PENILAIAN KEPUTUSAN INVESTIGASI VARIAN:
EFEK OUTCOMES DAN FRAMING
Unika Widya Mandala Surabaya
Performance appraisal involves the judgmental evaluation of jobholder’s traits, behavior, or accomplishments as a basis of making important personnel decisions and development plans. Performance appraisal should be made by performance appraiser on the basis of valid and reliable evidence, including when he/she evaluates his/her subordinate (a decision maker) who made variance investigation decision. It predict: (1) Outcome bias will have an impact on the perceived benefit of the investigation, (2) Investigation expenditures matched with perceived benefit are framed as costs while those without perceived benefit are framed as losses, and (3) evaluators with a cost frame provide higher performance ratings than those with a loss frame.
A 2 x 2 between-subjects laboratory experiment design, with one hundred and ninety one Cost Accounting students demonstrates that outcome effect affect performance appraisal significantly (p-value = 0,023). When managers did not investigate cost variance, they were evaluated more unfavorably when investigation revealed problems in the system. Further, the investigation outcome affect the perceived benefit of the investigation significantly (p-value < 0,05), expenditures with perceived benefit are framed as costs while those without perceived benefit are framed as losses. Thus, paying premium frame in this research conclude moderately significant framing effect on higher performance.
Keywords: Variance investigation, Outcomes, dan Framing.
The performance evaluation (performance appraisal) involve judgmental evaluation of the character, behavior, or achievement of the workers who subsequently became the basis for making decisions and personal development plan (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2000). Data for performance assessment can then be used to: (1) administrative salaries, (2) performance feedback, (3) identification of weaknesses and strengths of individuals, (4) documentation of individual decisions, (5) recognition of individual performance, (6) identification poor performance, (7) assistance in the identification of objectives, (8) promotion decisions, (9) retention or dismissal of employees, and (10) evaluation of achievement of goals. Because of the extent of the benefits of performance appraisal data, the performance appraisal judgments to be made based on valid and reliable evidence.
Knowingly or not, there are various biases that affect judgments of the assessors of performance. Research now discuss the effects of bias caused by the outcome (outcome bias). Outcome or ex post information is the end result of a series of activities that may not be associated with ex ante information because the outcome can not be controlled by the decision maker (DM). Outcome bias arises when the evaluator assessment is influenced by knowledge of the outcome (Hawkins and Hastie, 1990 in Ghosh, 2005). If the outcome is positive, the appraisal of performance (upper management) tend to evaluate their subordinates (DM) is more positive than actual feasibility assessment based on ex ante information. Conversely, if a negative outcome, the performance appraisal tends to evaluate his subordinates in a more negative.
Simposium Nasional Akuntansi 11