IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v9y2016i02p275-281_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Performance Appraisal Does Not Lead to Performance Improvement: Excellent Performance as a Function of Uniqueness Instead of Uniformity

Author

Listed:
  • van Woerkom, Marianne
  • de Bruijn, Maaike

Abstract

Dissatisfaction with performance appraisal is at an all-time high (Adler et al., 2016). In this commentary we argue that one of the reasons why performance appraisal is unable to get the most out of employees is the way in which employees are evaluated against a uniform set of criteria, leading to a focus on deficits and little attention for unique individual qualities and strengths. By comparing the performance of an employee with a set of predetermined criteria, and by expecting the employee to perform well across all these criteria, the performance appraisal tends to focus on those areas where employees perform below the norm, irrespective of how excellently they may perform in other areas. For many employees, this leads to the frustrating experience that there is more attention for their weaknesses than for the areas in which they excel. By focusing on employee strengths and on how to make optimal use of those strengths, and by allowing for diversity in the way that employees execute their jobs, the performance review can be replaced by a dialogue about development that may truly stimulate the motivation for performance improvement.

Suggested Citation

  • van Woerkom, Marianne & de Bruijn, Maaike, 2016. "Why Performance Appraisal Does Not Lead to Performance Improvement: Excellent Performance as a Function of Uniqueness Instead of Uniformity," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 275-281, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:9:y:2016:i:02:p:275-281_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942616000110/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. Valesca Y. Tobias & Marianne Woerkom & Maria Christina Meyers & Robin Bauwens, 2024. "Coaching Based on Signature Strengths or Lesser Strengths? The Effects of Two Strengths Spotting Interventions on Managerial Coaching Behavior," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 1-24, June.
    2. Shiri Lavy, 2020. "A Review of Character Strengths Interventions in Twenty-First-Century Schools: their Importance and How they can be Fostered," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 15(2), pages 573-596, April.

    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:275-281_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.