IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v9y2016i02p350-356_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Disappointing Interventions and Weak Criteria: Carving Out a Solution Is Still Possible

Author

Listed:
  • Tziner, Aharon
  • Roch, Sylvia G.

Abstract

In their focal article, Adler and his colleagues (2016) elaborate on the pros and cons of abolishing the performance appraisal process in organizations. Sherman-Garr (2014) contends that this trend is on the rise because both managers—the raters—and their subordinates—the ratees—disdain performance scores. Employees feel that performance ratings do not reflect their actual performance, and therefore they do not gain the rewards they merit. Conversely, their supervisors/managers experience a great deal of frustration because the improvement of employee performance does not match up to the excessive time and effort invested in the appraisal process, making the whole process ineffective and inefficient. We agree that performance appraisals, specifically the practice of assigning performance ratings, appear to be a disliked and ineffective human resource function. However, we do not agree that goal attainment should be used in place of performance ratings; rating format and rater training represent “disappointing interventions†and, most of all, only “weak†criteria exist for performance ratings.

Suggested Citation

  • Tziner, Aharon & Roch, Sylvia G., 2016. "Disappointing Interventions and Weak Criteria: Carving Out a Solution Is Still Possible," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 350-356, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:9:y:2016:i:02:p:350-356_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942616000249/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:350-356_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.