IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v9y2016i02p367-370_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Getting Rid of Performance Ratings

Author

Listed:
  • Sorcher, Melvin

Abstract

And the beat goes on. The same questions about performance appraisals keep popping up despite significant changes in work environments, contexts, and expectations over the past 2 or 3 decades (Adler et al., 2016). Even after decades of research and debate about the benefits and construction of performance appraisal ratings, no closure is reached or “best practice†identified. The application of ratings differs widely among companies, and the criteria, scaling, and language are tweaked by virtually every human resources group. In my experience, each organization believes that its performance criteria are unique. This should not be surprising because supervisors who observe and rate human performance do not react like a school of fish. What most human resources managers miss is that each of the supervisors who apply ratings are also unique, and they do not perceive performance consistently—except, perhaps, for the most exceptional and the poorest performers. Methods of quantifying or behaviorally slotting employee performance along a variety of dimensions to arrive at some accurate scaled rating have not made employees happy and are a painful chore for most supervisors.

Suggested Citation

  • Sorcher, Melvin, 2016. "Getting Rid of Performance Ratings," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 367-370, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:9:y:2016:i:02:p:367-370_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942616000274/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:367-370_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.