International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2006 2006
DOI: 10.1002/9780470696378.ch7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Advances in the Science of Performance Appraisal: Implications for Practice

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
50
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 172 publications
0
50
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The primary purpose of a PA is to provide an employee with feedback (Cleveland, Murphy, & Williams, ; Latham & Mann, ). Feedback is defined as “actions taken by an employee's supervisor to provide information regarding task performance” (Kluger & DeNisi, , p. 255).…”
Section: Literature Review and Hypothesismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The primary purpose of a PA is to provide an employee with feedback (Cleveland, Murphy, & Williams, ; Latham & Mann, ). Feedback is defined as “actions taken by an employee's supervisor to provide information regarding task performance” (Kluger & DeNisi, , p. 255).…”
Section: Literature Review and Hypothesismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the focus of research and practice is changing from the exclusive use of performance appraisal to more comprehensive and developmentally focused performance management processes (e.g., Aguinas, 2009). This trend is so pervasive that Latham and Mann (2006) speculated their review of the performance appraisal literature would be "the last review of the literature where performance appraisal is in the title" (p. 296).…”
mentioning
confidence: 96%
“…However, the long-standing attitude that either you do performance appraisal or you do performance management is disappearing. It seems to be finally accepted that the evaluative component associated with performance appraisal and the developmental aspects of associated with performance management should be intertwined (Latham & Mann, 2006).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The final factor, involves employee's belief that their views are taken into account (Latham & Mann, 2006) and can involve participation in the performance management implementation process. Latham & Mann (2006) suggest that employees often believe that PMS is implemented for all the wrong reasons, by the management, that is, the management is trying to use this process as a way to hold them account and subsequently much easier to discipline them, hence the perception that it is not fair. This perceived lack of procedural fairness can have ranging negative implications for organisations.…”
Section: Understanding Of Available Literature On Existing Perceptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Krell (2011) suggest that the way PMS is perceived by the employees, especially if there is an element of biasness during the implementation process, can degrade the effectiveness of a crucial business process-one directly related to employee performance management. Latham & Mann (2006) states that effective performance management systems must be perceived as fair, and that the factors contributing to fairness include distributive fairness, procedural fairness and voice. Distributive and procedural fairness are associated with both task and contextual performance (Cropanzano, Bowen, & Gilliland, 2007).…”
Section: Understanding Of Available Literature On Existing Perceptionmentioning
confidence: 99%