7-VanWykBoshoff.qxd


Competency assessment is intended to align the objectives of an

individual with that of the organisation, to optimise the level of

performance of the individual and heighten his/her self-esteem.

The aim of competency assessment is ultimately to maximise

and maintain performance right through organisations by

maintaining controls to produce the functioning of a productive

unity. Three broad guidelines are identified as influencing

competency assessment namely, actual job performance of

evaluee, different biases of evaluators’ perceptions and

performance recall, and measurement error (Wherry & Bartlett,

1982). This article is concerned with the possible cognitive

processes taking place in work decisions, possibly related to

biased perceptions of evaluators.

Ideally ratings should reflect an individual’s actual performance.

Research findings imply that this is not the case. Warr and

Bourne (1999) indicate in t wo 360° study samples, the

congruence between ratings of different people and the

discrepancy bet ween these ratings were statistically

independent. Ratings therefore seem to be subjective rather than

objective. Theron and Roodt (1999) report similar findings. A

statistical significant difference is reported bet ween the

performance ratings of managers vs. self-, customer- and peer-

ratings, (N = 68) indicating more conservative ratings by

managers. Further analyses by these authors (Theron & Roodt,

2000) indicate that 360° rater groups have fairly unique views

on different dimensions of competencies. In a study by Scullen,

Mount and Goff (2000), on average general job performance

accounted for 13%, dimensional performance for 8% and

random error for 11% of the observed variance in competency

assessment. Contrary to this, the idiosyncratic rater variance

accounted for between 53% and 62% of the variance in

competency assessment. Seeing that idiosyncratic ratings

accounts for more than half of the variance, this presents a major

challenge into the investigation of cognitive processes taking

place during competency assessment ratings. 

Keeping and Lev y (2000) indicate that the research literature on

competency assessment is in need of a theoretic framework to

understand systematic differences of t y pical judgement

patterns. Even with the marked increase of different 360°

performance rating techniques, there is limited research into

the judgement process (Warr & Bourne, 1999). Different

possible relationships could play a role in idiosyncratic

variance, for instance between superior and sub-ordinate, sub-

ordinate and peer and self-ratings (see Theron & Roodt, 1999,

2000). Rater biases can develop as systematic variance in

competency assessment that has nothing to do with the actual

performance of the sub-ordinate, but rather associated with bias

of the rater. This could be due to attributive observations,

affective/emotional responses, expectancies and motivations.

This could in turn influence rater bias of halo error or leniency

error (Theron & Roodt, 1999, 2000). 

Eventually rater bias could contribute to the motivation,

performance and goal setting of the ratee. The inter-relationship

between possible constructs playing a role in the variability in

performance assessment is illustrated in figure 1.

Figure 1: The inter-relationship between possible constructs

playing a role in the variability in performance assessment

In this paper factors playing a role in idiosyncratic performance

and consequent rater variance is investigated from a cognitive

perspective.

R VAN W YK

AB BOSHOFF
Dept of Human Resource Management

University of Pretoria

CL BESTER
Dept of Industrial Psychology

University of the Orange Free State

ABSTRACT
Indications are that research on competency assessment lacks a theoretical frame of reference. An attempt is made

to explore cognitive processes taking place during assessment explaining the large percentage of rater variance.  The

principles of five different cognitive theories are discussed in the search for possible explanations namely:  cognitive

choice-, cognitive evaluation-, social cognitive theories, metacognitive- and the new paradigm approaches.

OPSOMMING
Aanduidings uit die literatuur is dat navorsing aangaande bevoegdheidsevaluering gebrekkig is aan ’n teoretiese

ondertoon.  Ondersoek word ingestel na die kognitiewe prosesse wat plaasvind gedurende beoordeling wat

aanduidend kan wees van die hoë persentasie variansie tussen evalueerders.  Die beginsels van vyf verskillende

kognitiewe teorieë word bespreek om moontlike verklarings te ondersoek, naamlik kognitiewe keuse-, kognitiewe

evaluering-, sosiaal kognitieweteorieë, meta-kognitiewe- en die nuwe paradigma-benaderings.

POSSIBLE COGNITIVE PROCESSES UNDERLYING 

COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT

Requests for copies should be addressed to: R van Wyk, Department of Human

Resource Management, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0002

45

SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 2003, 29 (3), 45-52

SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 2003, 29 (3), 45-52



Cognitive Theory

Cognitive theory is defined as a group of theories that explain

the learning process within the organism, such as cognitive

schemes or expectancies formed or altered during the learning

process (Plug, Meyer, Louw & Gouws, 1986). The person

generally recognised as the pioneer cognitive theorist is Edward

Tolman (Luthans, 1998). He explains cognitive learning as

relationships between cognitive environmental cues on the one

hand and expectations on the other hand. This relationship

theory was tested through controlled experimentation by

proving that a rat could learn to find its way through an intricate

maize, by making choices at cues, with search for food as goal. 

Different cognitive theories and notions, as mainly classified by

Kanfer (1990), are accordingly discussed in relation to

competency assessment and the consequent relationship with

rater variance, motivation, performance and goal setting. The

cognitive theories of cognitive choice-, cognitive evaluation-,

social cognitive-, meta-cognitive-theories, and the new

paradigm approaches are discussed and illustrated in figure 2.

Cognitive Choice Theories

Cognitive choice theories are derived from the Expectancy x

Value (E x V) theories focussing on two key constituents of

subjective selection, namely expectations and evaluation of

expected consequences (Kanfer, 1990). These E x V theories have

in common that individuals make hedonistic choices in order to

maximise positive affect and minimise negative affect. The E x

V models concentrate on decision behaviour rather than task or

performance behaviour. Different Cognitive Choice Theories

have since developed:

Atkinson’s Theory of Achievement Motivation. Atkinson

proposed the following formula for achievement motivation

(Atkinson, 1957):

Task = ( (motive to achieve success – motive to avoid failure) 

� perceived probability of task success x incentive value of

task success).

This formula implies that individuals differ in how 

much their success motives and avoidance incentives 

weigh against one another. The argument follows that 

success oriented individuals perform and persist longer at tasks of

intermediate difficulty and that failure-oriented individuals favour

tasks that are at the extremes of either easy or difficult tasks.

Raynor’s Theory of Fut ure Orientation Effects and

Achievement Motivation. This theory is an extension of the

theory of Atkinson, in the sense that task performances are

related to proceedings to following tasks (Raynor, 1969). The

Raynor theory can be presented as:

Task engagement = �� [(motive to achieve success – motive to

avoid failure) x

�� �� of perceived success probabilities x value of success

incentive of tasks)]

Raynor and Entin (1982) conducted a study to compare the

number of attempts made to get the correct answer on maths

problems under contingent and non-contingent situations.

Contingent situations were identified as conditions where

individuals were supposed to first find the correct solution to

a maths problem before attempting the next more difficult

problem, while in the non-contingent situation individuals

were allowed to continue with more difficult problems even if

previous solutions were not discovered. It was found that

participants in the contingent situations made significantly

more attempts to find the correct solution to problems than

individuals in the non-contingent condition. In terms of the

rationale of this theory the number of attempts increased in

the contingency situation in order to maximise success,

minimise failure, with the objective to increase the

probability of total success. Applied to the work situation

these findings could imply that individuals setting certain

success standards before starting new tasks would maximise

the quality of their work success.

Vroom’s Valence-Instrumentalit y-Expectancy Theory.

Vroom (1964) refers to valence as the individual’s

strength/value of preference for a particular event. Should a

person have no preference for an outcome, the valence would

be zero. If the person prefers not to have the outcome, the

valence would be negative. Vroom’s valence-instrumentality-

expectancy theory identifies persons’ choices as influenced by

perceptions with regard to three variables: (a) effort-

performance expectancies (first-level outcome), (b)

instrumentalities (relationships between performance and

second-level outcomes of pay, praise or promotion) and (c)

evaluation of valence (second-level outcome attractiveness).

The function of instrumentalit y plays a major role in

transforming first level outcomes to desired second level

outcomes. The combination of perceived expectancies,

instrumentalities and valences would serve as motivational

forces in the work situation and lead to certain choices. In the

competency assessment context it is hypothesised that when

valences are anticipated to be high, motivational forces and

effort levels are expected to be high. For instance, a sales

representative may want to increase his/her income, realising

that effort performance through elevated sales is the factor that

leads to instrumentalities of increased pay and performance.

The first level outcome is instrumental to obtaining the second

level outcome of high sales and increased income.

VAN W YK, BOSHOFF, BESTER46

Figure 2: Cognitive theories



Attribution theory. The attribution theory refers to a set of

theoretical principles explaining the way in which causal

inferences are drawn of others’ behaviour (Eiser, 1986). Eiser

explains that attributions are methods of interpreting the

behaviour or actions of others, categorising behaviour by

making causal inferences. It is explained that an individual has

a certain disposition of knowledge, in terms of which he/she

attributes certain actions to an actor. Should behaviour deviate

from previous or clearly defined roles, it would cry for

explanation. This explains the phenomenon of the halo effect

where raters expect employees to perform similar on different

performance dimensions.

A further distinction is made between ‘internal’ and ‘external’

attributions. Actions or characteristics of an individual will be

attributed as ‘external’, should the individual’s action be seen

as an out of the ordinary response for the specific individual

to the situation. More consistent behaviours would more

probably be attributed as ‘internal’, i.e. part of the individual’s

make-up. ‘Internal’ and ‘external’ behaviour is further

evaluated in terms of perceived internal or external locus of

control. Rotter (1966) explains that the general expectancies of

individuals differ with regard to ‘reinforcement of locus of

control’. At the one extreme ‘internally’ oriented individuals

ascribe reinforcements (feedback) received to personal

attributes, at the other extreme ‘externally’ oriented

individuals ascribe reinforcement (feedback) to chance or

forces beyond their control. This could play a major role in

egocentric bias.

Weiner’s Attribution Theory. The attribution theory of

Weiner is based on the literature on multidimensional scaling,

factor-analysis and concept formation (Weiner, 1974).

According to this theory three causal attributional dimensions

are used in performance feedback and compensation, namely

(1) locus of causality (internal/external), (2) the stability of

outcomes (endurance across time and situations) and (3)

perceived controllability (desired control). The hypothesis

follows that perceived stabilit y of outcome attributes

strengthens outcome certainty.

In a study conducted by Staw (1975) based on attributions,

individuals randomly assigned to two groups were separately

informed that they either fell in a high performance group or

a low performance group. Results showed that individuals

randomly assigned to the high performance group saw their

team mates as significantly more cohesive, superior in quality

and quantity of communication and in total influence than

the group identified as a low performance group. Further

analysis indicated the high performance group enjoyed the

task assignment significantly more, saw team mates as more

interested in performing well, rated the ability of team mates

and clarity of instructions higher than the members of the low

performance group did. Attributions as self-fulfilling

prophecies seem to play an important role in the dynamics of

beliefs in performance.

General Attribution Categories

Categorisation. Feldman (1981) refers to the categorisation

process taking place during competency assessment as an

information organisation and storage course of action. The

notion of automatic or controlled categorisation is explained

in terms of percept ion, organisat ion and storage of

information and stimuli that consistently fit into a category,

enabling individuals to process large amounts of

informat ion. These categories form along the lines of

informal correlations explaining the rater bias. The job of a

nurse is for instance associated with working different shifts,

hard physical work with the expectancy of social and

professional skill. Recall of information would be channelled

along the lines of general characteristics of a category,

especially when specific informat ion is not available,

assumptions might be made on grounds of the protot ype

potentially leading to the halo effect or biased recall.

Individual differences on grounds of the selection on

categories may vary and affect and situational factors may

determine the salience of a category. Should an individual

deviate from the category or protot ype, a problem-solving re-

categorisation process has to take place and attribution

theory comes into action. The categorisation process can

limit the selecting process during competency assessment.

For instance a person that has to be evaluated in more than

one category by one evaluator can easily evaluate the

individual on grounds of a negative protot ype formed of an

individual in the previous situation, not withstanding the

contrary in the following situation, implicating biased recall.

In a study by Smither, Buda and Reilly (1988) the effect of

knowledge of a ratee’s prior performance on present

performance evaluation was examined. Rater subjects viewing

extremely good and poor previous performance on videotape

and in writing, viewed follow up ‘average’ performance as

more extreme, than rater subjects who reviewed less extreme

prior performances explaining biased recall.

Gender evaluation. Different studies on gender bias have

showed no difference in the evaluation of males and females, eg.

London and Stumpf (1983) Taylor and Falcone (1982) and

Robbins and DeNisi (1993). Some studies investigating the

evaluating both genders, indicate a favourable bias towards

female subjects (Peters, O’Connor & Wexley, 1984; Pulakos &

Wexley, 1983). In a summary by Landy and Farr (1980), research

findings of the majority of the studies report no consistent effect

of rater gender on ratings in laboratory and simulated settings.

The study by Dobbins, Truxillo and Cardy (1988) indicate that

female ratees were assessed less accurate by raters identified with

traditional stereotypes of women, than raters identified having

non-traditional stereotypes of women. 

Robbins and DeNisi (1993) examined the cognitive characteristics

in competency assessment, related to gender bias, in the light of

the general lower job status and lower compensation of female

workers. Results indicate that gender bias does not present as an

influencing factor during rater appraisals of apprasees in gender

congruent and incongruent occupations. These authors argue

that the sensitisation of gender rights, gender discrimination and

gender bias issues may currently play a role in the evaluation of

raters. It may also be influenced by the motivational objectives to

evaluate impartially, especially in gender incongruent jobs. Saal

and Moore (1993) investigated the fairness of promotion

decisions in fictitious court cases in a sample of 336

undergraduate students. Results indicated that both genders

assessed promotion of the opposite gender as significantly less

fair than that of their own gender.

The findings of the above studies seem to indicate that the effect

of gender on raters’ evaluation is inconclusive. 

Race. Landy and Farr (1980) report a general finding of four

studies that supervisors tend to give more positive ratings to

subordinates of their own race, than to subordinates of

another race.

Cross-cult ural evaluation. According to Kovach (1999) the

study conducted by him, is the first and as far as could be

established the only empirically examining perceptions of

appraisal bet ween t wo nationalities. In this study it was

found that Hungarians evaluated individual performance

measures as less applicable and supportive of performance

improvement than their American counterparts. Hungarians

preferred the traditional appraisal by manager as more

favourably, than American subjects who have a preference for

self-appraisal.

The Dynamics of Act ion Approach. This approach,

developed by Atkinson and Birch (1974), tries to explain and

predict the continuation of stable behaviour and occurrence

COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT 47



of change through historical development. The assumption

of this approach is that multiple motivational tendencies

operate continuously in individuals and that the behaviour of

a person at a particular moment will be reflected in the

strongest mot ivat ional tendency at the t ime, called

consummatory forces. Consummatory forces can be

overtaken by instigating forces when the culmination of

motivation purposes overtakes the motivation of a previous

activit y. This leads to changes occurring in dominant

motivational tendencies, as reflected by the coming and

going of different directions of behaviour. It explains how a

manager can switch from one enjoyable activit y of engaging

with top performing personnel to an activit y with lower

valence, such as goal-setting with low performing individuals.

The directions of behaviour can again be influenced by

inhibitory forces or forces of resistance. Activities could, for

instance, be avoided when associated with former negative

experiences. Research by Blankenship (1982) supports the

consummatory view of Atkinson and Birch, where the

consummatory influence proved to be greater for easy tasks

than for difficult tasks in the low achievement group but the

opposite for the high achievement orientated group. This

could be an indication that high achievers search for higher

more difficult challenges.

Cognitive Evaluation Theory

According to Kanfer (1990) the cognitive evaluation theory is

part of the intrinsic motivation theories. The cognitive

evaluation theory sees behaviour as being performed for its

own sake, in the absence of perceivable extrinsic rewards.

Different studies emphasise the harmful effects of external

rewards on the continuance of task performance (Deci, 1971,

1972; Lepper, Greene & Nisbett, 1973). In these studies the

inhibiting inf luence of external rewards on persisting

performance and subsequent internal motivation was

evaluated by self-reports on tasks. When extrinsic rewards

were present less time was spent on task execution during a

period of free-choice than when extrinsic rewards were absent.

It therefore seems that extrinsic rewards have an undermining

effect on task interest and free-choice behaviour. It is further

affirmed that intrinsic motivation has a continual influence

on the person to do the task for satisfaction in itself. Rewards

however have an optimal level of enhancing motivation, both

too little and too large awards would be demotivating and lead

to external motivation (McCormick & Illgen, 1985). An

optimal level of rewards being not too small or to large would

lead to internal motivation. Organisations should be

sensitised to the inf luence of rewards on employees’

performance motivation.

Rewards. Performance contingent rewards are conceptualised

as containing three elements, that is, evaluation, performance

feedback and the value of the reward (Harackiewicz,

Manderlink, & Sansone, 1984). Harackiewicz, et al. (1984)

explain that internal motivation on task interest is enhanced

when evaluation is combined with rewards symbolising

competency. On the other hand Weiner (1976) reports that

extrinsic rewards can inhibit intrinsic motivation, when over

compensation through extrinsic rewards take place.  As these

studies are done in laboratory settings, it is not clear what the

influence would be in a field setting. The emphasis of the

Harackiewicz, et al. study is however on rewards that symbolise

achievement. It seems that the appropriateness of rewards in

the work setting would be detrimental to intrinsic/extrinsic

performance motivation.

Feedback. Different kinds of feedback are sought and

received by individuals in organisations, to enable the

individual to evaluate his/her personal competencies. Some

studies indicate that feedback leads to intrinsic interest and

task persistence, while others show no effect or a negative

effect (Kanfer, 1990).  It is argued that the reason for this

inconsistent finding could lie in the differences in the

amount of sufficient information accepted as acceptably

assessing personal competence. 

In an action research study by Meyer, Kay and French (1965) it

is reported that criticism influences goal achievement in a

negative manner, while praise has no effect. It is also indicated

that defensiveness develops from critical negative appraisal

procedures, leading to inferior performance. It is suggested

that interviews to improve performance should be done

separately from interviews relating to salary increases or

promotion. 

Feedback, enabling a judgement of competency (especially

relative to others) was found to have a more positive influence

on task enjoyment than no feedback at all (Sansone, 1986).

This experiment was extended further and in a follow-up used

ego-involvement in the feedback, by informing subjects that

intellectual abilities were associated with task performance.

Perceptions of high competence were, as predicted,

significantly associated with task enjoyment. On the other

hand, when competence was not made salient, enjoyment was

determined more by individual differences than perceptions

of competence.

Research by Harackiewicz and Larson (1986) on supervisor

feedback st yles, indicates that subordinate competence

perceptions were highest when supervisors gave positive

information on competence.

In a study by Benedict and Levine (1988) it was found that

amongst subjects with at least 6 months of supervisory

experience, female raters tended to delay feedback on

competency assessment longer and positively distorted ratings

significantly more than their male counterparts.

Goal assignments.  Locke, Shaw, Saari & Latham (1981) identif y

the goal setting notion as falling into the domain of cognitive

psychology and cognitive behaviour modification, but also sees

it as an important part of social learning. A goal is identified as

a purpose or intent, a performance standard, objective or a

deadline. It is an objective to attain a standard of proficiency by

recognising task difficulty (specific task to be accomplished)

and goal difficulty (aim of the goal). 

Action research by Meyer, Kay and French (1965) indicates that

mut ual goal setting bet ween superior and sub-ordinate

advance performance. Intrinsic motivation on routine tasks

also improved with goal assignments (Bryan & Locke, 1967).

Weiner (1976) found that tasks goals with a moderate

subjective anticipation towards success lead to moderate

affective intrinsic motivation. Task difficulty seems to be

another possible moderator in the relationship of intrinsic

motivation with goal setting. 

In a summary by Locke, et.al (1981) of 48 different studies, full

or partial support was found that difficult goals lead to higher

performance than medium and easy goals, while only 9 studies

failed to support it. These authors acknowledge individual

differences caused by demographic variables, such as

education, race, job tenure, age, and gender. Individual

differences due to personality variables, such as need for

achievement, need for independence, higher order strength,

self-esteem and perception of locus of control are also

acknowledged. Results concerning individual differences were

however very inconsistent.

Evaluation of the goal assignment cognitive evaluation theory

confirms the assumption of proximal goal assignments as

leading more to intrinsic motivation than distal goal

assignments (Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Manderling

&Harackiewicz, 1984). Manderling and Harackiewicz (1984),

however, found that the relationship is more complex and that

intrinsic motivation declines when competence develops and

therefore proximal goal assignments become more noticeable,

VAN W YK, BOSHOFF, BESTER48



giving it an external control character. These authors also

consider skill, affect and the transparency of controlling

properties of rewards and goals as mediating factors influencing

intrinsic motivation as outcome. The main factor seems to be

the development of competence with proximal goal

assignments, which could possibly be transferred to distal goal

assignments as competency increases. 

Kanfer (1990) summarises the goal assignment studies by

different iat ing bet ween proximal versus distal goal

assignments as method of feedback on task performance.

Proximal goal assignment involves a daily attainment of a

goal, for instance by instructing a secretary to t ype a certain

number of reports per day (for instance 10) apart from the

daily duties. Distal goal assignment at the same level of

difficult y would be to instruct a secretary to, apart from

other duties t ype, 50 reports per week. According to the

principles of the cognitive evaluation theory proximal goal

assignment should increase intrinsic motivation, due to the

frequent evaluat ion of competence, but could inhibit

intrinsic mot ivat ion if too much external control is

experienced. The less controlling character of distal goal

assignments does not provide the frequent competence

informat ion st imulat ing internal mot ivat ion, but is

experienced as less controlling and therefore less externally

directed. According to the cognitive evaluation theory

proximal goal assignment should, therefore, enhance more

intrinsic motivation than distal goal assignment. 

Social Cognitive Theories

The social cognitive theorists emphasise the influence of the

interact ive nat ure of cognit ion, social learning and

environment on behaviour. Kanfer (1990) differentiates the

social cognitive theory of Bandura from goal-setting, where

goal-setting research focuses on the effects of goal attributes

on skilled performance level, the cognitive social perspective

concentrates on the cognitive processes underlying self-

motivation in acquiring skills and components and outcomes

involved in self-regulation. Kanfer (1970) distinguishes

bet ween three major components of self-regulation in 

social cognitive theories, namely self-observation (self-

monitoring), self-evaluation (self-judgements), and self-

reaction. A fourth component, is added by Bandura (1977),

namely self-efficacy expectations. 

Self-observation (self-monitoring). Self-monitoring refers to

the selective attention of individuals to particular aspects of

their behaviour. The selection of attention will be directed to

activities of significance for the envisaged behavioural

outcomes. Incent ives for qualit y performance in

organisations would, for instance, prompt individuals to seek

methods to increase the qualit y of their products. Self-

monitoring enables individuals to gain knowledge of their

task performance and the consequences thereof. This can be

obtained from different sources, for instance, through

feedback by external observers. Bandura and Cervone (1983)

indicate that competency motivation can only be optimised

when goal setting is combined with positive competency

feedback. In a laboratory sett ing where subjects were

subjected to three different intervent ions of (a) goal

assignments, (b) competency feedback (c) goal assignments

and competency feedback, a significantly higher level of

effort was found in the group assigned to both goal and

competency feedback.

Self-evaluat ion (self-judgements/self-appraisal). Self-

evaluation takes place during competency and behaviour

feedback. Individuals compare their competency feedback

with their desired goal. In this comparison t wo kinds of

affect ive react ion take place, namely self-react ions of

satisfaction or dissatisfaction and expectations of self-

efficacy (Kanfer, 1990). 

Indications are that self-evaluation of the rater has an influence

on the appraisal of the ratee. Mandell (1956) reports raters with

low self-confidence being less lenient in ratings of others than

raters high in self-confidence. This phenomenon is an indication

of rater stringency bias. Parker, Taylor, Barrett & Martens (1959)

as well as Miller and Cardy (2000) report self-ratings to be

inflated relative to real performance during self-appraisal. These

findings refer to egocentric bias.

Self-reactions. Internal, t ypically affective responses take

place during self-reactions. Dissatisfaction would be likely to

follow self-evaluation of performance that is below one’s goal

and satisfaction if goals are met or exceeded (Kanfer, 1990).

The discrepancy bet ween the goals and evaluated

performance will indicate the intensit y and direction of the

react ion. Major negat ive react ions could lead to the

abandonment of goals, a decrease in interest and uncertaint y

about one’s competence. 

Pearce and Porter (1986) found a significant drop in

organisational commitment over a 30-month period of

employees who had been rated as “satisfactory” while employees

who received higher ratings showed no change in commitment

to the organisation. On the other hand Durecki (1997) reports no

relationship bet ween job satisfaction and job

appraisals/competency outcomes in a study of teachers. The job

satisfaction of teachers were rather influenced by the attitudes of

the ratee towards perceptions of the rater, where the rater was

ideally seen as a source of instructional improvement, giving

unbiased responses.

Johnson and Ferstl (1999) investigated how self-ratings

changed after feedback from sub-ordinates and found that

managers who over-rated themselves relative to the ratings of

others, improved their performance after 1 year and

underraters’ performance tended to decline. In the same study

self-ratings of overraters tended to decrease and those of

underraters increased.

Self-efficacy Expectations. Bandura (1977) added the self-

efficacy expectation component to the self-regulation model. He

describes this as individuals’ self-perceived abilities to acquire

specific tasks or goals. Bandura explains self-efficacy

expectations as developed from different task-specific sources,

such as competency assessment, social influences or previous

performance accounts. Self-efficacy is differentiated from

general affective responses to tasks, for instance, with an

improved level of task performance, an individual’s self-efficacy,

that is, his/her belief in potential success may improve. The

individual may, however, still maintain dissatisfaction with the

task. A further distinction is drawn between self-efficacy

expectations of capabilities of task performance and the

expectancies of the E x V theories that refer to expected

outcomes of tasks. 

Metacognitive Approaches

Metacognitive approaches focus on individual differences 

in the accumulat ion of cognit ive self-processes in 

learning behaviour (Kanfer, 1990). Through this approach 

an attempt is made to interpret the way in which individuals

collect knowledge in goal-directed learning environments 

by using self-cognition and awareness to direct their own

behaviour. It is therefore not a theory, but an approach 

that integrates different theoret ic orientat ions and 

research findings to investigate individual orientations in

self-regulation. 

Brown (1987) differentiates between two forms of knowledge in

the meta-cognitive domain namely: (a) self-knowledge of

cognitive abilities; and (b) executive cognitive process through

which cognitive activities are regulated during task performance

and learning processes. Knowledge in the meta-cognitive

domain is therefore a combination of an individual’s self-

COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT 49



knowledge, with idiosyncratic methods of self-regulatory

behaviour due to motivation, directed attention and the

organisation of knowledge. 

The New Paradigm Approaches

Kanfer (1990) explains that in the new paradigm approaches,

researchers use diverse constructs and theories from different

fields of psychology to explain phenomena in organisational

behaviour. The emphasis is here to initially explain behaviour

and eventually to predict it.

The resource theory of behaviour in organisations. This

theory by Naylor, Pritchard and Ilgen (1980) has the status of a

cognitive choice theory. This is a comprehensive theory,

integrating various theories of conceptualisation of action and

decision-making. This theory forms a bridge between the E x V

theory and the Atkinson and Birch dynamics of action theory, by

explaining an individual’s information processing as evolving

from perceptions of various contingencies, leading to choices

derived from bivariate functions of these contingencies. For

instance, if the function between effort and performance is

perceived as positive, the belief could evolve that performance

will increase with the increase in effort, but with a diminishing

in returns as an asymptote is reached. 

The Naylor, et al. (1980) theory further integrates some of the E

x V theories with two additional features, (a) individuals are

seen as distributing their time and effort in anticipation of

maximum positive affect, influencing motivation, (b)

motivation is seen as a resource allocation phenomenon, as task

commitment can, for example, be seen as the product of

commitment to task relevant and task irrelevant actions. This

process reveals the proportion of willingness of an individual to

devote personal resources to a target task.

This theory also explains the cognitive actions involved in

contingencies of outcome-evaluation and evaluation-reward

contingencies. Effort of task performance will be evaluated in

relation to organisational outcome assessment and reward

procedures, which will eventually influence choice behaviour

by the individual employee. 

The integrated information processing/resource allocation

framework. This approach developed by Kanfer (1990) is an

attempt at developing an integrated framework of theories of

human informat ion processing that connects abilit y,

motivation and task characteristics. It departs from the

Naylor, Pritchard and Ilgen (1980) frame of reference in three

ways: (a) individual differences in the availabilit y of

cognitive resources are investigated against the background

of the influence of cognitive resource demands, (b) self-

regulating phenomena are investigated with the distinction

bet ween the allocation of distal and proximal resources as

frame of reference, and (c) the resource capacit y of the

individual is seen as a function of his/her level of cognitive

abilit y. This framework integrates different theories of

human informat ion processing concerning abilit y,

motivation and task characteristics.

According to the characteristics of the integrated information

processing/resource allocation framework tasks are either seen

as resource dependent or resource incentive. It is the product

of the relationship between cognitive resource devotion and

outcome task performance level. Tasks that are resource-

dependent are evaluated according to the product of the

outcome between cognitive/attention resources accompanied

by changes in performance. A secretary could for instance

advance her typing skills by improving speed and accuracy. On

the other hand, tasks that are resource-incentive have limited

performance potential. Due to the character of the task,

changes in attentiveness has hardly any inf luence on

performance, for example administrative work. This kind 

of analysis, based on perceived performance-resource

information, involves the three cognitive mechanisms of

performance-utilit y function, effort-utilit y function, and

perceived effort-performance utility relation. 

The information processing is in the case of this theory similar to

the E x V models of attention allocation: perceived performance-

and effort-utility functions are maximised through perceived

effort-performance resource functions. The performance-utility

function refers to perceptions of attractiveness of differentiated

performance levels in relation to internal and external outcomes.

The effort-utility function refers to the amount of effort perceived

by the individual, so that tasks that are either too simple or too

difficult, requiring too little or too much effort, are both seen as

unattractive. The perceived effort-performance function, is the

critical co-ordination of the perceived performance- and effort-

utility functions as translated into personal interpretations and

attributions of effort. This model provides an approach to the

evaluation of the product of perceived performance level as

associated with external and external outcomes, task complexity

and effort-utility on goal performance.

DISCUSSION

The cognitive approach provides management with a framework

of a variety of instruments to determine relationships and

predictions. It enables management to evaluate the reciprocal

influence bet ween competency assessments on cognitive

processes, affecting future performance. It therefore serves as a

link between theory and practice that gives insight into long-

term job performance.

Different appraisals should be conducted for divergent

purposes, as it is unrealistic to expect one form of appraisal to

answer to all the assessment needs. On the other hand, when

more than one appraisal is done, one should be cautious of

bias due to previous evaluations. It is important that criticism

should be avoided. Raters should not only be trained to use

evaluation instruments, but should also be sensitised to

possible cognitive processes that may influence attributions

leading to rater bias.

Feldman (1981) suggests that an organisation should see to 

it that valid evaluations have positive consequences for 

both evaluator and evaluee. This author suggests that the

cognitive and psychometric research on competency

assessment should continue, but with some modifications.

Modification should include better formulated psychometric

instruments to prevent response biases, halo effects or

leniency/stringency.

Locke, et al. (1981) see the findings with regard to the effects

of goal setting as one of the most beneficial, robust and

replicable findings in the psychological literature. The authors

indicate that goal setting is most likely to inf luence

performance in terms of type of goals (easy/difficult), goal

specificity, ability of individuals, knowledge of performance

evaluation, as well as participation by the organisation 

by being supportive and acknowledging individual

differences. Goal setting should involve both parties namely

superior and sub-ordinate. Goal setting on a proximate basis 

is seen as less threatening to the individual than a 

yearly appraisal.  Inconsistencies concerning individual

differences in especially goal setting, needs further

investigation through research, such as the influence of

rewards, competition and high pressure.

Feldman (1981) crit icises the at tribut ion process of

competency assessment. While acknowledging it as relevant,

due to its stimulus-based judgements, he argues that it does

not take into account the cognitive selection and storage of

information processes necessary to make memory based

judgements.

VAN W YK, BOSHOFF, BESTER50



Robbins and DeNisi (1993) emphasise the inaccuracy of the

cognitive approach, as a result of the limitations of human

nature in the processing of information. Kanfer (1990) indicate

that the E x V models are seen to have limited theoretical and

practical usefulness due to the situational and individual

character of the theories and therefore weak generalisability.

Fraser and Zarkada-Fraser (2001) indicate that task based 360°

evaluations should be performed rather than competency based

evaluations, leading to higher degrees of anonymity. On the

other hand, cognitive processes must acknowledge the upper

limit of validity admitting the lack of total freedom of bias and

absolute accuracy, seeing that the reliability of even the best

trained observer is subjected to mood. 

Many of the research done on the cognitive processes involved

in competency assessment are laboratory studies, with little

generalisation possibilities. It is suggested that cognitive

research should not only concentrate on realistically portraying

appraisal situations in laboratory environments but the testing

of relevant variables should be duplicated in field settings to

improve generalisability.

Intercultural cognitive processes in competency assessment

ratings seems to be an under developed research field. This is

however an important concept to accommodate with the

increase of globalisation.

The new paradigm approaches are very complex to test in its

totality. It is suggested that these approaches are used to explain

specific phenomena. Cognitive theory enables the researcher to

investigate cognitive schemata that take place within the

organism during competency assessment. It allows the

investigation of possible relationships as well as predictions of

behaviour with competency assessment. 

The pure cognitive theory in itself has its limitations to 

explain cognitive processes taking place during or due to

evaluation. Therefore the development of cognitive approaches

acknowledging other theories and paradigms, such as the social

cognitive theories and meta-cognitive and new paradigm

approaches. On the other hand the development of paradigms

trying to explain the integration of many variables, are 

difficult to measure. 

Not withstanding the weaknesses, the implementation of

cognitive theory in the investigation of cognitive processes

taking place in relation to competency assessment has made a

large contribution to the knowledge of competency assessment in

organisational behaviour and the improvement of performance.

REFERENCES

Atkinson, J.W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking

behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 359-372.

Atkinson, J.W., & Birch, D. (1974). The dynamics of achievement-

oriented activity. In Atkinson, J.W. & Raynor, J.O. (Eds.),

Motivation and Achievement. Washington, DC: Winston &

Sons.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unif ying theory of

behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1993). Self-evaluative and self-

efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of

goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,

1017-1028.

Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-

efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-

motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41,

586-698.

Benedict, M.E., & Levine, E.L. (1988, August). Delay and

distortion: tactic influences on performance appraisal

effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (3), 507-515.

Blankenship, V. (1982). The relationship bet ween

consummatory value of success and achievement task

difficulty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42,

901-914.

Brown, A.L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-

regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F.E.

Weinert & R.H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and

understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Deci, E.L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on

intrinsic motivation. Journal of personality and Social

Psychology, 18, 105-115.

Deci, E.L. (1972). Effects of contingent and non-contingent

rewards on controls on intrinsic motivation. Organizational

Behaviour and Human Performance, 22, 113-120.

Dobbins, G.H., Truxillo, D.M., & Cardy, R.L. (1988, August). The

effects of purpose of appraisal and individual differences in

stereotypes of women on sex differences in performance

ratings: a laboratory and field study. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 73 (3), 551-559.

Dunnette, M.D. & Hough, L.M. (Eds.). (1990). Handbook of

Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Volume 1 (2nd Ed).

California: Consulting Psycholgists Press.

Eiser, J.R. (1986). Interpersonal attributions. In H. Tajfel, & C.

Fraser (Eds.). Introducing Social Psychology (pp. 235-255).

Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Feldman, J.M. (1981). Beyond attribution theory: cognitive

processes in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 66 (2), 127-148

Fraser, C. & Zarkada-Fraser, A. (2001, March). Perceptual

polarization of managerial performance from a human

resource management perspective. International Journal of

Human Resource Management. 12 (2), 256-269.

Harackeiewicz, J.M., & Larson, J.R. (1986). Managing motivation:

The impact of supervisor feedback on surbordinate task

interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholgy, 51, 547-556.

Harackeiewicz, J.M., Sansone, C., & Manderlink, G. (1985).

Competence, achievement orientation, and intrinsic

motivation: A process analysis. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 48, 493-508.

Johnson, J.W., Ferstl., K.L. (1999, Summer). The effects of

interrater and self-other agreement on performance

improvement following upward feedback. Personnel

Psychology, 52 (2), 271-284.

Kanfer, F.H. (1970). Self-regulation: Research, issues and

speculations. In C. Neuringer & K.L. Michael (Eds.), Behavior

Modification in Clinical Psychology. New York: Appleton-

Century-Crofts.

Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial and

organizational psychology. In Dunnette, M.D. & Hough,

L.M. (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational

Psychology. Volume 1 (2nd Ed). (pp.75-170). California:

Consulting Psycholgists Press.

Keeping, L.M. & Lev y, P.E. (2000). Performance appraisal

reactions: measurement, modeling, and method bias. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 85 (5), 708-723.

Landy, F.J. & Farr, J.L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological

Bulletin, 87 (1), 72-107.

Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.N, Saari, L.M. & Latham, G.P. (1981). Goal

setting and task performance: 1969-1980. Psychological

Bulletin, 90 (1), 125-152.

London, M. & Stumph, S.A. (1983). Effects of candidate

characteristics on management promotion decisions: An

experimental study. Personnel Psychology, 36, 241-259.

Kovach, K. Jr. (1999, January). Attitudes toward performance and

the performance evaluation process: issues of nationality,

organizational size, and job level. Dissertation-Abstracts-

International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 60

(6-B), 2998.

Lepper, M.R., Greene, D. & Nissbett, R.E. (1973). Undermining

children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic rewards: A test of

the “overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 28, 129-137.

COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT 51



Luthans, F. (1998). Organizational Behavior (8th Ed). Boston:

Irwin McGraw-Hill.

Mandell, M.M. (1956). Supervisory characteristics and ratings: 

a summary of recent research. Personnel Psychology, 32, 

435-440

Manderling, G., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (1984). Proximal versus

distal goal setting and intrinsic motivation. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 918-928.

Mc Cormick, E.J. & Illgen, D.R. (1985). Industrial and

Organizational Psychology (8th Ed.). London: Allen & Unwin.

Meyer, H.H., Kay, E. & French, J.R.P., Jr. (1965). Split roles in

performance appraisal. Har vard Business Review, 43, 123-29.

Miller, J.S., & Cardy, R.L. (2000, September). Self-monitoring

and performance appraisal: rating outcomes in project

teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 (6), 609-626.

Naylor, J.C., Pritchard, R.D., & Ilgen, D.R. (1980). A theory of

behavior in organizations. New York: Academic Press.

Parker, J.W., Taylor, E.K., Barrett, R.S., & Martens, L. (1959).

Rating scale content: III. Relationships between supervirory

and self-ratings. Personnel Psychology, 12, 49-63.

Pearce, J.L., Porter, L.W. (1986, May). Employee responses to

formal performance appraisal feedback. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 71 (2), 221-219.

Peters, L.H., O’Connor, E.J. & Wexley, J. (1984). Sex bias and

managerial evaluations: A replication and extension. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 69, 349-352.

Plug, C., Meyer, W.F., Louw, D.A. & Gouws, L.A. (1986). Psigologie

Woordeboek. Johannesburg: McGraw-Hill.

Pulakos, E.D. & Wexley, K.N. (1983). The relationship among

perceptual similarity, sex, and performance ratings in manager-

subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 129-139.

Smither, J.W., Buda, R. & Reilly, R.R. (1988). Effect of prior

performance information on ratings of present performance:

contrast versus assimilation revisited. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 73 (3), 487-497.

Raynor, J.O. (1969). Future orientation and motivation of

immediate activit y: An elaboration of the theory of

achievement motivation. Psychological Review, 76, 606-610.

Raynor, J.O., & Entin, E.E. (1982). Achievement motivation as 

a determinant of persistence in contingent and

noncontingent paths. In J.O. Raynor & Entin (Eds),

Motivation, career striving, and aging. (pp.83-92).

Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Robbins, T.L., & De Nisi, A.S. (1993. Spring). Moderators of sex

bias in the performance appraisal process: a cognitive

analysis. Journal of Management. 19 (1), 113-127.

Saal, F.E., & Moore, S.C. (1993, February). Perceptions of

promotion fairness and promotion candidates’

qualifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (1), 105-111.

Sansone, C. (1986). A question of competence: The effects of

competence and task feedback on intrinsic interest. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 918-931.

Scullen, S.E., Mount, M.K. & Goff, M. (2000). Understanding the

latent structure of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 85 (6), 956-970.

Singer, MG. (1990). Human Resource Management. Boston:

PWS/KENT Publishing.

Smither, J.W., Buda, R., & Reilly, R.R. (1998, August). Effect of

prior performance information on ratings of present

performance: contrast versus assimilation revisited. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 73 (3), 487-587.

Staw, B.M. (1975). Attribution of the “causes” of performance: a

general alternative interpretation of cross-sectional research

on organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 13, 414-432.

Theron, D. & Roodt, G. (1999). Variability in multi-rater competency

assessments. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 25 (2), 21-27.

Theron, D. & Roodt, G. 2000. Mental models as moderating

variable in 360° competency assessments. Journal of

Industrial Psychology, 26 (2), 14-19.

Taylor, S.E. & Falcone, H. (1982). Cognitive bases of stereotyping:

The relationship between categorization and prejudice.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 426-432.

Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Warr, P & Bourne, A. (1999). Factors influencing two types of

congruence in multirater judgments. Human Performance, 12

(3/4), 183-211.

Weiner, B. (1974). An attributional interpretation of expectancy-

value theory. In Weiner B. (Ed.). Cognitive views of human

motivation. (pp.51-69). New York: Academic Press.

Weiner, B. (1976). Motivation from the cognitive perspective. In

Estes, W.K., (Ed.). Handbook of Learning and Cognitive

Processes. Volume 3. Approaches to Human Learning and

Motivation. (pp.283-307). New York: John Wiley.

Wherry, R.J., Sr., & Bartlett, C.J. (1982). The control of bias in

ratings: a theory of rating. Personnel Psychology, 35, 521-551.

VAN W YK, BOSHOFF, BESTER52