Motivation of Public Managers as Raters in Performance Appraisal: Developing a Model of Rater Motivation
  

 In this article, it points out how Performance Appraisal is used by supervisors to manage employees to induce work effectively. In this study, it will provide information containing steps in developing a rater motivation model (RMM) for the public administration field. There are three primary determinants of (RMM). It begins with felt accountability, incentive structures, and public service motivation. This study uses information in reference to the U.S. and Korean governments. The study suggests that rater motivation are implicated for both the public administration literature also practical for the rewards for accurate appraisal and a forced distribution rating system as well. 
 There are two streams listed in this study research. First, examines the ways in which the pay-for-performance (PFP) system can be implemented for managers (see Perry, Engberg & Jun, 2009, for a comprehensive review.). The second, investigates how the effectiveness of the system can be improved. This also includes the role of employee participation and acceptance of the appraisal systems (Roberts, 1994, 2003). Within the research, it shows how both streams are often used by scholars to ask evaluated employees about perceptions regarding fairness, links between performance pay, and satisfaction with the appraisal. 
 In this article, it states that the definition of motivation of performance raters can be defined as rater motivation. Perceived performance rating accuracy represents the final performance rating distributed to the subordinates. In this study, the public administration field focuses on the public performance appraisal context and imports relevant theories (e.g. rater motivations) from business sector for this purpose. The business human resource management practices were adopted in the public sector by CSRA of 1978 (Park & Berry, 2012), the total quality management (TQM)) approach in performance appraisal (Bowman, 1994) and the George W. Bush Administration’s President’s Management Agenda of “strategic management of human capital.” The RMM cold contribute to extending theories related to PFP and PSM, which addresses important research on significant improvement to enhance the rating instrument or rater cognition, (Arvey & Murphy, 1998; Roch, Mervail, & Caputo, 2011).
Work Cited
Arvey, R.D., & Murphy, K.R. (1998). Performance evaluation in work settings, Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 141-168.
Perry, J.L., Engbers, T.A., & Jun, S.Y. (2009). Back to the future? Performance-related pay, empirical research, and the perils of persistence. Public Administration Review, 69, 39-51.