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

Abstract

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.

Linking succession planning to employee performance: The mediating roles of career development and performance appraisal

“…For achieving best performance, organizations use performance appraisal or employee assessment tools that can provide feedback for employees and identify future development needs. It is essential for employees to have their work evaluated so that they can be acknowledged and rewarded (Levy, Silverman, & Cavanaugh, 2015). When employees are positive about performance appraisal, this motivates them to participate in development activities, which can subsequently improve individual performance (Nikpeyma, Saeedi, Azargashb, & Majd, 2013).…”

The Evolution and Devolution of 360° Feedback

“…Levy, Silverman, and Cavanaugh (2015) proposed that there could be value in the establishment of some group that, as one function, would be a clearinghouse for research collected by organizations on performance management. Some modest attempts at creating a consortium for companies with 360° Feedback systems have been attempted in the past, such as the Upward Feedback Forum in the 1990s (Timmreck & Bracken, 1997) and, more recently, the Strategic 360 Forum.…”

Assessing the employees’ efficiency and adaptive performance for sustainable human resource management practices and transactional leadership: HR-centric policies for post COVID-19 era

“…To get the greatest outcomes, organizations provide feedback to employees and anticipate future development needs, using performance evaluation or employee evaluation tools. To be recognized and rewarded, employees must have their work assessed (Levy et al, 2015). Employees who are satisfied with their performance reports are more inclined to participate in training programs, which may help them improve their overall performance.…”