Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T08:27:56.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seeing the Forest but Missing the Trees: The Role of Judgments in Performance Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2015

John P. Meriac ,
C. Allen Gorman  and
Therese Macan
John P. Meriac*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri—St. Louis
C. Allen Gorman
Affiliation:
Department of Management, East Tennessee State University
Therese Macan
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri—St. Louis
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John P. Meriac, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri—St. Louis, 425 Stadler Hall, One University Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63121-4499. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Various solutions have been proposed to “fix” performance management (PM) over the last several decades. Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad, and Moye (2015) have presented a holistic approach to improving PM in organizations. Although this approach addresses several key elements related to the social context of PM, namely the buy-in of organizational stakeholders, timely and regular feedback, and future-directed feedback, we believe that several robust findings from the PM research literature could further improve this process. Are Pulakos et al. looking at the forest but missing the trees? In the following commentary, we offer several reasons that performance judgments and perhaps even informal ratings are still operating and occurring in the proposed holistic system. Therefore, advancements in other areas of PM research may offer additional ways to fix PM.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 102 - 108
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

Athey, T. R., & McIntyre, R. M. (1987). Effect of rater training on rater accuracy: Level of processing theory and social facilitation theory perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 567–572. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.72.4.567Google Scholar
Bernardin, H. J., & Buckley, M. R. (1981). Strategies in rater training. Academy of Management Review, 6, 205–212. doi:10.5465/AMR.1981.4287782Google Scholar
Borman, W. C., Buck, D. E., Hanson, M. A., Motowidlo, S. J., Stark, S., & Drasgow, F. (2001). An examination of the comparative reliability, validity, and accuracy of performance ratings made using computerized adaptive rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 965–973. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.965Google Scholar
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. L., Salas, E., & Converse, S. A. (1991). Toward an integration of training theory and technique. Human Factors, 33, 281–292.Google Scholar
Fisicaro, S. A. (1988). A reexamination of the relation between halo error and accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 239–244. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffin, R. D., Jelley, R. B., Powell, D. M., & Johnston, N. G. (2009). Taking advantage of social comparisons in performance appraisal: The relative percentile method. Human Resource Management, 48, 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorman, C. A., & Rentsch, J. R. (2009). Evaluating frame-of-reference rater training effectiveness using performance schema accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1336–1344. doi:10.1037/a0016476Google Scholar
Hoffman, B. J., Gorman, C. A., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., Overstreet, B., & Atchley, E. K. (2012). Evidence for the effectiveness of an alternative multisource performance rating methodology. Personnel Psychology, 65, 531–563. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01252.xGoogle Scholar
Ilgen, D. R., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & McKellin, D. B. (1993). Performance appraisal process research in the 1980s: What has it contributed to appraisals in use? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 321–368. doi:10.1006/obhd.1993.1015Google Scholar
Kane, J. S., & Woehr, D. J. (2006). Performance measurement reconsidered: An examination of frequency estimation as a basis for assessment. In Bennett, W. Jr., Lance, C. E., & Woehr, D. J. (Eds.), Performance measurement: Current perspectives and future challenges (pp. 77–110). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72–107.CrossRefGoogle 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
Lievens, F. (2001). Assessor training strategies and their effects on accuracy, interrater reliability, and discriminant validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 255–264. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.2.255Google Scholar
Macan, T., Mehner, K., Havill, L., Roberts, L., Heft, L., & Meriac, J. P. (2011). Two for the price of one: Assessment center training to focus on behaviors can transfer to performance appraisals. Human Performance, 24, 443–457. doi:10.1080/08959285.2011.614664Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R. (2008). Explaining the weak relationship between job performance and ratings of job performance. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Research and Practice, 1, 148–160. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00030.xGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K. R., & Balzer, W. K. (1989). Rater errors and rating accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 619–624.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Nathan, B. R., & Tippins, N. (1990). The consequences of halo “error” in performance ratings: A field study of the moderating effect of halo on test validation results. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 290–296. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.290Google Scholar
Noonan, L. E., & Sulsky, L. M. (2001). Impact of frame-of-reference and behavioral observation training on alternative training effectiveness criteria in a Canadian military sample. Human Performance, 14, 3–26. doi:10.1207/S15327043HUP1401_02Google 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
Pulakos, E. D., & O’Leary, R. S. (2011). Why is performance management broken? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 146–164. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01315.xGoogle Scholar
Roch, S. G., Woehr, D. J., Mishra, V., & Kieszczynska, U. (2012). Rater training revisited: An updated meta-analytic review of frame-of-reference training. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85, 370–395. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02045.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schleicher, D. J., & Day, D. V. (1998). A cognitive evaluation of frame-of-reference rater training: Content and process issues. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 76–101. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2751CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ThorntonG. C., III G. C., III, & Rupp, D. E. (2006). Assessment centers in human resource management. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woehr, D. J., & Huffcutt, A. I. (1994). Rater training for performance appraisal: A quantitative review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 189–205. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1994.tb00562.xGoogle Scholar