Monika Handojono, Mahfud Sholihin


The literature shows that leniency has negative impact on employee performance and firm productivity. However, there has been limited empirical research of how to mitigate the bias. This study examines if leniency is mitigateable by availability of subjective evaluation criteria and group rater. Using experimental method with sixty-nine undergraduate students as subjects, we find that process within group is effective to reduce individual subjective rating, even when there was no subjective criteria. However, we find group rating does not have effect on rating accuracy. Additionally, consistent with general assumption of leniency, we find that inflated rating is affected by altruistic traits of raters. With the inherent limitations associated with experimental method, our finding suggests that, in order to have subjective rating accurately, firm should promote sound rating process by defining more relevant criteria to complement the evaluation process.

Keywords: leniency, subjective evaluation, subjective evaluation criteria, group rater


Literatur menunjukkan bahwa bias kemurahan hati berdampak negatif terhadap kinerja karyawan dan produktivitas perusahaan. Meskipun demikian, hanya terdapat sedikit penelitian empiris mengenai cara memitigasi bias ini. Penelitian ini menguji apakah bias kemurahan hati dapat dimitigasi melalui ketersediaan kriteria evaluasi subjektif dan penggunaan grup penilai. Dengan menggunakan pendekatan eksperimen yang diikuti oleh 69 mahasiswa S1 sebagai subjek, kami menemukan bahwa proses yang terjadi dalam grup efektif untuk menurunkan penilaian kinerja subjektif yang diberikan secara individual, bahkan ketika tidak tersedia kriteria subjektif. Namun, kami juga menemukan bahwa kriteria subjektif tidak berpengaruh terhadap keakuratan penilaian kinerja. Selain itu, konsisten dengan asumsi umum mengenai bias kemurahan hati, kami menemukan bahwa penilaian kinerja yang ditinggikan dipengaruhi oleh kepribadian altruistis penilai. Dengan berbagai keterbatasan yang melekat pada desain eksperimen, temuan kami menyarankan bahwa untuk menghasilkan penilaian kinerja subjektif yang akurat, perusahaan harus mendorong proses penilaian yang lebih baik melalui penetapan kriteria yang lebih relevan dalam mendukung proses evaluasi kinerja.

Kata kunci: bias kemurahan hati, penilaian kinerja subjektif, kriteria penilaian kinerja subjektif, grup penilai


leniency; subjective evaluation; subjective evaluation criteria; group rater

Full Text:



Bellavance, F., S. Landry, and E. Schiehll. 2013. Procedural Justice in Managerial Performance Evaluation: Effects of Subjectivity, Relationship Quality, and Voice Opportunity. British Accounting Review, 45, 149-166.

Berger, J., C. Harbring, and D. Sliwka. 2010. Performance Appraisals and the Impact of Forced Distribution: An Experimental Investigation. Working Paper, IZA No. 5020: 1-44.

Bernardin, H. J., D. K. Cooke, and P. Villanova. 2000. Conscientiousness and Agreeableness as Predictor Rating Leniency Bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (2), 232-234.

Birnberg, J. G. 2009. The Case for Post-Modern Management Accounting: Thinking Outside the Box. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 21, 3-18.

Bol, J. C. 2008. Subjectivity in Compensation Contracting. Journal of Accounting Literature, 27, 1-32.

Bol, J. C. 2011. The Determinants and Performance Effects of Managers' Performance Evaluation Biases. The Accounting Review, 86 (5), 1549-1575.

Bol, J. C. and S. D. Smith. 2011. Spillover Effects in Subjective Performance Evaluation: Bias and the Asymetric Influence of Controllability. The Accounting Review, 86 (4), 1213-1230.

Bosman, R., H. Hennig-Schmidt, and F. Van Winden. 2006. Exploring Decision Making in a Power-to-take Experiment. Experiment Economic, 9, 35-51.

Breuer, K., P. Nieken, and D. Sliwka. 2013. Social Ties and Subjective Performance Evaluations: An Empirical Investigation. Review Management Science, 7, 141-157.

Cappel, J. J. and J. C. Windsor. 2000. Ethical Decision Making: A Comparison of Comparison of Computer-supported and Face-to-face Group. Journal of Business Ethics, 28, 95-107.

Charness, G., E. Karni, and D. Levin. 2007. Individual and Group Decision Making under Risk: An Experimental Study of Bayesian Updating and Violation of First-order Stochastic Dominance. Journal of Risk Uncertainty, 35, 129-148.

Chen, T. Y. 2012. Approaches to Leniency Reduction in Multi-Criteria Decision Making with Interval-Valued Fuzzy Sets and an Experimental Analysis. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 11 (3), 579-605.

Chen, C. X., M. G. Williamson, and F. H. Zhou. 2012. Reward System Design and Group Creativity: An Experimental Investigation. The Accounting Review, 87 (6), 1885-1911.

Chen, J. V. and K. Linn. 2012. User Satisfaction with Group Decision Making Process and Outcome. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 52 (4), 30-40.

Festinger, L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row & Peterson.

Galin, A. 2013. Endowment Effect in Negotiations: Group versus Individual Decision Making. Theory Decision, 75, 389-401.

Gibbs, M., K. A. Merchant., W. A. Van der Stede, and M. E. Vargus. 2004. Determinants and Effects of Subjectivity in Incentives. The Accounting Review, 79 (2), 409-436.

Gibson, L. B. and P. C. Earley. 2007. Collective Cognition in Action: Accumulation, Interaction, and Accomodation in the Development and Operation of Group Efficacy? Academy of Management Review, 32 (2), 438-458.

Giebe, T. and O. Gürtler. 2012. Optimal Contract for Lenient Supervisors. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 81, 403-420.

Golman, R. and S. Bhatia. 2012. Performance Evaluation Inflation and Compression. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37, 534-543.

Grund, C. and J. Przemeck. 2012. Subjective Performance Appraisal and Inequality Aversion. Applied Economics, 44, 2149-2155.

Hair, J. F. Jr., W. C. Black., B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis. A Global Perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Huang, W. and D. Li. 2007. Opening up the Black Box in GSS Research: Explaining Group Decision Outcome with Group Process. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 58-78.

Hartono, J. 2013. Pedoman Survei Kuisioner: Mengembangkan Kuisioner, Mengatasi Bias dan Meningkatkan Respons. Yogyakarta: BPFE UGM.

Kingstrom, P. O. and L. E. Mainstone. 1985. An Investigation of the Rater-ratee Acquintance and Rater Bias. Academy of Management Journal, 85 (3), 641-653.

Kocher, M. G. and M. Sutter. 2007. Individual versus Group Behavior and the Role of Decision Procedure in Gift-Exchange Experiment. Empirica, 34, 63-88.

Liedtka, S. L., B. K. Church, and M. R. Ray. 2008. Performance Variability, Ambiguity Intolerance, and Balanced Scorecard-based Performance Assessments. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 20 (2), 73-88.

Lin, C. W., C. S. Lin., P. C. Huang, and Y. L. Wang. 2014. How Group Efficacy Mediates the Relationship between Group Affect and Identification. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1388-1394.

Lowe, D. J., P. M. Reckers, and S. M. Whitecotton. 2002. The Effects of Decision-Aid Use and Reliability on Jurors' Evaluation of Auditor Liability. The Accounting Review, 77 (1), 185-202.

Maas, V. S. and R. Torres-González. 2011. Subjective Performance Evaluation and Gender Discrimination. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 667-681.

Martell, R. F. and M. R. Borg. 1993. A Comparison of the Behavioral Rating Accuracy of Groups and Individuals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 43-50.

Martell, R. F. and K. N. Leavitt. 2002. Reducing the Performance-Cue Bias in Work Behavior Ratings: Can Groups Help? Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (6), 1032-1041.

Moers, F. 2005. Discretion and Bias in Performance Evaluation: The Impact of Diversity and Subjectivity. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30, 67-80.

Nahartyo, E. 2012. Desain dan Implementasi Riset Eksperimen, Edisi 1. Yogyakarta: UPP STIM YKPN.

Prendergast, C. and R. H. Topel. 1996. Favoritism in Organization. Journal of Political Economy, 104 (5), 958-978.

Roch, S. G. 2006. Discussion and Consensus in Rater Groups: Implications for Behavioral and Rating Accuracy. Human Performance, 19 (2), 91-115.

Rushton, J. P., R. D. Chrisjohn, and G. C. Fekken. 1981. The Altruistic Personality and the Self-report Altruism Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 293-302.

Simmons, H. A. 1993. Altruism and Economics. The American Economic Review, 83 (2), 156-181.

Simmons, R. G. 1991. Altruism and Sociology. Sociological Quarterly, 32, 1-22.

Slaughter, J. E. and J. G. Greguras. 2008. Bias in Performance Ratings: Clarifying the Role of Positive versus Negatif Escalation. Human Performance, 21, 414-426.

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.

Van der Stede, C. W., C. W. Chow, and T. W. Lin. 2006. Strategy, Choice of Performance Masures, and Performance. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 18, 185-205.

Varma, A. and S. Pichler. 2007. Interpersonal Affect: Does It Really Bias Performance Appraisal. Journal of Labour Research, 28 (2), 207-222.

Wherry, R. J. and C. J. Bartlett. 1982. The Control of Bias Ratings: A Theory of Rating. Personnel Psychology, 35, 521-552.

Wright, E. F. and G. L. Wells. 1985. Does Group Discussion Attenuate the Dispositional Bias? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 531-546.


Creative Commons License
Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan Indonesia by is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
View My Stats