Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-npccv Total loading time: 0.239 Render date: 2022-09-28T03:38:49.967Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Genius or Folly? It Depends on Whether Performance Ratings Survive the “Psychological Immune System”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

Lukas Neville*
Affiliation:
Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Nicolas Roulin
Affiliation:
Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lukas Neville, 412 Drake Centre, University of Manitoba, 181 Freedman Crescent, Winnipeg, MB R3T 5V4, Canada. E-mail: lukas.neville@umanitoba.ca

Extract

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.

Type
Commentaries
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, S., Campion, M., Colquitt, A., Grubb, A., Murphy, K., Ollander-Krane, R., & Pulakos, E. D. (2016). Getting rid of performance ratings: Genius or folly? A debate. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9 (2), 219252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. (2012). Delivering effective performance feedback: The strengths-based approach. Business Horizons, 55, 105111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, J. F., & Atwater, L. E. (2001). 360° feedback: Accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 930942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckingham, M., & Goodall, A. (2015). Reinventing performance management. Harvard Business Review, 93 (4), 4050.Google Scholar
Budworth, M. H., Latham, G. P., & Manroop, L. (2015). Looking forward to performance improvement: A field test of the feedforward interview for performance management. Human Resource Management, 54, 4554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cable, D. M, Lee, J. J., Gino, F., & Staats, B. R. (2015). How best-self activation influences emotions, physiology, and employment relationships (Harvard Business School Working Paper 1629). Retrieved from http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:22818598Google Scholar
Campion, M. A., Fink, A. A., Ruggeberg, B. J., Carr, L., Phillips, G. M., & Odman, R. B. (2011). Doing competencies well: Best practices in competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 64, 225262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregg, A. P., Hepper, E. G., & Sedikides, C. (2011). Quantifying self‐motives: Functional links between dispositional desires. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 840852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiemstra, D., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2015). The effects of strength-based versus deficit-based self-regulated learning strategies on students’ effort intentions. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hodges, T. D., & Clifton, D. O. (2004). Strengths-based development in practice. In Linley, P. A. & Joseph, S. (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 256268). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kluger, A. N., & Nir, D. (2010). The feedforward interview. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 235246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawler, E. E. (1994). From job-based to competency-based organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, R. E., & Hackman, R. J. (2006). Talent management: A critical review. Human Resource Management Review, 16, 139154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mezulis, A. H., Abramson, L. Y., Hyde, J. S., & Hankin, B. L. (2004). Is there a universal positivity bias in attributions? A meta-analytic review of individual, developmental, and cultural differences in the self-serving attributional bias. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 711747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, L. M., Dutton, J. E., Spreitzer, G. M., Heaphy, E. D., & Quinn, R. E. (2005). Composing the reflected best-self portrait: Building pathways for becoming extraordinary in work organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30, 712736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanchez, J. I., & Levine, E. L. (2009). What is (or should be) the difference between competency modeling and traditional job analysis? Human Resource Management Review, 19, 5363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1995). The multiply motivated self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21 (12), 13301335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, R. (2015). “What are peer bonuses at Google? How do they work?” Quora. Retrieved from http://www.quora.com/what-are-peer-bonuses-at-google-how-do-they-workGoogle Scholar
Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2006). The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 183242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, L., Greenberg, J., & Brehm, J. (1995). Trivialization: The forgotten mode of dissonance reduction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 247260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swann, W. B., Rentfrow, P. J., & Guinn, J. (2002). Self-verification: The search for coherence. In Leary, M. & Tagney, J. (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 367383). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
Taylor, S. E., & Armor, D. A. (1996). Positive illusions and coping with adversity. Journal of Personality, 64, 873898.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Woerkom, M., & Meyers, M. C. (2013). My strengths count! Human Resource Management, 54, 81103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 131134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Genius or Folly? It Depends on Whether Performance Ratings Survive the “Psychological Immune System”
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Genius or Folly? It Depends on Whether Performance Ratings Survive the “Psychological Immune System”
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Genius or Folly? It Depends on Whether Performance Ratings Survive the “Psychological Immune System”
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *