IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v9y2016i02p266-270_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Will Getting Rid of Performance Ratings Affect Managers?

Author

Listed:
  • Lake, Christopher J.
  • Luong, Alexandra

Abstract

Amid the debate about getting rid of formal performance ratings, the practical implications for managers should be carefully considered. Adler et al. (2016) acknowledged some implications for managers who evaluate their subordinates with the traditional formal review. However, they do not fully explore the implications for managers when organizations trade formal performance reviews for frequent, less-formal performance conversations, which are a very popular alternative (Meinert, 2015; Rock & Jones, 2015; Wilkie, 2015). It is possible that organizations will benefit when formal performance reviews are removed; however, upon discussing this issue with a panel of human resources executives and organizational development practitioners, we were struck by their concern for how abandoning formalized review procedures would affect managers. This panel represented a wide array of industries (healthcare, retail, manufacturing, energy, academia, and the nonprofit sector), and their organizations used a variety of performance procedures, including formalized annual reviews and informal performance conversations. The goal of this commentary is to guide thinking, with the help of our practitioner-oriented panel, toward some of the obstacles managers may face in having to provide more frequent informal performance conversations.

Suggested Citation

  • Lake, Christopher J. & Luong, Alexandra, 2016. "How Will Getting Rid of Performance Ratings Affect Managers?," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 266-270, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:9:y:2016:i:02:p:266-270_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942616000092/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:266-270_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.