초록 열기/닫기 버튼
This study examines the effects of perceived appraisal purpose, procedural justice, and attributional behavior on ratee’s accountability in the context of multi-rater performance appraisal system. In addition, this study reveals how the extent of ratee accountability differs depending on the type of raters (supervisor or peer). Design/Methodology/Approach A sample of 153 employees in 8 firms implementing multi-rater performance appraisal system was used, and hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed to test the hypotheses. Findings Ratees reported a higher level of accountability to supervisor than to peers. Ratee perception of procedural justice was positively associated with accountability to supervisor, peer, and general accountability. In addition, ratee’s external attribution behavior (i.e., attribution to supervisor monitoring) was found to enhance the level of accountability to peers. Research Implications The main results indicate the importance of procedural justice when designing and implementing multi-rater performance appraisal system. Lack of an appropriate degree of supervisor monitoring, one of the external attribution factors, is associated with one’s level of accountability to peers. This implies that one’s motivation to maintain and protect self-image and a sense of self-esteem is at work in the multi-rater performance appraisal settings. Furthermore, this study takes the perspective of ratee, a critical yet under-explored aspect in the accountability literature.
