Rift Valley University

Gullelie Campus
Masters of Business Administration
Organizational Behavior
Article Review
Title: Managing Performance to Change Behavior

June, 2023
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Angelo S. DeNisi (2011) Managing Performance to Change Behavior, Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 31:4, 262-276, DOI: 10.1080/01608061.2011.619414

1. Purpose of the article/ Problem statement

The purpose of this article is to give verdict on why performance management is so important for
behavior change and to discuss relevant aspects of the performance management process.

2. Even though the focus of this article was performance management to change behavior there
are certain specific objectives aimed to describe.
 Why it is necessary for organizations conduct appraisals?
 How appraisals can affect raters, their process information, the ratings they assign and its
effect on ratees and their feedback to the rating results.
 What the alternative method should when it comes to rating accuracy?
 Motivational models to be followed in improving performance management
 Performance improvement beyond individual levels and upgrading individual
performances to team performances.

Overview of Concepts discussed in the article

This article comprises data gathered in qualitative way from different researchers as named in the
article. The data gathered analyzed using logical techniques of data analysis. Here is an overview
of concepts discussed in the article.

I. Performance appraisals
Appraisals are an annual event involving preparation on the part of both the employee (the ratee)
and the rater (often a supervisor), followed by the rater’s assignment of “scores” on some aspects
of the ratee’s performance, and ending with the two parties sitting together to discuss the
appraisal and make plans for the future

II. Purpose of Performance appraisal

The article put reasons of conducting appraisal in an organization into four categories.
Cleveland, Murphy, and Williams (1989). This classification found to be more complex.

a. Between person decisions (e.g., promotion and salary decisions);

b. Within person decisions (e.g., feedback and identifying training needs);
c. Systems maintenance (e.g., manpower planning and evaluation of HR systems); and
 d. Documentation (e.g., criteria for validity studies and meeting legal needs).

Perceived purpose of appraisals can affect how raters process information and assignment of
rating. The comparative concepts on these are Murphy & Cleveland, 1995; Chapter 4 - shown
that inflation of ratings is more likely to occur when appraisals used for decision-making.
Murphy & Cleveland, 1995 - the difference between private judgments and public ratings varied
as a function of the purpose for the appraisal. Williams, DeNisi, Blencoe, and Cafferty (1985)-
found that appraisal purpose determined what kinds of information a rater searched for and how
that information was stored in memory, which affects the actual appraisal decisions made.

Most of the interest in performance appraisal has been in its role as a criterion variable to
validate studies. Some think that selection criteria should be job related and used as a measure
the performance on the job. However, others like Dunnette (1963) argue that low validity occurs
because of faulty criterion measures.

Industrial/Organizational (I/O) that has had the greatest impact on performance appraisal
research, and this perspective has primarily resulted in efforts to improve the accuracy of
performance appraisals by developing better rating scales or by training raters. There is a
demand for standard true score rating accuracy, which is not possible, then scholars shifted on
relying on proxies related to rating errors like; assuming reduced rating errors as increased
accuracy. This assumption later taken as wrong. Then traditional rating “errors” such as leniency
or halo, may not be errors at all, but instead, may simply reflect response tendencies (cf.
Bernardin & Pence, 1980; DeNisi & Peters, 1996).

These issues pave the way for the birth of developing better rating scales that could
increase accuracy. And, recommended new scale formats such as Forced Distribution Rating
Scales (Berkshire & Highland, 1953), or Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (e.g., Smith &
Kendall, 1963), as well as for the design or training raters to reduce rating errors in their
evaluations (e.g., Latham, Wexley, & Pursell, 1975). I did not too much to discredit the above
recommendations and publicize a paper for Landy and Farr (1980), which concluded that there
was no evidence that any one rating scale was consistently better than any other scale.

Then after recognizing the change on rating scale might not affect the accuracy several models
were proposed and discussed (e.g., Feldman, 1981; Ilgen & Feldman, 1983;
DeNisi, Cafferty, & Meglino, 1984). The studies were laboratory studies (although see DeNisi &
Peters [1996] and Varma, DeNisi, & Peters [1996] for exceptions), and used rating accuracy as a
dependent variable. In fact, most of the “cognitive” studies were conducted in laboratory settings
and were able to construct “true scores.” Borman (1977) the first to use videotapes that improved
levels of performance and allowed for the direct assessment of accuracy (although disagreements
apeared; cf. Sulsky & Balzer, 1988). Furthermore, scholars and practitioners began considering
interventions that could improve accuracy directly, such as “frame of reference” training.

III. So, what is the better solution?

Then a thought come employees as fairer more likely perceive that accurate ratings and
individuals are more likely to respond positively to feedback they believe to be accurate. The
term accuracy by itself believed to be a problem that employees’ may hate the criterion by which
they are judged for the expected accuracy.

If the ultimate need is to change behavior, which leads to improved performance. So. The
employee behavior needs to change along with positive outcomes. Here are what to be done
according to the article:
 Demonstrating to an employee where he or she needed improvement (i.e., strengths and
weaknesses), and then showing the employee that valued outcomes were associated with
improvement, they must believe that they deserve the rating they received, employee
needs to perceive that the process used to determine the ratings was fair.

Generally, this portion tells that in order for performance feedback to be effective, it must be
accepted and, eventually, acted upon. The discussion of issues of fairness and justice are surely
relevant to any consideration of feedback acceptance.

There is another concept, which says that feedback had a negative effect on subsequent
performance (Kluger and DeNisi (1996)). It says that individuals receiving feedback performed
more poorly subsequent to receiving feedback than did individuals receiving no feedback—
regardless of the sign of the feedback. It will try to clarify by saying that if individuals failed to
accept feedback, regardless of the reason, they would not be likely to change their behavior.
Therefore, there has to be a clear way of utilizing effective way of motivating and changing
employee behavior. Therefore, it is important to target behaviors and use criterion measures
(such as performance appraisals) that focused on behaviors directly sampled.

1) Motivational models and performance management

Performance management refers to the variety of activities, initiated by the supervisor, to
influence
the behavior of the subordinate like providing feedback, setting goals for future performance,
and providing incentives tied to improved performance. Goal setting established as a
motivational tool in the literature.

The article details that the combination between feedback, goals and rewards believed to
influence the change in behavior of employee. The last portion seems to have a connection as
perceived feedback that employees receive is fair means that they are likely to help and engage
heavenly in the processes so that can clearly see how performance improvement will result in
their obtaining valued rewards and outcomes.

2) Individual performance
Many approaches and models focus on individual level performance, and think that it will imply
that using performance management tools to improve individual level performance and to
develop critical competencies, firm level performance will improve as well.

There is another suggestion that says performance at a level of analysis higher than that of the
individual employee, but this is probably not the solution to the larger problem. For ways to
manage the performance of teams, performance at a level of analysis higher than that of the
individual employee.

Another simple idea, team performance is nothing more than the aggregate of the performance of
individuals, where the performance of one individual is independent from the performance of
any other individual. There is a branch case for this thought which is intangibles such as
“teamwork” or “backing-up behavior” (e.g., Porter, 2005) become more critical, but are much
more difficult to assess. Therefore, in these cases we typically rely upon measures of team
performance only and largely ignore individual performance.
The most generalized case, noted by DeNisi (2000), one of the critical issues in moving from
individual level to firm-level performance is ensuring that performance managed at the desired
level of behavior change. This concept usually referred to as the “line of sight problem” (e.g.,
Boswell & Boudreau, 2001). Simply, it suggests that if employees can see how their behavior
affects performance at a higher level, it is easier to change their behavior in such a way that firm
performance increases as well.

The other thing is that the relationship between HR practices and firm performance in recent
years
(e.g., Huselid, 1996), little is known about exactly how these practices can influence firm-level
performance. Such an assumption suggests “bottom-up” approaches (cf. Kozlowski et al., 1999),
where lower levels performance improvements influence performance at higher subsequent
levels, all the way up to the firm level.

3. The author argues on the concept related to employees to change their behavior in
ways that lead to improved performance. The reason for the author to argue is that most
appraisal systems in this article viewed as a measurement problem rather than a motivation
problem. The author argued that there should be a need to focus on the larger process of
performance management, which is concerned with changing behavior, rather than on the
narrower process of performance appraisal. I think the author come up with more valid
concept, which seems convincing comparatively. Still there is a room for further suggestions
as the concepts stated by the author is not expected to provide complete solution.
4. It is fair to say that the conclusions made are more or less in accordance with the findings of
the study. Because the conclusions failed to comprise some content of the article like
motivational model etc.
5. This is a course for organizational behavior and I believe that this article is fundamental in
having ultimate guide on considerations to take in creating employee with better behavior
and performance at early stages and changing employee behaviors and improving
performances afterwards for any organization having access to this article.
6. The strengths for this article is that it is comprised of different concepts which is really
helpful in having more generalized concept and gives diversified alternatives to make
decisions and also comprises examples which gives extra clarity. The weakness is that the
article leaves it open for the reader to consider the merits and demerits of the concepts
discussed and it was better if the author recommends the best option of the given concepts.
The other is conclusions made on some of the contents of the article. Moreover, the article
lacks briefness on factors discussed and applicability concepts on specific problem areas.