Search

The attitudes of twenty-nine managers toward performance appraisal and toward their organization were used to predict differences in mean ratings and measures of discrimination among ratees and performance dimensions. Substantial multiple correlations were obtained for all three dependent variables (between 32 and 46% of the variance in each measure was explained), and several individual correlations were statistically significant. Raters who showed low levels of confidence in the appraisal system, high levels of discomfort, or high levels of instrumental commitment were more likely to provide ratings that were unusually high or that did not discriminate well among ratees and/or dimensions. Raters who showed higher levels of attitudinal commitment or who perceived more risks associated with distorting ratings tended to provide lower ratings and to discriminate among ratees and/or dimensions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human Resource (HR) executives were surveyed with regard to their perceptions of academic HR research information. In general, the results suggest that HR practitioners' attitudes related to relevance, skepticism, and accessibility are not as negative as was commonly assumed. Still, some specific areas of practitioner concern were identified in the study. The executives' attitudes were also found to be significantly related to specific demographic and organizational variables. Interestingly, HR executives with Ph.D.'s had significantly more negative attitudes toward academic research than those without Ph.D.s. Male HR executives also viewed academic research as more irrelevant than their female counterparts. Attitudes also differed significantly as a function of organizational size and type of industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]