IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v9y2016i02p310-314_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ratee Reactions Drive Performance Appraisal Success (and Failure)

Author

Listed:
  • Wallace, Lauren E.
  • Stelman, Samantha A.
  • Chaffee, Dorey S.

Abstract

Although the authors make strong arguments for both sides of the debate in “Getting Rid of Performance Ratings: Genius or Folly? A Debate,†we argue that performance appraisal reactions were largely overlooked beyond a few exceptions, where the authors either alluded to or explicitly mentioned reactions. For example, the authors explain that one reason organizations have eliminated the forced distribution approach is negative employee reactions. The authors also highlight the importance of managers using appropriate language when delivering performance appraisal ratings in order to improve employee reactions. Despite these exceptions, we believe it is necessary to call more attention to the critical role of ratee reactions in the performance appraisal process. Therefore, our commentary expands on the conversation sparked by Adler et al. (2016) by incorporating ratee reactions.

Suggested Citation

  • Wallace, Lauren E. & Stelman, Samantha A. & Chaffee, Dorey S., 2016. "Ratee Reactions Drive Performance Appraisal Success (and Failure)," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 310-314, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:9:y:2016:i:02:p:310-314_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S175494261600016X/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:310-314_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.