IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v9y2016i02p281-288_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Genius or Folly? It Depends on Whether Performance Ratings Survive the “Psychological Immune Systemâ€

Author

Listed:
  • Neville, Lukas
  • Roulin, Nicolas

Abstract

At the heart of the debate between Colquitt's and Adler's (Adler et al., 2016) camps is a disagreement about the degree to which employees can be expected to respond favorably to challenging, negative, or critical feedback. Colquitt and colleagues argue that we often try and avoid blame, select jobs that don't rate us against others, and respond unhappily to accurate appraisals. Adler and his collaborators, by contrast, are more optimistic. They point to how feedback drives us to seek new strategies, change our behavior, and improve our skills.

Suggested Citation

  • Neville, Lukas & Roulin, Nicolas, 2016. "Genius or Folly? It Depends on Whether Performance Ratings Survive the “Psychological Immune Systemâ€," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 281-288, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:9:y:2016:i:02:p:281-288_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942616000122/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:281-288_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.