Skip to main content Accessibility help

The Performance Management Fix Is In: How Practice Can Build on the Research

  • Paul E. Levy (a1), Stanley B. Silverman (a2) and Caitlin M. Cavanaugh (a1)


The scientist–practitioner model of training in industrial and organizational psychology provides the foundation for the education of industrial and organizational psychologists across the world. This approach is important because, as industrial and organizational psychologists, we are responsible for both the creation and discovery of knowledge and the use or application of that knowledge. In multiple articles recently published in this journal, Pulakos and her colleagues (Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad, & Moye, 2015; Pulakos & O’Leary, 2011) have argued that performance management (PM), as applied and implemented in organizations, is broken. This is not a unique take on the state of PM in organizations, as others have been arguing for many years that PM is no longer working in organizations the way that we would like it to work (Banks & Murphy, 1985; Bretz, Milkovich, & Read, 1992). Further, for many years and in many Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology conference panels and debates in the literature, we have been inundated with discussions and conversations around the science–practice gap and around the gap being especially evident in PM.


Corresponding author

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Paul E. Levy, Department of Psychology, The University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-4301. E-mail:


Hide All
Banks, C. G., & Murphy, K. R. (1985). Toward narrowing the research-practice gap in performance appraisal. Personnel Psychology, 38, 335345. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1985.tb00551.x
Bretz, R. D., Milkovich, G. T., & Read, W. (1992). The current state of performance appraisal research and practice: Concerns, directions, and implications. Journal of Management, 18, 321352. doi:10.1177/014920639201800206
Farr, J. L., & Levy, P. E. (2007). Performance appraisal. In Koppes, L. L. (Ed.), Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 311327). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ferris, G. R., Munyon, T. P., Basik, K., & Buckley, M. R. (2008). The performance evaluation context: Social, emotional cognitive, political, and relationship components. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 146163. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.006
Ilgen, D. R., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & McKellin, D. B. (1993). Performance appraisal process research in the 1980s: What has it contributed to appraisals in use? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 321368. doi:10.1006/obhd.1993.1015
Levy, P. E., & Thompson, D. J. (2012). Feedback in organizations: Individual differences and the social context. In Sutton, R., Hornsey, M., & Douglas, K. (Eds.), Feedback: Handbook of praise, criticism, and advice (pp. 217232). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. (2004). The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the future. Journal of Management, 30, 881909. doi:10.1016/
London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 81100. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(01)00043-2
Pulakos, E. D., Mueller Hanson, R., Arad, S., & Moye, N. (2015) Performance management can be fixed: An on-the-job experiential learning approach for complex behavior change, Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8, 5176.
Pulakos, E. D. & O’Leary, R. S. (2011). Why is performance management broken? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 146164. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01315.x
Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., & Snell, A. F. (2004). The Feedback Environment Scale: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 165184. doi:10.1177/0013164403258440

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

The Performance Management Fix Is In: How Practice Can Build on the Research

  • Paul E. Levy (a1), Stanley B. Silverman (a2) and Caitlin M. Cavanaugh (a1)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.