IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v9y2016i02p334-337_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Future of Performance Ratings: Collected Thoughts From Six Emerging Scholars

Author

Listed:
  • Bleckman, Andrew M.
  • Guarino, Sarah N.
  • Russell, Wesley
  • Toomey, Eileen C.
  • Werth, Paul M.
  • Whitaker, Victoria L.
  • Rudolph, Cort W.

Abstract

During the fall 2015 semester, I (i.e., the last author of this response) taught a doctoral seminar on performance appraisal. Although this course was a general survey of research and theory regarding work performance and performance appraisal processes and methods, we also talked extensively about the value of performance ratings to organizations, raters, and ratees. It was indeed serendipitous that this focal article came out when it did. As part of the final examination requirements (and, admittedly, as a pedagogical experiment), I asked the six PhD students in this course (i.e., the first six authors of this response) to read and respond to the Adler et al. (2016) debate regarding the relative merits of performance ratings. To highlight the perspectives of this next generation of industrial and organizational psychologists, I have collected here various representative comments offered by each of these emerging scholars on this issue.

Suggested Citation

  • Bleckman, Andrew M. & Guarino, Sarah N. & Russell, Wesley & Toomey, Eileen C. & Werth, Paul M. & Whitaker, Victoria L. & Rudolph, Cort W., 2016. "The Future of Performance Ratings: Collected Thoughts From Six Emerging Scholars," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 334-337, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:9:y:2016:i:02:p:334-337_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942616000201/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:334-337_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.