Integrative Literature Review

Performance Management: Human Resource Development Review

2019, Vol. 18(1) 47–82

A Scoping Review of the © The Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

Literature and an Agenda for sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1534484318798533

Future Research
journals.sagepub.com/home/hrd

Travor C. Brown1, Paula O’Kane2,

Bishakha Mazumdar1, and Martin McCracken3

Abstract
Performance management (PM), in all its guises, occurs across all organizations whether
formally through an official organizational process or informally through daily
dialogue. Given its inherent importance to the field of Human Resource
Development (HRD), we conducted a scoping review of the PM literature over a
period of more than 11 years, uncovering 230 articles from 41 different journals. Our
review suggests that the PM literature explores the more process driven aspect of PM, namely
performance appraisal (PA), as opposed to investigating PM in a truly holistic way.
Throughout, we suggest a series of research gaps which, if filled, will help both HRD scholars
and practitioners better understand how employee performance can be effectively managed
in the future.

Keywords
performance management, scoping literature review, performance appraisal

Introduction
Given the competitive global environment in which organizations operate, the need
to develop (and retain) highly skilled employees is paramount for prosperity and
survival (Crawshaw, Van Dick, & Brodbeck, 2012). Performance management (PM)
is widely

1Memorial University, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada

2University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
3University of Ulster, Antrim, Northern Ireland, UK

Corresponding Author:
Travor C. Brown, Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University, Elizabeth Avenue, St. John’s,
Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada A1B 3X5.
Email: [email protected]
2 Human Resource Development Review 18(1)

advocated as a way to develop employees (Aguinis, 2013; Cascio, 2014). Broadly

speaking, PM can be defined as “identifying, measuring, and developing the perfor-
mance of individuals and teams and aligning performance with the strategic goals of
the organization” (Aguinis, 2013, pp. 2-3). This simple definition underscores the
close alignment between PM practices and Human Resource Development (HRD).
This link is further evidenced by Hamlin and Stewart’s (2011) review of the
literature in which they proposed four core purposes of HRD: “improving individual
or group effectiveness and performance”; “improving organisational effectiveness
and perfor- mance”; “developing knowledge, skills and competencies”; and
“enhancing human potential and personal growth.” (p. 211)
PM is important to HRD for several reasons. First, there is a significant overlap
between the above-mentioned definition of PM and the four core purposes of HRD.
Second, Werner (2014) argues that PM is a research area that could bridge Human
Resource Management (HRM) and HRD given that appraising employees is a core
function of HRM and improving individual and organizational performance is key
for HRD. Third, HRD scholars advocate the use of coaching as an HRD intervention
within the PM context (Ellinger, 2014; Werner, 2017). The HRD professional plays a
role in training managers to be effective coaches and has the requisite interpersonal
skills, and also has a responsibility to create a climate that facilitates coaching
(Werner, 2017). These coaching elements are very much aligned with the broadening
of PM beyond the annual performance review process.
Despite the potential of PM systems to positively support the organization and
enhance both employee and organizational performance, the reality faced by
practitio- ners may be very different (Aguinis, Joo, & Gottfredson, 2011; Bragger,
Kutcher, Menier, Sessa, & Sumner, 2014; Davis, 2011; Pfeffer, 2009). In fact, PM
systems, which include sometimes very blunt performance appraisal (PA) practices,
have been called the “Achilles’ heel” of organizational processes (Pulakos, 2004;
Pulakos, Mueller-Hanson, O’Leary, & Meyrowitz, 2012). Perhaps because of this
more skepti- cal view, a significant shift in PM practices has been witnessed more
recently with calls made to make PM more comprehensive, holistic, and ultimately
more “develop- mental” in nature. For example, Rock and Jones (2015) found that
approximately 30 large companies, such as Adobe, Deliotte, and GE, were changing
their PM systems away from PA ratings, annual performance goals, and forced
rankings which tradition- ally pit employee against employee, toward the use of
shorter term goals which emphasize ongoing discussions between employees and
their managers. The underly- ing reasons for this shift include the changing nature of
work (now often team-based and global), the need for increased teamwork (vs.
competition), and, perhaps most significantly, the need to attract, develop, and retain
talent through more frequent feed- back which was seen to facilitate engagement and
development. This trend, as we describe below, represents a shift from PM systems
characterized by an emphasis on annual PA toward a more developmental PM
model.
Part of the problem may stem from the fact that the phrases PM and PA are frequently
used interchangeably. Some scholars describe PA as one element of the broader PM
system (Aguinis, 2013; Claus & Briscoe, 2009; Kinicki, Jacobson, Peterson, &
Prussia,
Brown et al. 49

2013). In essence, this view sees PA as an annual evaluation exercise; whereas, PM is

an ongoing, if not continuous, activity that focuses on defining, assessing, and
developing performance in a manner that aligns with strategic goals (Aguinis, 2013).
Yet, other scholars have defined PA in ways that incorporate the broader PM elements,
not least the strategic alignment of individual and team performance toward
organizational goals (Latham & Wexley, 1994; Rotundo, 2009). Nankervis and
Compton (2006), reflecting upon the implications of this confusion, suggest that
although PM is a multifaceted, multi-purpose process involving multiple
stakeholders throughout the organization, it has often been portrayed by managers as
a “mechanical yearly ritual. . .[that]. . .has little relevance to their ‘bottom line,’” and
hence, it ultimately fails to truly leverage human capital in an effective way (p. 84).
Regardless of the term used, the broader PM literature has a rich history with pub-
lications dating back to at least the 1920s (Link, 1920) with numerous literature
reviews published on the topic over the past 30 years—for example, Arvey and
Murphy (1998); Banks and Murphy (1985); DeNisi and Smith (2014); Iqbal, Akbar,
and Budhwar (2015); and Rynes, Gerhart, and Parks (2005). Those published over a
decade ago are less likely to be reflective of the current state of the PM literature,
while publications from 2014 onward focus upon very specific elements of PM. For
example, Iqbal et al. (2015) concentrated on issues related to ratee reactions while
DeNisi and Smith (2014) centered their review on the relationship between
individual employee performance and firm performance. While these influential
contributions have guided the field, they have tended to focus on the narrower area of
PA (as opposed to PM) and have largely been grounded upon extant HRM literature,
with a psychol- ogy emphasis. Within the PA literature, scholars have traditionally
argued that PA has two purposes: (a) employee motivation and development, and (b)
usage of PA results for administrative purposes such as compensation (Latham &
Wexley, 1994). This has often been referred to as the “split roles” of PA (Meyer,
Kay, & French, 1965). Many of the issues related to evaluating performance for
motivation and development pur- poses (e.g., ratings, rating accuracy, rater training,
psychometric properties of PA instruments, etc.) have been the focus of industrial-
organizational psychological out- lets (Arvey & Murphy, 1998; Banks & Murphy,
1985). HRD scholars have also emphasized this first purpose, but with a heavier
emphasis on goal setting, develop- mental feedback, and, in particular, coaching
(Ellinger, 2014; Werner, 2017). In essence, coaching in the PM context has been
defined by Werner (2017) as “ . . . a process used to encourage employees to accept
responsibility for their own perfor- mance, to enable them to achieve and sustain
superior performance, and to treat them as partners working towards organizational
goals and effectiveness” (p. 356). In con- trast, researchers in the compensation field
(Lawler, 2003; Risher, 2005; Rynes et al., 2005) have often examined the second PA
purpose emphasizing the linkage between performance and compensation, such as
the choice of metric to ground compensation decisions, the extent to which pay
motivates or demotivates employee performance, the use of forced distributions, and
the many ways compensation can be linked to pay (individual, group, stock, etc.).
50 Human Resource Development Review 18(1)

Given this background, we add to the literature on PM through an examination of

three research objectives: (a) to conduct a scoping review of PM research, with a par-
ticular focus on the contribution within the HRD field; (b) to identify research gaps
for future investigation; and (c) to identify the prevalence of research into PM versus
PA. Our review, and thus our objectives, focused on topics, methods, and samples
con- tained within the literature rather than study results.
As HRD scholars, we share the views of others concerning the need to bridge the
research–practice gap (Tkachenko, Hahn, & Peterson, 2017), the need for evidence-
based HRD practice (Gubbins & Rousseau, 2015), and the need for both rigor and
relevance in HRD research (Brown & Latham, 2018). In addition, we noted the his-
torical criticism concerning the practitioner–scholar gap in PA (Banks & Murphy,
1985) and the ongoing debates on social media forums such as LinkedIn concerning
the practical value of PM in modern organizations. Thus, as we identified the
research gaps, we used a dual focus to understand the most vital elements of PM
from the per- spective of both academic researchers in the field and practicing
managers, with the aim of suggesting further research useful to organizations. To
address these research objectives, we conducted a scoping review covering 11½ of
research into PM. The following section explains the methodology employed,
followed by a discussion of the key results and subsequent research gaps. We finish
by discussing the prevalence of PM and PA in the literature.

Method
We conducted a scoping review of the PM literature, consistent with a recent Human
Resource Development Review (HRDR) publication (Tkachenko et al., 2017), where
the research team “. . . met several times to define and clarify the problem statement
of the inquiry, the scope of the study, and the inclusion and exclusion of sources for
the review” (p. 237). In so doing, we used definitive steps to structure the research as
well as to analyze the findings (see Figure 11).
We started our search at the beginning of 2016 with an initial boundary of peer-
reviewed, scholarly articles published between January 2005 and December 2015 in
relevant Association of Business Schools (ABS) and Financial Times 45 (FT45)
journals.2 As we started our detailed analysis in the fall of 2016, we wanted to ensure
that our dataset was as current as possible, so we expanded our search to include
articles published up to August 2016, giving a final time frame of 11½. We chose
2005 as the start year for three reasons. First, we felt we needed a minimum of a
decade of literature to have sufficient data for our analysis. Second, 2005 marks the
publication date of an extensive Annual Review of Psychology paper on performance
evaluation (Rynes et al., 2005). Third, that time frame aligned with the publication
of what we believe is the first comprehensive set of practitioner guidelines for effec-
tive PM (Pulakos, 2004).
The third author, a PhD student supervised by the first author, conducted the
search using Business Source Complete, complemented with Academic Search
Premiere, and Google Scholar, as appropriate (after discussion with a
Management Studies
Brown et al. 51

Research Objectives:
1. Scoping review of current performance research
2. Identify research gaps for future investigation
3. Identify the prevalence of research into Performance Management versus Performance Appraisal

Inclusion Criteria

Search Boundaries: Search String: Search Fields: Period:

 FT45  “Performance  Search Terms  January 2005 -
 ABS List (HRM and Appraisal” OR August 2016
ES, GM, Psychology,  “Performance
OS) Review” OR
 HRD specific journals  “Performance
Evaluation” OR
 “Performance
Management”

Searching
Where: Business Source Complete, supplemented with Academic Search Premier and Google Scholar
When: Initial search early 2016, timeframe update September 2016, HRD journals update, March 2018
Who: PhD student, who is fourth author in conjunction with subject Librarian
How: See Search terms above
Why: PM or PA needed to be a main aspect of the paper (judged by two authors)

Coding
 Deductive: based upon a synthesis of effective performance management models
 Inductive: emergence of new themes
Round One: Authors 1 and 3 independently Round Two: Authors 1 and 2 discussed and
coded each article to the main themes and met to coded each article together into the relevant
discuss outcome sub-themes

Confirmatory Coding

Manual: NVivo:
 Comparison of coding between A and B  “Text Search” for “Search Terms”
 Discussion of coding discrepancies  “Word Frequency” search within abstracts
 Agree and recode discrepancies  “Text Search” for keywords associated with
each sub-theme

Figure 1. Scoping review of the literature.

52 Human Resource Development Review 18(1)

Librarian). Our search string comprised of the following terms: “Performance

Appraisal,” “Performance Review,” “Performance Evaluation,” and “Performance
Management” (as these are often used interchangeably). We searched for articles that
had any of these search expressions in the subject terms, abstract or title. During the
initial coding, five articles were deemed irrelevant as PM was not a central focus,
leav- ing 214 articles from 39 journals. In March 2018, given the emergent HRD
focus of our research, we included two further journals (Advances in Developing
Human Resources and European Journal of Training and Development) which did
not appear in the chosen subject areas of the ABS list or the FT45 list. To ensure we
did not miss relevant articles in the HRD area, we hand-searched these along with
Human Resource Development Quarterly, Human Resource Development
International, HRDR, and Journal of European Industrial Training. This process
yielded 42 further articles of which 16 were relevant. 3 Our final sample was 230
peer-reviewed articles from 41 journals.4 A summary of these articles can be seen in
Table 1.5
Once we established our sample, we began our thematic analysis. To guide this,
we explored numerous models of, and best-practices for, effective PM (e.g., Aguinis,
2013; Biron, Farndale, & Paauwe, 2011; Haines & St-Onge, 2012; Kinicki et al.,
2013; Pulakos, 2009). We primarily based our analysis upon Kinicki et al.’s (2013)
frame- work, which has four elements: defining performance, evaluating
performance, reviewing performance, and providing performance consequences. As
we analyzed the data, we found much overlap between evaluating and reviewing, so
these were collapsed into one element. In addition, we saw an increasing focus on
how organiza- tional and national context can influence PM practice and so added
context as a key fourth element. Thus, we grounded our review on these four
elements. To explore how the research was undertaken, we also coded the research
methodology employed in each paper, as well as details of the research sample and
participants. As we coded, we added other contextual factors such as nationality, age,
gender, and whether partici- pants worked in a virtual environment.
The first round of coding involved constructing an excel spreadsheet where the
first and third authors individually examined each article’s abstract, keywords, and
title and coded it into relevant themes. These authors then met to review their initial
coding and to reach agreement on the categorization as well as deciding on which
articles to include or disregard. During these discussions, each author voiced his or
her agreement and/or disagreement regarding the other’s categorization; this resulted
in the reassignment or re-categorization of 65 articles, and the removal of five
articles. Once the first round of coding was complete, the abstracts were imported
into NVivo and first and second authors together conducted the second round of
analysis in which the articles were coded into the subthemes through mainly deductive
coding, but new categories were added as they were encountered in the articles.
Where the abstract lacked sufficient detail to uncover themes, consistent with the PA
literature review of Iqbal et al. (2015), we “skim read (rapid scanning of the entire
article)” (p. 511) the entire article. This resulted in a refinement of the themes as the
authors discussed and debated the contents during numerous skype sessions. The
resulting classification was felt to be comprehensive. The
Brown et al. 53

Table 1. Articles by Journal.

Journal quality

Impact factor
Journal n ABS (2014) (JCR 2016)
%
ABS: General Management, Ethics, and Social Responsibility
Journal of Management [FT45] 4 1.7 4a 6.051
British Journal of Management 2 0.9 4 2.188
International Journal of Management Reviews 1 0.4 3 4.854
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 3 1.3 2 0.405
Management Decision 4 1.7 2 1.134
Business Horizons 3 1.3 2 1.008
ABS: HRM and employment studies
Human Resource Management (USA) [FT45] 12 5.2 4 1.795
Human Resource Management Journal 8 3.5 4 1.845
British Journal of Industrial Relations 4 1.7 4 1.820
Work, Employment and Society 1 0.4 4 2.153
International Journal of HRMb 55 23.9 3 1.262
Economic and Industrial Democracy 3 1.3 3 0.896
New Technology, Work and Employment 1 0.4 3 1.281
Gender, Work and Organization 1 0.4 3 1.325
Human Resource Management Review 16 7.0 3 2.846
Personnel Review 18 7.8 2 0.704
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 8 3.5 2 0.769
Human Resource Development Internationala 6 2.6 2 0.446
International Journal of Manpower 2 0.9 2 0.446
Human Resource Development Quarterlya 7 2.9 2 1.135
Human Resource Development Review 1 0.4 2 0.659
Employee Relations 4 1.7 2 0.933
Review of Public Personnel Administration 2 0.9 1 1.222
ABS: Public Sector
International Review of Administrative Sciences 8 3.5 3
ABS: Psychology (Organizational)
Journal of Applied Psychology [FT45] 7 3.0 4 3.810
Journal Of Occupational and Organizational 7 3.0 4 2.059
Psychology
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision 2 0.9 4 2.805
Processes
Personnel Psychology 4 1.7 4 4.057
Journal of Vocational Behavior 1 0.4 4 2.764
Applied Psychology: An International Review 1 0.4 3 1.179
European Journal of Work and Organizational 2 0.9 3 2.208
Psychology
Human Performance 2 0.9 3 0.977
Journal of Managerial Psychology 8 3.5 3 1.136
(continued)
54 Human Resource Development Review 18(1)

Table 1. (continued)
Journal quality

Impact factor
Journal n % ABS (2014) (JCR 2016)
Journal of Business and Psychology 3 1.3 2 2.250
International Journal of Selection and 7 3.0 2 0.610
Assessment
ABS: Psychology (General)
Annual Review of Psychology 1 0.4 4 19.085
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1 0.4 4 2.560
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 1 0.4 3 2.768
Personality and Individual Differences 1 0.4 3 1.946
HRD specific journal
Journal of European Industrial Traininga 3 1.3 — —
European Journal of Training and Developmenta 5 2.2 1 —
Total 230

Note. ABS = Association of Business Schools; HRM = Human Resource Management; HRD = Human Resource
Development; FT45 = Financial Times 45; JCR = Journal Citation Reports.
aAs per the request of the reviewers in March 2018, we “hand-searched” the key HRD journals and added in six

articles from Human Resource Development Quarterly, two from Human Resource Development International,
three from Journal of European Industrial Training, and five from European Journal of Training and
Development. Advances in Developing Human Resources did not contain any relevant articles. bInternational
Journal of Human Resource Management produces 22 issues a year (International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 2018). In contrast, empirical HRD journals such as Human Resource
Development Quarterly only publish four issues a year (Human Resource Development Quarterly, 2018).
Therefore, it is highly represented within the sample.

additional 16 articles identified in March 2018 during the manual search of HRD
jour- nals were coded using the refined classification.
To increase the confidence in our thematic analysis, we used several confirmatory
techniques available in NVivo. First, to support our exploration of the use of the
terms, we conducted a “text search” for each of our search terms. Second, we
undertook a “word frequency” to identify the 100 most frequently occurring words,
utilizing a “stemmed” search (which finds words with the same beginning, for
example, perform also finds performance, performer) and a minimum word length of
four characters. We removed words such as analysis and effects which did not have
meaning within the research and reorganized the remaining words to reflect topics
relating to the themes (see Table 3). Third, as we coded we identified keywords or
phrases for each subtheme (e.g., organi*ational performance and HPWS were
associated with organizational per- formance). We then conducted a “text search” for
these keywords in all 230 abstracts to ensure we had not missed any coding. Each
result was checked, and if it was not already coded, we reviewed the abstract and
made a decision on whether or not to code it to that subtheme. This resulted in an
additional categorization of 21 articles, mostly within inductive themes not included
in the original coding structure. Gaps were then
Brown et al. 55

developed by systematically examining the coding structure, themes, word frequen-

cies, and research methodology to determine areas which would benefit from addi-
tional investigation.

Results and Discussion

The thematic analysis, based on a synthesis of preexisting models, was designed to
understand how PM has previously been explored in the literature. We used the four
broad themes: (a) defining performance; (b) evaluating and reviewing performance;
(c) providing consequences for performance; and (d) context for our first round of
coding, and then delved deeper into these in the second round identifying up to three
levels of subthemes. Table 2 presents the thematic analysis of the 230 articles while
Table 3 presents our confirmatory coding using a word frequency search. In many
cases, the themes and topics we highlight in the next section could have been the
focus of a comprehensive treatise. As the goal of our analysis was to explore PM
topics and themes in the literature and to map out implications for scholarship and
practice, we have added Table 4 which summarizes a table of cogent review articles
and publica- tions by theme area for readers seeking a more comprehensive
commentary on an area. Following this, we explore the research approach used by
scholars.

Defining Performance
In our sample, 37 articles6 (or 16.09%) substantively examined issues related to
defin- ing performance, which involves helping both the organization and the
employee to understand the definition of good performance, how performance can be
measured, and how performance expectations can be met. In essence, this aspect of
defining effective performance is the cornerstone of effective HRD practice. Before
we can think about interventions that might enhance effectiveness, we need to fully
under- stand employee expectations and capabilities. Not surprisingly, in analyzing
the arti- cles, we saw frequent reference to setting goals and expectations and
aligning goals to the organization’s strategic direction.

Goal setting and expectations. As goals have long been argued to provide
employees with a sense of expectation and direction (Locke & Latham, 1990, 2013),
we found it difficult to separate goal setting from establishing performance
expectations. Biron et al. (2011) argued that “(e)mployees need to have adequate
and unambiguous infor- mation regarding performance expectations” (p. 1298). As
such, setting goals or perfor- mance expectations is a core feature of effective PM
systems (Aguinis, 2013; Latham, Sulsky, & MacDonald, 2007). Thus, it was not
surprising that goal/expectation setting was a prevalent theme, with 25 articles
(10.87%) examining these issues, and goal(s) mentioned 46 times in the abstracts.
The majority of scholars examined the role of goal setting in creating performance
expectations (Bouskila-Yam & Kluger, 2011; Brown & Warren, 2011; David, 2013).
There was little evidence of other specific ways in which goal setting was utilized,
with the exception of two studies. One looked at the impact of
56 Human Resource Development Review 18(1)

Table 2. Themes and Subthemes.

Articles

Theme or subtheme n %
Define Performance 37 16.09
Goal Setting and Expectations 25 10.87
Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic 1 0.43
Team vs. Individual 1 0.43
Goal Alignment 23 10.00
Evaluate and Review Performance 144 62.61
Format 57 24.78
Design 25 10.87
Comparative 4 1.74
Forced Distribution or Ranking 4 1.74
Graphic 1 0.43
Narrative 2 0.87
Balanced Scorecard 3 1.30
Behavior 3 1.30
Competencies 6 2.61
OCB 3 1.30
Trait 1 0.43
Values 1 0.43
System 3 1.30
Electronic 3 1.30
Feedback 17 7.39
Feedback Frequency 10
Feedback source 2 0.87
Electronic Feedback 1 0.43
Electronic Monitoring 1 0.43
Sources of formal feedback/ratings 33 14.35
Multi-rater 20 8.70
Peers 8 3.48
Managers 5 2.17
Self 2 0.87
Subordinates 1 0.43
Customer 1 0.43
Rater Training 20 8.70
System Training 16 6.96
Bias 2 0.87
Frame of Reference 1 0.43
Rater Error Training 1 0.43
Whole vs. Split 1 0.43

(continued)
Brown et al. 57

Table 2. (continued)

Articles

Theme or subtheme n %
Developmental function 39 16.96
Psychometric properties 47 20.43
Freedom from Bias 40 17.39
Reliability 1 0.43
Validity 7 3.04
System Effectiveness 2 0.87
Provide Consequences for Performance 156 67.83
Linkage to HRM systems 82 35.65
Career Development 8 3.48
L&D 7 3.04
Layoff and Downsizing 6 2.61
Pay and Reward 36 15.65
Promotion 7 3.04
Employee Reaction 102 44.35
Justice 35 15.22
Satisfaction 27 11.74
Commitment 16 6.96
Fairness 15 6.52
OCB 4 1.74
Autonomy 3 1.30
Counter Productive Work Behavior 3 1.30
Leader–Member Exchange 1 0.43
Involvement 1 0.43
Stress 1 0.43
Organizational Performance 9 3.91
Absenteeism and Turnover 5 2.17
Context 88 38.26
National Culture 38 16.52
Cross-Cultural Study 26 11.30
Expatriate 6 2.61
MNE Research 17 7.39
Organizational Culture 21 9.13
Environmental Factors 42 18.26
Public Sector 19 8.26
Union 11 4.78
Team Setting 2 0.87
Age 3 1.30
Gender 5 2.17
Virtual Office or Team 3 1.30
Diversity 4 1.74

Note. OCB = Organizational Citizenship Behavior; HRM = Human Resource Management; MNE = Multi-
national Enterprise.
58 Human Resource Development Review 18(1)

Table 3. “Word Frequency” Search.

Word Count Stemmed words

performing 861 perform, performance, performed, performer, performers,
performing
employees 342 employee, employees, employees’
managing 448 manage, managed, management, manager, managers, managers’,
managing
relationship 177 relationship, relationships
evaluators 131 evaluate, evaluated, evaluates, evaluating, evaluation,
evaluations, evaluative, evaluator, evaluators
appraisers’ 380 appraisal, appraisals, appraised, appraiser, appraisers,
appraisers’
rater 54 rater, raters, raters’
goals 46 goal, goals
outcomes 61 outcome, outcomes
ratings 203 rate, rated, ratee, ratees, rates, rating, ratings
development 107 develop, developed, developing, developing’, development,
developments, develops
feedback 121 feedback
satisfaction 53
commitment 46
fairness 61 fair, fairly, fairness
justice 87 justice
behavior 79 behavior, behavioral, behaviors
procedural 49 procedural, procedurally, procedure, procedures
training 82 train, trained, training
systems 183 system, systemic, systems
reward 44 reward, rewarded, rewarding, rewards
pay 76 pay, paying
cultural 66 cultural, culturally, culture, cultures
context 82 context, contexts

intrinsic and extrinsic goals (Wang, Wong, & Kwong, 2010) and the other explored
team goals. Chen, Wu, and Leung (2011) found that an individualistic focus within
PM has a negative impact on team dynamics while co-operative goals, as opposed to
com- petitive, can buffer negative employee reaction toward their work-group.
Although goal setting is a well-studied topic in the history of PM, and perhaps taken
as “a given” in any PM process, we suggest that scholars could explore how different
types of goals can be utilized in effective PM processes. As the broader HRD
literature has already shown, not all goals are equally effective in bolstering
performance and self-efficacy in all contexts (Brown & McCracken, 2010; Locke &
Latham, 2013). In particular, these scholars discuss the merits of breaking longer
term goals into short-term goals (e.g., proximal plus distal goals) and setting
learning goals (or developing strategies to
Brown et al. 59

Table 4. Review Articles and Books.

Theme Source
General Performance Management Aguinis (2013); Pulakos, Mueller-Hanson,
O’Leary, and Meyrowitz (2012)
Performance Management and Coaching Werner (2017) (especially chapter 10)
Define Performance
Goal setting and performance Locke and Latham (1990, 2002, 2013)
expectations
Alignment of goals/strategic direction DeNisi and Smith (2014)
Evaluate and Review Performance
PA format Landy and Farr (1980)
Sources of formal feedback/ratings Smither, London, and Reilly (2005)
Rater training Roch, Woehr, Mishra, and Kieszczynska
(2012)
Developmental function Cleveland, Murphy, and Williams (1989)
Psychometric properties Catano, Darr, and Campbell (2007)
Provide Consequences for Performance
Linkage to HRM systems Rynes, Gerhart, and Parks (2005)
Employee affect Cawley, Keeping, and Levy (1998)
Context
Culture Levy and Williams (2004)
Note. PA = performance appraisal; HRM = Human Resource Management.

accomplish the task) in learning and novel environments. A recent development in

the goal setting literature, not found in our sample of PM articles, is the concept of
subcon- scious goals (Shantz & Latham, 2009). In essence, unconscious goals have
been shown to improve performance over the conscious setting of specific, difficult
goals. This brings us to Research Gap 1, the need for more research designed to
examine different goal types in the context of PM.

Goal alignment. PM systems, by definition, should ensure that employee and team
goals are aligned to the organization’s strategic direction. In our sample, only 23 arti-
cles (10.00%) examined, in any material way, this issue of goal alignment and how
integrated PM systems link with broader organizational strategies (Biron et al.,
2011). This was surprising given that many scholars in the broader HRD literature
have high- lighted the need to ensure optimal alignment between individual
employee/workgroup goals and those of the organization to ensure long-term success
(Major et al., 2007; McCracken & Wallace, 2000). Empirical studies suggest that
PM is a significant pre- dictor of firm performance if it is effectively linked to
strategic outcomes (Cravens, Oliver, & Stewart, 2010; Lee, Lee, & Wu, 2010;
Nankervis & Compton, 2006). Sup- porting this, in Biron et al.’s (2011) study, it
was found that three quarters of firms
60 Human Resource Development Review 18(1)

strived to ensure that their PM systems enabled alignment of goals to the strategic
objectives of the firm.
While the literature discusses the need for alignment, we found few scholarly arti-
cles which provided much guidance for practitioners who are known to struggle with
goal alignment (Biron et al., 2011). With this in mind, Research Gap 2 calls for HRD
researchers to bridge the gap between research and practice and do more to equip
practitioners with better tools to enhance PM and ultimately organizational perfor-
mance. Ultimately, there is a need to specifically study how HRD practitioners can
play a more active role in integrating individual and team goals with overall
organiza- tional goals.

Evaluating and Reviewing Performance

Once effective performance has been defined at the individual, team, and organiza-
tional levels, organizational members need to participate in the evaluation and
review of their performance (Kinicki et al., 2013). In our review, we found that over
half of our sample examined this area in-depth (144 articles, or 62.61%), across five
main themes.

Format. The PM field has a rich history of investigating how PAs should be
designed and formatted. Considerable past research has examined the usage of
behavioral, personality/trait, and outcome formats (Smith & Kendall, 1963; Wiersma
& Latham, 1986). Despite the call some 20 years ago for scholars to reduce their
focus on PA format (Landy & Farr, 1980), our literature search found that 57 articles
(24.78%) examined some aspect of PA format. There remains considerable diversity
in this theme. While there is some interest among researchers concerning the merits
of tra- ditional format issues linked to behavioral measures of performance (three
articles), graphic ratings (Yun, Donahue, Dudley, & Mcfarland, 2005), and behavior
versus trait ratings (Cambon & Steiner, 2015), we also observed research designed to
under- stand some of the newer PM formats such as competency-based evaluation
(six arti- cles, for example, Catano, Darr, & Campbell, 2007; Cheng, Dainty, &
Moore, 2005; Molleman & der Vegt, 2007) and the balanced scorecard (Chan, 2006).
Although less prevalent, we saw the use of narratives as opposed to purely numbers
in two articles (Brutus, 2010). Given the movement away from forced rankings and
ratings in prac- tice, we suggest in Research Gap 3 that research exploring both the
use and efficacy of using a narrative approach is timely. The skills and talents of
HRD researchers can aid our understanding of effective PM, given their diverse data
collection traditions. More qualitative-based enquiry might help to understand how
practitioners can effec- tively design and evaluate more open-ended narrative-based
PM conversations.
Other format issues discussed included comparative/noncomparative appraisal
practices in four articles (Roch, Sternburgh, & Caputo, 2007; Wong & Kwong,
2005), forced distribution ratings in four articles (Blume, 2013; Schleicher, Bull, &
Green, 2008), and three articles examining the use of online or electronic forms of
Brown et al. 61

PA, which we return to when we discuss virtual work later in the article (Payne,
Horner, Boswell, Schroeder, & Stine-Cheyne, 2009). A noticeable point of discus-
sion in this stream concerned elements that should (or should not) be included in
assessing performance. For example, as we can see in Table 2, scholars have exam-
ined the impact of inclusion (or noninclusion) of aspects like values, competencies,
and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; Bret Becton, Giles, & Schraeder,
2008; Brutus, 2010; Catano et al., 2007; Culbertson & Mills, 2011; Ikramullah, Van
Prooijen, Iqbal, & Ul-Hassan, 2016).

Giving frequent feedback through PA/PM. Although goal setting can provide feedback
relative to performance standards and expectations, it may be insufficient to achieve
PM’s purpose of performance improvement. Detailed, constructive, and explicit
feedback on goal progress combined with guidance for improvement is a powerful
motivator (Latham & Locke, 2006). Thus, an effective PM system should encourage
regular and ongoing feedback through both formal and informal processes (Baker,
2010) to enhance employee engagement, motivation, OCB, and/or job satisfaction
(Dewettinck & Van Dijk, 2013; Sommer & Kulkarni, 2012). Despite such obvious
significance, we found it surprising that only 17 articles (7.39%) discussed in any
detail the importance of feedback, with 10 of these focusing upon feedback
frequency such as the need to anchor PM frequency to organizational and employee
need and how frequency can accentuate or diminish PM effectiveness (Espejo, Day,
& Scott, 2005; Kuvaas, 2011). Interestingly, one article explored electronic feedback
and another electronic monitoring, a field which could be further explored to
understand its efficacy given the changing nature of work (Baker, 2010; Wells,
Moorman, & Werner, 2007). Again this issue is revisited below when we explore
PM within virtual and collaborative work.
The word frequency search revealed that feedback was mentioned 121 times in
the abstracts, suggesting recognition of the need for feedback in some form; yet, HR
prac- titioners have noted that managers often lack the skills, or do not take the
opportunity, to provide performance feedback effectively, with some suggesting that
training could aid in this matter (Nankervis & Compton, 2006). Moving forward, we
would suggest, in Research Gap 4, that the literature could benefit from more
systematic studies investigating how we can enhance the design, implementation,
and evaluation of feed- back training for managers. Given the HRD research
tradition of examining transfer of training and coaching, HRD scholars could make a
very practical contribution in this area.

Sources of formal feedback/ratings. Aligned to feedback format and frequency

is feedback source, namely, those who provide the performance feedback or
ratings. In our sample, 33 (14.35%) articles examined issues related to this area. We
also saw the terms “evaluators” (131), “appraisers” (380), and “rater” (54)
appearing frequently in the abstracts. The norm has long been that supervisors (or
managers) assign work to, and manage, individual employees. Thus, they have
traditionally been the most frequently used source of feedback and ratings
(Dierdorff & Surface,
62 Human Resource Development Review 18(1)

2007) and the focus of HRD coaching interventions (Ellinger, 2014). Yet, the explo-
ration of manager ratings alone was less prevalent in our study (five articles).
Rather, with the movement to more group-based work, we have seen increased
focus on non-supervisory ratings of performance. In total, 20 of these 33 articles
(about 8.70% of our sample) examined multiple raters of performance. Many of
these articles examined the full 360-degree feedback process where self, peer, man-
ager, and subordinate ratings were used (Morgan, Cannan, & Cullinane, 2005).
Some studies used a broader definition of 360-degree feedback to include external
customer ratings (Haines & St-Onge, 2012; Selvarajan & Cloninger, 2012). In addi-
tion, eight articles (3.48%) explored peer ratings (Dierdorff & Surface, 2007;
Lievens, Conway, & Corte, 2008). Although there is much existing research explor-
ing the impact of different raters, we do note a lack of studies exploring raters in the
virtual work environment (discussed below).

Rater training. Twenty (8.70%) of the articles in our sample discussed training of
PM raters, and “training” was referred to 82 times in the frequently used words. Four
of these articles examined issues related to improving rating accuracy by reducing
bias, including the use of traditional approaches such as frame of reference training
and rater error training (Biron et al., 2011; Macan et al., 2011; Roch, Woehr, Mishra,
& Kieszczynska, 2012). We also found evidence of newer approaches such as the
merits of whole-brain versus split-brain7 training (Selden, Sherrier, & Wooters,
2012). Per- haps somewhat predictably, the majority of studies in this area (16
papers, 6.96%) examined issues related to training people to use a PM system
(Appelbaum, Roy, & Gilliland, 2011; Biron et al., 2011).
While considerable research has examined training to improve rating accuracy
and system effectiveness, there has been less focus upon ways to improve managers
ability to have the ongoing conversations that are key to effective PM as noted by
scholars (Aguinis, 2013) and current industry trends (Rock & Jones, 2015). Given
“(m)anagers often lack the skills needs to coach their employees. . .” (Ellinger, 2014,
p. 261), and they “. . . often need to be trained in the communications skills
necessary for coaching” (Werner, 2017, p. 368), this is a significant oversight.
Pulakos and O’Leary (2011) further emphasized the need to improve manager–
employee communication to improve PM through proper training around building
supportive and open communi- cation, engaging in informal performance
conversation, diagnosing and addressing performance issues, and delivering
feedback conversations constructively. Moreover, Haines and St-Onge (2012),
following their survey of HRM practitioners, concluded that training managers in
areas like justice perception, constructive feedback, employee needs assessment, and
frame of reference improves overall effectiveness of the PM system.
Overall, we can conclude that rater training, particularly frame of reference train-
ing, improves rating accuracy as shown in the meta-analysis by Roch et al. (2012).
We, in Research Gap 5, suggest that scholars redirect their focus away from rater
and sys- tem training toward training feedback providers, in particular managers, on
ways to have effective PM conversations that include “identifying, measuring, and
developing
Brown et al. 63

the performance of individuals and teams” (Aguinis, 2013, pp. 2-3). HRD scholars,
with their expertise in training, development, and coaching, can make a significant
contribution to enhancing such areas by designing research which really gets to the
heart of the feedback conundrum.

Developmental function. Out of the 230 articles, 39 (16.96%) examined the

develop- mental aspect of PM, and the term development (and its stemmed words)
was men- tioned 107 times. This is consistent with the traditional purpose of PM
where the primary goal has often been summarized as motivating and developing
employees and teams to achieve organizational goals (Aguinis, 2013; Latham &
Wexley, 1994; Rynes et al., 2005). In our review, topics in this theme included the
use of formal feedback for employee development and training, identifying
employee strengths and weaknesses, and coaching employees to improve
performance—both at the individ- ual and organizational level (Akuratiyagamage,
2005; Peretz & Fried, 2012). Particu- larly prevalent were papers examining
employee reaction toward developmental aspects of PM using quantitative survey
data (Krats & Brown, 2013; Selvarajan & Cloninger, 2012). Given that the raison
d’être of HRD is the development of the human resources in the organization, it is
reassuring to see the depth of coverage on this topic in our review but, as discussed
later in this article, we see the need for HRD scholars to become much more active in
exploring developmental potential within newer work environments.

Psychometric properties. Researchers have historically placed considerable

weight on psychometric properties, in particular, reliability, validity, and
freedom from bias as criteria for effective PM (Catano et al., 2007; Kinicki et al.,
2013). Building on this work, we found that 47 articles (20.43%) in our review
examined the psy- chometric issues in PM systems. In particular, the issue of
freedom from bias was distinctly prevalent and examined in 40 articles, with scholars
examining bias stemming from rater/ratee attributes (e.g., gender, weight disability;
Festing, Knap- pert, & Kornau, 2015; Inesi & Cable, 2014; Ren, Paetzold, & Colella,
2008; Rudolph, Wells, Weller, & Baltes, 2009). An interesting subtheme concerned
how specific rater/ratee traits (e.g., political skills, impression management,
Machiavel- lianism, and big five personality factors) could influence both the process
and out- comes of the PM system (Brouer, Badaway, Gallagher, & Haber, 2015;
Harari, Rudolph, & Laginess, 2015; Kuyumcu & Dahling, 2014). Surprisingly, given
their prevalence in the past, the issues of reliability and validity were less evident in
our analysis, coded in one and seven articles, respectively, suggesting that they have
received less scholarly attention recently (Catano et al., 2007; Luria & Kalish,
2013). This too was supported by the word frequency analysis of the abstracts as
neither the term “reliability” nor “validity” appeared in the 100 most frequent
words. Given the findings from our literature search, we suggest that future research
will likely continue to focus on areas related to freedom from bias particularly
given the changing demographic composition of the workforce such as the aging
workforce.
64 Human Resource Development Review 18(1)

Provide Consequences of Performance

Models of PM effectiveness discuss the outcomes, or consequences, that flow from
the evaluation of performance. In our review of the literature, a large number of
articles (156 or 67.83%) examined this topic, with themes relating to linkage to other
HRM systems and employee reaction being particularly prevalent.

Linkage to other HRM systems8. The importance of the relationship and

alignment between the PA process, which forms the basis of most PM systems, and
the HRM system has been well documented (Aguinis, 2013). After all, the secondary
purpose of PA has historically been to support administrative decisions related to
pay, promotion, and so on (Latham & Wexley, 1994). Over a third (35.65%; 82) of
the articles concen- trated on linkages to HRM systems; “system” and its stemmed
words were mentioned 183 times. In particular, the linkage between PM and pay-for-
performance and/or reward systems was particularly prevalent with 36 articles
(Catano et al., 2007; Chang & Hahn, 2006; van Vijfeijken, Kleingeld, van Tuijl,
Algera, & Thierry, 2006). This was supported by the word frequency search in which
“reward” and “pay” were men- tioned 44 and 76 times, respectively. However,
scholars were divided on this topic. Some took it as “a given” that compensation
changes should flow from well-adminis- tered PM systems (Ferner & Almond, 2013;
van Vijfeijken et al., 2006). Others argued that tying rewards to PM can generate a
sense of over-entitlement among employees and potentially trigger misconduct and
political behavior when expectations are not met (Fisk, 2010; Werbel & Balkin,
2010).
We also saw nine articles that examined PM in the context of organizational
perfor- mance and high performance human resource practices or systems. In many
of these papers, the relationship between PM and bundles of different HR practices
such as compensation, staffing, and employee participation were examined (Stumpf,
Doh, & Tymon, 2010; Zhang & Li, 2009; C. Zheng, Morrison, & O’Neill, 2006).
Moving for- ward, we suggest several areas for future research in relation to PM and
outcomes. First, evidence suggests that a majority of firms link pay to performance
(Rynes et al., 2005). Thus, in Research Gap 6, we call for additional research
exploring how the negative aspects of PM–rewards linkage can be mitigated and
what supplementary fac- tors can be used to improve the PM–rewards relationship.
Second, this scoping review suggests that the administrative purposes of PM go
beyond compensation to areas such as promotion and layoff, although these were
only explored in seven and six papers, respectively (Bragger et al., 2014; Kaya, Koc,
& Topcu, 2010; Stumpf, Doh, & Tymon, 2010; Suazo, Martínez, & Sandoval, 2009;
van Vijfeijken et al., 2006). In addition to linkages to functions with administrative
foci, we also saw discussion in several articles of linkages to systems more
developmental in nature. For example, learning and devel- opment and career
development themes were found in six and eight articles, respec- tively (Cascio,
2014; Hassan, 2007; Potnuru & Sahoo, 2016). HRD scholars are well situated to
explore techniques which can help organizations to ensure clear career paths are
fostered through effective PM systems. Given the aging labor force of much of the
industrial world, and the cyclical nature of the economy and economic sectors, we
Brown et al. 65

suggest in Research Gap 7 that scholars should examine how PM systems can better
support staffing decisions related to promotion and layoff as well as learning and
devel- opment and career development.

Employee reaction. While the literature has historically been criticized for failing
to examine user reactions to PM (see review in Krats & Brown, 2013), there were
102 (44.35%) studies in our search that concentrated on this theme, while job attitude
terms such as satisfaction and commitment appeared 53 and 46 times, respectively,
in the word frequency search (Farndale, Hope-Hailey, & Kelliher, 2011; Krats &
Brown, 2013; Selvarajan & Cloninger, 2012). In contrast, job-related behaviors such
as OCB, turnover, and counterproductive work behavior were less commonly
researched in relation to PM; each was coded five or fewer times in our analysis
(Fisk, 2010; Juhdi, Pa’Wan, & Hansaram, 2013; Podsakoff, Whiting, Welsh, & Mai,
2013; W. Zheng, Zhang, & Li, 2012). Other less represented topics that emerged as
part of this theme, with between one and three counts each, were quality of leader
member exchange, perception of job autonomy, and job involvement (Elicker, Levy,
& Hall, 2006; Jay- awardana, O’Donnell, & Jayakody, 2013; Kuvaas, Buch, &
Dysvik, 2016). Moreover, perceptions of justice and fairness were also well
represented in our sample with each coded in 35 and 15 articles, respectively (Chang
& Hahn, 2006; Farndale et al., 2011; Linna et al., 2012; Tuytens & Devos, 2012).
Similarly, the word “justice” was men- tioned in 87 abstracts and fairness mentioned
in 61. Most of these studies suggest that positive employee reactions and outcomes
occur when a PM system is perceived as fair and employee-centered. Clearly then,
there is an important role for ensuring that PM systems are effective in terms of
being perceived as leading to fair and equitable outcomes for employees. HRD
scholars have a clear role to play in continuing to pro- vide research which can
support practitioners to effectively design, operationalize, and evaluate such systems.
The link between PM and organizational performance was only explored by nine
articles (3.91%), with a further five (2.17%) specifically looking at absenteeism and
turnover. The majority of these studies tended to explore bundles of practices such as
compensation, talent, or career management. Three of these 14 articles specifically
linked PM to bottom-line measures, two of which explored the public sector context
(Peretz & Fried, 2012; Radnor, 2009; Sotirakou & Zeppou, 2006). Therefore, to
really see the value of PM, we propose Research Gap 8, which calls for more studies
which specifically link PM practices to a broad range of bottom-line organizational
measures such as productivity, profit, sustainability, ethical behavior, and so on. Given
that a core purpose of HRD is to improve organizational performance and
effectiveness (Hamlin & Stewart, 2011), we believe that HRD scholars should
examine this important issue.

Context
Cleary, an effective PM system does not operate in isolation of the organizational
context (Haines & St-Onge, 2012). Our review found that approximately 38%, or 88
articles, had cultural or contextual influences as a key theme. In fact, the words
66 Human Resource Development Review 18(1)

“context” and “culture” were mentioned 82 and 66 times, respectively, in the word
frequency search. In particular, we found themes relating to both national and
organi- zational culture, as well as other environmental factors.

National culture. Within this theme, three distinct streams were found. First, 26
articles examined issues related to PM practices across different cultures (Cooke &
Huang, 2011; Decramer, Smolders, Vanderstraeten, & Christiaens, 2012; Lakshman,
2014). A second stream, comprising 17 articles, included studies attempting to
understand how PM functions in the context of multi-national enterprises (Shih,
Chiang, & Kim, 2005; Vo & Stanton, 2011; Yahiaoui, 2015). Finally, we found a
third stream of six articles which explored challenges related to the design and
implementation of PM for expatri- ate employees who often face the unique dilemma
of communicating parent country/ company culture while respecting the values of the
host country (e.g., Ellis, 2012; Holopainen & Björkman, 2005).

Organizational culture and environmental factors. Twenty-one (9.13%) studies scruti-

nized the effects of PM across different dimensions of organizational culture and 42
(18.26%) looked at specific workplace environment factors (e.g., unionization,
public sector, etc.). For example, HRM practices and the corresponding impacts vary
consid- erably between unionized and nonunionized settings (Brown & Warren,
2011). Thus, we found 11 studies that examined the unionized context. Another
distinct theme appearing in this stream related to PM within the context of public
enterprises, with 19 articles focusing on the public sector context (Hondeghem &
Dorpe, 2013; Johnson & Shields, 2007; Rego, Marques, Leal, Sousa, & Cunha,
2010). Not surprisingly, the studies within this theme suggest that culture, both
internal and external to an organi- zation, impact the effectiveness and acceptability
of PM strategies (Cooke & Huang, 2011; Krats & Brown, 2013; Rao, 2007). HRD
professionals are often responsible for training and organizational development
interventions; therefore, they have a role to play in diagnosing the current culture and
climate and how this might impact effective PM processes.
Given that PM systems are designed to align individual and team performance to
organizational priorities, it was surprising that only two papers examined the context
of team settings (Schneid, Isidor, Steinmetz, & Kabst, 2016). Surprisingly, articles
with a specific focus on demographics were limited with gender (Festing et al., 2015)
and age (Schneid et al., 2016) discussed in just five and three articles, respectively,
and general diversity in four. With mandatory retirement removed in certain
jurisdictions, as well as demographic phenomena such as retirees’ re-engagement in
the workforce, the issue of older worker within the PM context emerges. Similarly,
the popular press has highlighted the existence of four distinct generations in
workplace, with differing values and beliefs (Shaw, 2013). This provides an
opportunity for HRD scholars to truly understand the impact of an organization’s
workforce composition. Thus, for Research Gap 9, researchers could examine
whether age, or generational issues, impact upon employee reactions to PM systems.
Brown et al. 67

Virtual and collaborative work. When field data were collected, it generally occurred in
what we term traditional workplaces in which employees are co-located with their
managers, peers, and subordinates. Given the changing nature of work, in which peo-
ple are more likely to work more flexibly and remotely (e.g., teleworking, virtual
teams, hot desking, etc.), we were surprised by the lack of studies focusing upon
these more innovative work environments. Only three studies involved virtual work
settings (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005) and none examined hot desking, floating,
or flexi- ble work. Similarly, we only found three studies that examined electronic
PM formats (Kurtzberg, Naquin, & Belkin, 2005) and one study examining
electronic feedback and monitoring (Wells et al., 2007). Despite the collaborative
nature of newer forms of work, only two studies that examined issues related PM
in team settings (Schneid et al., 2016). Therefore, in Research Gap 10, we believe
that more research is needed into PM in the context of increasingly virtual and
collaborative workplaces.
First, there is need for additional studies to compare the merits of alternative
sources of feedback for work teams working from different locations. For example,
the tradi- tional manager rating of performance may be more challenging as such
raters may have limited opportunity to observe performance. This could also require
HRD inter- ventions designed for non-managerial coaching processes. Second, future
research could examine methods to ensure rater accuracy and self-efficacy in these
situations as well as the extent to which current findings from traditional work
environments hold true in these new work contexts. Third, HRD scholars could
design and evaluate train- ing methods addressing the challenges of assessing virtual
team members and provid- ing positive and negative feedback online. As one
example, scholars could look at reactions related to the provision of PM feedback
online or through email versus phys- ical face-to-face formats. This could be an area
well aligned to HRD as the focus could be on designing, implementing, and
evaluating HRD interventions for feedback pro- viders and receivers concerning
ways to improve feedback in virtual settings. Fourth, the linkages between PM and
HRM systems related to development and career devel- opment may well play out
differently in these newer workplaces, suggesting new avenues for HRD scholarship.

Other Study Factors

We also coded each article based on the country of origin of the research, research
methods utilized, and participant sample. Table 5 summarizes these elements across
the 230 articles analyzed.

Country of origin. The sample was heavily clustered in a few global regions. For
the 184 studies in which we could code the country, we found 77 involved European
con- texts, 56 Asian, 53 North American, and 18 Australian and New Zealand. In
contrast, a mere four and two articles, respectively, examined African and South
American con- texts. Therefore, we suggest in Research Gap 11 that studies
examining PM practices in what may be considered the less developed areas of the
world are needed.
68 Human Resource Development Review 18(1)

Table 5. Research Setting.

Articles (230)

n %
Research Country 184 80.00
Africa 4 1.74
Asia 56 24.35
Australia/New Zealand 18 7.83
The United Kingdom 19 8.26
Scandinavian 16 6.90
Eastern Europe 5 2.17
Rest of Europe 37 16.09
North America 53 23.04
South America 2 0.87
Multi-Country 2 0.87
Research Methodology
Conceptual 39 16.96
Meta-Analysis 8 3.48
Longitudinal 6 2.61
Qualitative 45 19.57
Quantitative 148 64.35
Observation 2 0.87
Field Data 142 61.74
Real Performance Data 14 6.09
Lab-based or Simulation 25 10.87
Action Research 1 0.43
Secondary 11 4.78
Participants
Employees 102 44.35
Managers 69 30.00
Practitioner 21 9.13
Student 26 11.30
Union Reps 3 1.30

Research methodology. Methodologies utilized in these studies were heavily

quantita- tive in nature (148 studies relative to 45 qualitative and 39 conceptual). In
total, we found 259 simulated or laboratory studies, six studies using longitudinal
data, eight meta-analyses, and 11 using secondary data. We see several research gaps
that emerge from this. First, arguably given the heavy psychological grounding of
much of the research in this field, which has traditionally relied heavily upon
quantitative method- ologies, there is a need to increase usage of qualitative
methods. As HRD has a strong tradition in this field, we, in Research Gap 12, call
for increased used of qualitative methods, such as cases, interviews, and content
analyses of PM documents, enabling more in-depth examination of the complexity
of PM systems beyond what can be
Brown et al. 69

obtained from self-administered, survey interventions that often dominate the PM lit-
erature. Second, if we are to truly provide valuable insights to practitioners, who deal
with the longer term implications of PM systems, we must research longer term rela-
tionships. As we suggest with Research Gap 13, the field would benefit from
increased longitudinal practical studies where actual functioning PM systems are
researched within an organizational context. As we noted in our introduction,
organizations strug- gle with best approaches to PM, and the area is fraught with
negative perceptions. While it was encouraging to see that over half of the studies in
our sample included field data, a minority of studies (14, 6.09%) used real
performance ratings or perfor- mance data from employees (as opposed to, for
example, self-assessments of perfor- mance from participant interviews and surveys).
We argue, in Research Gap 14, that if we are to truly study the complexity of PM,
we need to increase our inclusion of actual performance ratings or data from
organizational settings.

Participants. In looking at the samples utilized, we found that employees were the
most common participant (102 studies), followed by managers (69), students (26), 10
HR practitioners (21), and union representatives (3). 11 Clearly this evidence points to
a field of research that does involve different stakeholders in the PM process. We
con- sider this a positive trend as PM research has frequently highlighted a
disconnection between scholars and practitioners (Banks & Murphy, 1985; Buchner,
2007; Cascio & Aguinis, 2008; Rynes, Colbert, & Brown, 2002). However, only 21
articles utilized HR practitioners. In some, the article specifically addressed the
practitioner perspec- tive (Brutus et al., 2006; Haines & St-Onge, 2012; Nankervis &
Compton, 2006), while others included HR professionals as a part of an aggregate
sample of respon- dents (Chang & Hahn, 2006; van Vijfeijken et al., 2006). This was
surprising as prac- titioners often develop PM systems, work closely with their line
colleagues in their implementation, and in some cases are seen to own the systems.
Thus, for Research Gap 15, we propose that for HRD scholars to really make an
impact with the most important of all audiences, namely, practitioners in the field,
more focus must be placed upon hearing their voices and perspectives. To do so, we
advocate for increased collaborations between scholars and practitioners in the area
of PM research.

The Prevalence of Research Into PM Versus PA

Turning to our third research objective concerning the prevalence of PA versus PM,
we first did a text search within the abstracts of the original search strings used to
identify the articles (see Figure 1 and Table 6). We can see that PA was mentioned in
nearly half of the abstracts (47.82%), as opposed to PM which was mentioned in less
than a third (29.56%). This suggests that PA is still the dominant terminology in the
field. This is supported by the themes explored above. Our scoping review reveals
that much research still surrounds PA design, format, ratings, rankings, and the
utilization of PA for administrative purposes such as compensation. In contrast, the
themes associated with the broader PM elements such as strategic goal alignment
across individuals and teams, shorter term goals, and ongoing feedback received
relatively less attention in
70 Human Resource Development Review 18(1)

Table 6. NVivo “Text Search” for Search Terms.

Articles mentioning search

terms (n = 230)
Times
n (%) mentioned
Performance Management 68 29.56 147
Performance Appraisal 110 47.82 221
Performance Review 2 0.87 2
Performance Evaluation 24 10.43 42

the scholarly literature. When we look at linkage to other systems, we also see less
coverage for more HRD areas such as career development and learning and develop-
ment, providing fertile research opportunities for HRD scholars. On a positive note,
we did see many articles related to development within evaluating performance sug-
gesting that the role of development in the PM system is on the increase, a positive
for the field of HRD. HRD scholars could also help organizations move away from a
nar- row focus on PA toward a broader PM focus through systematic studies that
explore how to design, implement, and assess the effectiveness of managerial
training which can improve their ability to provide feedback through coaching
processes.

Limitations and Conclusions

A potential limitation of this study was the use of the title, abstract, and subject terms
to determine inclusion. Unfortunately during the analysis phase, we found that many
abstracts lacked sufficient detail to enable an appropriate understanding of the
article, thus requiring them to be skim read. There is the potential that more articles
exist than we include in this study. Moving forward, we urge scholars to follow the
guidance of Gubbins and Rousseau (2015) by structuring the abstract around the
Population– Intervention–Comparison–Outcome–Context (PICOC) framework. A
benefit of such an approach is the potential increase in dissemination of key findings
as abstracts are usually available free of charge to both practitioners and scholars and
many search engines focus on searching only abstracts (especially when there is an
embargo on the full text of a paper).
Ultimately, we draw several conclusions from our research. First, our scoping
review reveals that research in the field of PM is disproportionately distributed
among elements of the process with PA elements such as format and psychometric
properties more frequently explored and issues concerning feedback and goal
alignment appear- ing less frequently. Second, we see that the field continues to
focus on the narrower area of PA versus the broader area of PM. While the narrow
field of PA, with a signifi- cant focus on employee appraisal, may be better suited to
the fields of HRM and psy- chology, the broader area of PM is well aligned to the
field of HRD for reasons we argued in our introduction. In fact, we concur with
Werner (2014) that PM could well
Brown et al. 71

Table 7. Summary of Research Gaps.

Research gaps PM reviews with similar gaps

1 Role of different goal types in the context of PM.

2 Role of HRD practitioners in integrating individual and
team goals with organizational goals.
3 Use and efficacy of narrative forms of PA.
4 Designing, implementing, and evaluating feedback Banks and Murphy (1985): need for training
training. concerning best methods to enable managers to
determine content of appraisals.
5 Training feedback providers to have effective PM Banks and Murphy (1985): practitioners concerned with
conversations. need to improve appraiser feedback.
6 Mitigating the negative aspects of PM–rewards linkage. Rynes et al. (2005): the need to examine if sorting
effects and individual differences may play a role in
negative PM–reward linkages.
7 Using PM systems to support staffing decisions related to Banks and Murphy (1985): practitioners need
promotion and layoff, learning and development, and different performance prototypes for staffing
career development. versus pay administration purposes.
8 Link between PM practices and a wider range of Rynes et al. (2005): research concerning the link
bottom-line organizational measures such as between merit-pay like programs and
productivity, profit, sustainability, and ethical behavior. organizational performance.
9 The extent to which age, or generation, impacts
employee reactions to PM systems.
10 PM practices in the context of increasingly virtual and
collaborative workplaces.
11 PM practices in less developed areas of the world.
12 Increased used of qualitative research.
13 Increased longitudinal studies involving “real people and real Rynes et al. (2005): need for research in “real world”
PM systems.” settings with longer time frames.
Banks and Murphy (1985): overreliance on laboratory
studies.
14 Research which utilizes real performance data. Banks and Murphy (1985): overreliance on laboratory
studies.
Rynes et al. (2005): need for research in “real world”
settings with longer time frames.
15 Increased collaboration between practitioners and Banks and Murphy (1985): need for practitioner–
scholars. scholar collaboration to reduce the research–
practice gap in PA.

Note. PM = Performance Management; HRD = Human Resource Development; PA = performance appraisal.

be a “bridge” area between these fields. Third, we believe that our article can
contrib- ute to HRD scholarship and practice in several ways. As we note in our
review, there has been relatively limited inclusion of papers examining PM within
the HRD jour- nals. It is our hope that this article, comprised of a scoping review of
the literature and the identification of research gaps, will provide a springboard for
future research by HRD scholars. In particular, we advocate that HRD scholars, with
expertise related to organizational development, qualitative methods, and coaching,
could readily embark on research related to many of the research gaps noted on
Table 7. For example, research needs to attempt to more fully capture the perspective
of HRD practitioners (Gaps 2 and 15), understand how narrative forms of PA (Gap
3) can help to transform the annual PM or PA activity into a truly holistic
developmental event, and relatedly
72 Human Resource Development Review 18(1)

clarify what PM training (Gaps 4 and 5) can be offered to allow this to happen.
Ultimately, from our perspective, there is a need for more qualitative methodologies
(Gap 12) to be employed to ensure that researchers truly capture the multifaceted and
complex nature of PM in organizations. Fourth, many of the gaps we have identified
have existed for over 30 years now (i.e., Gaps 4-8; 13-15). Therefore, we particularly
urge HRD scholars to look at ways to bridge these given their long-term prevalence
in the literature. We believe that, given the increasing pressures to enhance
productivity and retain key talent in organizations going forward, if HRD research
can address some of these fundamental PM issues, it can truly carve out a firm place
for itself in the organizational and management studies landscape.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

Notes
1. Specifically, as suggested by Callahan (2010), we provide information on who conducted
the search; when the search was conducted; where the authors searched (e.g., search
engines and databases); the keyword combinations used; and the criteria used to include/
exclude articles.
2. To ensure a broad and high quality literature scope, we included peer-reviewed journals
likely to include topics related to performance management (PM) listed in the Financial
Times Top 45 (FT45; which has subsequently become the FT50), and the UK’s
Association of Business Schools’ (ABS) Academic Journal Quality Guide (version 5,
2015). “The [ABS] Guide is based upon peer review, editorial and expert judgments
following the evaluation of many hundreds of publications, and is informed by statistical
information relating to citation. It is a guide to the range, subject matter and relative
quality of journals in which business and management academics publish their research”
(Wood & Peel, 2015, p. 5). On the ABS list, we focused on four subject areas: (a)
General Management, (b) Human Resource Management and Employment Studies, (c)
Organization Studies, and (d) Psychology. Although these lists provide an “imperfect”
assessment of quality, they have been used as the basis for article selection in other
scoping and literature review (see, for example, Hayter et al., 2018; Nolan & Garavan,
2016, and for a critique of the ABS list, see Walker, Fenton, Salter, & Salandra, 2018).
3. Our manual search suggested that seven further articles could potentially be relevant but
these were not included as they did not meet the initial search criteria. This ensured
consis- tency with the broader literature search.
4. Approximately one fourth of the articles in our sample came from International Journal
of Human Resource Management (IJHRM). Given the international scope of IJHRM, and
the number of issues that journal publishes per year, it is possible that our analysis may
have over emphasized the examination of culture in our subsequent results.
Brown et al. 73

5. A list of all articles used in this review can be obtained from the first author.
6. While we provide counts, space restrictions preclude the citation of all papers.
Throughout this article, we provide indicative citations for each theme.
7. In that study, split-brain training focused on the left side of the brain, what is often
consid- ered traditional rater training, by encouraging raters to focus on information
encoding and recall based on specific dimensions of performance. Whole brain training
added training the right side of the brain in terms of raters being encouraged to organize
performance information around the individual ratee.
8. We appreciate the debates concerning what is (or is not) Human Resource Development
(HRD) versus Human Resource Management (HRM). As Werner (2014) noted, staffing
and compensation are among the “big four” (p. 130) HRM functions and are “generally
viewed as HRM topics” (p. 133). As this section focuses on the linkages between PM and
systems related to staffing (e.g., promotion, layoff, etc.) and compensation, we use the
phrase HRM.
9. These were not mutually exclusive. For example, a single article could contain both a
field and laboratory study.
10. In some cases, scholars used samples of students who were also working for an organiza-
tion. Given that they were invited to participate in the research by virtue of participating
in a learning program, we classified them as students.
11. A single study could contain more than one group of participants.

References
Aguinis, H. (2013). Performance management (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Aguinis, H., Joo, H., & Gottfredson, R. K. (2011). Why we hate performance management—
And why we should love it. Business Horizons, 54, 503-507. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2011.06.001
Akuratiyagamage, V. M. (2005). Identification of management development needs: A
across companies of different ownership—Foreign, joint venture and local in Sri
Lanka. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 1512-1528.
doi:10.1080/09585190500220796
Appelbaum, S. H., Roy, M.,& Gilliland, T.(2011). Globalizationofperformanceappraisals:
Theory and applications. Management Decision, 49, 570-585.
doi:10.1108/00251741111126495
Arvey, R., & Murphy, K. (1998). Performance evaluation in work settings. Annual Review of
Psychology, 49, 141-168. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.141
Baker, N. (2010). Employee feedback technologies in the human performance system. Human
Resource Development International, 13, 477-485. doi:10.1080/13678868.2010.501994
Banks, C. G., & Murphy, K. R. (1985). Toward narrowing the research-practice gap in per-
formance appraisal. Personnel Psychology, 38, 335-345. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1985.
tb00551.x
Biron, M., Farndale, E., & Paauwe, J. (2011). Performance management effectiveness:
Lessons from world-leading firms. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 22, 1294-1311. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.559100
Blume, B. D. (2013). Who is attracted to an organisation using a forced distribution per-
formance management system? Human Resource Management Journal, 23, 360-378.
doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12016
Bouskila-Yam, O., & Kluger, A. N. (2011). Strength-based performance appraisal and goal
set- ting. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 137-147.
doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.001
74 Human Resource Development Review 18(1)

Bragger, J., Kutcher, E., Menier, A., Sessa, V., & Sumner, K. (2014). Giving nonselective
downsizing a performance review. Human Resource Development Review, 13, 58-78.
doi:10.1177/1534484313492331
Bret Becton, J., Giles, W. F., & Schraeder, M. (2008). Evaluating and rewarding OCBs:
Potential consequences of formally incorporating organisational citizenship behav-
iour in performance appraisal and reward systems. Employee Relations, 30, 494-514.
doi:10.1108/01425450810888277
Brouer, R. L., Badaway, R. L., Gallagher, V., & Haber, J. A. (2015). Political skill dimen-
sionality and impression management choice and effective use. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 30, 217-233. doi:10.1007/s10869-014-9344-y
Brown, T. C., & Latham, G. P. (2018). Maintaining relevance and rigor: How we bridge
the practitioner-scholar divide within human resource development. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 29, 99-105. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21308
Brown, T. C., & McCracken, M. (2010). Which goals should participants set for effective
transfer of training for management development programmes? Journal of General
Management, 35, 27-45. doi:10.1177/030630701003500402
Brown, T. C., & Warren, A. M. (2011). Performance management in unionized settings.
Human Resource Management Review, 21, 96-106. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.005
Brutus, S. (2010). Words versus numbers: A theoretical exploration of giving and receiving
narrative comments in performance appraisal. Human Resource Management Review, 20,
144-157. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.06.003
Brutus, S., Derayeh, M., Fletcher, C., Bailey, C., Velazquez, P., Shi, K., & Labath, V. (2006).
Internationalization of multi-source feedback systems: A six-country exploratory analysis
of 360-degree feedback. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17,
1888-1906. doi:10.1080/09585190601000071
Buchner, T. (2007). Performance management theory: A look from the performer’s perspec-
tive with implications for HRD. Human Resource Development International, 10, 59-74.
doi:10.1080/13678860601170294
Callahan, J. L. (2010). Constructing a manuscript: Distinguishing integrative literature reviews
and conceptual and theory articles. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 300-304.
doi:10.1177/1534484310371492
Cambon, L., & Steiner, D. D. (2015). When rating format induces different rating processes:
The effects of descriptive and evaluative rating modes on discriminability and accuracy.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 795-812. doi:10.1007/s10869-014-9389-y
Cascio, W. F. (2014). Leveraging employer branding, performance management and human
resource development to enhance employee retention. Human Resource Development
International, 17, 121-128. doi:10.1080/13678868.2014.886443
Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2008). Research in industrial and organizational psychology
from 1963 to 2007: Changes, choices, and trends. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,
1062-
1081. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1062
Catano, V. M., Darr, W., & Campbell, C. A. (2007). Performance appraisal of behavior-
based competency: A reliable and valid procedure. Personnel Psychology, 60, 201-230.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00070.x
Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (1998). Participation in the performance
appraisal process and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 615-633. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.615
Brown et al. 75

Chan, Y. C. L. (2006). An analytic hierarchy framework for evaluating balanced scorecards of

healthcare organizations. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne
Des Sciences de l’Administration, 23, 85-104. doi:10.1111/j.1936-4490.2006.tb00683.x
Chang, E., & Hahn, J. (2006). Does pay-for-performance enhance perceived distributive justice
for collectivistic employees? Personnel Review, 35, 397-412. doi:10.1108/00483480610670571
Chen, T., Wu, P., & Leung, K. (2011). Individual performance appraisal and appraisee
reactions to workgroups: The mediating role of goal interdependence and the moderating role
of pro-
cedural justice. Personnel Review, 40, 87-105. doi:10.1108/00483481111095537
Cheng, M., Dainty, A. R. J., & Moore, D. R. (2005). Towards a multidimensional
competency- based managerial performance framework: A hybrid approach. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 20, 380-396. doi:10.1108/02683940510602941
Claus, L., & Briscoe, D. (2009). Employee performance management across borders: A
review of relevant academic literature. International Journal of Management Reviews,
11, 175-
196. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00237.x
Cleveland, J. N., Murphy, K. R., & Williams, R. E. (1989). Multiple uses of performance
appraisal: Prevalence and correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 130-135.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.130
Cooke, F. L., & Huang, K. (2011). Postacquisition evolution of the appraisal and reward sys-
tems: A study of Chinese IT firms acquired by US firms. Human Resource Management,
50, 839-858. doi:10.1002/hrm.20457
Cravens, K. S., Oliver, E. G., & Stewart, J. S. (2010). Can a positive approach to performance
evaluation help accomplish your goals? Business Horizons, 53, 269-279. doi:10.1016/j.
bushor.2009.09.005
Crawshaw, J. R., Van Dick, R., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2012). Opportunity, fair process and
relation- ship value: Career development as a driver of proactive work behaviour. Human
Resource Management Journal, 22, 4-20. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2011.00169.x
Culbertson, S., & Mills, M. (2011). Negative implications for the inclusion of citizenship per-
formance in ratings. Human Resource Development International, 14, 23-38. doi:10.1080
/13678868.2011.542896
David, E. M. (2013). Examining the role of narrative performance appraisal comments on per-
formance. Human Performance, 26, 430-450. doi:10.1080/08959285.2013.836197
Davis, P. J. (2011). Seven biggest problems with performance appraisals: And seven devel-
opment approaches to rectify them. Development and Learning in Organizations: An
International Journal, 26, 11-14. doi:10.1108/14777281211189119
Decramer, A., Smolders, C., Vanderstraeten, A., & Christiaens, J. (2012). The impact of insti-
tutional pressures on employee performance management systems in higher education
in the low countries. British Journal of Management, 23, S88-S103. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8551.2012.00820.x
DeNisi, A., & Smith, C. (2014). Performance appraisal, performance management, and firm-
level performance: A review, a proposed model, and new directions for future research.
The Academy of Management Annals, 8, 127-179. doi:10.11606/rco.v11i29.122140
Dewettinck, K., & Van Dijk, H. (2013). Linking Belgian employee performance management
system characteristics with performance management system effectiveness: Exploring the
mediating role of fairness. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
24, 806-825. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.700169
Dierdorff, E. C., & Surface, E. A. (2007). Placing peer ratings in context: Systematic influ-
ences beyond ratee performance. Personnel Psychology, 60, 93-126. doi:10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2007.00066.x
76 Human Resource Development Review 18(1)

Elicker, J. D., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). The role of leader-member exchange in the
performance appraisal process. Journal of Management, 32, 531-551. doi:10.1177/
0149206306286622
Ellinger, A. D. (2014). Coaching and mentoring. In R. F. Powell, T .S. Rocco & G. Roth
(Eds.), The Routledge companion to human resource development (pp. 258-271). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Ellis, D. R. (2012). Exploring cultural dimensions as predictors of performance manage-
ment preferences: The case of self-initiating expatriate New Zealanders in Belgium. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 2087-2107. doi:10.1080/095
85192.2011.581634
Espejo, J., Day, E. A., & Scott, G. (2005). Performance evaluations, need for cognition, and
the acquisition of a complex skill: An attribute–treatment interaction. Personality and
Individual Differences, 38, 1867-1877. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.10.003
Farndale, E., Hope-Hailey, V., & Kelliher, C. (2011). High commitment perfor-
mance management: The roles of justice and trust. Personnel Review, 40, 5-23.
doi:10.1108/00483481111095492
Ferner, A., & Almond, P. (2013). Performance and reward practices in foreign multination-
als in the UK. Human Resource Management Journal, 23, 241-261. doi:10.1111/1748-
8583.12001
Festing, M., Knappert, L., & Kornau, A. (2015). Gender-specific preferences in global perfor-
mance management: An empirical study of male and female managers in a multinational
context. Human Resource Management, 54, 55-79. doi:10.1002/hrm.21609
Fisk, G. M. (2010). “I want it all and I want it now!” An examination of the etiology,
expression, and escalation of excessive employee entitlement. Human Resource
Management Review, 20, 102-114. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.11.001
Gubbins, C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2015). Embracing translational HRD research for evidence-
based management: Let’s talk about how to bridge the research–practice gap. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 26, 109-125. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21214
Haines, V. Y., & St-Onge, S. (2012). Performance management effectiveness: Practices or
con- text? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 1158-1175.
doi:10. 1080/09585192.2011.561230
Hamlin, B., & Stewart, J. (2011). What is HRD? A definitional review and synthesis of the
HRD domain. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35, 199-220. doi:10.1108/
03090591111120377
Harari, M. B., Rudolph, C. W., & Laginess, A. J. (2015). Does rater personality matter? A
meta- analysis of rater big five–performance rating relationships. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 88, 387-414. doi:10.1111/joop.12086
Hassan, A. (2007). Human resource development and organizational values. Journal of
European Industrial Training, 31, 435-448. doi:10.1108/03090590710772631
Hayter, C. S., Nelson, A. J., Zayed, S., & O’Connor, A. C. (2018). Conceptualizing academic
entrepreneurship ecosystems: A review, analysis and extension of the literature. The
Journal of Technology Transfer, 43, 1039-1082. doi:10.1007/s10961-018-9657-5
Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current
empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 69-95. doi:10.1016/j.
hrmr.2005.01.002
Holopainen, J., & Björkman, I. (2005). The personal characteristics of the successful
expatriate: A critical review of the literature and an empirical investigation. Personnel
Review, 34, 37-
50. doi:10.1108/00483480510578476
Brown et al. 77

Hondeghem, A., & Dorpe, K. V. (2013). Performance management systems for senior civil
servants: How strong is the managerial public service bargain? International Review of
Administrative Sciences, 79, 9-27. doi:10.1177/0020852312467549
Human Resource Development Quarterly. (2018). Subscribe to this journal. Retrieved
from https://ordering.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/subs.asp?ref=1532-1096&doi=10.1002/
(ISSN)1532-1096 (Accessed July 20, 2018).
Ikramullah, M., Van Prooijen, J. W., Iqbal, M. Z., & Ul-Hassan, F. S. (2016). Effectiveness
of performance appraisal: Developing a conceptual framework using competing values
approach. Personnel Review, 45, 334-352. doi:10.1108/PR-07-2014-0164
Inesi, M. E., & Cable, D. M. (2014). When accomplishments come back to haunt you: The
negative effect of competence signals on women’s performance evaluations. Personnel
Psychology, 68, 615-657. doi:10.1111/peps.12083
International Journal of Human Resource Management. (2018). Journal Information.
Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijh20
(Accessed July 20, 2018).
Iqbal, M. Z., Akbar, S., and Budhwar, P. (2015). Effectiveness of performance appraisal.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 17, 510-533. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12050
Jayawardana, A. K. L., O’Donnell, M., & Jayakody, J. A. S. K. (2013). Job involvement and
performance among middle managers in Sri Lanka. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 24, 4008-4025. doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.781526
Johnson, L., & Shields, J. (2007). Lessons from management–union partnership in teacher
perfor- mance appraisal in the New South Wales public education system. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 1214-1227.
doi:10.1080/09585190701392048
Juhdi, N., Pa’Wan, F., & Hansaram, R. M. K. (2013). HR practices and turnover intention:
The mediating roles of organizational commitment and organizational engagement in a
selected region in Malaysia. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
24, 3002- 3019. doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.781526
Kaya, N., Koc, E., & Topcu, D. (2010). An exploratory analysis of the influence of human
resource management activities and organizational climate on job satisfaction in Turkish
banks. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 2031-2051. doi:10
.1080/09585192.2010.505104
Kinicki, A. J., Jacobson, K. J., Peterson, S. J., & Prussia, G. E. (2013). Development and
valida- tion of the performance management behavior questionnaire. Personnel
Psychology, 66, 1-45. doi:10.1111/peps.12013
Krats, P., & Brown, T. C. (2013). Unionised employee’s reactions to the introduction of a
goal- based performance appraisal system. Human Resource Management Journal, 23,
396-412. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2012.00205.x
Kurtzberg, T. R., Naquin, C. E., & Belkin, L. Y. (2005). Electronic performance appraisals:
The effects of e-mail communication on peer ratings in actual and simulated
environments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 216-226.
doi:10.1016/j. obhdp.2005.07.001
Kuvaas, B. (2011). The interactive role of performance appraisal reactions and regular feed-
back. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26, 123-137. doi:10.1108/02683941111102164
Kuvaas, B., Buch, R., & Dysvik, A. (2016). Performance management: Perceiving goals as
invariable and implications for perceived job autonomy and work performance. Human
Resource Management, 55, 401-412. doi:10.1002/hrm.21680
78 Human Resource Development Review 18(1)

Kuyumcu, D., & Dahling, J. J. (2014). Constraints for some, opportunities for others?
Interactive and indirect effects of machiavellianism and organizational constraints on task
performance ratings. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 301-310. doi:10.1007/s10869-
013-9314-9 Lakshman, C. (2014). Leveraging human capital through performance management
process: The role of leadership in the USA, France and India. International Journal of
Human
Resource Management, 25, 1351-1372. doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.870310
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72-107.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.87.1.72
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Enhancing the benefits and overcoming the pitfalls of
goal setting. Organizational Dynamics, 35, 332-340. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2006.08.008
Latham, G., Sulsky, L.M. & MacDonald, H. (2007). Performance management. In P. Boxall,
J. Purcell, & P. Wright, (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management
(1st ed) (pp. 364-381). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Latham, G. P., & Wexley, K. N. (1994). Increasing productivity through performance appraisal
(2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lawler, E. E., III. (2003). Reward practice and performance management system effectiveness.
Organizational Dynamics, 32, 396-404. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2003.08.00
Lee, F. H., Lee, T. Z., & Wu, W. Y. (2010). The relationship between human resource
manage- ment practices, business strategy and firm performance: Evidence from steel
industry in Taiwan. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21,
1351-1372. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2010.488428
Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. (2004). The social context of performance appraisal: A review
and framework for the future. Journal of Management, 30, 881-905. doi:10.1016/j.
jm.2004.06.005
Lievens, F., Conway, J. M., & Corte, W. (2008). The relative importance of task, citizenship
and counterproductive performance to job performance ratings: Do rater source and team-
based culture matter? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 11-27.
doi: 10.1348/096317907X182971
Link, H. C. (1920). The applications of psychology to industry. Psychological Bulletin, 17, 335-
346. doi:10.1037/h0075868
Linna, A., Elovainio, M., Van Den Bos, K., Kivimäki, M., Pentti, J., & Vahtera, J. (2012). Can
usefulness of performance appraisal interviews change organizational justice perceptions?
A 4-year longitudinal study among public sector employees. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 23, 1360-1375. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.579915
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2013). New developments in goal setting and task performance.
London, England: Routledge.
Luria, G., & Kalish, Y. (2013). A social network approach to peer assessment: Improving pre-
dictive validity. Human Resource Management, 52, 537-560. doi:10.1002/hrm.21541
Macan, T., Mehner, K., Havill, L., Meriac, J. P., Roberts, L., & Heft, L. (2011). Two for the
price of one: Assessment center training to focus on behaviors can transfer to performance
appraisals. Human Performance, 24, 443-457. doi:10.1080/08959285.2011.614664
Major, D. A., Davis, D. D., Germano, L. M., Fletcher, T. D., Sanchez-Hucles, J., & Mann, J.
(2007). Managing human resources in information technology: Best practices of high per-
forming supervisors. Human Resource Management, 46, 411-427. doi:10.1002/hrm.20171
Brown et al. 79

McCracken, M., & Wallace, M. (2000). Towards a redefinition of strategic HRD. Journal of
European Industrial training, 24, 281-290. doi:10.1108/03090590010372056
Meyer, H. H., Kay, E., & French, J. R. Jr. (1965). Split roles in performance appraisal.
Harvard Business Review, 43(1), 123-129.
Molleman, E., & der Vegt, G. S. (2007). The performance evaluation of novices: The impor-
tance of competence in specific work activity clusters. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 80, 459-478. doi:10.1348/096317906X15446
Morgan, A., Cannan, K., & Cullinane, J. (2005). 360° feedback: A critical enquiry. Personnel
Review, 34, 663-680. doi:10.1108/00483480510623457
Nankervis, A. R., & Compton, R. L. (2006). Performance management: Theory in practice?
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 44, 83-101. doi:10.1177/1038411106061509
Nolan, C. T., & Garavan, T. N. (2016). Human resource development in SMEs: A system-
atic review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18, 85-107.
doi:10.1111/ijmr.12062
Payne, S. C., Horner, M. T., Boswell, W. R., Schroeder, A. N., & Stine-Cheyne, K. J. (2009).
Comparison of online and traditional performance appraisal systems. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 24, 526-544. doi:10.1108/02683940910974116
Peretz, H., & Fried, Y. (2012). National cultures, performance appraisal practices, and orga-
nizational absenteeism and turnover: A study across 21 countries. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97, 448-459. doi:10.1037/a0026011
Pfeffer, J. (2009June 30). The trouble with performance reviews. Bloomberg. Retrieved from
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2009-06-30/the-trouble-with-performance-
reviewsbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Welsh, D. T., & Mai, K. M. (2013). Surveying for “arti-
facts”: The susceptibility of the OCB–performance evaluation relationship to common
rater, item, and measurement context effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 863-874.
doi:10.1037/a0032588
Potnuru, R. K. G., & Sahoo, C. K. (2016). HRD interventions, employee competencies and
organizational effectiveness: An empirical study. European Journal of Training and
Development, 40, 345-365. doi:10.1108/EJTD-02-2016-0008
Pulakos, E. D. (2004). Performance management effective practice guideline. Alexandria, VA:
SHRM Foundation.
Pulakos, E. D. (2009). Performance management: A new approach for driving business results.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Pulakos, E. D., Mueller-Hanson, R. A., O’Leary, R. S., & Meyrowitz, M. M. (2012). Building
a high-performance culture: A fresh look at performance management (Effective
Practices Guidelines). Alexandria, VA: SHRM Foundation.
Pulakos, E. D., & O’Leary, R. S. (2011). Why is performance management broken? Industrial
and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 146-164.
doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01315.x
Radnor, Z. (2009). Understanding the relationship between a national award scheme
and performance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75, 437-457.
doi:10.1177/0020852309337689
Rao, A. S. (2007). Effectiveness of performance management systems: An empirical study in
Indian companies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 1812-
1840. doi:10.1080/09585190701570973
Rego, A., Marques, C., Leal, S., Sousa, F., & Cunha, M. P. (2010). Psychological capital and
performance of Portuguese civil servants: Exploring neutralizers in the context of an
80 Human Resource Development Review 18(1)

appraisal system. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 1531-1552.

doi:10.1080/09585192.2010.488459
Ren, L. R., Paetzold, R. L., & Colella, A. (2008). A meta-analysis of experimental studies on
the effects of disability on human resource judgments. Human Resource Management
Review, 18, 191-203. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.001
Risher, H. (2005). Getting serious about performance management. Compensation & Benefits
Review, 37(6), 18-26. doi:10.1177/0886368705281542
Roch, S. G., Sternburgh, A. M., & Caputo, P. M. (2007). Absolute vs relative performance rat-
ing formats: Implications for fairness and organizational justice. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 15, 302-316. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00390.x
Roch, S. G., Woehr, D. J., Mishra, V., & Kieszczynska, U. (2012). Rater training revisited: An
updated meta-analytic review of frame-of-reference training. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 85, 370-395. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02045.x
Rock, D., & Jones, B. (2015, September 8). Why more and more companies are ditching per-
formance ratings. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/09/why-
more-and-more-companies-are-ditching-performance-ratings
Rotundo, M. (2009). Conduct performance appraisals to improve individual and firm per-
formance. In E. A. Locke (Ed.) Handbook of principles of organizational behavior:
Indispensable knowledge for evidence-based management (2nd ed.) (pp. 84-104).
Chichester, Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Rudolph, C. W., Wells, C. L., Weller, M. D., & Baltes, B. B. (2009). A meta-analysis of
empiri- cal studies of weight-based bias in the workplace. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 74, 1-10. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.09.008
Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E., & Brown, K. G. (2002). HR professionals’ beliefs about effec-
tive human resource practices: Correspondence between research and practice. Human
Resource Management Journal, 41, 149-174. doi:10.1002/hrm.10029
Rynes, S. L., Gerhart, B., & Parks, L. (2005). Personnel psychology: Performance evaluation
and pay for performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 571-600.
Schleicher, D. J., Bull, R. A., & Green, S. G. (2008). Rater reactions to forced distribution
rating systems. Journal of Management, 35, 899-927. doi:10.1177/0149206307312514
Schneid, M., Isidor, R., Steinmetz, H., & Kabst, R. (2016). Age diversity and team outcomes:
A quantitative review. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31, 2-17. doi:10.1108/JMP-07-
2012-0228
Selden, S., Sherrier, T., & Wooters, R. (2012). Experimental study comparing a traditional
approach to performance appraisal training to a whole-brain training method at C.B. fleet
laboratories. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23, 9-34. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21123
Selvarajan, T. T., & Cloninger, P. A. (2012). Can performance appraisals motivate employ-
ees to improve performance? A Mexican study. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 23, 3063-3084. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.637069
Shantz, A., & Latham, G. P. (2009). An exploratory field experiment of the effect of sub-
conscious and conscious goals on employee performance. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 109, 9-17. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.01.001
Shaw, H. (2013). Sticking points: How to get 4 generations working together in the 12 places
they come apart. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.
Shih, H. A., Chiang, Y. H., & Kim, I. S. (2005). Expatriate performance management from
MNEs of different national origins. International Journal of Manpower, 26, 157-176.
doi:10.1108/01437720510597658
Smith, P. C., & Kendall, L. M. (1963). Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the
construc- tion of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology,
47, 149-155.
Brown et al. 81

Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following
mul- tisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical
findings. Personnel Psychology, 58, 33-66. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.514_1.x
Sommer, K. L., & Kulkarni, M. (2012). Does constructive performance feedback improve
citizenship intentions and job satisfaction? The roles of perceived opportunities for
advancement, respect, and mood. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23, 177-201.
doi:10.1002/hrdq.21132
Sotirakou, T., & Zeppou, M. (2006). Utilizing performance measurement to modernize the
Greek public sector. Management Decision, 44, 1277-1304.
doi:10.1108/00251740610707730
Stumpf, S. A., Doh, J. P., & Tymon, W. G. (2010). The strength of HR practices in India and
their effects on employee career success, performance, and potential. Human Resource
Management, 49, 353-375. doi:10.1002/hrm.20361
Suazo, M. M., Martínez, P. G., & Sandoval, R. (2009). Creating psychological and legal con-
tracts through human resource practices: A signaling theory perspective. Human Resource
Management Review, 19, 154-166. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.11.002
Tkachenko, O., Hahn, H., & Peterson, S. L. (2017). Research–practice gap in applied fields:
An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 16, 235-262.
doi:10.1177/1534484317707562
Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2012). The effect of procedural justice in the relationship between
charismatic leadership and feedback reactions in performance appraisal. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 3047-3062. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.
639535
van Vijfeijken, H., Kleingeld, A., van Tuijl, H., Algera, J. A., & Thierry, H. (2006).
Interdependence and fit in team performance management. Personnel Review, 35, 98-117.
doi:10.1108/00483480610636812
Vo, A., & Stanton, P. (2011). The transfer of HRM policies and practices to a transitional
busi- ness system: The case of performance management practices in the US and Japanese
MNEs operating in Vietnam. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
22, 3513-3527. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.560876
Walker, J. T., Fenton, E., Salter, A., & Salandra, R. (2018). What influences business academ-
ics’ use of the Association of Business Schools (ABS) list? Evidence from a survey of UK
academics. British Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/1467-
8551.12294
Wang, X. M., Wong, K. F. E., & Kwong, J. Y. Y. (2010). The roles of rater goals and ratee
performance levels in the distortion of performance ratings. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95, 546-561. doi:10.1037/a0018866
Wells, D. L., Moorman, R. H., & Werner, J. M. (2007). The impact of the perceived purpose
of electronic performance monitoring on an array of attitudinal variables. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 18, 121-138. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1194
Werbel, J., & Balkin, D. B. (2010). Are human resource practices linked to employee miscon-
duct? A rational choice perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 317-326.
doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.10.002
Werner, J. M. (2014). Human resource development ≠ human resource Management: So what
is it? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25, 127-139. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21188
Werner, J. M. (2017). Human resource development/talent management (7th ed.). Boston,
MA:
Publisher Cengage Learning.
82 Human Resource Development Review 18(1)

Wiersma, U., & Latham, G. P. (1986). The practicality of behavioral observation scales,
behavioral expectation scales, and trait scales. Personnel Psychology, 39, 619-628.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00956.x
Wong, K. F. E., & Kwong, J. Y. (2005). Between-individual comparisons in performance
evalu- ation: A perspective from prospect theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 284-
294. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.284
Wood, G., & Peel, D. (Eds.). (2015). Association of business schools academic journal quality
guide, version 5. London, England: Association of Business Schools.
Yahiaoui, D. (2015). Hybridization: Striking a balance between adoption and adaptation of
human resource management practices in French multinational corporations and their
Tunisian subsidiaries. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26,
1665-1693. doi:10.1080/09585192.2014.958513
Yun, G. J., Donahue, L. M., Dudley, N. M., & Mcfarland, L. A. (2005). Rater personality,
rating format, and social context: Implications for performance appraisal ratings.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13, 97-107. doi:10.1111/j.0965-
075X.2005.00304.x
Zhang, Y. C., & Li, S. L. (2009). High performance work practices and firm performance:
Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry in China. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 20, 2331-2348. doi:10.1080/09585190903239690
Zheng, C., Morrison, M., & O’Neill, G. (2006). An empirical study of high performance HRM
practices in Chinese SMEs. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
17, 1772-1803. doi:10.1080/09585190600965282
Zheng, W., Zhang, M., & Li, H. (2012). Performance appraisal process and organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27, 732-752. doi:10.1108/
02683941211259548

Author Biographies
Travor C. Brown is a professor of Labour Relations and Human Resources with the Faculty
of Business, Memorial University. Much of his research examines issues concerning goal
setting, training effectiveness, and performance management.
Paula O’Kane is a senior lecturer in Human Resource Management at the University of
Otago in New Zealand. Her research interests sit within the areas of social media in HRM and
strategic HRM. She has published articles in Human Resource Management Journal,
Personnel Review and Human Resource Development International among others.
Bishakha Mazumdar recently completed her PhD from Memorial University of
Newfoundland. Her research interest is in areas of bridge employment, performance
management and experien- tial learning.
Martin McCracken has varied research interests linked to HRM and HRD. His most recent
work is focused upon understanding the role of HR Business Partners in organizations. He is
also currently engaged in research designed to evaluate effective leadership in the UK Higher
Education sector.