Performance management in the United States

Pulakos, Elaine D.; Mueller-Hanson, Rose A.; O’Leary, Ryan S.

doi:10.4324/9780203885673-7

Cited by 23 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For over 50 years, we have repeatedly attempted to address dissatisfaction and disappointing PM results (e.g., lack of differentiation among employees) by tweaking PM systems. These attempts to fix PM have led to vicious cycles of reinventing PM processes only to achieve disappointing results and then reinventing these processes again and again (Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, O’Leary, & Meyrowitz, 2012). Pulakos and O’Leary (2011) have argued that, over time, formal PM systems have become increasingly bureaucratic and disconnected from the day-to-day activities they were initially designed to promote, such as communicating clear expectations, setting objectives, and providing quality feedback.…”

Section: What Should Organizations Do and Not Do To Fix Pm?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many organizations have overengineered this process to the point that it requires a significant investment but yields few actionable outcomes. Setting SMART objectives annually, for example, ignores the dynamic and ever-changing nature of work (Cascio, 1998; Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, & O’Leary, 2008; Pulakos & O’Leary, 2010). Rather than set goals once per year, research has shown that it is more effective to set ongoing expectations as needed and link feedback to these (Locke & Latham, 1990).…”

Section: A Way Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Different types of expectations may be set that focus on project or task results, behavioral expectations, or bottom-line results. The type(s) of expectations that make the most sense will vary by circumstance and type of work (Pulakos et al, 2012). Examples are shown in Table 3.…”

Section: A Way Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Performance Management Can Be Fixed: An On-the-Job Experiential Learning Approach for Complex Behavior Change

Pulakos¹,

Mueller-Hanson²,

Arad

et al. 2015

Ind. Organ. Psychol.

Self Cite

140

182

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: What Should Organizations Do and Not Do To Fix Pm?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Way Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Performance Management Can Be Fixed: An On-the-Job Experiential Learning Approach for Complex Behavior Change

Pulakos¹,

Mueller-Hanson²,

Arad

et al. 2015

Ind. Organ. Psychol.

Self Cite

140

182

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, setting goals for today's increasingly knowledge and service‐based jobs is more challenging. The fluid and unpredictable nature of these jobs means that one's objectives can change frequently, necessitating continual revision and increasing the work associated with performance goals (Cascio, 1998; Pulakos, Mueller‐Hanson, & O’Leary, 2008; Pulakos & O’Leary, 2010). Even when jobs are relatively predictable, goals set at the start of the performance cycle often cannot account for special assignments or other duties that may arise during the year.…”

Section: What It Takes To Implement Four Popular Performance Managemementioning

confidence: 99%

Why Is Performance Management Broken?

Pulakos¹,

O’Leary²

2011

Ind. organ. psychol.

Self Cite

172

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…These “best practices” are assumed to be a global benchmark, most efficient and most effective in all contexts (Pudelko & Mendenhall, ). With respect to PM, the literature providing universal guidelines (e.g., Aguinis, ; Armstrong, ; Pulakos, Mueller‐Hanson, & O'Leary, ) assumes, for example, the strong role of the supervisor and an individual focus during the appraisal. However, many scholars who focus on the cross‐border dimension of PM from a contextual perspective question whether a company‐wide standardized PM system, one that ignores local cultural and institutional factors, is practically enforceable (e.g., Aycan, ; Claus & Hand, ; Festing & Barzantny, ; Vance, ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Country‐Specific Profiles of Performance Management in China, Germany, and the United States—An Empirical Test

Festing

Knappert

2014

Thunderbird Intl Bus Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The vast majority of the literature on performance management (PM) chooses a contextual perspective, focusing on the cross-country comparison of single elements of the PM system. Simultaneously, a conceptual basis and an encompassing comprehension of country-specifi c peculiarities are lacking. Based on a suggested conceptualization of the elements of PM (criteria, actors, methods, purposes, feedback) and hypotheses developed from an encompassing literature review, the authors present empirical fi ndings from a quantitative study including 167 managers from multinational enterprise (MNE) subsidiaries in three culturally and institutionally diverse major economies (Germany, United States, and China). Contrary to what the literature suggests about the local peculiarities of PM, the results of the present study show signifi cant country-specifi c differences in only 6 out of 16 TABLE 3 Hypotheses and Results Result Hypothesis Analysis (see Table 1 and Table 2) Final Decision 1a: Performance evaluation criteria used in China are primarily network and output oriented. M Network = 3.59 (above scale mean) M Output = 2.51, M Teamwork = 2.71, p = 0.37 1b: Performance evaluation criteria used in the United States are primarily teamwork and output oriented. M Output = 2.64, M Teamwork = 2.51, p = 0.52 M Output = 2.64, M Expertise = 2.91, p = 0.11 M Expertise = 2.91, M Teamwork = 2.51, p = 0.01 Partly 1c: Performance evaluation criteria used in Germany are primarily expertise and output oriented. M Output = 2.52, M Teamwork = 2.89, p = 0.15 M Output = 2.52, M Expertise = 2.70, p = 0.48 M Expertise = 2.70, M Teamwork = 2.89, p = 0.43 1d: The three countries do not differ in terms of the high relevance of outputoriented criteria. F 2,159 = 1.62, p = 0.20 2a: In China, performance evaluation is carried out primarily by the superior. M Supervisor = 2.04, M Others = 3.91, p < 0.001 M Supervisor = 2.04, M Self = 3.29, p < 0.001 2b: In China, appraisals by clients, subordinates, peers, and the assessed him-/ herself (360-degree feedback) are of low relevance. M Others = 3.91 (above scale mean) 2c: In China, the importance of group-and individual-focused appraisals is equally high. M Team = 2.94, M Individual = 2.31, p < 0.05 2d: In the United States, performance evaluation is carried out primarily by the superior. M Supervisor = 1.77, M Others = 4.80, p < 0.001 M Supervisor = 1.77, M Self = 3.77, p < 0.001 2e: In the United States, performance evaluation by the assessed him-/herself, clients, subordinates, and peers (360-degree feedback) is of high relevance. M Others = 4.80 (above scale mean) 2f: In the United States, appraisals are primarily individual focused. M Team = 3.34, M Individual = 1.97, p < 0.001 2g: In Germany, performance evaluation is carried out primarily by the superior. M Supervisor = 2.18, M Others = 3.60, p < 0.001 M Supervisor = 2.18, M Self = 3.09, p < 0.01 2h: In Germany, the appraisal by an assessed him-/herself, subordinates, peers, and clients (360-degree feedback) is of low relevance. M Others = 3.60...

show abstract

Performance management in the United States

Cited by 23 publications

References 1 publication

Performance Management Can Be Fixed: An On-the-Job Experiential Learning Approach for Complex Behavior Change

Performance Management Can Be Fixed: An On-the-Job Experiential Learning Approach for Complex Behavior Change

Why Is Performance Management Broken?

Country‐Specific Profiles of Performance Management in China, Germany, and the United States—An Empirical Test

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About