Human Resource Management
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL CRITERION SPECIFICITY AND STATISTICAL EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION
H. W. Hennessey Jr. and H. John Bernardin
Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses in EEO cases involving performance appraisals often claim that adverse impact is a result of the type of rating format used. Their theory is that more specific rating criteria will lead to lessened adverse impact. We tested that theory by comparing data from a simple category-based rating system against data from a standards-based Work Planning and Review appraisal system with over 248,000 performance appraisals of state employees. Using logistic regression and statistical definitions of prima facie discrimination, we found no support for the hypothesis that adverse impact is materially affected by criterion specificity. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Introduction Performance appraisal is often at the center of equal employment opportunity litigation involving promotions and terminations (Bernardin & Tyler, 2001). The recent heavily publicized Title VII cases against CocaCola, the Ford Motor Company, Boeing, Texaco, Circuit City, Publix Super Markets, Motel 6, Smith Barney, Home Depot, and Wendy’s, for example, all concerned (in part) the presentation of adverse-impact statistics related to promotions and a scrutiny of the manner in which performance appraisal was conducted in the organization as related to those promotions or terminations (Malos, 1996; Myerson, 1997; Villanova, Austin, & Bernardin, 2002).
The complaint in Abdallah et al. v. CocaCola (1999), for example, stated, “Coca-Cola Company utilizes employee evaluations …that treat African-American salaried employees less favorably than similarly situated employees outside the protected group.” Reports submitted for class certification in the case included the calculation of adverse-impact statistics and expert testimony regarding the process of evaluating employees. Thus, under a class-based lawsuit enlisting a
H. W. Hennessey Jr. and H. John Bernardin
Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses in EEO cases involving performance appraisals often claim that adverse impact is a result of the type of rating format used. Their theory is that more specific rating criteria will lead to lessened adverse impact. We tested that theory by comparing data from a simple category-based rating system against data from a standards-based Work Planning and Review appraisal system with over 248,000 performance appraisals of state employees. Using logistic regression and statistical definitions of prima facie discrimination, we found no support for the hypothesis that adverse impact is materially affected by criterion specificity. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Introduction Performance appraisal is often at the center of equal employment opportunity litigation involving promotions and terminations (Bernardin & Tyler, 2001). The recent heavily publicized Title VII cases against CocaCola, the Ford Motor Company, Boeing, Texaco, Circuit City, Publix Super Markets, Motel 6, Smith Barney, Home Depot, and Wendy’s, for example, all concerned (in part) the presentation of adverse-impact statistics related to promotions and a scrutiny of the manner in which performance appraisal was conducted in the organization as related to those promotions or terminations (Malos, 1996; Myerson, 1997; Villanova, Austin, & Bernardin, 2002).
The complaint in Abdallah et al. v. CocaCola (1999), for example, stated, “Coca-Cola Company utilizes employee evaluations …that treat African-American salaried employees less favorably than similarly situated employees outside the protected group.” Reports submitted for class certification in the case included the calculation of adverse-impact statistics and expert testimony regarding the process of evaluating employees. Thus, under a class-based lawsuit enlisting a