Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:32:55.185Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance Management: Embracing Complexity, Evading Reductionism, and Moving to Outcome-Based Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

Shonna D. Waters ,
Wayne A. Baughman  and
David W. Dorsey
Shonna D. Waters*
Affiliation:
U.S. National Security Agency, Fort Meade, Maryland
Wayne A. Baughman
Affiliation:
U.S. National Security Agency, Fort Meade, Maryland
David W. Dorsey
Affiliation:
U.S. National Security Agency, Fort Meade, Maryland
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Shonna D. Waters, 2022 North Taylor Street, Arlington, VA 22207. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Adler et al. (2016) open with a summary of the business case driving our field to change and close by providing principles for accomplishing that change, where they conclude that “there is no right answer to the ratings question” (p. 244). Lying between the opening and closing sections is a series of arguments for and against today's performance rating status quo, arguments illustrating just what happens when too many years are spent seeking answers along too narrow a path. In this commentary, we provide additional support for the strategy- and outcome-driven approach to performance management advocated in the article. In addition, we offer ideas for what has contributed to getting us and keeping us where we are. Unless we understand what has driven performance ratings research and practice to be the object of an intense and lengthy debate, these same forces may well drive us to carry out years-long experiments of questionable value along similarly narrow paths. We want to offer our views on how to foster outcome-based practice more broadly.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 338 - 341
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
Anderson, P. W. (1972). More is different. Science, 177, 393–396.Google Scholar
Brooks, F. P. (1975). The mythical man-month (Vol. 1995). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Gertner, J. (2012). The idea factory: Bell Labs and the great age of American innovation. New York, NY: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, H. H., Kay, E., & French, J. P. (1965). Split roles in performance appraisal. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1965/01/split-roles-in-performance-appraisal/ar/1Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Persley, N., Baughman, W. A., Morath, R., Holt, R., & Maher, M. A. (1994, July). Defining developmental environments: Curriculum design strategies promoting positive reactions to demanding courses. Poster session presented at the 6th annual convention of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Rosen, L. (1974, April). A proposal for a developmental environment. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED093391)Google Scholar
Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2015). Thanks for the feedback. New York, NY: Penguin Group.Google Scholar
Whitworth, L. (2007). Co-active coaching: New skills for coaching people toward success in work and life. Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black.Google Scholar