Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society (한국산학기술학회논문지)

The Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society (한국산학기술학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effect of Ratee Accountability on Behavioral Change Intention in Multi-Rater Performance Appraisal System

피평가자의 외적책임감이 행위변화 의도에 미치는 영향: 다면평가 상황을 중심으로

  • Received : 2021.01.20
  • Accepted : 2021.04.02
  • Published : 2021.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

To establish an effective performance appraisal system, ratee accountability is essential because it increases the likelihood of meaningful utilization of performance appraisal feedback. In the context of a multi-rater performance appraisal system, this study examines the effect of the ratee general accountability and accountability to the supervisor and peers on the ratee's intention to change behavior based on the performance appraisal feedback. This study further explored the moderating effect of perceived feedback specificity on the relationship between the ratee accountability and behavioral change intention. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted using the survey data from 153 employees in eight firms with multi-rater performance appraisal systems. The results showed that ratee general accountability was positively associated with the intention to change behavior. Furthermore, perceived feedback specificity attenuated the positive relationship between the ratee general accountability and behavioral change intention, which was the opposite of the hypothesized direction. The findings indicate the importance of managing and facilitating ratee accountability for implementing a multi-rater performance appraisal system. The result also emphasizes the critical role that performance appraisal feedback plays in motivating performance improvement by providing flexible, constructive advice and behavioral change strategies instead of inducing self-defense or justification.

조직 내에서 성과평가가 그 목적을 달성하고 유용하게 활용되기 위해서는 피평가자가 성과평가 피드백을 의미있는 방식으로 적용하는 데 대한 외적 책임감(accountability)을 가지는 것이 중요하다. 본 연구는 다면평가 피드백 상황에서 피평가자가 느끼는 외적 책임감이 행위변화 의도에 미치는 영향을 살펴보고, 그 과정에 피드백 구체성이 미치는 영향을 규명하는 것을 목적으로 하였다. 다면평가 제도를 실시하고 있는 총 8개 국내 대기업에 종사하는 153명의 종업원으로부터 설문자료를 수집하였고 위계적 회귀분석을 실시하였다. 가설검증 결과, 피평가자가 다면평가 결과 피드백에 대해 느끼는 전반적인 외적 책임감은 행위변화 의도와 정(+)의 관계를 나타냈다. 또한, 다면평가 피드백 내용이 구체적이라고 지각될수록 전반적인 외적 책임감이 피평가자의 행위변화 의도에 미치는 영향은 감소하는 것으로 나타나, 가설과는 반대방향의 조절효과가 확인되었다. 이러한 결과는 다면평가를 통한 피드백이 유용한 것이 되기 위해서는 피평가자의 외적 책임감을 조장하고 관리하는 것이 중요함을 보여주고, 자기방어나 정당화보다는 성과증진을 위한 유연하고 건설적인 분석과 행위변화 전략을 제시하는 피드백을 제공해야 함을 시사한다.

Keywords

References

  1. M. London, J. W. Smither, D. J. Adsit, "Accountability: The Achilles' Heel of multisource feedback", Group & Organization Management, Vol.22, No.2, pp.162-184, 1997. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601197222003
  2. C. Y. Kou, V. Stewart, "Group accountability: A review and extension of existing research", Small Group Research, Vol.49, No.1, pp. 34-61, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496417712438
  3. Y. D. Dai, Y. H. Hou, C. H. Wang, W. L. Zhuang, Y. C. Liu, "TMX, social loafing, perceived accountability and OCB", The Service Industries Journal, Vol.40, No.5-6, pp.394-414, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2018.1500554
  4. D. D. Frink, R. J. Klimoski, "Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resource management", In G. R. Ferris(Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 16, Elsevier Science/JAI Press, pp.1-51, 1998.
  5. J. R. Brees, D. M. Sikora, G. R. Ferris, "Workplace accountabilities: Worthy challenge or potential threat?", Career Development International, Vol.25, No.5, pp.517-537, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-10-2019-0257
  6. L. L. Cummings, R. J. Anton, "The logical and appreciative dimensions of accountability", In S. Srivastva, D. L. Cooperrider(Eds.), Appreciative Management and Leadership: The Power of Positive Thought and Action in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, pp.257-286, 1990.
  7. Y. W. Sohn, Y. J. Kang, "Two-sided effect of empowering leadership on follower's job stress: The mediation effect of self-efficacy and felt accountability and moderated mediation by perceived organizational support", Korean Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol.33, No.4, pp.373-407, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24230/kjiop.v33i4.373-407
  8. P. W. Maclagan, "The concept of responsibility: Some implications for organizational behaviour and development", Journal of Management Studies, Vol.20, No.4, pp.411-423, 1983. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1983.tb00216.x
  9. D. D. Frink, G. R. Ferris, "Accountability, impression management, and goal setting in the performance evaluation process", Human Relations, Vol. 51, No.10, pp.1259-1283, 1998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679805101003
  10. H. Pearson, Sutherland, M, "The complexity of the antecedents influencing accountability in organisations", European Business Review, Vol.29, No.4, pp.419-439, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-08-2016-0106
  11. J. H. Barclay, L. K. Harland, "Peer performance appraisals: The impact of rater competence, rater location, and rating correctability on fairness perceptions", Group & Organization Management, Vol.20, No.1, pp.39-60, 1995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601195201004
  12. T. N. Garavan, M. Morley, M. Flynn, "360 Degree Feedback: Its Role in Employee Development", Journal of Management Development, Vol.16, No.2, pp.134-147, 1997. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/02621719710164300
  13. J. Park, C. Ok, "The relationship between high-performance work systems and organizational innovation performance: Investigating the roles of human and customer service competencies", Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society, Vol.21, No.6, pp.325-331, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2020.21.6.325M.
  14. M. Schaerer, M. Kern, G. Berger, V. Medvec, R. I. Swaab, "The illusion of transparency in performance appraisals: When and why accuracy motivation explains unintentional feedback inflation", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.144, pp.171-186, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.09.002
  15. P. E. Tetlock, "Accountability and complexity of thought", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.45, No.1, pp.74-83, 1983. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.74
  16. M. Aleksovska, T. Schillemans, S. Grimmelikhuijsen, "Lessons from five decades of experimental and behavioral research on accountability: A systematic literature review", Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Vol.2, No.2, pp.1-18, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.22.66
  17. C. S. Carver, M. F. Scheier, "Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality-social, clinical, and health psychology", Psychological Bulletin, Vol.92, No.1, pp.111-135, 1982. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.111
  18. M. F. Weigold, B. R. Schlenker, "Accountability and risk taking", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol.17, No.1, pp.25-29, 1991. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167291171004
  19. C. Lukas, M. F. Neubert, J. R. Schondube, "Accountability in an agency model: Project selection, effort incentives, and contract design", Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol.40, No.2, pp.150-158, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.2989
  20. K. Siegel-Jacobs, J. F. Yates, "Effects of procedural and outcome accountability on judgment quality", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.65, No.1, pp.1-17, 1996. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0001
  21. P. R. Yarnold, K. T. Mueser, J. S. Lyons, "Type A behavior, accountability, and work rate in small groups", Journal of Research in Personality, Vol.22, No.3, pp.353-360, 1988. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(88)90035-9
  22. A. T. Hall, D. D. Frink, M. R. Buckley, "An accountability account: A review and synthesis of the theoretical and empirical research on felt accountability", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.38, No.2, pp.204-224, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2052
  23. J. W. Smither, A. J. Wohlers, M. London, "A field study of reactions to normative versus individualized upward feedback", Group & Organization Management, Vol.20, No.1, pp.61-89, 1995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601195201005
  24. A. D. Lucia, R. Lespinger, The Art and Science of Competency Models: Pinpointing Critical Success Factors in an Organization, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Preiffer, 1999.
  25. M. London, J. W. Smither, "Can multi-source feedback change perceptions of goal accomplishment, self-evaluations, and performance-related outcomes? Theory-based applications and directions for research", Personnel Psychology, Vol.48, No.4, pp.803-839, 1995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01782.x
  26. E. A. Locke, G. P. Latham, A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance, Prentice-Hall, 1990.
  27. R. Kanfer, M. Frese, R. E. Johnson, "Motivation related to work: A century of progress", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.102, No.3, pp.338-355, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000133
  28. S. L. Jordan, G. R. Ferris, W. A. Hochwarter, T. A. Wright, "Toward a work motivation conceptualization of grit in organizations. Group & Organization Management, Vol.44, No.2, pp.320-360. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601119834093
  29. G. R. Ferris, J. H. Dulebohn, D. D. Frink, J. George-Falvy, T. R. Mitchell, L. M. Matthews, "Job and organizational characteristics, accountability, and employee influence", Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol.21, No.4, pp.518-533, 2009. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40604667
  30. D. Antonioni, "The effects of feedback accountability on upward appraisal ratings", Personnel Psychology, Vol.47, No.2, pp.349-356, 1994. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1994.tb01728.x
  31. S. J. Ashford, "Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective", Academy of Management Journal, Vol.29, No.3, pp.465-487, 1986. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/256219
  32. D. R. Ilgen, C. D. Fisher, M. S. Taylor, "Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.64, No.4, pp.349-371, 1979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.64.4.349
  33. P. Kline, The Handbook of Psychological Testing (2nd ed.), London: Routledge, 2000.
  34. J. C. Nunnally, I. H. Bernstein, Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
  35. P. E. Tetlock, "Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice", Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol.7, No.1, pp.297-332, 1985.
  36. P. E. Tetlock, L. Skitka, R. Boettger, "Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: Conformity, complexity, and bolstering", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.57, No.4, pp.632-640, 1989. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.632
  37. J. Pfeffer, "Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of organizational paradigm", Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol.3, pp.1-52, 1981.
  38. E. S. Ng, G. J. Sears, "Walking the talk on diversity: CEO beliefs, moral values, and the implementation of workplace diversity practices", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.164, No.3, pp.437-450, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4051-7
  39. B. M. Staw, "Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action", Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol.16, No.1, pp.27-44, 1976. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90005-2
  40. C. H. Lee, S. Y. Rhee, I. Shin, "The effect of team feedback environment on thriving at work and team commitment through feedback-seeking behavior", Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society, Vol.16, No.5, pp.3220-3229, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2015.16.5.3220
  41. Y. S. Kim, "Mediating effect of self-leadership relationship between critical thinking and problem solving ability of nursing university students", Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society, Vol.21, No.7, pp.100-108, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2020.21.7.100