Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T22:07:14.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feedback Dynamics Are Critical to Improving Performance Management Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

Nitya Chawla ,
Allison S. Gabriel ,
Jason J. Dahling  and
Kajal Patel
Nitya Chawla*
Affiliation:
Department of Management and Organizations, University of Arizona
Allison S. Gabriel
Affiliation:
Department of Management and Organizations, University of Arizona
Jason J. Dahling
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The College of New Jersey
Kajal Patel
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The College of New Jersey
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nitya Chawla, Department of Management and Organizations, University of Arizona, 1130 East Helen Street, McClelland Hall 405, Tucson, AZ 85721-0108. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Colquitt, Murphy, and Ollander-Krane (Adler et al., 2016) argue that performance ratings are problematic in part because of the problems associated with feedback: Ratees dislike and dismiss performance feedback, raters are reluctant to provide tough feedback, and organizations do not enact research findings about improving feedback processes (Adler et al.). Discarding performance ratings on these grounds is effectively “throwing out the baby with the bath water,” given that we know quite a lot about how to improve the delivery and receptivity of feedback. Our commentary is intended to briefly illustrate ways to leverage research on feedback receptivity to improve performance management systems. Specifically, we focus on (a) cultivating supportive feedback environments, (b) integrating employee coaching into performance management systems, and (c) attending to the characteristics of feedback recipients to understand how they process feedback.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 260 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, S., Campion, M., Colquitt, A., Grubb, A., Murphy, K., Ollander-Krane, R., & Pulakos, E. D. (2016). Getting rid of performance ratings: Genius or folly? A debate. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9 (2), 219–252.Google Scholar
Audia, P. G., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Benefiting from negative feedback. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 631–646. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2003.11.006Google Scholar
Dahling, J. J., Chau, S. L., & O'Malley, A. L. (2012). Correlates and consequences of feedback orientation in organizations. Journal of Management, 38, 530–545. doi:10.1177/0149206310375467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahling, J. J., & O'Malley, A. L. (2011). Supportive feedback environments can mend broken performance management systems. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 201–203. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01327.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahling, J. J., Taylor, S. R., Chau, S. L., & Dwight, S. (2016). Why does coaching matter? A multilevel model linking managerial coaching effectiveness and frequency to sales goal attainment. Personnel Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/peps.12123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, W. D., Carson, C. M., Ammeter, A. P., & Treadway, D. C. (2005). The interactive effects of goal orientation and feedback specificity on task performance. Human Performance, 18, 409–426. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1804_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabriel, A. S., Frantz, N. B., Levy, P. E., & Hilliard, A. W. (2014). The supervisor feedback environment is empowering, but not all the time: Feedback orientation as a critical moderator. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 487–506. doi:10.1111/joop.12060Google Scholar
Gregory, J. B., Beck, J. W., & Carr, A. E. (2011). Goals, feedback, and self-regulation: Control theory as a natural framework for executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 63, 26–38. doi:10.1037/a0023398Google Scholar
Linderbaum, B. A., & Levy, P. E. (2010). The development and validation of the Feedback Orientation Scale (FOS). Journal of Management, 36, 1372–1405. doi:10.1177/0149206310373145Google Scholar
Liu, X., & Batt, R. (2010). How supervisors influence performance: A multilevel study of coaching and group management in technology-mediated services. Personnel Psychology, 63, 265–298. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01170.xGoogle Scholar
London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 81–100. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(01)00043-2Google Scholar
Norris-Watts, C., & Levy, P. E. (2004). The mediating role of affective commitment in the relation of the feedback environment to work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 351–365. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2003.08.003Google Scholar
Pulakos, E. D., Hanson, R. M., Arad, S., & Moye, N. (2015). Performance management can be fixed: An on-the-job experiential learning approach for complex behavior change. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, 51–76. doi:10.1017/iop.2014.2Google Scholar
Rosen, C. C., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). Placing perceptions of politics in the context of the feedback environment, employee attitudes, and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 211–220. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.211CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryan, A. M., Brutus, S., Greguras, G. J., & Hakel, M. D. (2000). Receptivity to assessment-based feedback for management development. Journal of Management Development, 19, 252–276. doi:10.1108/02621710010322580Google Scholar
Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., & Snell, A. F. (2004). The feedback environment scale: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 165–184. doi:10.1177/0013164403258440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., & Lind, E. A. (1998). When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1449–1458. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1449Google Scholar
VandeWalle, D., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. J. (2001). The role of goal orientation following performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 629–640. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.629Google Scholar
Wang, M., Burlacu, G., Truxillo, D., James, K., & Yao, X. (2015). Age differences in feedback reactions: The roles of employee feedback orientation on social awareness and utility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1296–1308. doi:10.1037/a0038334CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitaker, B. G., Dahling, J. J., & Levy, P. E. (2007). The development of a feedback environment and role clarity model of feedback-seeking behavior. Journal of Management, 33, 570–591. doi:10.1177/0149206306297581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2013, March). The ideal praise-to-criticism ratio. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2013/03/the-ideal-praise-to-criticismGoogle Scholar