Conscientiousness andAgreeableness as Predictors of Rating Leniency,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 232–236.

Bernardin, J.H., and Orban, J.A. (1990), ‘Leniency Effect as a Function of Rating Format, Purposefor Appraisal, and Rater Individual Differences,’ Journal of Business and Psychology, 5,197–211.

Bernardin, H.J., and Villanova, P. (2005), ‘Research Streams in Rater Self-efficacy,’ Group andOrganization Management, 30, 61–88.

Bretz, R.D., Milkovich, G.T., and Read, W. (1992), ‘The Current State of Performance AppraisalResearch and Practice: Concerns, Directions, and Implications,’ Journal of Management, 18,321–352.

Chow, K.W. (1988), ‘The Management of Chinese Cadre Resources: The Politics of PerformanceAppraisal (1948–84),’ International Review of Administrative Sciences, 54, 359–377.

Coens, T., and Jenkins, M. (2000), Abolishing Performance Appraisals, San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler.

Earley, P.C., and Gibson, C.B. (1998), ‘Taking Stock in our Progress on Individualism–Collectivism: 100 years of Solidarity and Community,’ Journal of Management, 24, 265–304.

Farh, J., Dobbins, G.H., and Chen, B. (1991), ‘Cultural Relativity in Action: A Comparison of Self-ratings Made by Chinese and US Workers,’ Personnel Psychology, 44, 129–147.

Fletcher, C. (2001), ‘Performance Appraisal and Performance Management: The DevelopingResearch Agenda,’ Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 473–487.

Fletcher, C., and Perry, E.L. (2001), ‘Performance Appraisal and Feedback: A Consideration ofNational Culture and a Review of Contemporary Research and Future Trends,’ in Handbook of

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

28 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology, eds. N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, K. Sinangil andC. Viswesvaran, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 127–144.

Fried, Y., Tiegs, R.B., and Bellamy, A.R. (1992), ‘Personal and Interpersonal Predictors ofSupervisors’ Avoidance of Evaluating Subordinates,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 77,462–468.

Gardner, W.L., Gabriel, S., and Lee, A.Y. (1999), ‘“I” Value Freedom, But “We” ValueRelationships: Self-construal Priming Mirrors Cultural Differences in Judgment,’ PsychologicalScience, 10, 321–326.

Hara, K., and Kim, M. (2004), ‘The Effect of Self-construals on Conversational Indirectness,’International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28, 1–18.

Heine, S.J., Lehman, D.R., Markus, H.R., and Kitayama, S. (1999), ‘Is There a Universal Need forPositive Self-regard?’ Psychological Review, 106, 766–794.

Jawahar, I.M., and Williams, C.R. (1997), ‘Where All the Children Are Above Average: ThePerformance Appraisal Purpose Effect,’ Personnel Psychology, 50, 905–925.

Jelley, R.B., and Goffin, R.D. (2001), ‘Can Performance-feedback Accuracy be Improved? Effectsof Rater Priming and Rating-scale Format on Rating Accuracy,’ Journal of Applied Psychology,86, 134–141.

Kagitcibasi, C. (1997), ‘Individualism and Collectivism,’ in Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology( vol. 3, 2nd ed.), eds. J.W. Berry, M.H. Segall and C. Kagitcibasi, Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon,pp. 1–49.

Kaiser, R.B., and Kaplan, R.E. (2005), ‘Overlooking Overkill: Beyond the 1 to 5 Rating Scale,’Human Resources Planning, 28, 7–11.

Kane, J.S., Bernardin, J.J., Villanova, P., and Peyrefitte, J. (1995), ‘Stability of Rater Leniency:Three Studies,’ Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1036–1051.

Kim, M., Aune, K.S., Hunter, J.E., Kim, H., and Kim, J. (2001), ‘The Effect of Culture and Self-construal on Predispositions toward Verbal Communication,’ Human Communication Research,27, 382–408.

London, M., Smither, J.W., and Adsit, D.J. (1997), ‘Accountability: The Achilles’ Heel ofMultisource Feedback,’ Group and Organization Management, 22, 162–185.

Longnecker, C.O., Sims, H.P., and Gioia, D.A. (1987), ‘Behind the Mask: The Politics ofPerformance Appraisal,’ The Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183–193.

Markus, H.R., and Kitayama, S. (1991), ‘Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion,and Motivation,’ Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.

Markus, H.R., Mullally, P.R., and Kitayama, S. (1997), ‘Selfways: Diversity in Modes of CulturalParticipation,’ in The Conceptual Self In Context: Culture, Experience, Self-understanding,eds. U. Neisser and D.A. Jopling, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13–61.

Meglino, B.M., and Korsgaard, M.A. (2004), ‘Considering Rational Self-interest as a Disposition:Organizational Implications of Other Orientation,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,946–959.

Murphy, K.R., and Cleveland, J.N. (1995), Performance Appraisal: An Organizational Perspective,Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H.M., and Kemmelmeier, M. (2002), ‘Rethinking Individualism andCollectivism: Evaluation of Theoretical Assumptions and Meta-analyses,’ PsychologicalBulletin, 128, 3–72.

Schleicher, D.J., Bull, R.A., and Green, S.G. (in press), ‘Rater Reactions To Forced DistributionRating Systems,’ Journal of Management.

Scullen, S.E., Bergey, P.K., and Aiman-Smith, L. (2005), ‘Forced-distribution Rating Systems andthe Improvement of Workforce Potential: A Baseline Simulation,’ Personnel Psychology, 59,1–32.

Sedikides, C., and Gregg, A.P. (2003), ‘Portraits of the Self,’ in Sage Handbook of Social Psychology( vol. 1), eds. M.A. Hogg and J. Cooper, London: Sage Publications, pp. 110–138.

Shaikh, T.S. (1995), ‘Appraising Job Performance – To Be or Not To Be? An Asian Dilemma,’The International Journal of Career Management, 7, 13–18.

Shore, T.H., and Tashchian, A. (2002), ‘Accountability Forces in Performance Appraisal: Effects ofSelf–Appraisal Information, Normative Information, and Task Performance,’ Journal ofBusiness and Psychology, 17, 261–270.

Singelis, T.M. (1994), ‘The Measurement of Independent and Interdependent Self-construals,’Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591.

S. Brutus et al.2010

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

28 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Smith, W.J., Harrington, K.V., and Houghton, J.D. (2000), ‘Predictors of Performance AppraisalDiscomfort: A Preliminary Examination,’ Public Personnel Management, 29, 1–22.

Sully de Luque, M.F., and Sommer, S.M. (2000), ‘The Impact of Culture on Feedback-seekingBehavior: An Integrated Model and Propositions,’ Academy of Management Review, 25,829–849.

Trafimow, D., Triandis, H.C., and Goto, S.G. (1991), ‘Some Tests of the Distinction Between thePrivate and the Collective Self,’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 649–655.

Triandis, H.C. (1989), ‘The Self and Social Behavior in Differing Cultural Contexts,’ PsychologicalReview, 96, 506–520.

Triandis, H.C. (1994), ‘Cross-cultural Industrial and Organizational Psychology,’ in Handbook ofIndustrial and Organizational Psychology (vol. 4), eds. M.D. Dunette and L.M. Hough, PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, pp. 103–172.

Tziner, A., and Murphy, K.R. (1999), ‘Additional Evidence of Attitudinal Influences in PerformanceAppraisal,’ Journal of Business and Psychology, 13, 407–502.

Villanova, P., Bernardin, H.J., Dahmus, S.A., and Sims, R.L. (1993), ‘Rater Leniency andPerformance Appraisal Discomfort,’ Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53,789–799.

Woehr, D.J., and Huffcutt, A.I. (1994), ‘Rater Training for Performance Appraisal: A QuantitativeReview,’ Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 189–197.

Yun, G.J., Donahue, L.M., Dudley, N.M., and McFarland, L.A. (2005), ‘Rater Personality, RatingFormat, and Social Context: Implications for Performance Appraisal Ratings,’ InternationalJournal of Selection and Assessment, 13, 97–120.

Appendix

Rater self-efficacy scale (12 items; 4 dimensions)

Process features of the appraisal1. Establishing accurate and fair standards for judging the job performance of others2. Using my observations of others’ job performance in assigning ratings6. Collecting observations and records of employee performance to produce accurate ratings

Rater subjectivity4. Setting aside any personal biases to arrive at accurate employee ratings5. Assigning ratings that are accurate but that may disagree with others’ expectation.

11. Evaluating employee performance independent of personal like or dislike for the employee

Appraisal discussion3. Explaining to employees how is it that I arrived at a performance rating when they believe higher

ratings were deserved9. Justifying poor ratings to employees who believe poor ratings are undeserved.

12. Discussing my reasons for assigning specific ratings to employees suspicious of my motives.

Suggesting performance improvement7. Providing suggestions for improving job performance to more senior or more experienced

employees8. Setting aside employee’s personal life accounts for poor performance

10. Suggesting ways to improve job performance to employees resistant to change their ways ofdoing the work.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2011

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

28 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014