IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v32y2021i2p517-540.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Traditional Performance Reviews Outdated? An Empirical Analysis on Continuous, Real-Time Feedback in the Workplace

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Rivera

    (Fox School of Business, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122)

  • Liangfei Qiu

    (Warrington College of Business, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611)

  • Subodha Kumar

    (Fox School of Business, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122)

  • Tony Petrucci

    (Fox School of Business, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122)

Abstract

In order to deliver real-time feedback to support employee development and rapid innovation, many companies are replacing formal, review-based performance management with systems that enable frequent and continuous employee evaluation. Real-time feedback applications enable supervisors and employees to give, seek, and receive competency-based feedback using their computers, smartphones, or other devices. In this study, we examine the role of one such real-time feedback application to understand its effects on employee performance appraisals. First, we find that relationship source (peer, subordinate, or supervisor) impacts real-time feedback: feedback tends to be more critical when it is from supervisors. What is more interesting is the effect of favoritism and retribution in real-time feedback: supervisors adopt tit-for-tat strategies, but peers do not. We also uncover that men rate women higher than men and that women rate men and women similar to how men rate men. In addition, positive real-time feedback has a stronger effect on future ratings than negative feedback. Our findings have direct implications for the design and implementation of performance management systems. Further, we highlight how companies can use information systems to create an innovative human resource operation that delivers flexibility and agility.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Rivera & Liangfei Qiu & Subodha Kumar & Tony Petrucci, 2021. "Are Traditional Performance Reviews Outdated? An Empirical Analysis on Continuous, Real-Time Feedback in the Workplace," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 517-540, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:32:y:2021:i:2:p:517-540
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.2020.0979
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.2020.0979
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.2020.0979?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anders Frederiksen & Lisa B. Kahn & Fabian Lange, 2020. "Supervisors and Performance Management Systems," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(6), pages 2123-2187.
    2. Podsakoff, Philip M. & Farh, Jiing-Lih, 1989. "Effects of feedback sign and credibility on goal setting and task performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 45-67, August.
    3. Dan Ariely & Anat Bracha & Stephan Meier, 2009. "Doing Good or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 544-555, March.
    4. Gordon Burtch & Anindya Ghose & Sunil Wattal, 2013. "An Empirical Examination of the Antecedents and Consequences of Contribution Patterns in Crowd-Funded Markets," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 499-519, September.
    5. Yueh, Hsiu-Ping & Lu, Ming-Hsin & Lin, Weijane, 2016. "Employees' acceptance of mobile technology in a workplace: An empirical study using SEM and fsQCA," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 2318-2324.
    6. Canice Prendergast, 1999. "The Provision of Incentives in Firms," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 37(1), pages 7-63, March.
    7. Param Vir Singh & Nachiketa Sahoo & Tridas Mukhopadhyay, 2014. "How to Attract and Retain Readers in Enterprise Blogging?," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 35-52, March.
    8. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    9. Peter Cappelli & Martin J. Conyon, 2018. "What Do Performance Appraisals Do?," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 71(1), pages 88-116, January.
    10. Huber, Joel & Payne, John W & Puto, Christopher, 1982. "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(1), pages 90-98, June.
    11. Kurtzberg, Terri R. & Naquin, Charles E. & Belkin, Liuba Y., 2005. "Electronic performance appraisals: The effects of e-mail communication on peer ratings in actual and simulated environments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 216-226, November.
    12. Pei-Yu Chen & Yili Hong & Ying Liu, 2018. "The Value of Multidimensional Rating Systems: Evidence from a Natural Experiment and Randomized Experiments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(10), pages 4629-4647, October.
    13. Nancy Buchan & Rachel Croson, 1999. "Gender and Culture: International Experimental Evidence from Trust Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(2), pages 386-391, May.
    14. Ni Huang & Gordon Burtch & Bin Gu & Yili Hong & Chen Liang & Kanliang Wang & Dongpu Fu & Bo Yang, 2019. "Motivating User-Generated Content with Performance Feedback: Evidence from Randomized Field Experiments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 327-345, January.
    15. Liangfei Qiu & Subodha Kumar, 2017. "Understanding Voluntary Knowledge Provision and Content Contribution Through a Social-Media-Based Prediction Market: A Field Experiment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 529-546, September.
    16. Cabral, Luis & Ozbay, Erkut Y. & Schotter, Andrew, 2014. "Intrinsic and instrumental reciprocity: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 100-121.
    17. Ortmann, Andreas & Tichy, Lisa K., 1999. "Gender differences in the laboratory: evidence from prisoner's dilemma games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 327-339, July.
    18. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    19. Fedor, Donald B. & Eder, Robert W. & Buckley, M. Ronald, 1989. "The contributory effects of supervisor intentions on subordinate feedback responses," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 396-414, December.
    20. J. H. Jung & Christoph Schneider & Joseph Valacich, 2010. "Enhancing the Motivational Affordance of Information Systems: The Effects of Real-Time Performance Feedback and Goal Setting in Group Collaboration Environments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 724-742, April.
    21. Abel, Martin, 2019. "Do Workers Discriminate against Female Bosses?," IZA Discussion Papers 12611, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    22. Yan Huang & Param Vir Singh & Anindya Ghose, 2015. "A Structural Model of Employee Behavioral Dynamics in Enterprise Social Media," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(12), pages 2825-2844, December.
    23. Matthew J. Hashim & Karthik N. Kannan & Sandra Maximiano, 2017. "Information Feedback, Targeting, and Coordination: An Experimental Study," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 289-308, June.
    24. Amos Tversky & Itamar Simonson, 1993. "Context-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(10), pages 1179-1189, October.
    25. Michelle Brown & John S. Heywood, 2005. "Performance Appraisal Systems: Determinants and Change," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 43(4), pages 659-679, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ramah Al Balawi & Yuheng Hu & Liangfei Qiu, 2023. "Brand Crisis and Customer Relationship Management on Social Media: Evidence from a Natural Experiment from the Airline Industry," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 442-462, June.
    2. Mariia Petryk & Michael Rivera & Siddharth Bhattacharya & Liangfei Qiu & Subodha Kumar, 2022. "How Network Embeddedness Affects Real-Time Performance Feedback: An Empirical Investigation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 1467-1489, December.
    3. Alekh Gour & Shikha Aggarwal & Subodha Kumar, 2022. "Lending ears to unheard voices: An empirical analysis of user‐generated content on social media," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(6), pages 2457-2476, June.
    4. Zhijun Yan & Lini Kuang & Liangfei Qiu, 2022. "Prosocial behaviors and economic performance: Evidence from an online mental healthcare platform," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(10), pages 3859-3876, October.
    5. repec:hal:journl:hal-04853855 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Wenjuan Fan & Qiqi Zhou & Liangfei Qiu & Subodha Kumar, 2023. "Should Doctors Open Online Consultation Services? An Empirical Investigation of Their Impact on Offline Appointments," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 629-651, June.
    7. Liangfei Qiu & Subodha Kumar & Arun Sen & Atish P. Sinha, 2022. "Impact of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program on hospital readmission and mortality: An economic analysis," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(5), pages 2341-2360, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mariia Petryk & Michael Rivera & Siddharth Bhattacharya & Liangfei Qiu & Subodha Kumar, 2022. "How Network Embeddedness Affects Real-Time Performance Feedback: An Empirical Investigation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 1467-1489, December.
    2. Jingchuan Pu & Yuan Chen & Liangfei Qiu & Hsing Kenneth Cheng, 2020. "Does Identity Disclosure Help or Hurt User Content Generation? Social Presence, Inhibition, and Displacement Effects," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 297-322, June.
    3. Hiromasa Takahashi & Junyi Shen & Kazuhito Ogawa, 2020. "Gender-specific reference-dependent preferences in the experimental trust game," Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 25-38, January.
    4. Hayo, Bernd & Vollan, Björn, 2012. "Group interaction, heterogeneity, rules, and co-operative behaviour: Evidence from a common-pool resource experiment in South Africa and Namibia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 9-28.
    5. Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Uler, Neslihan, 2013. "Understanding the reference effect," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 403-423.
    6. Marie-Laure Cabon-Dhersin & Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2013. "Cooperation: The Power Of A Single Word? Some Experimental Evidence On Wording And Gender Effects In A Game Of Chicken," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 43-64, January.
    7. J-J Huang, 2009. "Revised behavioural models for riskless consumer choice," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(9), pages 1237-1243, September.
    8. Dietrich, Franz & List, Christian, 2016. "Reason-Based Choice And Context-Dependence: An Explanatory Framework," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 175-229, July.
    9. Müller, Holger & Benjamin Kroll, Eike & Vogt, Bodo, 2010. "“Fact or artifact? Empirical evidence on the robustness of compromise effects in binding and non-binding choice contextsâ€," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 441-448.
    10. Quan Zheng & Xiajun Amy Pan & Janice E. Carrillo, 2019. "Probabilistic Selling for Vertically Differentiated Products with Salient Thinkers," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(3), pages 442-460, May.
    11. Diels, Jana Luisa & Wiebach, Nicole, 2011. "Customer reactions in Out-of-Stock situations: Do promotion-induced phantom positions alleviate the similarity substitution hypothsis?," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2011-021, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    12. Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly & Richard Batley, 2018. "Revisiting consistency with random utility maximisation: theory and implications for practical work," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 181-204, March.
    13. Arno Apffelstaedt & Lydia Mechtenberg, 2021. "Competition for Context-Sensitive Consumers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2828-2844, May.
    14. Michalis Drouvelis & Mary L. Rigdon, 2022. "Gender Differences in Competitiveness: The Role of Social Incentives," CESifo Working Paper Series 9518, CESifo.
    15. Hsing Kenneth Cheng & D. Daniel Sokol & Xinyu Zang, 2024. "The rise of empirical online platform research in the new millennium," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 416-451, March.
    16. Bernd Hayo & Björn Vollan, 2009. "Individual Heterogeneity, Group Interaction, and Co-operative Behaviour: Evidence from a Common-Pool Resource Experiment in South Africa and Namibia," MAGKS Papers on Economics 200917, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    17. Bonaccio, Silvia & Reeve, Charlie L., 2006. "Consideration of preference shifts due to relative attribute variability," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 200-214, November.
    18. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-01249514 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Hassan Nosratabadi, 2017. "Referential Revealed Preference Theory," Departmental Working Papers 201707, Rutgers University, Department of Economics.
    20. Xia Zhao & Ling Xue & Peijian Song & Elena Karahanna, 2024. "Direct Communication and Two-Sided Matching Quality on a Digital Platform: A Perspective of Choice Based on Consideration Set," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(2), pages 629-641, June.
    21. William M. Hedgcock & Raghunath Singh Rao & Haipeng (Allan) Chen, 2016. "Choosing to Choose: The Effects of Decoys and Prior Choice on Deferral," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2952-2976, October.

    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:inm:orisre:v:32:y:2021:i:2:p:517-540. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.