Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Workplace Affect
- The Cambridge Handbook of Workplace Affect
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Part I Theoretical and Methodological Foundations
- Part II Workplace Affect and Individual Worker Outcomes
- Part III Workplace Affect and Interpersonal and Team-Level Processes
- Part IV Workplace Affect and Organizational, Social, and Cultural Processes
- 24 Organizational Entry and Workplace Affect
- 25 Performance Management and Workplace Affect
- 26 Feeling the Heat
- 27 Gender and Workplace Affect
- 28 Affective Climate and Organization-Level Emotion Management
- Part V Discrete Emotions at Work
- Part VI New Perspectives on Workplace Affect
- Index
- References
25 - Performance Management and Workplace Affect
from Part IV - Workplace Affect and Organizational, Social, and Cultural Processes
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 June 2020
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Workplace Affect
- The Cambridge Handbook of Workplace Affect
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Part I Theoretical and Methodological Foundations
- Part II Workplace Affect and Individual Worker Outcomes
- Part III Workplace Affect and Interpersonal and Team-Level Processes
- Part IV Workplace Affect and Organizational, Social, and Cultural Processes
- 24 Organizational Entry and Workplace Affect
- 25 Performance Management and Workplace Affect
- 26 Feeling the Heat
- 27 Gender and Workplace Affect
- 28 Affective Climate and Organization-Level Emotion Management
- Part V Discrete Emotions at Work
- Part VI New Perspectives on Workplace Affect
- Index
- References
Summary
Affect and emotion play a critical role in the lives of humans across many domains such as family, health, and work. In fact, Forgas (1994) proposes that “affect is a pervasive part of the way we see the world” (p. 40). Many scholars have proposed and developed theories and frameworks regarding affect that can be and have been applied to various work domains. Our focus in this chapter is on the role of affect in the performance management (PM) process. In particular, the work of Forgas and colleagues on the affect infusion model (AIM: Forgas & George, 2001; Forgas & Williams, 2016) and of Weiss and Cropanzano on affective events theory (AET: Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) are helpful in explaining how affect fits into this critical work-related process.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Workplace Affect , pp. 338 - 349Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Berkowitz, L., Jaffee, S., Jo, E., & Troccoli, B. T. (2000). On the correction of feeling-induced judgmental biases. In Forgas, J. P. (Ed.),
Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition (pp. 131–152). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (1998). Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 615–633.Google Scholar
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach–avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 804–818.Google Scholar
Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM).
Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 39–66.Google Scholar
Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. (2001). Affective influences on judgments and behavior in organizations: An information processing perspective.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 3–34.Google Scholar
Forgas, J. P., & Williams, K. D. (2016).
Social influence: Direct and indirect processes. London: Psychology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Behavioral activation and inhibition in everyday life.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1135–1149.Google Scholar
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2002). Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don’t: The role of context and clarity of feelings.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 687–697.Google Scholar
Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects.
Psychological Inquiry, 26, 1–26.Google Scholar
Harris, M. M. (1994). Rater motivation in the performance appraisal context: A theoretical framework.
Journal of Management, 20(4), 735–756.Google Scholar
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349–371.Google Scholar
Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (2000). Performance appraisal reactions: Measurement, modeling, and method bias.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 708–723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lance, C. E., Hoffman, B. J., Gentry, W. A., & Baranik, L. E. (2008). Rater source factors represent important subcomponents of the criterion construct space, not rater bias.
Human Resource Management Review, 18(4), 223–232.Google Scholar
Levy, P. E., Cavanaugh, C. M., Frantz, N. B., & Borden, L. A. (2015). The role of due process in performance appraisal: A 20-year retrospective. In Cropanzano, R. S. and Ambrose, M. L. (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace (pp. 605–620). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levy, P. E., Tseng, S. T., Rosen, C. C., & Lueke, S. B. (2017). Performance management: A marriage between practice and science – just say “I do.”
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 35, 155–213.Google Scholar
London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process.
Human Resource Management Review, 12(1), 81–100.Google Scholar
Mero, N. P., Guidice, R. M., & Brownlee, A. L. (2007). Accountability in a performance appraisal context: The effect of audience and form of accounting on rater response and behavior.
Journal of Management, 33(2), 223–252.Google Scholar
Schleicher, D. J., Baumann, H. M., Sullivan, D. W., Levy, P. E., Hargrove, D. C., & Barros-Rivera, B. A. (2018). Putting the system into performance management systems: A review and agenda for performance management research.
Journal of Management, 44(6), 2209–2245.Google Scholar
Schleicher, D. J., Bull, R. A., & Green, S. G. (2009). Rater reactions to forced distribution rating systems.
Journal of Management, 35(4), 899–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheldon, O. J., Dunning, D., & Ames, D. R. (2014). Emotionally unskilled, unaware, and uninterested in learning more: Reactions to feedback about deficits in emotional intelligence.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 125–137.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. S., & Barry, B. (1986). Interpersonal affect and rating errors.
Academy of Management Journal, 29(3), 586–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (2005). Is there a general factor in ratings of job performance? A meta-analytic framework for disentangling substantive and error influences.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 108–131.Google Scholar
Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences.
Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 173–194.Google Scholar
Weiss, H. M., & Beal, D. J. (2005). Reflections on affective events theory. In Ashkanasy, N. M., Zerbe, W. J., and Härtel, C. E. J. (Eds.),
The effect of affect in organizational settings (pp. 1–21). Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work.
Organizational Behavior, 18, 1–74.Google Scholar