Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-7jkgd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-23T18:35:18.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Performance Management Will Remain Broken: Authoritarian Communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Robert G. Jones  and
Satoris S. Culbertson
Robert G. Jones*
Affiliation:
Missouri State University
Satoris S. Culbertson
Affiliation:
Kansas State University
*
E-mail: RobertJones@MissouriState.edu, Address: Department of Psychology, Missouri State University, Hill Hall 101, Springfield, MO 65804
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 179 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2011 

References

Atwater, L. E., Brett, J. F., & Charles, A. C. (2007). Multisource feedback: Lessons learned and implications for practice. Human Resource Management, 46, 285–307. doi:10.1002/hrm.20161Google Scholar
Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (1998). Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of the field investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 615–633. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.615Google Scholar
Farh, J., Werbel, J. D., & Bedeian, A. G. (1988). An empirical investigation of self-appraisal-based performance evaluation. Personnel Psychology, 41, 141–156. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb 00636.xGoogle Scholar
Highhouse, S. (2008). Stubborn reliance on intuition and subjectivity in employee selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 333–342. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00058.xGoogle Scholar
Klimoski, R. J., & London, M. (1974). Role of the rater in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 445–451. doi:10.1037/h0037332Google Scholar
Meyer, H. H. (1980). Self-appraisal of job performance. Personnel Psychology, 33, 291–295. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1980.tb02351.xGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, R. D., Jones, S. D., Roth, P. L., Stuebing, K. K., & Ekeberg, S. E. (1989). The evaluation of an integrated approach to measuring organizational productivity. Personnel Psychology, 42, 69–115. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1989.tb01552.xGoogle Scholar
Pulakos, E. D., & O’Leary, R. S. (2011). Why is performance management broken? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 146–164.Google Scholar
Steel, R. P., & Ovalle, N. K. (1984). Self-appraisal based upon supervisory feedback. Personnel Psychology, 37, 667–685. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1984.tb00532.xGoogle Scholar
Youngcourt, S. S., Leiva, P. I., & Jones, R. G. (2007). Perceived purposes of performance appraisal: Correlates of individual- and position-focused purposes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18, 315–343. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1207Google Scholar