Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:15:40.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Managing the Interpersonal Aspect of Performance Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2015

Jisoo Ock  and
Frederick L. Oswald
Jisoo Ock*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Rice University
Frederick L. Oswald
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Rice University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jisoo Ock, Department of Psychology, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, MS-25, Houston, TX 77005. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is safe to assume that an accurate performance appraisal (PA) is an important prerequisite to an effective performance management (PM) system, because with accurate PA information, management, teams, and employees can engage in the process of identifying and developing a wide range of job-relevant knowledge or skills to improve job performance. However, researchers and practitioners alike must continue to push for PA to be something other an administrative ritual; the ideal goal for PA is for it to contribute to a reliable process that can offer practical help to organizational operations, including PM. As Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad, and Moye (2015) have pointed out, supervisors are concerned about demotivating or disengaging employees by providing PA ratings that are too much lower than the highest rating or ranking that is available, so having ratings that are clustered at the high end of the rating scale is quite common across organizations (Bretz, Milkovich, & Read, 1992).

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 111 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2015 

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

Baldwin, T. T. (1992). Effects of alternative modeling strategies on outcomes of interpersonal-skills training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 147–154. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.2.147Google Scholar
Bernardin, H. J., Tyler, C. L., & Villanova, P. (2009). Rating level and accuracy as a function of rater personality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, 300–310. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.00472.xGoogle Scholar
Borman, W. C. (1974). The rating of individuals in organizations: An alternative approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12, 105–124. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(74)90040-3Google Scholar
Bretz, R. D., Milkovich, G. T., & Read, W. (1992). The current state of performance appraisal research and practice: Concerns, directions, and implications. Journal of Management, 18, 321–352. doi:10.1177/014920639201800206Google Scholar
Buttny, R. (1993). Social accountability in communication. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Dahling, J. J., Chau, S. L., & O’Malley, A. (2012). Correlates and consequences of feedback orientation in organizations. Journal of Management, 38, 531–546. doi:10.1177/0149206310375467Google 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.xGoogle Scholar
Gist, M. E., & Stevens, C. K. (1998). Effects of practice conditions and supplemental training method on cognitive learning and interpersonal skill generalization. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 142–169. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2787Google Scholar
Goodman, S. A., & Svyantek, D. J. (1999). Person-organization fit and contextual performance: Do shared values matter. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 254–275. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1998.1682Google Scholar
Gregory, J. B., Levy, P. E., & Jeffers, M. (2008). Development of a model of the feedback process within executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60, 42–56. doi:10.1037/1065-9293.60.1.42Google Scholar
Jamieson, B. D. (1973). Behavioral problems with management by objective. Academy of Management Review, 16, 496–505. doi:10.2307/255009Google Scholar
Jawahar, I. M., & Williams, C. R. (1997). Where all the children are above average: The performance appraisal purpose effect. Personnel Psychology, 50, 905–926. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb01487.xGoogle Scholar
Kupritz, V. W. (2002). The relative impact of workplace design on training transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13, 427–477. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1042Google Scholar
Laker, D. R., & Powell, J. L. (2011). The differences between hard and soft skills and their relative impact on training transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22, 111–122. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lam, W., Huang, X., & Snape, E. (2007). Feedback-seeking behavior and leader-member exchange: Do supervisor-attributed motives matter? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 348–363. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. (2004). The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the future. Journal of Management, 30, 881–905. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.005Google Scholar
Linderbaum, B. G., & 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
London, M. (2003). Job feedback: Giving, seeking and using feedback for performance improvement (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google 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
Longenecker, C. O., Sims, H. P., & Gioia, D. A. (1987). Behind the mask: The politics of employee appraisal. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183–193. doi:10.5465/AME.1987.4275731Google 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, 223–252. doi:10.1177/0149206306297633Google Scholar
Mero, N. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1995). Effects of rater accountability on the accuracy and the favorability of performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 517–524. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.517Google Scholar
Mohrman, A. M., & Lawler, E. E. (1983). Motivation and performance appraisal behavior. In Landy, F., Zedeck, S., & Cleveland, J. (Eds.), Performance measurement and theory (pp. 173–189). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Moss, S. E., Sanchez, J. I., Brumbaugh, A. M., & Borkowski, N. (2009). The mediating role of feedback avoidance behavior in the LMX–performance relationship. Group & Organization Management, 34, 645–664. doi:10.1177/1059601109350986Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-oriented perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R., & DeShon, R. P. (2000). Interrater correlations do not estimate the reliability of performance ratings. Personnel Psychology, 53, 873–900. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb02421.xGoogle Scholar
Pulakos, E. D., Mueller Hanson, R., 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: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8, 51–76.Google Scholar
Roch, S. G., Ayman, R., Newhouse, N., & Harris, M. (2005). Effect of identifiability, rating audience, and conscientiousness on rating level. International Journal Selection and Assessment, 13, 53–62. doi:10.1111/j.0965-075X.2005.00299.xCrossRefGoogle 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:10.1177/0013164403258440Google Scholar
Tata, J. (2002). The influence of managerial accounts of employees’ reactions to negative feedback. Group & Organizational Management, 27, 480–503. doi:10.1177/1059601102238358Google Scholar
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500–517. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.3. 500Google Scholar
VandeWalle, D., Ganesan, S., Challagalla, G. N., & Brown, S. P. (2000). An integrated model of feedback-seeking behavior: Disposition, context and cognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 996–1003. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.996Google Scholar
Villanova, P., Bernardin, H. J., Dahmus, S. A., & Sims, R. L. (1993). Rater leniency and performance appraisal discomfort. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 789–799. doi:10.1177/0013164493053003023Google Scholar
Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 557–574.Google Scholar
Williams, J. R., Miller, C. E., Steelman, L. A., & Levy, P. E. (1999). Increasing feedback seeking in public contexts: It takes two (or more) to tango. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 969–976. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.969Google Scholar