Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:50:18.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Informal and Formal Performance Management: Both Are Needed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2015

Robert L. Cardy
Robert L. Cardy*
Affiliation:
Department of Management, University of Texas at San Antonio
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Robert L. Cardy, Department of Management, University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249–0634. E-mail: robert.cardy@utsa.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Dissatisfaction with performance management (PM) has had a long history. Managers and employees alike have frustrations with the system, and numerous calls for the elimination of performance appraisal have been made over the years (e.g., Scholtes, 1999). The dissatisfaction and calls for elimination have created pressure for change in the practice of PM, and I applaud the focus on feedback and coaching that Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad, and Moye (2015) have proposed. Providing feedback and being actively involved in the PM process would seem to be a key part of the job of managers, yet many managers are uncomfortable addressing this central task. Focusing efforts in our field on improving the skills of managers and helping managers become effective coaches can play a key role in improving PM. The need for improvement in the informal process, however, does not mean that the formal process is not needed. Pulakos et al. have suggested streamlining the formal PM system as much as possible, with particular emphasis on the possibility of eliminating performance ratings. It is argued here that the formal PM system still serves important purposes. It is also argued that a balance between the informal and formal aspects of the PM system needs to be maintained. These two issues are addressed below.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 108 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2015 

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

Boswell, W. R., & Boudreau, J. W. (2002). Separating the developmental and evaluative performance appraisal uses. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 391–412. doi:10.1023/A:1012872907525Google Scholar
Kwon, K., Bae, J., & Lawler, J. (2010). High commitment HR practices and top performers: Impacts on organizational commitment. Management International Review, 50, 57–80. doi:10.1007/s11575-009-0023-6Google Scholar
Prince, J. B., & Lawler, E. E. (1986). Does salary discussion hurt the developmental performance appraisal? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 357–375. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90035-XGoogle Scholar
Pulakos, E. D., Mueller Hanson, R., Arad, S., & Moye, N. (2015). Performance management can be fixed: An on-the-job experiential learning approach for complex behavior change. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8, 51–76.Google Scholar
Scholtes, P. R. (1999). [Review of Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice, by J. W. Smither]. Personnel Psychology, 52, 177–181. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb01820.xGoogle Scholar