IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v9y2016i02p219-252_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Getting Rid of Performance Ratings: Genius or Folly? A Debate

Author

Listed:
  • Adler, Seymour
  • Campion, Michael
  • Colquitt, Alan
  • Grubb, Amy
  • Murphy, Kevin
  • Ollander-Krane, Rob
  • Pulakos, Elaine D.

Abstract

Despite years of research and practice, dissatisfaction with performance appraisal is at an all-time high. Organizations are contemplating changes to their performance management systems, the most controversial of which is whether to eliminate performance ratings. The pros and cons of retaining performance ratings were the subject of a lively, standing-room-only debate at the 2015 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology conference in Philadelphia (Adler, 2015). Given the high interest in this topic, this article recaps the points made by the panelists who participated in the debate. The arguments for eliminating ratings include these: (a) the disappointing interventions, (b) the disagreement when multiple raters evaluate the same performance, (c) the failure to develop adequate criteria for evaluating ratings, (d) the weak relationship between the performance of ratees and the ratings they receive, (e) the conflicting purposes of performance ratings in organizations, (f) the inconsistent effects of performance feedback on subsequent performance, and (g) the weak relationship between performance rating research and practice in organizations. The arguments for retaining ratings include (a) the recognition that changing the rating process is likely to have minimal effect on the performance management process as a whole, (b) performance is always evaluated in some manner, (c) “too hard” is no excuse for industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology, (d) ratings and differentiated evaluations have many merits for improving organizations, (e) artificial tradeoffs are driving organizations to inappropriately abandon ratings, (f) the alternatives to ratings may be worse, and (g) the better questions are these: How could performance ratings be improved, and are we conducting the entire performance management process properly? The article closes with questions organizational members have found useful for driving effective performance management reform.

Suggested Citation

  • Adler, Seymour & Campion, Michael & Colquitt, Alan & Grubb, Amy & Murphy, Kevin & Ollander-Krane, Rob & Pulakos, Elaine D., 2016. "Getting Rid of Performance Ratings: Genius or Folly? A Debate," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 219-252, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:9:y:2016:i:02:p:219-252_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942615001066/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Salami Luqman Adeniyi, 2024. "Performance Appraisal and Employees’ Performance: A Study of Civil Servants in Ogun State, Nigeria," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 8(7), pages 672-687, July.
    2. Kyriaki Papadopoulou, 2020. "Comparative Review Of Performance Measurement Methods Effectiveness," Economics and Management, Faculty of Economics, SOUTH-WEST UNIVERSITY "NEOFIT RILSKI", BLAGOEVGRAD, vol. 17(1), pages 127-139.
    3. Adem Baltacı, 2021. "Helping intention, trust and performance appraisal in the context of culture, power and group: a scenario-based experiment," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 8(4), pages 488-507, June.
    4. Benson Chege Njuguna & Kitainge Kisilu, 2023. "Influence of Procedural Fairness on Implementation of Performance Appraisal Practices in Public Secondary Schools in Cherangany Sub-County," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 7(5), pages 1642-1659, May.
    5. Elena A. Erosheva & Patrícia Martinková & Carole J. Lee, 2021. "When zero may not be zero: A cautionary note on the use of inter‐rater reliability in evaluating grant peer review," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(3), pages 904-919, July.
    6. Susana Rubio-Valdehita & Eva María Díaz-Ramiro & María Inmaculada López-Núñez, 2023. "What Does the Feeling of Job Success Depend On? Influence of Personal and Organizational Factors," Societies, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-16, June.
    7. Rafikul Islam & Nagendran Periaiah, 2023. "Overcoming the pitfalls in employee performance evaluation: An application of ratings mode of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, Fundacja Upowszechniająca Wiedzę i Naukę "Cognitione", vol. 19(2), pages 127-157.
    8. Nasser Saad Al Kahtani & Sulphey M. M., 2022. "A Study on How Psychological Capital, Social Capital, Workplace Wellbeing, and Employee Engagement Relate to Task Performance," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, May.
    9. Aref Al-Heyasi, 2018. "Individuals Performance Measurement In Agile Software Development," Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, Eurasian Publications, vol. 6(1), pages 1-6.
    10. Nhu Ngoc Nguyen & Phong Tuan Nham & Yoshi Takahashi, 2019. "Relationship between Ability-Based Emotional Intelligence, Cognitive Intelligence, and Job Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, April.
    11. Rabbani Mohammadmahdi & Alavi Seyyed Babak, 2023. "Does Feedback Seeking Always Improve Performance? Investigating the Roles of Feedback Seeking Content and Frequency in Determining Goal Achievement and Behavior-Related Performance," Foundations of Management, Sciendo, vol. 15(1), pages 7-24, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:9:y:2016:i:02:p:219-252_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/iop .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.