What’s the matter with merit pay?

It demotivates rather than motivates, Meyer

argues, because most people exaggerate their own performance and feel cheated
whenever they get a raise.

Herbert H. Meyer

&M
- .
erit pay or “pay for performance”
for

might
compensating
cepted as a sound
employees
management
argue about the relative
as a basis
is widely
practice.
importance
ac-
We
of
plans. The alternative
each job classification
uled
lished
increases
is to set a minimum
and then provide
to the maximum
for each job. This
rate
approach
sched-
for

estab-
will be
pay compared with other rewards, but few rejected by most executives because such a
will deny that it is a powerful motivator for plan has little inherent motivational power.
most people. In fact, the principle of merit The individual is rewarded merely for stick-
pay is so logical that it seems almost ludicrous ing around. Under pay-for-performance, on
to criticize it. If two people are hired to per- the other hand, the best-performing employ-
form the same job and one performs at a sub- ees in any job classification are rewarded by re-
stantially higher level than the other, surely he ceiving maximum allowable increases, aver-
should be paid more for his superior contribu- age performers receive average size increases,
tion. and the poorest performers are punished by
Almost all management people in receiving no increases at all. Thus the “carrot
large organizations are covered by merit pay and stick” principle is applied, an approach 39
 that is generally accepted as an effective way well-administered merit pay plans, declared
of controlling the behavior of others. that they were satisfied with their current
salaries. In a recent study conducted in a
large insurance company, only 35 percent of
DOESTHETHEORYWORK? employees working under a merit pay plan
expressed satisfaction with their pay, although
Despite the apparent soundness of the simple over 75 percent of the same employees re-
principle on which merit pay is based, experi- ported satisfaction with other aspects of their
ence tells us that it does not always work jobs.
with such elegant simplicity. Most salary ad- Why should merit pay be so hard to
ministrators will admit that a merit pay plan apply-and so difficult to have accepted? We
is very d&cult to administer properly. Unless seem to keep beating our heads against the
the plan is diligently controlled, few managers wall onthis issue. Anyone reading the litera-
actually administer a merit plan according to ture on this subject published 20 years ago
formalized policy. Typically, managers are would find that the articles look almost iden-
inclined to make relatively small discrimina- tical to those published today. Most experts on
tions in salary treatment between individuals this subject were then, and are still, decrying
in the same job, regardless of perceived differ- the fact that we are doing a poor job of ad-
ences in performance. Everyone gets about the ministering merit pay plans. They almost in-
same size increase. Where discriminations are variably conclude that if managers were just
made, they are likely to be based on factors given the proper training, these plans would
other than performance, such as length of work miracles and provide employees with the
service, future potential, or the perceived need motivation to excel. So we keep developing
to “catch up” when one employee’s pay seems new training programs and devising new ap-
low in relation to that of others in the group. proaches to the proper administration of merit
A great deal of evidence also indi- pay, but the results never seem to improve.
cates that a merit pay plan contributes little
or nothing to employee satisfaction with pay.
Few people are happy with the way merit pay WHAT’SWRONGWITHREWARDTHEORY?
plans are administered. Surveys of manage-
rial-level employees, who are almost always Perhaps we should reexamine the simple re-
covered by merit pay plans, have consistently ward theory on which merit pay is based. Ob-
shown high levels of dissatisfaction with pay. viously, there are other principles operating
Lyman Porter, for example, in a very that can explain negative reactions to a pay-
large-scale survey of managerial employees for-performance reward system. We know,
from a wide variety of companies across the for example, that people do not work just for
country, found that 80 percent expressed dis- money. Many people work much harder on
satisfaction with their pay. Edward Lawler their avocational pursuits than they do on
reports similar survey results in two different their jobs. Even in occupational pursuits, it
samples of managerial employees. A large- would be hard to demonstrate that, if we held
scale, multiplant study conducted in the Gen- the interest and challenge of work constant,
eral Electric Company in the late 1960s found highly paid persons would put out any more
that only 19 percent of management person- effort than those who are less well paid.
40 nel, all of whom were working under pretty- Within the laboring classes there seems to be
almost an inverse relationship between pay a supervisor can make objective and valid
and effort. A comparison of skilled trade distinctions between the performances of vari-
workers in the construction industry and ous individuals who report to him. That the
field hands in agriculture provides a dramatic validity of this assumption is so often ques-
example of this inverse relationship. tioned probably explains why merit pay is
Some recent fascinating research by not used more widely than it is. Most union-
Edward Deci of Rochester University presents ized employees have not accepted the validity
strong evidence to show that we should not of supervisor judgments, and rarely does a
focus attention on money as the primary union agree to a merit pay plan. This is true
motivator. Deci demonstrated that, to the at the professional as well as the blue-collar
extent pay is attached directly to the per- level.
formance of the task, intrinsic interest in the The supervisor’s key role in deter-
task itself decreases. When pay becomes the mining pay creates another problem. It re-
important goal, the individual’s interest tends minds the employee very clearly that he is
to focus on that goal rather than on the per- dependent upon the supervisor for his re-
formance of the task itself. Many of us have wards. Please big daddy boss and you will
seen this principle operate to our chagrin receive the rewards that the boss deems ap-
when we fall into the trap of paying our chil- propriate. In this respect merit pay is demean-
dren for chores they should be expected to ing. Furthermore, this is a reaction we can
perform without pay. expect to become more prevalent in the com-
ing years. Young people today seem more con-
cerned about maintaining their independence
ARESUPERVISOR
RATINGS
VALID? than their parents were.
The paternalistic character of merit
Another problem with merit pay is the fact pay plans probably also helps to explain why
that an individual’s pay increases are based unions usually reject such plans. A primary
primarily on the judgments of his supervisor. goal of most persons who join a union is to
A merit pay plan rests on the assumption that reduce their dependency on management.

“To the extentpay is attdched directly

to the perfOmmce of the tmk, intrimic
interestin the tark itself decredses.
when p&y becomesthe importdnt godl,
the individn&Is interesttends to focm
on thdt godl r&hey tbdn on the
41
perfOrmdnceof the tmk itJe/fi”
 Of course, not all merit pay plans are EFFECTS
ON SELF-ESTEEM
subject to this criticism. A merit pay plan
based on objective criteria, such as commis- The arguments cited above help to explain
sions on sales, does not have this paternalistic why merit pay plans might create some un-
character. The salesman works against negoti- anticipated problems. However, some research
ated ground rules, not to please a boss. In this findings related to the concept of “self-
way he maintains his self-respect; he is his esteem” may hold the key to an even more
own man. fundamental and serious problem with the
merit pay approach to salary administration.
This research would indicate that a merit pay
;
Is COMPETITION
GOOD? salary plan is likely to have the e#ect of
threatening the self-esteem of the great major-
Another problem with a pay-for-performance ity of employees. This is because they will not
plan is that it forces employees to compete receive rewards that they feel their perfor-
for rewards. Salary dollars are almost always mance justifies.
a limited resource. To distribute these on the Data to verify this contention were
basis of relative performance forces employees ’ first revealed in connection with some re-
into a win-lose competition. Win-lose situa- search on the performance appraisal process
tions, in turn, have been shown to generate carried out in the General Electric Company
the following types of reactions: about 10 years ago. In this study we asked the
(1) Competitors are seen as enemies, participants, all professional or managerial
and thus hostility develops toward them. personnel, to give us a confidential and candid
(2) Perceptions of one’s self become appraisal of how well they truly felt they
distorted positively, while perceptions of com- were performing compared to others in simi-
petitors become distorted negatively. lar jobs at similar salary levels. They rated
(3) Interaction and communication themselves on a percentile scale. If they felt
with competitors are decreased. they were performing better than anyone else
Unfortunately, these kinds of reac- in a similar job at a similar salary level, they
tions are usually detrimental to the achieve- would rate themselves at 100 on the scale. If
ment of the organization’s goals. The effective they felt their performance was poorer than
functioning of almost any organization re- that of all of their peers, they would rate
quires the integration of individual efforts. themselves at 0. If they were about average-
Competition among employees is usually dys- there were as many better performers as poorer
functional. ones-they would rate themselves at 50.

“A meritp&y duy phn is likely to hme

the effectof thredtening the self-esteem
42 of the gredt majority of emp/oyee_r.
”
 The average self-rating assigned on Several researchers have reported that the
this scale was at the 77th percentile. Only two blue-collar worker is less likely to have high
people out of about 100 put themselves below occupational self-esteem than is the profes-
average, and they both rated their perfor- sional or managerial employee. Perhaps the
mance at the 45th percentile-that is, just be- discrepancy is due to the fact that previous re-
low average. Five rated themselves at 50. All search often contained comparisons between
the rest (over 90 percent) rated their own per- different occupational groups, while in the
formance as above average. Interestingly, no data cited here the employees were comparing
one rated himself at 100 on the scale, although themselves only to their peers.
there were a few 99s. Michael Beer and Gloria Gery re-
When the managers of these employ- port findings from a survey of more than
ees were asked to rate the same people in- 500 white-collar clerical and technical em-
dividually on the same scale, the average ployees in several offices and plants that
rating assigned was at the 60th percentile. showed a skew in self-ratings even greater
When we compared individuals’ self-ratings than that presented in the table. They used
and manager ratings, we found that 85 per- a self-rating questionnaire item similar to
cent were rated lower by their managers than ours, except that it was calibrated in lo-per-
they rated themselves. cent intervals. They found that 58 percent
In several follow-up studies of self- rated their own performance as falling within
appraisal in recent years, we have obtained the top 10 percent of their peers in similar
similar results with diverse groups. In some jobs, and a total of 81 percent placed them-
cases the same scale and approach were used. selves in the top 20 percent (i.e., above the
More recently, we have asked people to re- 80th percentile). Only about 1 percent rated
port self-ratings on this scale : their own performance as falling within the
How would you rate your own job per- bottom 50 percent of the distribution.
formance compared to that of other em- The ultimate in skewed self-ratings
ployees doing similar work? seems to have been contained in the large-
.._____
One of the best-in the top 10 per- scale survey by Penner, cited earlier. His
cent study included 1,088 professional and man-
..__Well above average-in the top 25 agerial employees in ten plants. Of this group,
percent 47 percent rated their own performance as
Above average-in the top 50 per- falling within the top 5 percent of “others
cent doing similar work”; another 36 percent
________
Below average-in the bottom 50 rated themselves as “upper 10 percent, not up-
percent per 5 percent”; and no one in the sample
_.._....Well below average-in the bottom placed himself below the 75th percentile.
25 percent I know that these findings of very
One of the poorest-in the bottom 10 high self-appraisals are inconsistent with the
percent way many people are reported to appraise
Self-ratings on this scale for several themselves when their managers ask them for
different groups in recent studies are listed in a self-evaluation that will be discussed later
the table on page 44. One surprise in this during an appraisal session. But there are
table was the fact that the self-ratings of blue- several factors involved here. For one thing,
collar employees were as high as they were. immodesty is an unbecoming trait in our cul- 43
 SELF-RATINGDISTRIBUTIONSFOR SEVERALEMPLOYEEGROUPS

Employee Groups .
Blue-collar Blue-collar Engineers Accountants
group group in research in several
Self-Ratings Plant A Plant B laboratory companies
Top 10% 46% 40% 29% 37%
Top 25% 26 28 57 40
Top 50% 26 28 14 20
Bottom 50% 2 0 3
Bottom 25% 0 0 0 0
Bottom 10% 0 0 0 0
No response 2 0 0

100% looyo 100% 100%

ture. Even more important, a lower-than- plans. Since the salary increases most people
truly-believed self-appraisal almost guarantees get do not reflect superior performance (as
that the individual will get some positive re- determined by interpersonal comparisons or
inforcement from the manager. As evidence as defined in the guidelines for the pay plan),
for this, we found in some of our studies of the effects of the actual pay increases on moti-
the performance appraisal process that people vation are likely to be more negative than
reported being crushed when they submitted a positive. The majority feel discriminated
very modest appraisal only to find stibse- against because it appears that management
quently that their boss tended to agree with does not recognize their true worth.
that rating. If an individual’s self-esteem is threat-
J. W. Parker and others report re- ened by a smaller-than-expected increase, we
search findings that support both this con- hope he will cope with this threat by working
tention and our data on self-appraisal, cited harder to improve his performance and thus
above. They found, in studies of several em- earn a larger increase the next time around.
ployee groups, that self-ratings made in con- Unfortunately, a great deal of experience and
fidence for research purposes were signifi- research have shown that this type of reac-
cantly higher than self-ratings made at the tion is likely to be the exception rather than
supervisor’s request for a discussion in an the rule. A more common reaction is pressure
interview. Even more significant, self-ratings to get the standards lowered so that achieving
made in confidence were substantially higher the superior rating is easier the next time.
than supervisor ratings made in confidence An even more common way of cop-
for the respective individuals. ing with a threat to one’s self-esteem-a way
that has very undesirable consequences-is to
downgrade the importance of the activity on
OBVIOUSIMPLICATIONS which the threat is focused. Thus, if it’s in-
dicated, directly or indirectly, that I am a
The fact that almost everyone thinks he is an poor assembler, I can cope with that threat
above-average performer probably lies at the to my self-esteem by denying that being a
44 root of most of our problems with merit pay good assembler is of any importance to me.
Among the alternative ways of proving to if you will. Mental health experts tell us that
myself that the job no longer counts are it is essential to effective functioning in life
tardiness, absenteeism, and restriction of out- that one has high self-esteem. A great deal of
put. Too many workers cope with threats to research has shown that, with ability and all
their occupational self-esteem with one or all other factors held constant, persons with high
of these reactions. self-esteem will consistently and significantly
Another common way of coping with outperform persons with low self-esteem in
a threat to an individual’s self-esteem is to academic, occupational, athletic, or any other
disparage the source. In case of a threat com- type of activity. Thus, it is clear that man-
municated through a merit pay decision, the agers would do well to cultivate high occupa-
supervisor’s capabilities might be questioned. tional self-esteem among their employees.
Our research has shown that this reaction is
much more common than most people like
to admit. We found that a majority of em- WHAT Is THE ANSWER?
ployees expressed more unfavorable opinions
of their supervisors after they had had a per- Unfortunately, most employees will opt for a
formance appraisal and salary discussion than merit pay plan if they trust management,
they had before the discussion. thinking that they will make out well under
An obvious solution to the problem such a plan. The superior performers under the
would be to orient employees to reality. The plan will get above-average salary increases.
majority have unrealistically high opinions of Since almost everyone thinks his own per-
their own performance. The manager, there- formance is above average, almost everyone
fore, should level with them-let them know expects the above-average increase. Giving
that they are not really above-average per- everyone about the same increase doesn’t solve
formers. the problem if they are ostensibly operating
I hope it is also obvious that this under a merit pay plan. The great majority
would be a very poor solution to the problem. will be dissatisfied with this “average” treat-
If a person identifies at all with his work and ment.
takes pride in what he is doing, he should Thus the manager appears to be in a
thins he is good at it-“well above average,” damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situa-

“An euen more common wdy of copingwith

d the& to one’s self-estteem
-d wdy thdt

veryundesirdble
h4z.f comeqzlences
- is
to downpde the importlirnce
of the actiuity
OIZ
which the threatis focmed.” 45
 tion. He must choose between the lesser of the individual’s frame of reference for judg-
two evils. He must either abandon the idea ing the equity of the salary offered will usually
of pay as a potentially effective motivator or be less precise. Even more important is the
use a merit pay plan and accept the probability fact that the individual’s frame of reference
that the majority of employees will be dis- for judging his own salary treatment will be
satisfied with their salary treatment. While much less personal.
it is somewhat heretical in our culture, I am Let me explain. When an individual
convinced that the former course will have has been with an organization long enough
the less negative consequences in most situa- to qualify for a merit pay increase, he usually
tions. I would not recommend strictly auto- has precise information about the range of
matic increases for everyone. On the other percentage increases others like himself in
hand, I would give all employees judged to the same organization are receiving. Thus,
be performing at a satisfactory level the same the frame of reference for evaluating his own
percentage increase whenever salaries are ad- increase is well defined and personalized-
justed upward. his comparisons are with persons who work
with him and whose performances he can
evaluate informally relative to his own. When
A REVISEDPAY SYSTEM a starting salary is being negotiated, he does
not have as much information and cannot
I would recommend a salary plan in which easily make personal comparisons with peers.
an individual is employed on the basis of an The negotiated contract would also
implicit contract. A starting position level specify the pattern of future salary increases
would be negotiated, with both management’s that could be expected, along with any fac-
needs and frame of reference as well as the tors that could cause fluctuations in this
employee’s perceptions of his own capabilities schedule. Thus, the individual’s salary within
taken into account. As a matter of fact, this a job range would increase at a fairly predict-
is pretty much the procedure followed by able rate, as long as his performance met the
most organizations now when executives or criteria negotiated in the implicit contract.
highly trained and experienced professionals A predictable salary progress schedule
are hired from outside the organization. In not only should help to reduce uncertainty
many cases the contract is explicit and the about future pay but also should prevent the
terms are documented and legally binding. development of false expectations. In addition,
The problem of d’lstorted self-perceptions is it should minimize dysfunctional competition
still present in the negotiations relating to the between individuals for favored treatment.
starting salary. However, it is not likely to be Yet another major advantage of a
so acute as in the merit pay situation, because fairly stable and predictable salary progress
schedule is that it would not permit managers
to rely on pay as an important motivator. It
would force managers instead to acquire skills
in more effective ways of motivating individu-
als, such as giving them added responsibilities
or allowing them to participate in decision
making.
46 Additional training of managers
would be required in many cases, but this is
not an insurmountable task. The behavior
modification techniques that have been em-
ployed by many organizations in the last few
years are proving to be remarkably effective
in helping managers acquire new leadership
skills.

NOT AN AUTOL~ATICINCREASE

The regular increase would not be automatic.

It would be withheld from the small percent
of employees (perhaps 5 to 10 percent) who
are not seen as performing up to their implicit Herbert H. Meyer is currently professor and
contract. However, in every case the increase director of the Industrial/Organizational

would be withheld only if the employee were Psychology Program at the University of
South Florida in Tampa. For 20 years, until
given prior warning-and employees would
September 1973, he was manager of personnel
be given this assurance at the time they were research, Corporate Employee Relations Stag,
hired. In other words, the manager would not General Electric Company. The research pro-
be permitted to surprise an employee by tell- gram he directed included studies dealing
ing him for the first time when an annual in- with employee motivation, organization
development, career progress, identification
crease is due, “I’m sorry, but your performance
of management potential, and related topics.
has been too poor to warrant an increase.”
Prior to that position, he served as a consultant
Rather, he would be required to warn the em- with the Industrial Division of The Psy-
ployee in advance-in fact months in advance chological Corporation and as assistant indus-
-that performance at his present level will trial psychologist for the Detroit Edison
Company.
not justify an increase. In this case the man-
Professor Meyer received his M.A.
ager should also specify as clearly as possible
and Ph.D. in psychology from the University
the performance criteria that must be met if of Michigan. He has published frequently in
the employee is to receive the scheduled in- professional journals and has contributed to
crease. After giving such a warning, the man- several books on various aspects of personnel
ager would also have to provide feedback research. He served as president of the Divi-
sion of Industrial and Organizational Psy-
from time to time as to whether the specified
chology of the American Psychological
criteria for earning the increase are being met. Association in 1970-71.
This way of dealing with unsatisfac-
tory performers would force the manager to
take some kind of summary action with re-
gard to those employees who consistently are
not performing up to expectations. All man-
agers are likely to make selection errors from
time to time. In other cases, an employee’s
performance may be inadequate for reasons
beyond the manager’s control. In every case 47
 of inadequate performance, however, it is usu- organization, certainly every large organiza-
ally best, not only for the organization but tion, should have well-defined hierarchies of
also for the individual himself, if some posi- positions through which individuals can
tive action is taken to rectify the situation as advance. Such advancement opportunities
soon as possible. In many cases the best action should be available to as high a percentage
for all concerned is to get the individual out of members of the organization as possible.
of the job. The vague and indirect means that Needless to say, those in different types of
many managers use to communicate their dis- positions would have different types of pro-
satisfaction with an individual’s performance motional opportunities to which they might
often only creates disruptive tensions and bit- aspire.
terness. Promotions should certainly not be
limited to instances of moving to a higher
reporting level in the organization. In fact,
Focus MOTIVATION
ONWORK most promotions would probably involve
moving up to positions within one’s function
The implicit contract approach, with relatively that are more complex or that involve higher
predictable salary growth in a job, would levels of responsibility and more important
place the emphasis on intrinsic rather than decisions. The outstanding accountant, sales-
extrinsic motivation. In other words, it would man, technician, engineer, and so on is often
focus attention on the work itself rather than much more valuable to the organization for
on pay. Needless to say, the basic salary level his technical contributions than for his su-
established for the job would have to be satis- pervisory or managerial skills.
factory to the individual, or pay might become Decisions to promote an individual to
a demotivator. Presumably, most individuals a higher-level position can usually be made
would not accept a position at what they con- on the basis of more objective criteria than
sidered an unsatisfactory salary level. can decisions to grant a merit increase within
But couldn’t this system result in a job. In fact, an important feature of the
stagnation? What incentive would an indi- position advancement plan would be that
vidual have to really excel in his work? qualifications for the positions at different
Shouldn’t the employee whose contributions levels are defined as clearly and objectively
are obviously superior to the contributions as possible.
of others doing similar work be recognized? The system or procedures used for
And how will we attract and provide for the making decisions to promote individuals
individual who wants to develop higher-level should be as visible, thorough, and objective
skills in order to advance in responsibility and as possible. Every effort should be made to
status? These are all legitimate questions that
must be answered satisfactorily if the pay
plan is to be effective.

PROMOTIONS
PROVIDE
INCENTIVE

The answer to these critical questions lies in

48 a well-administered promotion system. Every
insure that promotional decisions are also above average. Even a well-administered merit
perceived as being made on fair and objective pay plan cannot give positive feedback to this
bases. The use of the assessment center ap- majority. The consequence is likely to be
proach, for example, which involves “work that the individual’s self-esteem is threatened.
sample” or simulation exercises relating to the Too often one copes with such a threat by
target position, usually meets these criteria. demeaning the importance of the job or by
Cutthroat competition for promotions can be derogating the source-that is, disparaging
minimized by utilizing peer nominations as the boss or management in general.
an important part of the screening process. In addition, merit pay emphasizes
In short, I would invest the money the direct relationship between job perfor-
usually spent for extra merit steps in the salary mance and dollar rewards, thereby detracting
plan in a sound manpower planning program. from intrinsic motivation in the work itself.
The status and potential of each individual A system that would switch the emphasis to
in the organization would be reviewed very rewards for self-development and opportuni-
thoroughly at least annually. The organiza- ties for greater responsibility would seem to
tion structure would be flexible enough to serve both individual and organizational goals
permit well-qualified and deserving persons in a more effective manner.
to be promoted to higher-level positions in
responsibility and salary without having to
wait for an “opening” as such. However, the SELECTEDBIBLIOGRAPHY
reward system would put emphasis on the
opportunities to assume more responsibility The General Electric Company research on the
rather than on dollar rewards for performance. performance appraisal process, referred to in the
Everyone would know pretty well where he article, is reported in the January-February 1965
stood and could make reasonably accurate issue of the Harvard Business Review under the
estimates of what the future held for him in title “Split Roles in Performance Appraisal.” It
the organization. was co-authored by Herbert H. Meyer, Emanuel
Kay, and John R. P. French. Another Harvard
Business Review article, this one in the January-
February 1973 issue, presents an interesting com-
IN SUMMARY
mentary on the carrot-and-stick principle of mo-
tivation. This was authored by Harry Levinson
To recapitulate briefly, I believe that the basis and was entitled “Asinine Attitudes Toward
for most of the problems we have with merit Motivation.”
pay plans is the fact that the great majority Lyman Porter’s research on manager at-
of people think their own job performance is titudes was reported in the /ournal of Applied
Psychology, 1961, Vol. 45, under the title “A
Study of Perceived Need Satisfactions in Bottom
and Middle Management Jobs.” Edward Law-
ler’s research, referred to in this article, was in
“Managers’ Perceptions of Their Subordinates’
and of Their Superiors’ Pay,” in Personnel Psy-
chology, 1965, Vol. 18.
The fascinating research of Edward
Deci on the effects of pay on intrinsic motivation
is described in his article entitled “The Effects 49
 of Contingent and Non-contingent Rewards and skew toward inflated views as was found in the
Controls on Intrinsic Motivation,” in Organizu- other studies cited in this article.
tional Behavior and Human Performance, 1972, For an excellent description of the “as-
Vol. 8. This same research is also reported using sessment center” technique as a manager selec-
a less technical style in the August 1972 issue of tion tool, see William C. Byham’s “Assessment
Psychology Today. Centers for Spotting Future Managers,” Harvard
For research on self-esteem of workers Business Review, July-August 1970. A summary
in various jobs and occupational levels, see of the findings of research studies on the effec-
“Varieties of Work Experience” by H. Wilen- tiveness of peer appraisals in predicting leader-
sky in Borow’s Man in a World of Work ship success can be found on page 131 of Abra-
(Houghton Mifflin, 1964). The Beer and Gery ham K. Korman’s Industrial and Organizational
findings referred to were described by Michael Psychology (Prentice-Hall, 1971).
Beer and Gloria J. Gery in “Individual and There have been a great number of
Organizational Correlates of Pay System Prefer- articles and a few books in the training literature
ences,” Managerial Motivation and Compensa- recently on the use of reinforcement and behavior
tion, Henry L. Tosi, ed. (Michigan State Uni- modification techniques in manager training. One
versity, Graduate School of Business, 1972). of the most detailed and authoritative is a book
The Parker studies on self-appraisal can by Arnold P. Goldstein and Melvin Sorcher en-
be found in the Spring 1959 issue of Personnel titled Changing Supervisor Behavior (Pergamon
Psychology in an article co-authored by J. W. Press, 1974).
Parker, E. K. Taylor, R. S. Barrett, and S.
Martens, entitled “Rating Scale Content: III.

CD
Relationships Between Supervisory- and Self-Rat-
ings.” Incidentally, the distributions of self-
ratings that these authors report show the same

FRANCES FORE

Frances Fore, Executive Editor of PERSONNEL and Man-

aging Editor of ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS and COMPEN-

SATION REVIEW, died on October 5. Those of us who have

worked with Ms. Fore during her thirteen years at
AMA will miss her devotion, her help, and her real
professionalism.

50