Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T09:21:32.896Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Is Performance Management Broken?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Elaine D. Pulakos  and
Ryan S. O’Leary
Elaine D. Pulakos*
Affiliation:
PDRI, an SHL Company
Ryan S. O’Leary
Affiliation:
PDRI, an SHL Company
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: PDRI, an SHL Company, 1300 North 17th Street, Suite 100, Arlington, VA 22209
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although extensive research and practice have focused on understanding and improving performance management systems in organizations, the formula for effective performance management remains elusive. We propose that a significant part of the problem is that performance management has been reduced to prescribed steps within formal administrative systems that are disconnected from the day-to-day activities that determine performance management effectiveness (e.g., communicating clear work expectations, setting short-term objectives and deadlines, and providing continual guidance). We argue that interventions to improve performance management should cease their exclusive focus on reinventing formal system features. Although well-developed tools and systems can facilitate performance management, these alone do not yield effective performance management. In lieu of making further changes to formal performance management systems, we argue for devoting more attention to improving manager–employee communication and aspects of the manager–employee relationship and propose an approach we believe holds promise for improving performance management processes in organizations.

Type
Focal Article
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 146 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2011 

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.)

Footnotes

This article was based on Elaine Pulakos' Distinguished Professional Practice Award address at the 2010 SIOP conference in Atlanta, GA. The authors would like to thank Thomas K. Coghlan and Edward K. Moe for providing insightful comments on an earlier draft of this article. These individuals bring valuable perspectives based on their roles leading to large, complex, and challenging performance management interventions in major organizations. We also thank Rose A. Mueller-Hanson and Anne M. Hansen of PDRI for their helpful reviews of this article.

References

Beer, M. (1981). Performance appraisal: Dilemmas and possibilities. Organizational Dynamics, 9(3), 24–36. Google Scholar
Bernardin, H. J. (1977). Behavioral expectation scales versus summated scales: A fairer comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 422–427. Google Scholar
Bernardin, J. H., & Beatty, R. W. (1984). Performance appraisal: Assessing human behavior at work. Boston: Kent.Google Scholar
Bernardin, H. J., & Buckley, M. R. (1981). Strategies in rater training. Academy of Management Review, 6, 205–212. Google Scholar
Borman, W. C. (1979). Format and training effects on rating accuracy and rater errors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 410–421. Google Scholar
Borman, W. C. (1991). Job behavior, performance, and effectiveness. In Dunnette, M. D., & Hough, L. M. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 271–326). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Google Scholar
Brentz, 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. Google Scholar
Burke, R. J., Weitzel, W., & Weir, T. (1978). Characteristics of effective employee performance review and development interviews: Replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 31, 903–919. Google Scholar
Cascio, W. F. (1998). Applied psychology in human resource management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
Cederblom, D. (1982). The performance appraisal interview: A review, implications, and suggestions. Academy of Management Review, 7, 219–227. Google Scholar
Corporate Leadership Council. (2004). Driving employee performance and retention through engagement: A quantitative analysis of the effectiveness of employee engagement strategies (Catalog No. CLC12PV0PD). Washington, DC: Corporate Executive Board. Google Scholar
Creative Metrics. (2008). A comparison of effective and ineffective performance management initiatives (Vol. III). Minneapolis, MN: Creative Metrics. Google Scholar
Culbert, S. A. (2010). Get rid of the performance review: How companies can stop intimidating, start managing, and focus on what really matters. New York: Business Plus. Google Scholar
Daniels, A. C. (2000). Bringing out the best in people: How to apply the astonishing power of positive reinforcement. New York: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
DeCotiis, T., & Petit, A. (1978). The performance appraisal process: A model and some testable propositions. Academy of Management Review, 3, 635–646. Google Scholar
DeNisi, A., Cafferty, T. P., & Meglino, B. M. (1984). A cognitive view of the performance appraisal process: A model and research propositions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 360–396. Google Scholar
Dipboye, R. L., & de Pontbraind, R. (1981). Correlates of employee reactions to performance appraisals and appraisal systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 248–251. Google Scholar
Feldman, J. M. (1986). Instrumentation and training for performance appraisal: A perceptual-cognitive viewpoint. In Rowland, K. M., & Ferris, J. R. (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 4, pp. 45–99). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Google Scholar
Ghorpade, J. (2000). Managing the five paradoxes of 360-degree feedback. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 140–150. Google Scholar
Government Accountability Office. (2008). DoD needs to improve implementation of and address employee concerns about its National Security Personnel System (GAO-08-733). Washington, DC: Author. Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinates of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 340–342. Google 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(1), 42–56. Google Scholar
Greguras, G. J., Robie, C., Schleicher, D. J., & Goff, M. (2003). A field study of the effects of rating purpose on the quality of multisource ratings. Personnel Psychology, 56(1), 1–21. Google Scholar
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268–279. Google Scholar
Harvey, P., Stoner, J., Hochwarter, W., & Kacmar, C. (2007). Dealing with bad bosses: The neutralizing effects of self presentation and positive effect on the negative consequences of abusive supervision. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 264–280. Google Scholar
Hillgren, J. S., & Cheatham, D. W. (2000). Understanding performance measures: An approach to linking rewards to the achievement of organizational objectives. Scottsdale, AZ: WorldatWork. Google Scholar
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, S. M. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349–371. Google Scholar
Ilgen, D. R., Peterson, R. B., Martin, B. A., & Boeschen, D. A. (1981). Supervisor and subordinate reactions to performance appraisal sessions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 311–330. Google Scholar
Jamieson, B. D. (1973). Behavioral problems with management by objective. Academy of Management Review, 16, 496–505. Google Scholar
Kirkland, K., & Manoogian, S. (2007). Ongoing feedback, how to get it, how to use it. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Google Scholar
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, meta-analysis and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284. Google Scholar
Landy, F. J. (2010). Bias in performance ratings: Then and now. In Outtz, J. L. (Ed.), Adverse impact (pp. 227–248). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72–107. Google Scholar
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 212–247.Google Scholar
Lawler, E. E. (1994). Motivation in work organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
Leadership IQ. (2010). Are SMART goals dumb? Washington, DC: Author. Google Scholar
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
Maier, N. R. F. (1958). The appraisal interview: Objective methods and skills. London: Wiley. Google Scholar
McIntyre, R. M., Smith, D., & Hassett, C. (1984). Accuracy of performance ratings as affected by rater training and perceived purpose of rating. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 147–156. Google Scholar
Mercer Human Resource Consulting. (2005). What's working survey. New York: Author. 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. D., Mohrman, A. M., & Milliman, J. (1991). Interpersonal relations as a context for the effects of appraisal interviews on performance and satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 352–369. Google Scholar
Nemeroff, W. F., & Wexley, K. N. (1979). An exploration of the relationships between performance feedback interview characteristics and interview outcomes as perceived by managers and subordinates. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52(1), 25–34. Google Scholar
Office of Personnel Management. (2005). Alternative pay systems in practice and a guide to the future. Retrieved from www.opm.gov/publications/AlternativePersonnelSystemsOct2005.pdf.Google Scholar
Office of Personnel Management. (2007). The best places to work in the federal government. Retrieved from www.bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/about/.Google Scholar
Office of Personnel Management. (2010). Demonstration projects and alternative personnel systems: HR flexibilities and lessons learned. Retrieved from www.opm.gov/omsoe/hr-flex/alltogether.pdf.Google Scholar
Pearce, J. L., & Porter, L. W. (1986). Employee responses to formal performance appraisal feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 211–218. Google Scholar
Pearson, C. A. (1991). An assessment of extrinsic feedback on participation, role perceptions, motivation, and job satisfaction in a self-managed system for monitoring group achievement. Human Relations, 44, 517–537. Google Scholar
Peterson, D., & Hicks, M. D. (1996). Leader as coach: strategies for coaching and developing others. Minneapolis, MN: PDI. Google Scholar
Ployhart, R., & Weekley, J. (2009). Strategy, selection, and sustained competitive advantage. In Farr, J. L., & Tippins, N. (Eds.), The handbook of employee selection (pp. 195–212). New York: Psychology Press. Google Scholar
Pulakos, E. D. (1984). A comparison of rater training programs: Error training and accuracy training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 581–588. Google Scholar
Pulakos, E. D. (1986). The development of a training program to increase accuracy with different rating tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38(1), 76–91. Google Scholar
Pulakos, E. D. (2009). Performance management: A new approach for driving business results. Boston: Blackwell. Google Scholar
Pulakos, E. D., Mueller-Hanson, R. A., & O’Leary, R. S. (2008). Performance management in the United States. In Varma, A., Budhwar, P. S., & DeNisi, A. (Eds.), Performance management systems: A global perspective (pp. 97–114). London: Routledge. Google Scholar
Pulakos, E. D., & O’Leary, R. S. (2010). Defining and measuring results of workplace behavior. In Farr, J. L., & Tippins, N. (Eds.), The handbook of employee selection (pp. 513–529). New York: Psychology Press. Google Scholar
Pulakos, E. D., & Wexley, K. N. (1983). The relationship among perceptual similarity, sex, and performance ratings in manager-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 330–342. Google Scholar
Rodgers, R., & Hunter, J. E. (1991). Impact of management by objectives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 322–336. Google Scholar
Rodgers, R., Hunter, J. E., & Rogers, D. L. (1993). Influence of top management commitment on management program success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 151–155. Google Scholar
Schneier, C. E., Shaw, D. G., & Beatty, R. W. (1991). Performance measurement and management: A tool for strategy execution. Human Resource Management, 30, 279–301. Google Scholar
Strauss, G. (1972). Management by objectives: A critical review. Training and Development Journal, 26(4), 10–15. Google Scholar
Waldman, D., & Atwater, L. E. (1998). The power of 360-degree feedback: How to leverage performance evaluations for top productivity. Houston, TX: Gulf. Google Scholar
Wexley, K. N. (1986). Appraisal interview. In Berk, R. A. (Ed.), Performance assessment (pp. 167–185). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Google Scholar
Wexley, K. N., & Klimoski, R. (1984). Performance appraisal: An update. In Rowland, K. M., & Ferris, G. D. (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 35–79). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press. Google Scholar
Wexley, K. N., & Pulakos, E. D. (1983). The effects of perceptual congruence and sex on subordinates' performance appraisals of their managers. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 666–676. Google Scholar