Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T14:18:03.557Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Performance Management Fix Is In: How Practice Can Build on the Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2015

Paul E. Levy ,
Stanley B. Silverman  and
Caitlin M. Cavanaugh
Paul E. Levy*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The University of Akron
Stanley B. Silverman
Affiliation:
College of Applied Science and Technology, The University of Akron
Caitlin M. Cavanaugh
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The University of Akron
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Paul E. Levy, Department of Psychology, The University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-4301. E-mail: pelevy@uakron.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The scientist–practitioner model of training in industrial and organizational psychology provides the foundation for the education of industrial and organizational psychologists across the world. This approach is important because, as industrial and organizational psychologists, we are responsible for both the creation and discovery of knowledge and the use or application of that knowledge. In multiple articles recently published in this journal, Pulakos and her colleagues (Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad, & Moye, 2015; Pulakos & O’Leary, 2011) have argued that performance management (PM), as applied and implemented in organizations, is broken. This is not a unique take on the state of PM in organizations, as others have been arguing for many years that PM is no longer working in organizations the way that we would like it to work (Banks & Murphy, 1985; Bretz, Milkovich, & Read, 1992). Further, for many years and in many Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology conference panels and debates in the literature, we have been inundated with discussions and conversations around the science–practice gap and around the gap being especially evident in PM.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 80 - 85
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

Banks, C. G., & Murphy, K. R. (1985). Toward narrowing the research-practice gap in performance appraisal. Personnel Psychology, 38, 335–345. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1985.tb00551.xCrossRefGoogle 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:10.1177/014920639201800206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farr, J. L., & Levy, P. E. (2007). Performance appraisal. In Koppes, L. L. (Ed.), Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 311–327). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ferris, G. R., Munyon, T. P., Basik, K., & Buckley, M. R. (2008). The performance evaluation context: Social, emotional cognitive, political, and relationship components. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 146–163. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.006CrossRefGoogle 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.1993.1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, P. E., & Thompson, D. J. (2012). Feedback in organizations: Individual differences and the social context. In Sutton, R., Hornsey, M., & Douglas, K. (Eds.), Feedback: Handbook of praise, criticism, and advice (pp. 217–232). New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google 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, 881–909. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.005CrossRefGoogle 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)00043-2CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.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:10.1177/0013164403258440CrossRefGoogle Scholar