Kevin R. Murphy, Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University.
Explaining the Weak Relationship Between Job Performance and Ratings of Job Performance
Version of Record online: 7 MAY 2008
© 2008 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Volume 1, Issue 2, pages 148–160, June 2008
How to Cite
MURPHY, K. R. (2008), Explaining the Weak Relationship Between Job Performance and Ratings of Job Performance. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1: 148–160. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00030.x
- Issue online: 7 MAY 2008
- Version of Record online: 7 MAY 2008
Ratings of job performance are widely viewed as poor measures of job performance. Three models of the performance–performance rating relationship offer very different explanations and solutions for this seemingly weak relationship. One-factor models suggest that measurement error is the main difference between performance and performance ratings and they offer a simple solution—that is, the correction for attenuation. Multifactor models suggest that the effects of job performance on performance ratings are often masked by a range of systematic nonperformance factors that also influence these ratings. These models suggest isolating and dampening the effects of these nonperformance factors. Mediated models suggest that intentional distortions are a key reason that ratings often fail to reflect ratee performance. These models suggest that raters must be given both the tools and the incentive to perform well as measurement instruments and that systematic efforts to remove the negative consequences of giving honest performance ratings are needed if we hope to use performance ratings as serious measures of job performance.