Effects Of Personality Judgments In Performance Appraisal PDF Download

Many researchers have studied the possible relationship of personality traits and their impact on professional performance, but there has been little research conducted on the possible affect of personality on the judgment of performance. This study was designed to determine if there was a relationship between personality traits and the assessor's performance rating of tasks completed in a food laboratory. Can an understanding of an individual's personality give insight into how that individual assesses the performance of others and also be of benefit in explaining the relationship between the two? The objectives of this study were: (1) to find an association between peer ratings of performance and instructor ratings of performance, and (2) to investigate differences among the total performance scores given to their peers by raters with the four dominant personality combinations (as referenced by Keirsey: SJ, SP, NT, and NF). The population for this study was students at the University of Missouri-Columbia, majoring in Hotel and Restaurant Management. A convenience sample of college students enrolled in "Principles of Food Preparation" was selected each of three semesters. The findings were: Hypothesis 1 . The correlation analysis used the specific laboratory performance scores for each subject (N = 128, with 12 repeated measures), and the instructor's performance scores for the same laboratory (N = 128, with 12 repeated measures). Because of the 12 comparisons in the correlation analysis, the analysis was conducted at an alpha level .004 (.05/12). Only 1 of the 12 correlations of the analysis between subject and instructor was significant at the .004 alpha level (2-tailed test), the null hypothesis was rejected. It should be noted that this is a weak association and is not of practical significance. Hypothesis 2 . A one-way analysis of variance with repeated measures on one factor (type, a new variable produced based on the literature review of Keirsey: SJ, SP, NT, or NF) was tested at an alpha level of 05. In the Test of Between-Subjects Effects, the F value for personality types (F = 1.40) was not significant. Because there were no significant differences between types, the null hypothesis was not rejected. An additional related finding concerned items of both null hypotheses. In the Huynh-Feldt Test of Within-Subject Effects, the computed value for labs (F = 3.75) was significant (associated with first hypothesis), and the interaction between lab and personality type (F = 1.29) was not significant (associated with second hypothesis). Because of the significant F -value, further analysis of the lab variable was conducted. Originally, there did not appear to be a need to review the pairwise comparisons of the one-way analysis of variance with repeated measures, because of the non-significant findings. But after reviewing the comparisons, there were significant differences associated with the second laboratory performances. A time-series analysis was completed to compare the marginal means of the personality types across the 12 laboratories, and again, there was evidence that the second laboratory was significantly different from the other labs.