IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v9y2016i02p253-260_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Aligning Research and the Current Practice of Performance Management

Author

Listed:
  • Ledford, Gerald E.
  • Benson, George
  • Lawler, Edward E.

Abstract

The debate over eliminating performance ratings addresses many important theoretical and practical issues. However, the academic debate on the topic is disconnected from the concerns of practitioners. Knowledge gained from theory-driven research is not leading practice on the use of performance ratings, despite the large volume of potentially relevant research findings. Many organizations are charging ahead with performance management solutions that seem sensible to them. They may be interested in academic research, but they are not waiting for it. We will argue that academic researchers who hope to influence practice need to better understand the concerns of practitioners and the research opportunities that are presented by contemporary practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Ledford, Gerald E. & Benson, George & Lawler, Edward E., 2016. "Aligning Research and the Current Practice of Performance Management," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 253-260, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:9:y:2016:i:02:p:253-260_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942616000079/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. Zia Ullah & Naveed Ahmad & Miklas Scholz & Bilal Ahmed & Ilyas Ahmad & Muhammad Usman, 2021. "Perceived Accuracy of Electronic Performance Appraisal Systems: The Case of a Non-for-Profit Organization from an Emerging Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-16, February.

    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:253-260_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.