Değerlendiriciler arası güvenilirlik ve tatmin bağlamında 360 derece performans değerlendirme

BURGAZOĞLU, HÜSEYİN; BALTACI, ADEM

Değerlendiriciler arası güvenilirlik ve tatmin bağlamında 360 derece performans değerlendirme

Adem BALTACI, (Kırklareli Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi, Kırklareli, Türkiye)

Hüseyin BURGAZOĞLU (Kırklareli Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi, Kırklareli, Türkiye)

ÖNERİ

3 1

Yıl: 2014 Cilt: 11 Sayı: 41 Sayfa Aralığı: 57 - 76 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Değerlendiriciler arası güvenilirlik ve tatmin bağlamında 360 derece performans değerlendirme

Öz:

Günümüzün en popüler değerlendirme sistemi olarak kabul edilen 360 derece değerlendirme sistemi gücünü, farklı kaynaklardan elde edilecek olan sonuçların daha objektif ve kapsayıcı olacağı görüşünden almaktadır. Ancak burada hangi değerlendiricinin daha geçerli ve güvenilir bilgi sağladığı halen belirsizliğini koruyan bir konudur. Bu belirsizliğe rağmen 360 derece değerlendirme sistemi çalışana kendini ve diğerlerini değerlendirme şansı tanıyor olması nedeniyle sistemden duyulan tatmini arttırmaktadır. Bu bağlamda yapılan bu çalışmada, değerlendirme sisteminden duyulan tatmin ve değerlendiriciler arası güvenilirlik özelinde 360 derece değerlendirme sistemi ele alınmıştır. Bu amaçla bu sistemi uygulayan bir işletmenin çalışanlarının değerlendirme sonuçları incelenmiş ve ayrıca çalışanlara sistemden duydukları tatmini ölçen bir anket uygulanmıştır. Analizler sonucunda demografik değişkenlerin performans puanları üzerinde olmasa da farklı kaynaklardan gelen değerlendirmeler üzerinde etkili olabildiği görülmüştür. Ayrıca üstlerin çalışanların gerçek performans puanlarına en yakın değerlendirmeleri yaptığı incelemeler sonucunda ortaya çıkmıştır. Bunun yanı sıra sisteme karşı duyulan tatmin ile çalışanların performansları arasında kuvvetli bir ilişki tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelime:

360-Degree performance appraisal in the context of interrater reliability and satisfaction

Öz:

The 360-degree appraisal system, viewed as today s most popular appraisal system, gets its strength from the view that results from different sources would be much more objective and inclusive. Yet, the question of exactly which rating source provides relatively more valid and reli- able information remains to be answered. This uncertainty notwithstanding, the 360-degree per- formance appraisal system leads to higher satisfaction with the system as it allows employees to assess both themselves and others. Against this background, this study addresses the 360-degree performance appraisal system, focusing on satisfaction with the system in general, and interrater reliability in particular. To that end, first, appraisal results of employees working in a company that implements the appraisal system are examined, and then, a questionnaire measuring the satisfaction level with the appraisal system is given to the employees. Results suggest that demo- graphical characteristics can influence assessment from different sources, though they do not affect performance ratings. Further, it is observed that supervisors ratings are much closer to real performance ratings. This study has also found a strong correlation between satisfaction with the appraisal system and performance ratings of employees.inclusive. Yet, the question of exactly which rating source provides relatively more valid and reli- able information remains to be answered. This uncertainty notwithstanding, the 360-degree per- formance appraisal system leads to higher satisfaction with the system as it allows employees to assess both themselves and others. Against this background, this study addresses the 360-degree performance appraisal system, focusing on satisfaction with the system in general, and interrater reliability in particular. To that end, first, appraisal results of employees working in a company that implements the appraisal system are examined, and then, a questionnaire measuring the satisfaction level with the appraisal system is given to the employees. Results suggest that demo- graphical characteristics can influence assessment from different sources, though they do not affect performance ratings. Further, it is observed that supervisors ratings are much closer to real performance ratings. This study has also found a strong correlation between satisfaction with the appraisal system and performance ratings of employees.

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

[1] Spicer, D. P. & Ahmad, R. (2006). Cognitive Processing Models in Performance Appraisal: Evidence from the Malaysian Education System. Human Resource Management Journal, 16 (2), 214-230.
[2] Murphy, K. R., Cleveland, J. N. & Mohler, C. J. (2001). Reliability, Validity and Meaningfulness of Mul- tisource Ratings. İçinde D. W. Bracken, C. W. Timmreck & A. H. Church (Ed.), The Handbook of Multisource Feedback, (ss. 130-148), San Fransisco, Jossey-Bass.
[3] Bettenhausen, K. L. & Fedor, D. B. (1997). Peer and Upward Appraisals: A Comparison of Their Benefits and Problems. Group and Organization Management, 22 (2), 236-263.
[4] Miller, J. S. & Cardy, R. L. (2000). Self-Monitoring and Performance Appraisal: Rating Outcomes in Project Teams. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 21 (6), 609-626.
[5] Levy, P. E. & Williams, J. R. (2004). The Social Context of Performance Appraisal: A Review and Fra- mework for the Future. Journal of Management, 30 (6), 891-905.
[6] Hedge, J. W., Borman, W. C. & Birkeland, S. A. (2001). History and Development of Multisource Feedba- ck as a Methodology. İçinde D. W. Bracken, C. W. Timmreck & A. H. Church (Ed.), The Handbook of Multisource Feedback,, (ss. 15-32), San Fransisco, Jossey-Bass.
[7] London, M. & Smither, J. W. (1995). Can Multi-Source Feedback Change Perceptions of Goal Accomp- lishment, Self-Evaluations, and Performance-Related Outcomes? Theory-Based Applications and Directions for Research. Personnel Psychlogy, 48 (4), 803-838.
[8] Sudarsan, A. (2010). Concurrent Validity of Peer Appraisal of Group Work for Administrative Purposes. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 9 (1), 71-86.
[9] Church, A. H. & Bracken, D. W. (1997). Advancing the State of Art of 360-Degree Feedback. Group and Organization Management, 22 (2), 149-161.
[10] Drexler, J. A., Beehr, T. A. & Stetz, T. A. (2001). Peer Appraisals: Differentiation of Individual Perfor- mance on Group Tasks. Human Resource Management, 40 (4), 333-345.
[11] Shaver, W. (1995). How to Build and Use a 360-Degree Feedback System, Alexandria, VA, American Society Training and Development.
[12] Salam, S., Cox, J. F. & Sims, H. P. (1997). In the Eye of the Beholder: How Leadership Relates to 360-Deg- ree Perofrmance Ratings. Groups and Organization Studies, 22 (2), 185-209.
[13] Borman, W. C. (1997). 360 Degrees Ratings: An Analysis of Assumptions and A Research Agenda for Evaluating Their Validity. Human Resource Management Review, 7 (3), 299-315.
[14] Heijden van der, B. I. J. M. & Nijhof, A. H. J. (2004). The Value of Subjectivity: Problems and Prospects for 360-Degree Appraisal Systems. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15 (3), 493-511.
[15] Jawahar, I. M. (2007). The Influence of Perceptions of Fairness on Performance Appraisal Reactions, Journal of Labor Research. 28 (4), 735-754.
[16] Miller, J. S. (2001). Self-Monitoring and Performance Appraisal Satisfaction: An Exploratory Field Study. Human Resource Management, 40 (4), 321-332.
[17] Gordon, M. E. & Stewart, L. P. (2009). Conversing About Performance Discursive Resources for the Appraisal Interview. Management Communication Quarterly, 22 (3), 473-501.
[18] Uyargil, C. (1994). İşletmelerde Performans Yönetimi Sistemi, İstanbul, İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Yayınları.
[19] Sabuncuoğlu, Z. (2011). İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi, İstanbul, Beta Yayıncılık.
[20] Moynihan, D. M. (2008). The Dynamics of Performance Management, Washington, Georgetown Uni- versity Press.
[21] Uyargil, C., Adal, Z., Ataay, İ. D., Acar, A. C., Özçelik, A. O., Sadullah, Ö., Dündar, G. & Tüzüner, L. (2008). İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi, 3. Baskı, İstanbul, Beta Basım.
[22] Barutçugil, İ. (2002). Performans Yönetimi, İstanbul, Kariyer Yayıncılık.
[23] Gillespie, T. L. (2005). Internationalizing 360-Degree Feedback: Are Subordinate Ratings Comparable?. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19 (3), 361-382.
[24] Camgöz, S. M. & Alperten, İ. N. (2006). 360 Derece Performans Değerlendirme ve Geri Bildirim: Bir Üniversite Mediko-Sosyal Merkezi Birim Amirlerinin Yönetsel Yetkinliklerinin Değerlendirilmesi Üzerine Pilot Uygulama Örneği. Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 13 (2), 191-212.
[25] Hoffman, B. J., Gorman, C. A., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., Overstreet, B. & Atchley, E. K. (2012). Evidence for the Effectiveness of an Alternative Multisource Performance Rating Methodology. Personnel Psychology, 65 (3), 531-563.
[26] Antonioni, D. & Park, H. (2001). The Relationship Between Rater Affect and Three Sources of 360-Deg- ree Feedback Ratings. Journal of Management, 27 (4), 479-495.
[27] Brett, J. F. & Atwater, L. E. (2001). 360o Feedback: Accuracy, Reactions, and Perceptions of Usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (5), 930-942.
[28] Appelbaum, S. H., Roy, M. & Gilliland, T. (2011). Globalization of Performance Appraisals: Theory and Applications. Management Decision, 49 (4), 570-585.
[29] Nowack, K. M. (1993). 360-Degree Feedback: The Whole Story. Training and Development, 47 (1), 69-72.
[30] Waldman, D. A. & Bowen, D. E. (1998). The Acceptability of 360 Degree Appraisals: A Customer-Supp- lier Relationship Perspective. Human Resource Management, 37 (2), 117-129.
[31] Luthans, F. & Peterson, S. J. (2003). 360-Degree Feedback with Systematic Coaching: Empirical Analy- sis Suggests a Winning Combination. Human Resource Management, 42 (3), 243-256.
[32] Ward, P. (1995). A 360-Degree Turn for the Better. People Management, 1 (3), 20-22.
[33] Antonioni, D. (1993). Upward Appraisals for Managers. Industrial Management, 35 (6), 20-23.
[34] Mount, M. K. (1984). Supervisor, Self- and Subordinate Ratings of Performance and Satisfaction with Supervision. Journal of Management, 10 (3), 305-320.
[35] Velsor, E. V. & Wall, S. G. (1992). How to Choose a Feedback Instrument. Training, 29 (3), 47-52.
[36] Farr, J. F. & Newman, D. A. (2001). Rater Selection: Sources of Feedback. İçinde D. W. Bracken, C. W. Timmreck & A. H. Church (Ed.), The Handbook of Multisource Feedback, (ss. 130-148), San Fransisco, Jossey-Bass.
[37] Baruch, Y. & Harel, G. (1993). Multi-Source Performance Appraisal: An Empirical and Methodological Note. Public Administration Quarterly, 17 (1), 96-111.
[38] Hutchison, A. & Burch G. S. J. (2011). Senior-Executive Performance: Interrater Reliability and Rater Effects in Multi-Source Ratings. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 49 (4), 425-439.
[39] Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S. & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative Analysis of the Reliability of Job Performance Ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (5), 557-574.
[40] Heidemeier, H. & Moser, K. (2009). Self-Other Agreement in Job Performance Ratings: A Meta-Anal- ytic Test of a Process Model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (2), 353-370.
[41] Dorfman, P. W., Stephan, W. G. & Loveland, J. (1986). Performance Appraisal Behaviours: Supervisor Perceptions and Subordinate Reactions. Personnel Pyschology, 39 (3), 579-597.
[42] Fedor, D. B., Bettenhausen, K. L. & Davis, W. (1999). Peer Reviews: Employees Dual Roles as Raters and Recipients. Group & Organization Management, 24 (1), 92-120.
[43] Dessler, G. (2000). Human Resource Management, 8. Baskı, New Jersey, Prentice Hall. [44] McCarthy, A. M. & Garavan, T. N. (2001). 360 Degree Feedback Processes: Performance Improvement and Employee Career Development. Journal of European Industrial Training, 25 (1), 5-32.
[45] Peiperl, M. A. (1999). Conditions for the Success of Peer Evaluation. The International Journal of Hu- man Resource Management, 10 (3), 429-458.
[46] Bernardin, H. J. (1992). An Analytic Framework for Customer-Based Performance Content Develop- ment and Appraisal. Human Resource Management Review, 2 (1), 81-102.
[47] McEnery, J. M. & Blanchard, P. N. (1999). Validity of Multiple Ratings of Business Student Performance in a Management Simulation. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10 (2), 155-172.
[48] Walker, H. & Joines, M. (2004). A Guide to Peer Appraisal. Nursing Management, 11 (1), 22-24.
[49] Harwood, C. H. & Olson, J. (1988). Peer Evaluation: A Component of Faculty Performance Appraisal. Journal of Nursing Education, 27 (8), 377-379.
[50] Bayraktaroğlu, S. (2008). İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi, Sakarya, Sakarya Yayıncılık.
[51] Maurer, T. J., Raju, N. S. & Collins, W. C. (1998). Peer and Subordinate Performance Appraisal Measu- rement Equivalence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (5), 693-702.
[52] Antonioni, D. (1999). Predictors of Upward Appraisal Ratings. Journal of Managerial Issues, 11 (1), 26-36.
[53] Wexley, K. N. & Pulakos, E. D. (1983). The Effects of Perceptual Congruence and Sex on Subordinates Performance Appraisals of Their Managers. Academy of Management Journal, 26 (4), 666-676.
[54] Korsgaard, M. A. (1996). The Impact of Self-Appraisals on Reactions to Feedback from Others: The Role of Self-Enhancement and Self-Consistency Concerns. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17 (4), 301-311.
[55] Garavan, T. N., Morley, M. & Flynn, M. (1997). 360 Degree Feedback: Its Role in Employee Develop- ment. Journal of Management Development, 16 (2), 134-147.
[56] Campbell, D. J. & Lee, C. (1988). Self-Appraisal in Performance Evaluation: Development Versus Eva- luation. The Academy of Management Review, 13 (2), 302-314.
[57] Riggio, R. E. & Cole, E. J. (1992). Agreement Between Subordinate and Superior Ratings of Supervisory Performance and Effects on Self and Subordinate Job Satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65 (2), 151- 158.
[58] Fletcher, C. (1999). The Implications of Research on Gender Differences in Self-Assessment and 360 Degree Appraisal. Human Resource Management, 9 (1), 39-46.
[59] Korsgaard, M. A., Meglino, B. M. & Lester, S. W. (2004). The Effect of Other Orientation on Self-Super- visor Rating Agreement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25 (7), 873-891.
[60] London, M. & Beatty, R. W. (1993). 360-Degree Feedback as a Competitive Advantage. Human Resour- ce Management, 32 (3), 353-372.
[61] Hagan, C. M., Konopaske, R., Bernardin, H. J. & Tyler, C.L. (2006). Predicting Assessment Center Per- formance with 360-Degree, Top-Down, and Customer-Based Competency Assessments. Human Resource Management, 45 (3), 357-390.
[62] Kuvaas, B. (2006). Performance Appraisal Satisfaction and Employee Outcomes: Mediating and Mo- derating Roles of Work Motivation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17 (3), 504-522.
[63] Kluger, A. V. & DeNisi, A. (1996). The Effects of Feedback Interventions on Performance: A Historical Review, A Meta-Analysis, and a Preliminary Feedback Intervention Theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119 (2), 254-284.
[64] Schkeicher, D. J., Bull, R. A. & Green, S. G. (2009). Rater Reactions to Forced Distribution Rating Sys- tems. Journal of Management, 35 (4), 899-927.
[65] Swiercz, P. M., Bryan, N. B., Eagle, B. W., Bizzotto, V. & Renn, R. W. (2012). Predicting Employee Atti- tudes and Performance from Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Fairness. Business Renaissance Quarterly, 7 (1), 25-46.
[66] Kavanagh, P., Benson, J. & Brown, M. (2007). Understanding Performance Appraisal Fairness. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 45 (2), 132-150.
[67] Walsh, M. B. (2003). Percieved Fairness of and Satisfaction with Employee Performance Appraisal, Doktora Tezi, Louisinana State University.
[68] Cook, J. & Crossman, A. (2004). Satisfaction with Performance Appraisal Systems. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19 (5), 526-541.
[69] Bowles, M. L. & Coates, G. (1993). Image and Substance: the Management of Performance as Rhetoric or Reality?. Personnel Review, 22 (2), 3-21.
[70] Caputo, P. M. (2007). Determinants and Outcomes of Performance Appraisal Fairness: An Investiga- tion of Self-Appraisal and Rating Format in Groups, Doktora Tezi, State University of New York.
[71] Meyer, J. P. & Smith, C. A. (2000). HRM Practices and Organizational Commitment: Test of a Mediati- on Model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17 (4), 323-324.
[72] Tsui, A. S. & OReilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond Simple Demographic Effects: The Importance of Relational Demography in Superior-Subordinate Dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32 (2), 402-423.
[73] Cleveland, J. N. & Landy, F. J. (1981). The Influence of Rater and Ratee Age on Two Performance Judg- ments. Personnel Psychology, 34 (1), 19-29.
[74] Brutus, S., Fleenor, J. W. & McCauley, C. D. (1999). Demographic and Personality Predictors of Congru- ence in Multi-Source Ratings. Journal of Management Development, 18 (5), 417-435.
[75] Waldman, D.A. & Avolio, B. (1986). A Meta-Analysis of Age Differences in Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (1), 33-38.
[76] Ferris, G. R., Yates, V. L., Gilmore, D. C. & Rowland, K. M. (1985). The Influence of Subordinate Age on Performance Ratings and Causal Attributions. Personnel Psychology, 38 (3), 545-557.
[77] Antonioni, D. & Woehr, G. J. (2001). Improving the Quality of Multi-Source Rater Performance. İçinde D. W. Bracken, C. W. Timmreck & A. H. Church (Ed.), The Handbook of Multisource Feedback, (ss. 114-129), San Fransisco, Jossey-Bass.
[78] Mount, M. K. (1983). Comparisons of Managerial and Employee Satisfaction with a Performance App- raisal System. Personnel Psychology, 36 (1), 99-110.
[79] Mount, M. K. (1984). Satisfaction with a Performance Appraisal System and Appraisal Discussion. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 5 (4), 271-279.
[80] Inderrieden, E. J., Keaveny, T. J. & Allen, R. E. (1988). Predictors of Employee Satisfaction with the Performance Appraisal Process. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2 (4), 306-310.
[81] Jawahar, I. M. (2006). Correlates of Satisfaction with Performance Appraisal Feedback. Journal of Labor Research, 27 (2), 213-236.

APA	BALTACI A, BURGAZOĞLU H (2014). Değerlendiriciler arası güvenilirlik ve tatmin bağlamında 360 derece performans değerlendirme. , 57 - 76.
Chicago	BALTACI ADEM,BURGAZOĞLU HÜSEYİN Değerlendiriciler arası güvenilirlik ve tatmin bağlamında 360 derece performans değerlendirme. (2014): 57 - 76.
MLA	BALTACI ADEM,BURGAZOĞLU HÜSEYİN Değerlendiriciler arası güvenilirlik ve tatmin bağlamında 360 derece performans değerlendirme. , 2014, ss.57 - 76.
AMA	BALTACI A,BURGAZOĞLU H Değerlendiriciler arası güvenilirlik ve tatmin bağlamında 360 derece performans değerlendirme. . 2014; 57 - 76.
Vancouver	BALTACI A,BURGAZOĞLU H Değerlendiriciler arası güvenilirlik ve tatmin bağlamında 360 derece performans değerlendirme. . 2014; 57 - 76.
IEEE	BALTACI A,BURGAZOĞLU H "Değerlendiriciler arası güvenilirlik ve tatmin bağlamında 360 derece performans değerlendirme." , ss.57 - 76, 2014.
ISNAD	BALTACI, ADEM - BURGAZOĞLU, HÜSEYİN. "Değerlendiriciler arası güvenilirlik ve tatmin bağlamında 360 derece performans değerlendirme". (2014), 57-76.

APA	BALTACI A, BURGAZOĞLU H (2014). Değerlendiriciler arası güvenilirlik ve tatmin bağlamında 360 derece performans değerlendirme. ÖNERİ, 11(41), 57 - 76.
Chicago	BALTACI ADEM,BURGAZOĞLU HÜSEYİN Değerlendiriciler arası güvenilirlik ve tatmin bağlamında 360 derece performans değerlendirme. ÖNERİ 11, no.41 (2014): 57 - 76.
MLA	BALTACI ADEM,BURGAZOĞLU HÜSEYİN Değerlendiriciler arası güvenilirlik ve tatmin bağlamında 360 derece performans değerlendirme. ÖNERİ, vol.11, no.41, 2014, ss.57 - 76.
AMA	BALTACI A,BURGAZOĞLU H Değerlendiriciler arası güvenilirlik ve tatmin bağlamında 360 derece performans değerlendirme. ÖNERİ. 2014; 11(41): 57 - 76.
Vancouver	BALTACI A,BURGAZOĞLU H Değerlendiriciler arası güvenilirlik ve tatmin bağlamında 360 derece performans değerlendirme. ÖNERİ. 2014; 11(41): 57 - 76.
IEEE	BALTACI A,BURGAZOĞLU H "Değerlendiriciler arası güvenilirlik ve tatmin bağlamında 360 derece performans değerlendirme." ÖNERİ, 11, ss.57 - 76, 2014.
ISNAD	BALTACI, ADEM - BURGAZOĞLU, HÜSEYİN. "Değerlendiriciler arası güvenilirlik ve tatmin bağlamında 360 derece performans değerlendirme". ÖNERİ 11/41 (2014), 57-76.