Description:
ABSTRACTWe examine how a holistic versus disaggregated performance evaluation system affects supervisors' subjective evaluations of their subordinates in a promotion setting. A survey of actual supervisors and subordinates indicates that, compared to a holistic system, respondents prefer a disaggregated system and believe it provides more useful feedback and gives a fairer evaluation. We next conduct an experiment with M.B.A. students to examine whether the two types of evaluation systems can lead supervisors to rate their subordinates' job performance differently in a promotion setting. Results indicate that when supervisors are concurrently considering which subordinate to promote in the future, they inflate the overall rating of the subordinate who is best suited for promotion under a holistic system, but not under a disaggregated system. Results from a supplemental experiment suggest that supervisors under a holistic system mentally inflate the rating of the specific performance measure most relevant to the upcoming promotion decision.Data Availability: Data available upon request.