Author
Abstract
Purpose - Despite evidence showing that cognitive biases – the systematic errors made by humans during cognitive processing, are prevalent among decision-makers, there is a lack of theoretical models providing insight into how these limitations of human mind might affect decisions made during performance management. This study aims to fill this gap and contribute to performance management scholarship by proposing a conceptual framework broadening our understanding of the role of cognitive biases in performance improvements practices and by highlighting remedies for cognitive biases. Design/methodology/approach - Using benchmarking as an example, the authors integrate the knowledge from performance management and cognitive psychology literature. Examples of cognitive biases possible during benchmarking are used to illustrate how the limitations of human mind might have a critical role in performance management. Findings - The cognitive biases might diminish the positive effect of performance improvement practice on organizational performance. As there is a prevalence of cognitive biases coupled with the inability of individuals to recognize and face them, the remedy for cognitive biases should be sought not at an individual but rather on an organizational level, in creating organizational cognitive biases policy (CBP). Originality/value - The presented model provides new insights into the role of cognitive biases in performance management and allows seeing CBP as a safeguard against the effects of cognitive biases on performance. By referring to cognitive biases and CBP, our model also helps to understand why the same performance improvement practices might incite different opinions among decision-makers.
Suggested Citation
Konrad Kulikowski, 2021.
"Cognitive biases policy (CBP) in performance improvements – the example of benchmarking,"
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 71(4), pages 1297-1311, January.
Handle:
RePEc:eme:ijppmp:ijppm-02-2020-0060
DOI: 10.1108/IJPPM-02-2020-0060
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
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:eme:ijppmp:ijppm-02-2020-0060. 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.