Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:27:05.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Future of Performance Ratings: Collected Thoughts From Six Emerging Scholars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

Andrew M. Bleckman ,
Sarah N. Guarino ,
Wesley Russell ,
Eileen C. Toomey ,
Paul M. Werth ,
Victoria L. Whitaker  and
Cort W. Rudolph
Andrew M. Bleckman
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University
Sarah N. Guarino
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University
Wesley Russell
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University
Eileen C. Toomey
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University
Paul M. Werth
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University
Victoria L. Whitaker
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University
Cort W. Rudolph*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cort W. Rudolph, Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University, 3700 Lindell Boulevard, Morrissey Hall, Room 2827, St. Louis, MO 63108. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the fall 2015 semester, I (i.e., the last author of this response) taught a doctoral seminar on performance appraisal. Although this course was a general survey of research and theory regarding work performance and performance appraisal processes and methods, we also talked extensively about the value of performance ratings to organizations, raters, and ratees. It was indeed serendipitous that this focal article came out when it did. As part of the final examination requirements (and, admittedly, as a pedagogical experiment), I asked the six PhD students in this course (i.e., the first six authors of this response) to read and respond to the Adler et al. (2016) debate regarding the relative merits of performance ratings. To highlight the perspectives of this next generation of industrial and organizational psychologists, I have collected here various representative comments offered by each of these emerging scholars on this issue.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 334 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2016 

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

Adler, S., Campion, M., Colquitt, A., Grubb, A., Murphy, K., Ollander-Krane, R., & Pulakos, E. D. (2016). Getting rid of performance ratings: Genius or folly? A debate. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9 (2), 219–252.Google Scholar
Jawahar, J., & Williams, C. R. (1997). Where all the children are above average: A meta-analysis of the performance appraisal purpose affect. Personnel Psychology, 50 (4), 50–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longenecker, C. O., Sims, H. P. Jr., & Gioia, D. A. (1987). Behind the mask: The politics of employee appraisal. The Academy of Management Executive (1987–1989), 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, D. A., Kinney, T., & Farr, J. L. (2004). Job performance ratings. In Thomas, J. C. (Ed.), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychological Assessment: Vol. 4. Industrial and organizational assessment (pp. 956–1008). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar