Employee performance management: charting the field from 1998 to 2018

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to study the development and consider the future of one of the most controversial areas of human resource development – employee performance management (PM).Design/methodology/approachThrough bibliometrics, a multiple correspondence analysis identifies the main research directions of PM studies and provides a map of descriptors and a list of authors, along with a framework to track PM literature over 20 years (1998–2018).FindingsScholars have attempted to address some of the questions raised by earlier researchers. However, critical questions remain unanswered, and there is increasing dissatisfaction with the process. The most glaring yet unaddressed problem with PM is poor employee acceptability of the process.Practical implicationsIf the research gaps are addressed, the lack of acceptability of the PM could be resolved and more effectively managed in the future.Originality/valueThe study particularly addresses poor employee “acceptability” of the PM process, a subject that has received limited attention by scholars.

Addressing the knowledge divide: digital knowledge sharing and social learning of geographically dispersed employees during the COVID-19 pandemic

“…This became especially apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic, as the opportunity to fly over and physically meet due to country and worldwide lockdowns was ruled out. Overall, KS and SL through KSPs resulted in beneficial individual, team and organisational outcomes, including increased efficiency, improved business processes, performance and engagement of employees, increased adaptiveness to continuously changing circumstances and innovation, corroborating findings by previous research (Bateman et al, 2019;Dabic et al, 2014;Di Vaio et al, 2020;Jennings et al, 2016;Kiessling et al, 2021;Maley et al, 2020;Park and Kim, 2018;Suarez, 2019).…”

“…In their research on knowledge transfer between organisation's subsidiary to headquarter, Kiessling et al (2021) found that knowledge transfer results in innovative practices. Other beneficial individual, team and organisational benefits derived from knowledge-sharing are unleashing creativity embedded in individuals and in the workforce within organisations; higher efficiency and effectiveness, performance and engagement of employees; improved organisational learning culture; increased adaptiveness to continuously changing circumstances; organisational agility, innovation and performance; global efficiency, national responsiveness to local needs, and developing and spreading innovation internationally; improved quality of products and services; higher sales and increased market share; stakeholder value creation; creating lasting economic value; surviving and thriving in the face of crises, sustained business competitiveness (Dabic et al, 2014;Di Vaio et al, 2020;Halisah et al, 2021;Jennings et al, 2016;Maley et al, 2020;Montani and Staglian o, 2021;Park and Kim, 2018;Suarez, 2019).…”

Sustainability reporting in food industry: an innovative tool for enhancing financial performance

“…Scholars have attempted to address some of the questions raised by earlier researchers about open innovation. However, critical questions remain unanswered, and there is increasing dissatisfaction with the process (Maley et al, 2020). This paper presents a new framework that considers sustainability reporting as an innovation tool, examining innovation in terms of its positive or negative impact on financial performance.…”

Guest editorialKnowledge sharing and its management in an international work environment: drivers, challenges and consequences

“…First, the articles in this special issue continue to recognize the diversity in the presence of knowledge agents (Bonache and Brewster, 2001;Bonache and Z arraga-Oberty, 2008) who are serving as both repositories and conduits of knowledge with the potential to enhance organizational innovation and performance (Moeller et al, 2016;Maley et al, 2020;Kiessling et al, 2021). The published articles acknowledge knowledge agents and their interactions and interplay in the form of home and host country nationals, often serving in capacity of knowledge sender (Bonache and Brewster, 2001), knowledge receiver (Chang et al, 2012;Hocking et al, 2007) or both.…”