performance management research paper

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

The future of feedback: Motivating performance improvement through future-focused feedback

Jackie Gnepp

1 Humanly Possible, Inc., Oak Park, Illinois, United States of America

Joshua Klayman

2 Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America

Ian O. Williamson

3 Wellington School of Business and Government, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

Sema Barlas

4 Masters of Science in Analytics, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America

Associated Data

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files ( S1 Dataset ).

Managerial feedback discussions often fail to produce the desired performance improvements. Three studies shed light on why performance feedback fails and how it can be made more effective. In Study 1, managers described recent performance feedback experiences in their work settings. In Studies 2 and 3, pairs of managers role-played a performance review meeting. In all studies, recipients of mixed and negative feedback doubted the accuracy of the feedback and the providers’ qualifications to give it. Disagreement regarding past performance was greater following the feedback discussion than before, due to feedback recipients’ increased self-protective and self-enhancing attributions. Managers were motivated to improve to the extent they perceived the feedback conversation to be focused on future actions rather than on past performance. Our findings have implications for the theory and practice of performance management.

Introduction

Once again, Taylor Devani is hoping to be promoted to Regional Manager. Chris Sinopoli, Taylor’s new boss, has arranged a meeting to provide performance feedback, especially regarding ways Taylor must change to succeed in a Regional Manager position. Like Taylor’s previous boss, Chris is delighted with Taylor’s award-winning sales performance. But Taylor was admonished in last year’s performance appraisal about cavalier treatment of customers and intolerant behavior toward employees. Taylor was very resistant to that message then and there have been no noticeable improvements since. What can Chris say to get through to Taylor?

This vignette highlights three points that will be familiar to theorists, researchers, and practitioners of performance feedback. First, the vignette reflects that performance feedback often includes a mix of both positive and negative feedback. Second, it reflects the common experience that the recipients do not always accept the feedback they get, let alone act on it. Third, it raises the question of what a feedback provider should say (and perhaps not say) in order to enable and motivate the feedback recipient to improve.

The present research focuses on feedback conversations in the context of work and career, but it has implications far beyond those contexts. Giving feedback about performance is one of the key elements of mentorship, coaching, supervision, and parenting. It contributes to conflict resolution in intimate relationships [ 1 ] and it is considered one of the most powerful activities in education [ 2 ]. In all these instances, the primary goal is to motivate and direct positive behavior change. Thus, a better understanding of where performance feedback conversations go wrong and how they can be made more effective is an important contribution to the psychology of work and to organizational psychology, but also to a broad range of psychological literatures, including education, consulting, counseling, and interpersonal communications.

Across three studies, we provide the first evidence that performance feedback discussions can have counterproductive effects by increasing the recipient’s self-serving attributions for past performance, thereby decreasing agreement between the providers and recipients of feedback. These unintended effects are associated with lower feedback acceptance and with lower motivation to change. Our studies also provide the first empirical evidence that feedback discussions promote intentions to act on the feedback to the extent they are perceived as focusing on future performance, rather than past performance. These findings suggest a new line of investigation for a topic with a long and venerable history.

Performance feedback in the workplace

Performance feedback can be distinguished from other types of managerial feedback (e.g., “production is up 12% from last quarter”) by its focus on the recipients’ conduct and accomplishments–doing the right things the right way with the right results. It is nearly universal in the modern workplace. Even the recent trend toward doing away with annual performance reviews has come with a directive for managers to have more frequent, if less formal, performance feedback conversations [ 3 ].

Psychologists have known for decades that the effects of performance feedback on performance are highly variable and not always beneficial: A meta-analysis by Kluger and DeNisi found that the modal impact on performance is none [ 4 ]. Such findings fostered a focus on employee reactions to performance appraisals and the idea that employees would be motivated to change behavior only if they accepted the feedback and believed there was a need to improve [ 5 – 7 ]. Unfortunately, unfavorable feedback is not easily accepted. People have been shown to cope with negative feedback by disputing it, lowering their goals, reducing commitment, misremembering or reinterpreting the feedback to be more positive, and engaging in self-esteem repair, none of which are likely to motivate efforts to do a better job next time [ 8 – 16 ].

We are not recommending that feedback providers avoid negative feedback in favor of positive. Glossing over discrepancies between actual performance and desired standards of performance is not a satisfactory solution: Both goal-setting theory and ample evidence support the idea that people need summary feedback comparing progress to goals in order to adjust their efforts and strategies to reach those standards or goals [ 17 , 18 ]. The solution we propose is feedback that focuses less on diagnosing past performance and more on designing future performance.

Diagnosing the past

Managers talk to employees about both the nature and the determinants of their performance, often with the goal of improving that performance. Indeed, feedback theorists have long argued that managers must diagnose the causes of past performance problems in order to generate insight into what skills people need to improve and how they should change [ 19 ]. Understanding root causes is believed to help everyone decide future action.

Yet causality is ambiguous in performance situations. Both feedback providers and feedback recipients make causal attributions for performance that are biased, albeit in different ways. Whereas the correspondence bias leads the feedback provider to over-attribute success and failure alike to qualities of the employee [ 20 – 22 ], this bias is modified by a self-serving bias for the feedback recipient. Specifically, feedback recipients are more inclined to attribute successes to their positive dispositional qualities, and failures to external forces such as bad luck and situational constraints [ 23 – 26 ]. These self-enhancing and self-protective attributions benefit both affect and feelings of self-worth [ 27 , 28 ].

Organizational scholars have theorized since the 1970’s that such attribution differences between leaders and subordinates are a likely source of conflict and miscommunication in performance reviews [ 12 , 29 – 31 ]. Despite this solid basis in social psychological theory, little evidence exists regarding the prevalence and significance of attribution misalignment in the context of everyday workplace feedback. In the workplace, where people tend to trust their colleagues, have generally positive supervisor-supervisee relations they wish to maintain, and where feedback often takes place within a longer history of interaction, there may be more agreement about the causes of past events than seen in experimental settings. In Study 1, we explored whether attribution disagreement is indeed prevalent in the workplace by surveying hundreds of managers working in hundreds of different settings in which they gave or received positive or negative feedback. (In this paper, “disagreement” refers to a difference of opinion and is not meant to imply an argument between parties.) If workplace results mirror experimental findings and the organizational theorizing reviewed above, then our survey should reveal that when managers receive negative feedback, they make more externally focused attributions and they view that feedback as lacking credibility.

Can feedback discussions lead the two parties to a consensual understanding of the recipient’s past performance, so that its quality can be sustained or improved? One would be hard pressed these days to find a feedback theorist who did not advocate two-way communication in delivering feedback. Shouldn’t the two parties expect to converge on the “truth” of the matter through a sharing of perspectives? Gioia and Sims asked managers to make attributions for subordinates’ performance both before and after giving feedback [ 32 ]. Following the feedback conversation, managers gave more credit for success and less blame for failure. However, Gioia and Simms did not assess whether the recipients of feedback were influenced to think differently about their performance and that, after all, is the point of giving feedback.

Should one expect the recipients of workplace feedback to meet the providers halfway, taking less credit for success and/or more responsibility for failure following the feedback discussion? There are reasons to suspect not. The self-serving tendency in attributions is magnified under conditions of self-threat, that is, when information is conveyed that questions, contradicts, or challenges a person’s favorable view of the self [ 33 ]. People mentally argue against threatening feedback, rejecting what they find refutable [ 11 , 34 ]. In Studies 2 and 3, we explored the effects of live feedback discussions on attributions, feedback acceptance, and motivation to improve. We anticipated that feedback recipients would find their self-serving tendencies magnified by hearing feedback that challenged their favorable self-views. We hypothesized that the very act of discussing performance would create or exacerbate differences of opinion about what caused past performance, rather than reduce them. We expected this divergence in attributions to result in recipients rejecting the feedback and questioning the legitimacy of the source, conditions that render feedback ineffective for motivating improvement [ 7 , 14 , 35 ].

Focusing on the future

Given the psychological obstacles to people’s acceptance of negative feedback, how can managers lead their subordinates to want to change their behavior and improve their performance? This question lies at the heart of the challenge posed by feedback discussions intended both to inform people and motivate them, sometimes referred to as “developmental” feedback. Despite its intended focus on learning and improvement [ 36 , 37 ], developmental feedback may nonetheless explicitly include a diagnostic focus on the past [ 38 ], such as “why the subjects thought that they had done so poorly, what aspects of the task they had difficulty with, and what they thought their strong points were” (p. 32). In contrast, we propose that the solution lies in focusing on the future: We suggest that ideas generated by a focus on future possibilities are more effective at motivating change than are ideas generated by diagnosing why things went well or poorly in the past. This hypothesis is based on recent theory and findings regarding prospective thinking and planning.

Much prospection (mentally simulating the future) is pragmatic in that it involves thinking about practical actions one can take and behavioral changes one can make to bring about desirable future outcomes [ 39 ]. In the context of mixed or negative performance feedback, such desirable outcomes might include improved performance, better results, and greater rewards. Research comparing forward to backward thinking suggests that people find it easier to come up with practical solutions to problems in the future than to imagine practical ways problems could have been avoided in the past: People are biased toward seeing past events as inevitable, finding it difficult to imagine how things might have turned out differently [ 40 – 42 ]. When thinking about their past failures, people tend to focus on how things beyond their control could have been better (e.g., they might have had fewer competing responsibilities and more resources). In contrast, when thinking about how their performance could be more successful in the future, people focus on features under their control, generating more goal-directed thoughts [ 43 ]. Thinking through the steps needed to achieve desired goals makes change in the future feel more feasible [ 44 ]. And when success seems feasible, contrasting the past with the future leads people to take more responsibility, initiate actions, engage in effortful striving, and achieve more of their goals, as compared to focusing on past difficulties [ 45 ]. For all these reasons, we hypothesize that more prospective, forward looking feedback conversations will motivate intentions toward positive change.

Overview of studies

We report three studies. The first explored the prevalence and consequences of differing attributional perspectives in the workplace. Managers described actual, recently experienced incidents of work-related feedback and the degree to which they accepted that feedback as legitimate. The second study was designed to examine and question the pervasive view that a two-way feedback discussion leads the parties to a shared explanation of past performance and a shared desire for behavior change. We hypothesized instead that the attributions of feedback providers and recipients diverge as a consequence of reviewing past performance. In that study, businesspeople role-played a performance review meeting based on objective data in a personnel file. The third study is a modified replication of the second, with an added emphasis on the developmental purpose of the feedback. Finally, we used data from Studies 2 and 3 to model the connections among provider-recipient attribution differences, future focus, feedback acceptance, and intentions to change. Our overarching theory posits that in the workplace (and in other domains of life), feedback conversations are most beneficial when they avoid the diagnosis of the past and instead focus directly on implications for future action.

We conducted an international survey of managers who described recent work-based incidents in which they either provided or received feedback, positive or negative. We explored how the judgmental biases documented in attribution research are manifested in everyday feedback conversations and how those biases relate to acceptance of feedback. Given well-established phenomena of attribution (correspondence bias, actor-observer differences, self-serving bias), we expected managers to favor internal attributions for the events that prompted the feedback, except for incidents in which they received negative feedback. We hypothesized that managers who received negative feedback would, furthermore, judge the feedback as less accurate and the feedback providers as less qualified, when compared to managers who received positive feedback or who provided feedback of either valence.

Participants

Respondents to this survey were 419 middle and upper managers enrolled in Executive MBA classes in Chicago, Barcelona, and Singapore. They represented a mix of American, European, and Asian businesspeople. Females comprised 18% of participants. For procedural reasons (see Results), the responses of 37 participants were excluded from analysis, leaving a sample of 382. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Chicago, which waived the requirement for written consent as was its customary policy for studies judged to be of minimal risk, involving only individual, anonymized survey responses.

Managers completed the survey online, using the Cogix ViewsFlash survey platform. When they accessed the survey, they were randomly assigned to one of four conditions. Each participant was instructed to think of one recent work-related incident in which they gave another person positive feedback (provider-positive condition), gave another person negative feedback (provider-negative condition), received positive feedback from another person (recipient-positive condition), or received negative feedback from another person (recipient-negative condition). They were asked to describe briefly the incident and the feedback.

The managers were then asked to complete the statement, “The feedback was __% accurate,” and to rate the qualification of the feedback provider on a scale from 0 = unqualified to 10 = completely qualified. Providers were asked, “How qualified were you to give the feedback?” whereas recipients were asked, “The person who gave you the feedback—how qualified was he or she to give the feedback?”

Lastly, the managers were instructed to make causal attributions for the incident. They were told, “Looking back now at the incident, please assign a percentage to each of the following causes, such that they sum to 100%.” Two of the causes corresponded to Weiner’s internal attribution categories (ability and effort) [ 28 ]. The other two causes corresponded to Weiner’s external attribution categories (task and luck). The wording of the response choices varied with condition. For example, in the provider-positive condition, the response choices were __% due to abilities he or she possessed, __% due to the amount of effort he or she put in, __% due to the nature of what he or she had to do, __% due to good luck, whereas for the recipient-negative condition, the attribution choices were __% due to abilities you lacked, __% due to the amount of effort you put in, __% due to the nature of what you had to do, __% due to bad luck. (Full text is provided in S1 Text .)

A review of the incidents and feedback the participants described revealed that 25 managers had violated instructions by writing about incidents that were not work-related (e.g., interactions with family members) and 12 had written about incidents inconsistent with their assigned condition (e.g., describing feedback received when assigned to a feedback provider condition). The data from these 37 managers were excluded from further analysis, leaving samples of 96, 92, 91, and 103 in the provider-positive, provider-negative, recipient-positive, and recipient-negative conditions, respectively. We tested the data using ANOVAs with role (providing vs. receiving feedback) and valence (positive vs. negative feedback) as between-subjects variables.

There were three dependent variables: managers’ ratings of feedback accuracy, of provider qualifications, and of internal vs. external causal attributions (ability + effort vs. task + luck). Analyses of the attribution variable used the arcsine transformation commonly recommended for proportions [ 46 ]. For all three dependent measures, there were significant main effects of role and valence and a significant interaction between them (see Table 1 and Fig 1 ).

Results for each dependent variable are shown by role (provider vs. recipient of feedback) and valence (positive vs. negative feedback). Error bars show standard errors.

All F (1, 378), all p < .001; effect size measures are partial η 2 . Correlations among dependent measures are shown in S1 Table .

Providers of feedback reported that the incidents in question were largely caused by the abilities and efforts of the feedback recipients. They reported that their feedback was accurate and that they were well qualified to give it. These findings held for both positive and negative feedback. Recipients of feedback made similar judgments when the feedback was positive: They took personal credit for incidents that turned out well and accepted the positive feedback as true. However, when the feedback was negative, recipients judged the failures as due principally to causes beyond their control, such as task demands and bad luck. They did not accept the negative feedback received, judging it as less accurate ( t (192) = 7.50, p < .001) and judging the feedback provider less qualified to give it t (192) = 5.25, p < .001). One manager who defended the reasonableness of these findings during a group debrief put it this way: “We are the best there is. If we get negative feedback for something bad that happened, it probably wasn’t our fault!”

Study 1 confirms that attributional disagreement is prevalent in the workplace and associated with the rejection of negative feedback. Across a large sample of real, recent, work-related incidents, providers and recipients of feedback formed very different impressions of both the feedback and the incidents that prompted it. Despite the general tendency of people to attribute the causes of performance to internal factors such as ability and effort, managers who received negative feedback placed most of the blame outside themselves. Our survey further confirmed that, across a wide variety of workplace settings, managers who received negative feedback viewed it as lacking credibility, rating the feedback as less accurate and the source as less qualified to provide feedback.

These results are consistent with attribution theory and the fact that feedback providers and recipients have access to different information: Whereas providers have an external perspective on the recipients’ observable behavior, feedback recipients have unique access to their own thoughts, feelings, and intentions, all of which drove their performance and behavior [ 24 , 47 ]. For the most part, feedback recipients intend to perform well. When their efforts pay off, they perceive they had personal control over the positive outcome; when their efforts fail, they naturally look for causes outside themselves [ 48 , 49 ]. For their part, feedback providers are prone to paying insufficient attention to situational constraints, even when motivated to give honest, accurate, unbiased, and objective feedback [ 20 ].

In this survey study, every incident was unique: Providers and recipients were not reporting on the same incidents. Thus, the survey method permits an additional mechanism of self-protection, namely, biased selection of congenial information [ 50 ]. When faced with a request to recall a recent incident that resulted in receipt of negative feedback, the managers may have tended to retrieve incidents for which they were not to blame and that did not reflect poorly on their abilities. Such biased recall often occurs outside of conscious awareness [ 51 , 52 ]. For the recipients of feedback, internal attributions for the target incident have direct implications for self-esteem. Thus, they may have tended to recall incidents aligned with their wish to maintain a positive self-view, namely, successes due to ability and effort, and failures due to task demands and bad luck. It is possible, of course, that providers engaged in selective recall as well: They may have enhanced their sense of competence and fairness by retrieving incidents in which they were highly qualified and provided accurate feedback. Biased selection of incidents is not possible in the next two studies which provided all participants with identical workplace-performance information.

In Study 2 we investigated how and how much the feedback conversation itself alters the two parties’ judgments of the performance under discussion. This study tests our hypotheses that feedback discussions do not lead to greater agreement about attributions and may well lead to increased disagreement, that attributional misalignment is associated with rejection of feedback, and that future focus is associated with greater feedback effectiveness, as measured by acceptance of feedback and intention to change. The study used a dyadic role-play simulation of a performance review meeting in which a supervisor (newly hired Regional Manager Chris Sinopoli) gives performance feedback to a subordinate (District Manager Taylor Devani, being considered for promotion). The simulation was adapted from a performance feedback exercise that is widely used in management training. Instructors and researchers who use similar role-play exercises report that participants find them realistic and engaging, and respond as they would to the real thing [ 32 , 53 ].

The decision to use a role-play method involves trade-offs, especially when compared to studying in vivo workplace performance reviews. We chose this method in order to gain greater experimental control and a cleaner test of our hypotheses. In our study, all participants were given identical information, in the form of a personnel file, ensuring that both the providers and recipients of feedback based their judgements on the same information. This control would not be possible inside an actual company, where the two parties might easily be influenced by differential access to organizational knowledge and different exposure to the events under discussion. Additionally, participants in our study completed questionnaires that assessed their perceptions of the feedback-recipient’s performance, the discussion of that performance, and the effects of the feedback discussion. Because this study was a simulation, participants were able to respond honestly to these questionnaires. Participants in an actual workplace performance review might need to balance honesty with concerns for appearances or repercussions; for example, feedback recipients might be hesitant to admit having little intention to change in response to feedback. On the other hand, there are a variety of conditions and motivations that exist in the workplace that cannot be easily simulated in a role-play, such as the pre-existing relationship between the feedback provider and recipient, and the potential long-term consequences of any performance review. Further work will be required to determine how findings from this study apply in workplace settings.

This study comprised two groups that received the same scenarios, but differed with regard to the timing and content of the questionnaires. Recall that the primary goal of Study 2 was to explore how the feedback discussion affects participants’ judgments. For this, we analyzed data from the pre-post group. Participants in this group completed questionnaires both before and after the discussion. Their post-discussion questionnaire included questions evaluating the conduct and consequences of the feedback discussion, including ratings of future focus and intention to change. A second group of participants (the post-only group) completed only a questionnaire after the feedback discussion that did not include future-focus or intention-to-change items. This group allowed us to test whether answering the same questions twice (pre and post the feedback discussion) affected the results.

Participants were 380 executives and MBA students enrolled in advanced Human Resources classes in Australia. They represented an international mix of businesspeople: 59% identified their “main cultural identity” as Australian, 20% as a European nationality or ethnicity, 24% Asian, and 12% other; 5% did not indicate any. (Totals sum to more than 100% because participants were able to choose two identities if they wished.) They averaged 35 years of age, ranging from 23 to 66. Females comprised 35% of the sample. Participants worked in pairs. Five pairs were excluded from analysis because one member of the dyad did not complete the required questionnaires, leaving a sample of 117 dyads in the pre-post group and 68 in the post-only group. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Melbourne. Participants’ written consent was obtained.

Each participant received a packet of materials consisting of (a) background on a fictional telecommunications company called the DeltaCom Corporation, (b) a description of both their role and their partner’s role, (c) task instructions for completing the questionnaires and the role-play itself, (d) a copy of the personnel file for the subordinate, and (e) the questionnaire(s). The names of the role-play characters were pre-tested to be gender neutral. (The full text of the materials is provided in S2 – S7 Texts .)

Personnel file . The personnel file documented a mixed record including both exemplary and problematic aspects of the District Manger’s performance. On the positive side was superior, award-winning sales performance and consistently above-average increases in new customers. On the negative side were consistently below-average ratings of customer satisfaction and a falling percentage of customers retained, along with high turnover of direct reports, some of whom complained of the District Manager’s “moody, tyrannical, and obsessive” behavior. Notes from the prior year’s performance discussion indicated that the District Manager did not fully accept the developmental feedback received at that time, instead defending a focus on sales success and the bottom line.

Questionnaires . Participants in the pre-post group completed a pre-discussion questionnaire immediately following their review of the District Manager’s personnel file. They rated the quality of the District Manager’s job performance on sales, customer retention, customer satisfaction, and ability to manage and coach employees, using 7-point scales ranging from 1 = Very Low to 7 = Very High. They then rated the importance of these four aspects of the recipient’s job performance on 7-point scales ranging from 1 = Not Important to 7 = Very Important. Lastly, participants gave their “opinion about the causes of Taylor Devani’s successes by assigning a percentage to each of the following four causes, such that the four causes together sum to 100%.” They did the same for “Taylor Devani’s failures.” Two response categories described internal attributions: “% due to Taylor’s abilities and personality” and “% due to the amount of effort and attention Taylor applied.” The other two described external attributions: “% due to Taylor’s job responsibilities, DeltaCom’s expectations, and the resources provided” and “% due to chance and random luck.” (We chose the expression “random luck” to imply uncontrollable environmental factors in contrast to a trait or feature of a lucky or unlucky person [ 54 ].) Participants chose a percentage from 0 to 100 for each cause, using scales in increments of 5 percentage points. In 4.4% of cases, participants’ four attribution ratings summed to a total, T , that did not equal 100. In those cases, all the ratings were adjusted by multiplying by (100 / T ).

Participants in both the pre-post group and the post-only group completed a post-discussion questionnaire following their feedback discussion. This questionnaire asked the participants to rate the favorability of the feedback given, on an 11-point scale from 0 = “Almost all negative” to 10 = “Almost all positive”; the accuracy of the feedback, on a scale from 0% to 100% in increments of 5%; and how qualified the provider was to give the feedback, on an 11-point scale from 0 = “Unqualified” to 10 = “Completely qualified.” It continued by asking all of the pre-discussion questionnaire items, allowing us to assess any rating changes that occurred in the pre-post group as a consequence of the intervening feedback discussion. Next, for those in the pre-post group, the questionnaire presented a series of 7-point Likert-scale items concerning the conduct and consequences of the feedback. These included items evaluating future focus and intention to change. Additionally, the post-discussion questionnaires of both groups contained exploratory questions about the behaviors of the individual role-players; these were not analyzed. On the final page, participants provided demographic information about themselves.

Participants were randomly assigned to dyads and to roles within each dyad. They were sent to private study rooms to complete the procedure. Instructions indicated (a) 15 minutes to review the personnel file, (b) 5 minutes to complete the pre-discussion questionnaire (pre-post group only), (c) 20 minutes to hold the feedback discussion, and (d) 15 minutes to complete the post-discussion questionnaire. Participants were instructed to stay in role during the entire exercise, including completion of the questionnaires. They were told to complete all steps individually without consulting their partner except, of course, for the feedback discussion. The feedback provider was directed by the task instructions to focus on the recipient’s “weaknesses as a manager–those aspects of performance Taylor must change to achieve future success if promoted.” The reason for this additional instruction was to balance the discussion of successes and failures. Prior pilot testing showed that without this instruction there was a tendency for role-players to avoid discussing shortcomings at all, a finding consistent with research showing that people are reluctant to deliver negative feedback and sometimes distort it to make it more positive [ 35 , 55 – 57 ]. When they finished, the participants handed in all the materials and took part in a group debrief of the performance review simulation.

We used analyses of variance to study differences in how the participants interpreted the past performance of the feedback recipient. The dependent variables were participant judgments of (a) internal vs. external attributions for the feedback recipient’s performance, (b) the quality of various aspects of job performance, and (c) the importance of those aspects. One set of ANOVAs used post-feedback questionnaire data from both the pre-post and post-only groups to check whether completing a pre-discussion questionnaire affected post-discussion results. The independent variables were role (provider or recipient of feedback), outcomes (successes or failures of the feedback recipient), and group (pre-post or post-only). A second set of ANOVAs used data from the pre-discussion and post-discussion questionnaires of the pre-post group to test our hypothesis that feedback discussions tend to drive providers’ and recipients’ interpretations of performance further apart rather than closer together. The independent variables in these analyses were role , outcomes , and timing (before or after feedback conversation). In all the ANOVAs, the dyad was treated as a unit (i.e., as though a single participant) because the responses of the two members of a dyad can hardly be considered independent of one another. Accordingly, role, outcomes, group, and timing were all within-dyad variables.

A third set of analyses provided tests of our hypotheses that provider-recipient disagreement about attributions interferes with feedback effectiveness, and that a focus on future behavior, rather than past behavior, improves feedback effectiveness. We conducted regression analyses using data from the pre-post group, whose questionnaires included the set of Likert-scale items concerning the conduct and consequences of the feedback discussion. The dependent variables for these regressions were two measures of feedback effectiveness derived from recipient responses: the recipients’ acceptance of the feedback as legitimate and the recipients’ expressed intention to change. The predictors represented five characteristics measured from the post-feedback questionnaire: provider-recipient disagreement about attributions, about performance quality, and about performance importance; how favorable the recipient found the feedback to be; and the extent to which the recipient judged the conversation to be future focused.

Role differences in the interpretation of past performance before and after feedback discussion

Given the results of Study 1 and established phenomena in social psychology, we expected feedback recipients to make internal attributions for their successes and external for their failures more than feedback providers do, to hold more favorable views of their job performance quality than providers do, and to see their successes as more important and/or their failures as less important than providers do. Analyses of the post-discussion ratings in the pre-post and post-only groups ( S1 Analyses ) confirm those expectations for attributions and for performance quality, but not for performance importance. There were no differences between the pre-post and post-only groups on any of those measures, with all partial η 2 < .02. Beyond that, we hypothesized that feedback conversations do not reduce provider-recipient differences in interpretation, and may well make them larger. Accordingly, we report here the analyses that include the timing variable, using data from the pre-post group ( Table 2 ).

F (1, 116) for internal attributions, F (1, 114) for performance quality and importance. Underlined values are effects with p < .05 and partial η 2 > .05.

Internal vs . external attributions . Participants in both roles provided attribution ratings before and after the discussion, separately “about the causes of Taylor Devani’s successes” and “about the causes of Taylor Devani’s failures.” There were three significant effects, all of which were interactions. Those were Role x Outcomes, Outcomes x Timing, and Role x Outcomes x Timing. As shown in Fig 2 , the three-way interaction reflects the following pattern: The parties began with only minor (and not statistically significant) differences in attributional perspective. Following the feedback discussion however, those differences were much greater. There were no significant effects involving timing for feedback providers: Their attributions changed only slightly from pre- to post-discussion. Feedback recipients, in contrast, showed a highly significant Outcomes x Timing interaction, F (1, 116) = 19.6, p < .001, η 2 = .14. Following the feedback conversation, recipients attributed their successes more to internal factors than they did before the conversation and they attributed their failures more to external factors than before ( t (116) = 4.5, p < .001 and t (116) = 3.3, p = .001, respectively). At the end, the two parties’ attributions were well apart on both successes and failures ( t (116) = 2.3, p = .024 and t (116) = 3.0, p = .003). In sum, the performance review discussion led to greater disagreement between the feedback providers and recipients due to the recipients of feedback making more self-enhancing and self-protecting performance attributions.

Results are shown by role (provider vs. recipient of feedback), outcomes (successes vs. failures), and timing (before vs. after feedback). Error bars show standard errors.

Performance quality . There were main effects of outcomes and role, but no interactions. As intended, participants rated performance on sales much more highly than they rated the other job aspects (6.72 vs. 3.32 out of 7). Overall, recipients evaluated their performances slightly more positively than the providers did (5.13 vs. 4.91).

Performance importance . There was a main effect of outcome, modified by significant Role x Outcomes and Role x Outcomes x Timing interactions. To understand these effects, we followed up with analyses of role and timing for successes and for failures, separately. Feedback recipients rated their successes as more important than feedback providers did (6.41 and 6.12, respectively; F (1, 115) = 6.20, p = .014, η 2 = .05), with no significant effects of time. In contrast, importance ratings for failures showed a Role x Timing interaction ( F (1, 114) = 7.77, p = .006, η 2 = .06): Providers rated failures as more important before discussion, becoming more lenient following discussion (5.75 vs. 5.42; t (114) = 2.22, p = .028), consistent with the findings of Gioia and Sims [ 32 ]. Recipient ratings showed no significant change as a consequence of discussion.

These analyses suggest that in performance conversations, feedback providers do not lead recipients to see things their way: Recipient interpretations of past performance do not become more like provider interpretations. In fact, following discussion, recipients’ causal attributions are further from those of the providers. Moreover, across dyads, there was no correlation between the recipient’s ratings and the provider’s ratings following discussion: Although a ceiling effect limits the potential for correlations on the quality of sales performance (success), the other measures, especially attributions, show considerable variation in responses across dyads but still no provider-recipient correlations ( S2 and S3 Tables). For performance quality, performance importance, and attributions, for successes and for failures, all | r | < .12 ( p > .22, N = 115 to 117).

Effects of attribution disagreement and future focus on recipients’ acceptance of feedback and intention to change

We hypothesized that provider-recipient disagreement about attributions negatively impacts feedback in two ways, by reducing the extent to which recipients accept the feedback as legitimate, and by reducing the recipient’s intentions to change in response to the feedback. We further hypothesized that a focus on future behavior, rather than past behavior, would engender greater acceptance of feedback and greater intention to change. The present study provides evidence for both of those hypotheses.

We measured feedback acceptance by averaging ratings on feedback accuracy and provider qualifications, both scaled 0 to 100 ( r = .448). We measured intention to change as the average of recipients’ responses to three of the Likert questions in the post-feedback-discussion questionnaire (α = .94):

Based on the feedback, you are now motivated to change your behavior. You see the value of acting on Chris’s suggestions. You will likely change your behavior, based on the feedback received.

We analyzed these two measures of feedback effectiveness using regressions with five variables that might predict the outcome of the discussion: post-feedback disagreement about attributions, performance quality, and performance importance (all scored such that positive numbers indicate that the recipient made judgments more favorable to the recipient than did the provider); how favorable the recipient found the feedback to be (rated from 0 = almost all negative to 10 = almost all positive); and the extent to which the recipient thought the conversation was future focused. This last measure is the average of the recipient’s ratings on the following three Likert questions on the post-feedback questionnaire (α = .75):

You and Chris spent a large part of this session generating new ideas for your next steps. The feedback conversation centered on what will make you most successful going forward. The feedback discussion focused mostly on your future behavior.

We hypothesized that the recipients’ acceptance of feedback and intention to change would be affected by the recipients’ impressions of how future focused the discussion was. That said, we note that the provider’s and the recipient’s ratings of future focus were well correlated across dyads ( r (115) = .423, p < .001), suggesting that recipients’ ratings of future focus reflected characteristics of the discussion that were perceived by both parties.

As shown in Table 3 , recipients’ ratings of future focus proved to be the best predictor of their ratings of both feedback acceptance and intention to change. Recipients’ favorability ratings also significantly predicted their intention to change and, especially, their acceptance of the feedback. Attribution disagreement between providers and recipients predicted lower acceptance of feedback, but not intention to change. Differences of opinion regarding the quality and importance of various aspects of job performance had no significant effects and, as shown by Model 2 in Table 3 , removing them had almost no effect.

Model 1 includes all five predictor variables. Model 2 excludes the two that showed no significant effects in Model 1. Numbers in brackets are adjusted R 2 s.

As in Study 1, we again observe that the providers and recipients of feedback formed very different impressions about past performance. A new and important finding in this study is that feedback conversations did not merely fail to diminish provider-recipient disagreements about what led to strong and weak performance; they actually turned minor disagreements into major ones. Recipients made more self-enhancing and self-protective attributions following the performance discussion, believing more strongly than before that their successes were caused by internal factors (their ability, personality, effort, and attention) and their failures were caused by external factors (job responsibilities, employer expectations, resources provided, and bad luck). There were also modest disagreements regarding the quality and importance of different aspects of the recipient’s job performance, but these did not worsen following discussion. The most important source of disagreement between providers and recipients then, especially following the feedback conversation, was not about what happened, but about why it happened.

What led recipients of performance feedback to accept it as legitimate and helpful? The best predictor of feedback effectiveness was the extent to which the discussion was perceived as future focused. Unsurprisingly, feedback was also easier to accept when it was more favorable. As predicted, recipients were more likely to accept feedback when they and the feedback providers agreed more about what caused the past events. Greater attribution agreement, however, did not increase recipients’ intention to change. These findings suggest that reaching agreement on the causes of past performance is neither likely to happen (because feedback discussions widen causal attribution disagreement) nor is it necessary for fostering change. What does matter is the extent to which the feedback conversation focuses on generating new ideas for future success. We further explore the relations among all these variables following the reporting of Study 3.

Performance feedback serves goals other than improving performance. For example, performance reviews often serve as an opportunity for the feedback provider to justify promotion and compensation decisions. For the recipient, the conversation may provide an opportunity for image management and the chance to influence employment decisions. People may fail to distinguish between evaluation and improvement goals when providing and receiving feedback. In Study 2, the instructions were intended to be explicit in directing participants to the developmental goal of performance improvement, rather than accountability or rewards. Nevertheless, the providers’ wish to justify their evaluations and the recipients’ wish to influence them might have contributed to the differences we observed in attributions and in judgments about the feedback’s legitimacy. To address this concern, we added a page of detailed company guidelines that emphasized the primacy of the performance-improvement goal over the goals of expressing, justifying, or influencing evaluations. There were two versions of these guidelines, which did not differ in their effects.

Participants were 162 executives and MBA students enrolled in advanced Human Resources classes in Australia. An international mix of businesspeople, 74% said they grew up in Australia or New Zealand, 10% in Europe, 22% in Asia, and 7% other. (Totals sum to more than 100% because some participants indicated more than one.) Participants averaged 39 years of age, ranging from 27 to 60. Females comprised 37% of the participants.

Participants read the same scenario and instructions as in Study 2, with an added page of guidelines for giving developmental feedback ( S8 Text ). They then completed the same post-discussion questionnaires used for the pre-post group of Study 2, minus the ratings of performance quality and importance for various aspects of the job, which showed no effects in Study 2. (The full text of the questionnaires is provided in S9 and S10 Texts). Taken together, these modifications kept the procedure to about the same length as in Study 2. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Melbourne. Written consent was obtained.

Role differences in the interpretation of past performance

As in Study 2, we calculated the sum of the percentages of attributions assigned to internal causes (ability and personality + effort and attention), applying an arcsine transformation. As before, we analyzed the internal attributions measure with a mixed-model ANOVA treating each dyad as a unit. There were two within-dyads variables: role (provider or recipient), and outcomes (successes or failures) and one between-dyads variable (guideline version ). There were no effects involving guideline version (all F < 1). The main effects of role ( F (1, 79) = 50.12, p < .001, η 2 = .39) and outcomes ( F (1, 79) = 113.8, p < .001, η 2 = .59) and the interaction between them ( F (1, 79) = 86.34, p < .001, η 2 = .52) are displayed in Fig 3 , along with the parallel post-feedback results from the previous two studies. As in Study 2, the two parties’ post-discussion attributions were well apart on both successes and, especially, failures ( t (80) = 3.3 and 9.4 respectively, both p ≤ .001). Again, the correlations between the provider’s and the recipient’s post-conversation performance attributions across dyads were not significant for either successes ( r (79) = -.04, p > .69) or failures ( r (79) = -.13, p > .23) suggesting that conversation does not lead the dyad to a common understanding of what led to good or poor performance.

Results are shown by role (provider vs. recipient of feedback) and valence/outcomes (positive feedback for successes vs. negative feedback for failures), following feedback conversation. Error bars show standard errors.

We conducted regression analyses of the recipient’s feedback acceptance and intention to change as in Study 2. The regression models included three predictors: future focus, attribution disagreement, and feedback favorability. Results, shown in Table 4 , replicated our Study 2 finding that future focus is the best predictor of both feedback acceptance and intention to change. As before, attribution disagreement predicted lower acceptance, but in this study it also predicted less intention to change. We again found that feedback favorability ratings were associated with greater acceptance, but this time, not with intention to change. Recipients and providers were again significantly correlated in their judgments of how future focused the conversation was ( r (79) = .299, p = .007).

Numbers in brackets are adjusted R 2 s.

Future focus, as perceived by the recipients of feedback, was once again the strongest predictor of their acceptance of the feedback and the strongest predictor of their intention to change. Conversely, attribution disagreement between the provider and recipient of feedback was associated with lower feedback acceptance and weaker intention to change. As in Studies 1 and 2, recipients made more internal attributions for successes than providers did and, especially, more external attributions for failures. The added guidelines in this study emphasizing performance-improvement goals over evaluative ones did not alleviate provider-recipient attribution differences. Indeed, those differences were considerably larger in this study than in the previous one and were more similar to those seen in Study 1 (see Fig 3 ).

Future focus, attributions, favorability, and the effectiveness of feedback

The strongest predictor of feedback effectiveness is the recipient’s perception that the feedback conversation focused on plans for the future rather than analysis of the past. We seek here to elucidate the relationship between future focus and feedback effectiveness by looking at the interrelations among the three predictors of effectiveness we studied: future focus, attribution disagreement, and feedback favorability.

The analyses that follow include data from all participants who were asked for ratings of future focus, namely those in Study 3 and in the pre-post group of Study 2. We included study as a variable in our analyses; no effects involving the study variable were significant. Nonetheless, because the two studies drew from different samples and used slightly different methods, inferential statistics could be impacted by intraclass correlation within each study. Therefore, we also tested for study-specific differences in parameter estimates using hierarchical linear modeling [ 58 , 59 ]. No significant differences between studies emerged, confirming the appropriateness of combining the data. (The HLM results are provided in S2 Analyses .)

The association between future focus and feedback effectiveness could be mediated by the effects of attribution disagreement and/or feedback favorability. Specifically, it could be that perceiving the conversation as more future focused is associated with closer agreement on attributions or with perceiving the feedback as more favorable, and one or both of those latter two effects leads to improved feedback effectiveness. Tests of mediation, following the methods of Kenny and colleagues [ 60 ], suggest otherwise (see Fig 4 ). These analyses partition the total associations of future focus with feedback acceptance and with intention to change into direct effects and indirect effects. Indirect effects via reduced attribution disagreement were 6.2% of the relation of future focus to feedback acceptance and 2.2% to intention to change. Indirect effects via improved perceptions of feedback favorability were 20.8% of the relation of future focus to feedback acceptance and 4.5% to intention to change. Thus, there is little to suggest that closer agreement on attributions or improved perceptions of feedback favorability account for the benefits of future focus on feedback effectiveness.

The two feedback effectiveness measures are feedback acceptance and intention to change. Following Kenny (2018), standardized regression coefficients are shown for the relations between future focus and two hypothesized mediators, attribution disagreement and feedback favorability ( a ), the mediators and the feedback effectiveness measures controlling for future focus ( b ), future focus and the effectiveness measures ( c ), and future focus and the effectiveness measures controlling for the mediator ( c′ ). The total effect ( c ) equals the direct effect ( c′ ) plus the indirect effect ( a · b ). Data are from Studies 2 and 3. a p = .072; * p = .028; ** p < .001.

Interactions

Future focus might have synergistic or moderating effects. In particular, we hypothesized that perceiving the conversation as more future focused may moderate the negative impact of attribution disagreement on feedback effectiveness. Alternatively, future focus may be especially beneficial when agreement about attributions is good, or when attribution differences are neither so big that they cannot be put aside, nor so small that the parties see eye to eye even when they focus on the past. Similarly, future focus may be especially beneficial when feedback is most unfavorable to the recipient, or when it’s most favorable, or when it is neither so negative that the recipients can’t move past it, nor so positive that the recipients accept it even when the conversation focuses on the past.

We conducted regression analyses with feedback acceptance and intention to change as dependent variables and future focus, feedback favorability, attribution disagreement, and their first-order interactions as predictors. Because some plausible interactions are nonlinear, we defined low, intermediate, and high values for each of the three predictor variables, dividing the 198 participants as evenly as possible for each. We then partitioned each predictor into linear and quadratic components with one degree of freedom each. With linear and quadratic components of three predictors plus a binary variable for Study 2 vs. Study 3, there were seven potential linear effects and 18 possible two-way interactions. We used a stepwise procedure to select which interactions to include in our regressions, using an inclusion parameter of p < .15. Results are shown in Table 5 .

Models include all main effects and those first-order interactions that met an entry criterion of p < .15, plus data source (Study 2 vs. Study 3). Statistically significant values are underlined.

Future focus interacted with feedback favorability—marginally for feedback acceptance and significantly for intention to change. As shown in Fig 5 , recipients who gave low or intermediate ratings for future focus accepted the feedback less when it was most negative ( t (128) = 5.21, p < .001) and similarly, reported less inclination to change ( t (128) = 3.23, p = .002). In contrast, the recipients who rated the feedback discussion as most future focused accepted their feedback and indicated high intention to change at all levels of feedback favorability. These patterns suggest that perceiving future focus moderates the deleterious effect of negative feedback on feedback effectiveness.

Results for each measure of feedback effectiveness are shown by three levels of perceived future focus and three levels of perceived feedback favorability. Error bars show standard errors. Data are from Studies 2 and 3.

On the other hand, we find no evidence that future focus moderates the negative effect of attribution disagreement on feedback effectiveness. Future focus did interact marginally with attribution disagreement for intention to change. However, the benefits of perceiving high vs. low future focus may, in fact, be stronger when there is closer agreement about attributions: The increase in intention to change between low and high future focus groups was 2.30 with high disagreement, 2.37 with intermediate disagreement, and 3.24 in dyads with low disagreement, on a scale from 1 to 7.

Regression-tree analyses

Regression-tree analyses can provide additional insights into the non-linear relations among variables [ 61 ], with a better visualization of the best and worst conditions to facilitate feedback acceptance and intention to change. These analyses use the predictors (here, future focus, attribution disagreement, and feedback favorability) to divide participants into subgroups empirically, maximizing the extent to which values on the dependent measure are homogeneous within subgroups and different between them. We generated regression trees for each of our two effectiveness measures, feedback acceptance and intention to change. Fig 6 shows the results, including all subgroups (nodes) with N = 10 or more.

The trees depict the effects of future focus, attribution disagreement, and feedback favorability on our two measures of feedback effectiveness. The width of branches is proportional to the number of participants in that branch. Node 0 is the full sample of 198. Values on the X axis are standardized values for each dependent measure. Data are from Studies 2 and 3.

Both trees show that future focus is the most important variable, dividing into lower and higher branches at Nodes 1 and 2, and further distinguishing highest-future groups at Nodes A8 and B6. These representations also reinforce the conclusion that perceived future focus does not operate mainly via an association with more positive feedback or with better agreement on attributions. However, attribution disagreement does play a role, with more agreement leading to better acceptance of feedback and greater intention to change, as long as future focus is at least moderately high (Nodes A3 vs. A4 and B7 vs. B8). (The lack of effect at Node B6 is likely a ceiling effect.) Unfavorable feedback makes matters worse under adverse conditions: when future focus is low (Nodes B3 vs. B4) or when future focus is moderate but attribution disagreement is large (nodes A5 vs. A6).

General discussion

Our research was motivated by a need to understand why performance feedback conversations do not benefit performance to the extent intended and what might be done to improve that situation. We investigated how providers and recipients of workplace feedback differ in their judgements about the causes of performance and the credibility of feedback, and how feedback discussions impact provider-recipient (dis)agreement and feedback effectiveness. We were particularly interested in how interpretations of past performance, feedback acceptance, and intention to change are affected by the recipient’s perception of temporal focus, that is, the extent to which the feedback discussion focuses on past versus future behavior.

Management theorists typically advocate evaluating performance relative to established goals and standards, diagnosing the causes of substandard performance, and providing feedback so that people can learn from the past [ 19 ]. They also posit that feedback recipients must recognize there is a problem, accept the feedback as accurate, and find the feedback providers fair and credible in order for performance feedback to motivate improvement [ 7 , 14 , 35 ]. Unfortunately, we know that performance feedback often does not motivate improvement [ 4 ]. Our research contributes in several ways to understanding why that is and how feedback conversations might be made more effective.

Decades of attribution theory and research have elucidated the biases thought to produce discrepant explanations for performance between the providers and recipients of feedback. We show that for negative feedback, these discrepancies are prevalent in the workplace. We also show that larger attribution discrepancies are associated with greater rejection of feedback and, in our performance review simulations, with weaker intention to change. These findings support recent research and theory linking performance feedback, work-related decision making, and attribution theory: Instead of changing behavior in response to mixed or negative feedback, people make self-enhancing and self-protecting attributions and judgements they can use to justify not changing [ 8 , 14 , 62 ].

Our research suggests that the common practice of discussing the employees’ past performance, with an emphasis on how and why outcomes occurred and what that implies about the employees’ strengths and weaknesses, can be counterproductive. Although the parties to a feedback discussion may agree reasonably well about which goals and standards were met or unmet, they are unlikely to converge on an understanding of the causes of unmet goals and standards, even with engaged give and take. Instead, the feedback conversation creates or exacerbates disagreement about the causes of performance outcomes, leading feedback recipients to take more credit for their successes and less responsibility for their failures. This suggests that feedback conversations that attempt to diagnose past performance act as another form of self-threat that increases the self-serving bias [ 33 ]. Surely this runs counter to what the feedback provider intended.

At the same time, we find that self-serving attributions need not stand in the way of feedback acceptance and motivation to improve. A key discovery in our research is that the more recipients feel the feedback focuses on next steps and future actions, the more they accept the feedback and the more they intend to act on it. In fact, when feedback is perceived to be highly future focused, feedback recipients respond as well to predominantly negative feedback as to predominantly positive feedback. Future focus does not nullify self-serving attributions and their detrimental effects [see also 63 ], but it does enable productive feedback discussions despite them.

We used two complementary research methods. Study 1 used a more naturalistic and thus more ecologically valid method, collecting retrospective self-reports from hundreds of managers about actual feedback interactions in a wide variety of work situations [see 64 ]. Studies 2 and 3 used a role-play method that allowed us to give all participants identical workplace performance information, a good portion of which was undisputed and quantitative. With that design, response differences between the providers and recipients of feedback are due entirely to role, unconfounded by differences in knowledge and experience.

What role plays cannot establish is the magnitude of effects in organizational settings. Attribution misalignment and resistance to feedback might easily be much stronger in real workplace performance reviews where it would be rare for the parties to arrive with identical, largely unambiguous information. Moreover, managers’ investment in the monetary and career outcomes of performance reviews might lead feedback recipients to feel more threatened than in a role play and thus to disagree even more with unfavorable feedback. On the other hand, the desire to maintain employment and/or to maintain good relationships with supervisors might motivate managers to re-assess their past achievements, to change their private attributions, and to be more accepting of unfavorable feedback. Data from our role-play studies may not speak to the magnitude of resistance to feedback in work settings (although our survey results suggest it’s substantial), but they do show that feedback acceptance is increased when the participants perceive their feedback to be focused on the future.

Implications for future research and theory

There are few research topics more important to the study of organizations than performance management. Feedback conversations are a cornerstone of most individual and team performance management, yet there is still much we do not know about what should be said, how, and why. Based on research into the motivational advantages of prospective thinking, we hypothesized that feedback discussions perceived as future focused are the most effective kind for generating acceptance of feedback and fostering positive behavior change. Our findings support that hypothesis. The present research contributes to the literature on prospection by highlighting the role of interpersonal interactions in facilitating prefactual thinking and any associated advantages for goal pursuit [ 39 , 43 – 45 , 63 , 65 ]. In this section we suggest three lines of future research: (a) field studies and interventions; (b) research into the potential role of self-beliefs; and (c) exploration of the conversational dynamics associated with feedback perceived as past vs. future focused.

Field research and intervention designs

Testing feedback interventions in the workplace and other field settings is an important future step toward corroborating, elaborating, or correcting our findings. It will be necessary to develop effective means to foster a more future-focused style of feedback. Then, randomized controlled trials that contrast future-focused with diagnostic feedback can demonstrate the benefits that may accrue from focusing feedback more on future behavior and less on past behavior. Participant evaluations of the feedback discussions can be supplemented by those of neutral observers. Such evaluations are directly relevant to organizational goals, including employee motivation, positive supervisor-supervisee relations, and effective problem solving. Assessing subsequent behavior change and job performance is both important and complicated for evaluating feedback effectiveness: Seeing intentions through to fruition depends on many factors, including individual differences in self-regulation [ 66 , 67 ] and factors beyond people’s control, such as competing commitments, limited resources, and changing priorities [ 68 – 71 ]. Nevertheless, the ultimate proof of future-focused feedback will lie in performance improvement itself.

Self-beliefs and future focus

If future focus enhances feedback effectiveness, it may do so via self-beliefs. Growth mindset and self-efficacy, for example, are self-beliefs that influence how people think about and act on the future. Discussions that focus on what people can do in the future to improve performance may encourage people to view their own behavior as malleable and to view better results as achievable. If future focus helps people access this growth mindset, it should orient them toward mastering challenges and improving the self for the future: Whereas people exercise defensive self-esteem repair when in a fixed mindset, they prefer self-improvement when accessing a growth mindset [ 72 , 73 ]. Similarly, feedback conversations that focus on ways the feedback recipient can attain goals in the future may enhance people’s confidence in their ability to execute the appropriate strategies and necessary behaviors to succeed. Such self-efficacy expectancies have been shown to influence the goals people select, the effort and resources they devote, their persistence in the face of obstacles, and the motivation to get started [ 74 , 75 ]. Thus, research is needed to assess whether future focus alters people’s self-beliefs (or vice versa; see below) and if these, in turn, impact people’s acceptance of feedback and intention to change.

We found sizeable variation in the extent to which dyads reported focusing on the future. Pre-existing individual differences in self-beliefs may contribute to that variation. Recent research, for example, finds that professors with more growth mindsets have students who perform better and report being more motivated to do their best work [ 76 ]. In the case of a feedback conversation, we suspect that either party can initiate thinking prospectively, but both must participate in it to sustain the benefits.

Conversational dynamics and future focus

Unlike most studies of people’s reactions to mixed or negative feedback, our studies use face-to-face, real-time interaction, that is to say, two people in conversation. Might conversational dynamics associated with future-focused feedback contribute to its being better accepted and more motivating than feedback focused on the past? Do managers who focus more on the future listen to other people’s ideas and perspectives in ways that are perceived as more empathic and nonjudgmental? Do these more prospective discussions elicit greater cooperative problem solving? Research on conversation in the workplace is in its early stages [ 77 ], but some studies support the idea that high quality listening and partner responsiveness might reduce defensiveness, increase self-awareness, or produce greater willingness to consider new perspectives and ideas [ 78 , 79 ].

Practical implications

Our studies provide the first empirical evidence that managers can make feedback more effective by focusing it on the future. Future-focused feedback, as we define it, is characterized by prospective thinking and by collaboration in generating ideas, planning, and problem-solving. We assessed the degree of future focus by asking participants to rate the extent to which the feedback discussion focused on future behavior, the two parties spent time generating new ideas for next steps, and the conversation centered on how to make the recipient successful. This differs greatly from feedback research that distinguishes past vs. future orientation “using minimal rewording of each critique comment” (e.g., you didn’t always demonstrate awareness of… vs. you should aim to demonstrate more awareness of…) [ 80 p. 1866].

Because future-focused feedback is feedback, it also differs from both advice giving and “feedforward” (although it might be advantageous to incorporate these): It differs from Kluger and Nir’s feedforward interview, which queries how the conditions that enabled a person’s positive work experiences might be replicated in the future [ 81 ], and from Goldsmith’s feedforward exercise, which involves requesting and receiving suggestions for the future, without discussion or feedback [ 82 ].

The scenario at the very start of this article asks, “What can Chris say to get through to Taylor?” A future-focused answer might include the following: Chris first clarifies that the purpose of the feedback is to improve Taylor’s future performance, with the goal of furthering Taylor’s career. Chris applauds Taylor’s successes and is forthright and specific about Taylor’s shortcomings, while avoiding discussion of causes and explanations. Chris signals belief that Taylor has the motivation and competence to improve [ 83 ]. Chris then initiates a discussion in which they work together to develop ideas for how Taylor can achieve better outcomes in the future. (For a more detailed illustration of a future-focused conversation, see S11 Text .)

Conclusions

Our research supports the intriguing possibility that the future of feedback could be more effective and less aversive than its past. Performance management need not be tied to unearthing the determinants of past performance and holding people to account for past failures. Rather, performance may be managed most successfully by collaborating with the feedback recipient to generate next steps, to develop opportunities for interesting and worthwhile endeavors, and to enlarge the vision of what the recipient could accomplish. Most organizations and most managers want their workers to perform well. Most workers wish to succeed at their jobs. Everyone benefits when feedback discussions develop new ideas and solutions and when the recipients of feedback are motivated to make changes based on those. A future-focused approach to feedback holds great promise for motivating future performance improvement.

Supporting information

S1 analyses, s2 analyses, acknowledgments.

For helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper, we are grateful to Pino Audia, Angelo Denisi, Nick Epley, Ayelet Fishbach, Brian Gibbs, Reid Hastie, Chris Hsee, Remus Ilies, David Nussbaum, Jay Russo, Paul Schoemaker, William Swann, and Kathleen Vohs.

Funding Statement

This research received funding from the Melbourne Business School while the first three authors were either visiting (JG, JK) or permanent (IOW) faculty there. While working on this research, the first two authors (JG, JK) also worked as owners and employees of management consulting firm Humanly Possible. Humanly Possible provided support in the form of salaries and profit-sharing compensation for authors JG and JK, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the “author contributions” section.

Data Availability

• PLoS One. 2020; 15(6): e0234444.

Decision Letter 0

PONE-D-20-05644

The future of feedback:  Motivating performance improvement

Dear Dr Klayman,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 22 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Paola Iannello

Academic Editor

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1.    Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please modify the title to ensure that it is meeting PLOS’ guidelines ( https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-title ). In particular, the title should be "specific, descriptive, concise, and comprehensible to readers outside the field" and in this case it is not informative and specific about your study's scope and methodology.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Humanly Possible, Inc.

1.     Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests ) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. I enjoyed reading this manuscript, but it appears to be unnecessary long in parts and readability would benefit of a more concise style. I would recommend condensing some parts, for example in the methods section for study 2 was overly long and lacked clarity in parts. The description of the second questionnaire was a little confusing in terms of the consistency in how items were measured and the hypothesis was not clear.

2. In the ethics statement for Study 1 (line 184), please explain the rationale behind the waiver of consent.

3. Procedure (line 187) please give details of the survey platform used.

4. Results -Please include the number of participants in each group.

5. Please comment on what normality checks were performed to assess the distribution of the data.

6. Line 470, correlations are discussed but I can’t see a table to support these.

7. The discussion did not address the results in relation to previous literature and lacked a theoretical explanation of the findings (See for example ‘Korn CW, Rosenblau G, Rodriguez Buritica JM, Heekeren HR (2016) Performance Feedback Processing Is Positively Biased As Predicted by Attribution Theory. PLoS ONE 11(2)’ for a discussion of attributional style and self-serving bias. I recommend some rewrite of the discussion with more reference to theory.

8. Some acknowledgement of the effect of individual differences in self-regulation would be useful to include as this may influence how feedback is received in terms of attributions. See for example, ‘Donovan, JJ, Lorenzet, SJ, Dwight, SA, Schneider, D. The impact of goal progress and individual differences on self‐regulation in training. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2018; 48: 661– 674’.

9. The suggestions for improvement at the end of the study would be better to be condensed to give a brief suggestion of methods.

Reviewer #2: The paper reports an interesting and comprehensive work about a relevant issue in organizational psychology. Both the theoretical frame and the applied methodology are original and thorough, though the use of role-play raises some doubts about the robustness of the results (some concerns are raised by the authors themselves (lines 752-760) ). This is, in my opinion, the main limitation of studies 2 and 3. I would suggest that the authors insert a wider reasoning about the choice of using this method to collect their data and the pros and cons.

In the "General Discussion" paragraph the authors state that "We investigated the sources of agreement and disagreement between feedback provider and recipient" (lines 712-713). I strongly suggest that this sentence is being modified, since it doesn't describe the aim nor the results in Study 1 correctly.

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Federica Biassoni

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at gro.solp@serugif . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Author response to Decision Letter 0

12 May 2020

Please see uploaded document Response to Reviewers. Text copied here.

Response to Reviewers

We wish to thank the reviewers for their very helpful and constructive comments. We especially appreciate the clarity and specificity with which they framed their suggestions. Below we respond to each reviewer recommendation.

Reviewer #1:

1. I enjoyed reading this manuscript, but it appears to be unnecessary long in parts and readability would benefit of a more concise style. I would recommend condensing some parts, for example in the methods section for study 2 was overly long and lacked clarity in parts. The description of the second questionnaire was a little confusing in terms of the consistency in how items were measured and the hypothesis was not clear.

We revised the methods section for Study 2 (former lines 274-279; 285-414, revision lines 276-281; 299-402). The new version is a full page shorter and, in line with the reviewer’s suggestion, we believe this more concise version is now more readable. It includes a revised description of the post-discussion questionnaires (former 346-367; revision 350-361), clarifying the sequence and types of questions provided to each group. It also includes revisions, mainly in the Design section (former 387-414; revision lines 377-402) to clarify how the various measures related to our hypotheses.

Study 1 was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Chicago, which waived the requirement for written consent as was its customary policy for studies judged to be minimal risk, involving only individual, anonymized survey responses. Their decision cited US Code 45 CFR 46.101(b). Citing the code in our manuscript seemed overly legalistic, but we have added the rest of the rationale to the ethics statement (former lines 184-185; revision 184-186).

We now identify the platform as Cogix ViewsFlash (revision line 188).

We have added the requested information for Study 1 (revision lines 214-215). Following up on the suggestion, we also made it easier to locate the corresponding information for Study 2 (revision lines 316-317).

The general consensus is that the analyses we use, i.e. ANOVA and linear regression, are generally quite robust with regard to moderate violations of normality with Ns on the order of ours (e.g., Blanca, Alarcón, Arnau, Bono, & Bendayan, Psichothema, 2017; Schmidt & Finana, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2018; Ali & Sharma, Journal of Econometrics, 1996; Schmider, Ziegler Danay, Beyer, & Bühner, Methodology, 2010). Nevertheless, we used an arcsine transformation on the variables a priori most likely to suffer from systematic deviations, namely the attribution proportions. Most authors recommend checking for major deviations from normality by plotting model-predicted values against residuals and against the normal distribution (using P-P or Q-Q plots). We did that for our analyses (graphs attached), and found no troublesome deviations, with the possible exception of one variable of minor importance to our main results or theory, namely performance quality ratings for successes in Study 2. We note in the paper that that variable may suffer from ceiling effects (former 468-469, revision 456-457). We did not add a discussion of normality to the paper because of the increased length and complexity that would involve and because it’s seldom an issue of concern with data and analyses like ours. However, we could include the graphs we’ve attached here as supplemental material if you tell us you would like us to do so.

Thank you for alerting us to this inadvertent omission. We now include complete correlation tables for all the variables analyzed in each Study in the supplemental materials: S2 Table for Study 1 (revision lines 224-225) and S11 Tables for Studies 2 and 3 separately and combined (revision lines 458-459), with provider-recipient correlations identified by color shading. (S2 was formerly the dataset for Study 1, but now data from all three studies are contained in S17.)

To better address our results in relation to previous attribution literature and theory, we have revised former lines 723-740 in the General Discussion. Now we more clearly discuss our findings in relation to self-serving bias, self-threat, and both historical and more recent formulations of attribution theory, including the helpful reference the reviewer provided (revision lines 708-735). We have also added a brief discussion of how our results relate to previous literature on future thinking (revision lines 760-762). We attempted to minimize redundancy with the Introduction section. The new material includes several new references.

We added mention in the General Discussion of individual differences in self-regulation, citing two references, including the one helpfully provided by Reviewer #1 (revision line 776). Additionally, we reworded former lines 798-799 (revision lines 793-794) to make it clearer that we are acknowledging individual differences there as well.

We condensed former lines 828-846 from 19 lines to 8 lines (revision lines 823-830), referring the interested reader to new Supporting Information S16 Text for the expanded version. We trust this solution meets the recommendation for a brief suggestion of methods, while also satisfying the interests of those seeking more detail.

Reviewer #2:

1. The paper reports an interesting and comprehensive work about a relevant issue in organizational psychology. Both the theoretical frame and the applied methodology are original and thorough, though the use of role-play raises some doubts about the robustness of the results (some concerns are raised by the authors themselves (lines 752-760)). This is, in my opinion, the main limitation of studies 2 and 3. I would suggest that the authors insert a wider reasoning about the choice of using this method to collect their data and the pros and cons.

We now include a wider reasoning about our choice to use a role-play method and the pros and cons. The new version comprises revision lines 282-298. (We also revised the subsequent paragraph for increased clarity, given the insertion of the new paragraph about the role-play method.)

2. In the "General Discussion" paragraph the authors state that "We investigated the sources of agreement and disagreement between feedback provider and recipient" (lines 712-713). I strongly suggest that this sentence is being modified, since it doesn't describe the aim nor the results in Study 1 correctly.

Thank you for your careful reading. We have re-written that sentence to more accurately capture the results of Study 1 as well as the other two studies (revised lines 697-700).

[Figures attached--please see uploaded document Response to Reviewers.]

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

27 May 2020

The future of feedback: Survey and role-play investigations into causal attributions, feedback acceptance, motivation to improve, and the potential benefits of future focus for increasing feedback effectiveness in the workplace

PONE-D-20-05644R1

Dear Dr. Klayman,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ , click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

With kind regards,

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Acceptance letter

The future of feedback:  Motivating performance improvement through future-focused feedback 

Dear Dr. Klayman:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@enosolp .

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Paola Iannello

Advertisement

Performance measurement and management in the British higher education sector

• Published: 21 February 2022
• Volume 56 , pages 4809–4824, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Abdullah Zafar Sheikh 1 ,
• John Chandler 2 ,
• Basharat Hussain 3 , 4 &
• Stephen Timmons 5  

5117 Accesses

2 Citations

Explore all metrics

Theoretical enquiry and empirical studies demonstrate the significance of performance management (PM) in the higher education sector and it is a fulcrum for developing a strategic role for people management within universities. In spite of the perceived weaknesses of people management in the higher education sector, in general, the current period of rapid and substantial contextual change may necessitate greater formalisation of HR practices across the British higher education sector. In addition to the changing role of the HR function and line managers, these developments may result in an increasingly stringent performance regime across the sector, especially in more hard-pressed institutions. Through a literature review and a pilot study, this paper attempts to address two main research questions: (i) what are the current performance management practices in the British Higher Education sector? and (ii) what needs to be done to strategically align these practices within HEIs in the UK? This paper discusses the wider literature related to performance management in general and to academic institutions in particular. We also undertook a small-scale qualitative study to explore the views of HR professionals on the need for, and the current performance measurement systems in their universities in the UK. The preliminary findings confirmed that PM is a key issue in the respondents' institutions, with substantial and recent changes in policy. This underscores the need for a large-scale research agenda to capture the current dynamics of change the sector is undergoing. The paper concludes by stimulating a policy debate and placing a number of research calls, along with suggestions on how these research questions may be investigated.

Similar content being viewed by others

Faculty Performance Evaluation and Appraisal: A Case from Syria

The influence of performance-based management on teaching and research performance of Finnish senior academics

Jussi Kivistö, Elias Pekkola & Anu Lyytinen

Performance Appraisal and Performance-Based Pay in Universities

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

The British higher education sector is currently going through an unprecedented transformation (Hutaibat et al. 2021a , b ). Shrinking public funding, together with the new fees regime introduced by an overwhelming majority of British universities is creating significant financial pressure on the British higher education sector (Hutaibat et al. 2021a , b ). As students pay more, they expect more in terms of academic quality and employability. Due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, international students are also less likely to come to the UK. Brexit has further unsettled UK HEIs—with the actual and prospective loss of European Union level grants and EU student enrolment. Funding for research grants, is now very competitive and is spread more thinly. Furthermore, governments are no longer exclusively interested in the importance of research for academic purposes but now also consider its importance for other sectors of society such as economic or cultural (Gralka, 2019 ). All these challenges together will provide a major stimulus to significant shifts in the pattern of Human Resource (HR) practices observed across the UK’s higher education sector. The emphasis placed on greater HR sophistication in the last decade, generously funded by HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England) and other sources is moving to one based on cost-cutting and a greater reliance on precarious academic labour.

It can be argued that such changes have led universities to act more like business enterprises than traditional educational institutions (Clarke and Knights 2015 ; Lynch 2015 ; Burnes et al., 2014 ), as a step, in effect, towards the sector’s privatisation (Lynch 2015 ). The reorganisation of universities’ academic structures to become more market responsive and to satisfy the growing expectations of stakeholders (Hutaibat et al. 2021a , b ; Clarke and Knights 2015 ; Lynch 2015 ; Bleiklie and Kogan 2007 ) has led, for some, to an increased managerialism (Clarke and Knights 2015 ; Lynch 2015 ; Deem et al. 2007 ) and a persistent weakening of the academic voice (Shattock, 2013 ). Academic departments have been transformed into business units with a focus on business targets, working within rigid budgetary constraints (Clarke and Knights 2015 ; Lynch 2015 ; Waring 2017 ). For instance, a number of British higher education institutions have now adopted the practice of offering teaching-only contracts to poor or non-active researchers. It is noted that increase in managerialism has also resulted in giving more financial and administrative powers to administrators, which has subsequently resulted in academic members of staff feeling more dominated and marginalized (Mkasiwa 2020 ). In this paper we are thus seeking to answer two research questions: i) what are the current performance management practices in the British Higher Education sector? and ii) what needs to be done to strategically align these practices within HEIs in the UK?

2 Methodology

As this paper draws on both the literature and an empirical pilot study for its findings, the literature review is presented first. Details on how the pilot study was carried out are given below (under ‘Pilot Study’). The paper first scoped the relevant literature on the topic. Both theoretical and empirical literature related to performance management in HEIs is presented. Based on this a qualitative pilot study was carried out to establish relevant research questions for future research.

3 Literature review

Market pressures, coupled with the growing importance of university rankings and league tables have, in theory at least, required considerable attention to be given to the performance of academic staff (Lynch 2015 ;Ter Bogt and Scapens, 2012 ). Evidence suggests that the underdevelopment of people management in the HE sector, confronted with a period of rapid and substantial contextual change, will necessitate greater formalisation of HR practices, including changes to the HR function, middle and first-line management and, especially, the more systematic management of the resourcing and performance of academics. In their survey of nearly 50 HEIs (Guest and Clinton 2007 ) performance management was only the sixth most frequently listed ‘greatest HR challenge’ (Guarini et al. 2020 ), but it was much the most frequently cited HR priority for the respondents (who were generally HR directors). Performance management remains the area within HRM practice that requires more attention to be managed effectively (Decramer et al. 2013 ). This was reflected in a widespread failure to deal with poor performance in particular (Decramer et al. 2013 ), as well as illustrative of a relatively primitive set of HR systems (Clarke and Knights 2015 ) in HE, notwithstanding large-scale and continuous investment in change over the last decade. This expenditure had largely concentrated on traditional personnel policies and areas, such as elaborate job evaluation schemes and managing conflict in employee relations. Other developments have been hampered by often “part-time, short-term and amateur managers” that rarely give “a high priority to applying HRM” (ibid: 39), erecting a major barrier to the deployment of effective or mature systems of performance management.

This is the HE instance of the paradigm of public management system called New Public Management (NPM). NPM has roots in the 1890s system of ‘modern Taylorism’, which Frederick Winslow Taylor introduced as a management system known for its performance measurement and incentive-driven performance, and later in the 1980s, NPM evolved due to taking up ideas from the new institutional economics (Hood 1990 ). Hood ( 1990 ) identified the importance of context within the NPM however, some general features remain typical such as a greater emphasis on management and institutional design (Iacovino et al. 2017 ), output controls, differentiation, and subsidiary.

4 Problems in performance management

The systematic and unintended consequences of the adoption of external Performance Management System (PMS) can be categorized into three sections based upon the nature of the problems arising: systematic consequences, human capital-related consequences, and reduced quality. Guarini et al. ( 2020 ) reported a case of adoption of an external PMS, the adoption of National Italian NPM model known as VQR by an Italian university, without any institutional adjustments to the internal PMS at the organizational level. took the form of an Internal Departmental Ranking on the basis of which both academics and their respective departments were to receive career advancement and resource allocation. Such an isomorphic interaction generated two types of unintended consequences for the overall NPM: shifting focus away from teaching and third-mission activities due to an increased emphasis on research performance; and, research becoming irrelevant for domestic stakeholders in order to engage international stakeholders. With the implementation of calculative practices in public universities, many changes related to power dynamics occurred including increased horizontal links among the working groups related to Knowledge Balance Sheets (KBS) at the organizational level (Habersam et al. 2020 ). The government’s enhanced political control over HE and increased adoption of horizontal coordination resulted in transformed organizations where NPM with old public administration elements combined with post-NPM resulting into new compound and hybridized organizations with co-existing combinations of governance and other reform features (Christensen 2012 ). Grossi et al. ( 2020a , b ) considered performance management in KIPOs (knowledge-intensive public organizations offering services by experts for public-value creation) and concluded that Performance Management is much more complex in hybridized organizations due to the conflicting values and institutional logics internal to the nature of these organizations. Therefore, performance management cannot be regarded as neutral. The reactions and attitudes of different internal actors, and different organizational factors like culture, size and ownership, leadership and the maturity of performance management, have a strong bearing on the appropriate utilization of the tool (Dobija et al. 2019a , b ). However, in terms of impact, NPM is a neutral system that may produce outcomes of either nature, positive or negative, depending upon various factors. The organization may receive either positive or negative effects depending upon the juxtaposition of significant challenges due to external or internal events and possibility of some unintended consequences of the system (Rigby et al. 2021 ). The study by Franco-Santos and Doherty ( 2017 ), in a British context, considered two models of performance management: direct based on agency theory and an enabling model based on stewardship theory. The study showed nearly contrary results for both models. In the case of the direct model, complex dynamics emerged in the findings between performance management and employees’ well-being in the academic contexts. The perceived use of directive performance management practices such as performance measures and targets increase vitality and stress in employees.

Studies have indicated NPM causing excessive workload for academics. The assertive nature of HR functions continues to control line managers’ ‘highly variable’ behaviour (Guarini et al. 2020 ; Hutaibat et al. 2021a , b ), with ‘harder measures’ (Clarke and Knights 2015 ). The major issue in implementation of Performance Management systems in academia is its data-driven nature. Kallio and Kallio ( 2014 ), in a Finnish context, concluded that Management by Results (MBR) was not compatible with academia, and, at worst, negatively impacts academics’ intrinsic motivation. The majority of academics related quality to autonomy. Most academics’ goal is content creation that is creative and meaningful rather than incentive-driven (Kallio and Kallio 2014 ). Academia had been following a professional bureaucracy model that provided freedom for academics to manage their own work but MBR is restrictive (Kallio and Kallio 2014 ). Martin-Sardesai and Guthrie ( 2018 ) also found highly de-motivating effects of a more control-oriented performance management approach over human capital (HC). The performance management system found causing fear and anxiety among employees resulting into gaming and strategic initiatives with increased workload focusing more on research quantity than quality, which overall resulted into loss of HC (Martin-Sardesai and Guthrie 2018 ). Such loss of HC may disrupt the social and economic situation and may ultimately result in reduced funding to the university from the government (Martin-Sardesai and Guthrie 2018 ). Moreover, the increased demand pressure on the individuals in the form of competition, expected outcomes, and reduced funding promoted intense working environments, more competitive settings, and increased expectations. Furthermore, the culture of objectivity does not necessarily generate optimal outcomes. For instance, Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) is an important element with regard to the evaluation of academics. Esarey and Valdes ( 2020 ) demonstrated the erroneous nature of SET under ideal (statistical) assumptions, resulting into high error rates. These included unreliable results in pairwise comparison due to large variances in SET responses, and differences in overall evaluation results and any specific variable such as instructional quality. Despite being an imperfect measure for evaluating teachers’ performance, SET continues to be incorporated due to its low-cost and standardization advantages over other alternatives (Hornstein 2017 ; Esarey and Valdes 2020 ).

When it comes to academics’ response to NPM, many researchers reported a common behaviour ‘adjustment’ in academics in response to different Performance Management models. Guarini et al. ( 2020 ) presented three different ways in which academics responded to this adoption: there was no change in their routines; there were efforts to conform and adapt to the system; or they completely ignored the criteria. Academics’ responses towards a meritocratic system for PM included ‘many’ who were ‘disturbed by the system’ and ‘a few’ who wanted to ‘disturb the system’ (Clarke and Knights 2015 ). Habersam et al. ( 2020 ) called it a culture rather than a behaviour, which consisted of ‘new communicative practices’ emerging as a reaction at horizontal level within the organizational level. This new culture (open resistance for persuasion and symbolic use) allowed the continuous use of managerialism despite being heavily criticised for its dysfunctional effects. Symbolic use referred to practicing just for the sake of performing the act without identifying with it. However, Clarke and Knights ( 2015 ) pointed to a status quo in favour of an increased emphasis on research performance and a focus on career advancement (Guarini et al. 2020 ) and hyper-individualism (Clarke and Knights 2015 ). This was mainly because the reinforcement found between performance measurement systems’ logics and some disciplines’ research traditions (especially ‘hard’ sciences) hinted at the interplay of power and an element of politics in action at the departmental level (Guarini et al. 2020 ). But overall, academics perceived and interpreted the performance management as of ‘squeezing in’ something much complex, dynamic, and diverse into a common and rigid grid of metrics (Woelert and Yates 2015 ).

According to Woelert and Yates ( 2015 ), the emphasis on performance measurement within academia (such as consequential, template, metric-based, and centralised) indicates little trust by political authorities in HE in terms of delivery. Dobija et al ( 2019a , b ) identified three stakeholders with differing authorities and power to impact performance management systems in HEI business schools: funding bodies, professional groups, and purchasers. Among the three, the funding bodies and professional groups hold the greater power to influence. As the public sector is mainly funded by government it serves as an information provider for the government. In case of private sector institutions, both stakeholders have strong influence. Moreover, performance management in the private sector is highly effected by the type of accreditation (either little-known accreditation agencies or renowned global accreditation agencies, such as AACSB, EQUIS or SACSCOC etc.) employed by the university. The performance management system is designed to respond to performance expectations of accreditation agencies (Dobija et al 2019a , b ). With reduced differences between public and market interests, ranking has resulted not only into ‘privatisation’ of knowledge through presenting no incentive on playing the role of a public intellectual or caring teacher, but it also limits the learning opportunities rising due to interaction between theoretical and experiential knowledge (Lynch 2015 ), resulting into reduced quality. For the same reason the audit culture in hybridized universities is looked upon in a negative light by various disciplines including accounting, management, and education. Although these calculative practices (such as annual staff reviews, mission statements, and output performance indicators) were adopted with the aim of improving quality in university performance (such as education, research, and knowledge dissemination) however, such quantification resulted into reduced quality, affected collegiality and limited academic freedom (Argento et al. 2020 ). Cadez et al. ( 2017 ) explained the same issue by probing into the matter statistically and found that the research quality and teaching quality were positively correlated while no correlation was found between research productivity and teaching quality. Moreover, research-based evaluations of performance may result in reduced quality of teaching.

Furthermore, implementing policy into effective practice remains a major challenge (Pechmann and Haase 2021 ). These performance measures have become highly politicised in so far as there is a duality in the design of measures such as ‘management tools’ and at the same time they are ‘performance tools of public expression’ (Cave et al. 1995 ). This duality is derived from government policies which also play a dual function. On the one hand these policies advocate quality measurements while at the same time they have complicated the concept of quality and raised questions over performance management questioning what good performance is (Cave et al. 1995 ). Performance Management remains fragmented and undefined (Bloch et al. 2021 ). One major reason may be the lack of genuine attention by policy makers to performance quality, especially in terms of defining it (Pechmann and Haase 2021 ). Goh ( 2012 ) has also argued that the existing issues relating to performance measurement and management implementation is due to lack in focus. The recent use of the word ‘quality’ by policy makers has evolved it into a multi-purpose word that not only supports Higher Education (HE) policy making but also supports political and ideological arguments regarding policy design. It is also found serving as a ‘HE relevance tool’ fulfilling businesses’ demands of producing market competitive (accordingly competitive employees) graduates while keeping HE relevant to businesses. Recent practices focused upon quality can be divided into two categories. The first is ‘promoting knowledge reflection and transfer’ and ‘promoting feedback and observation processes’ (Bloch et al. 2021 ). The second category involved competence development programmes focused mostly on initiatives such as promoting an active role for students in learning (Bloch et al. 2021 ). According to Pechmann and Haase ( 2021 ), this continued existential crisis of ‘quality’ seemed to benefit policy makers as it is such a broadly defined and used term. However, researchers need to define quality for improvement in HE.

5 Solutions for performance management

Keeping the context-specific nature of NPM (Hood 1990 ) in mind, there has been a great deal of attention paid, over the last decade, to emerging contours of performance management of academic staff across varying national contexts. For instance, Dobija et al. ( 2019a , b ), in a Polish context, analysed two ways (rational and symbolic) in which performance management was found in use. Performance management used as a rational tool to translate individuals’ performance into metrics to rate them as weak or strong. The trend was followed to the department and the institution. On the other hand, performance management as a symbolic tool works on the grounds of internal transparency mainly for reputation and image building before external stakeholders at both individual and departmental levels. Camilleri ( 2021 ), in a South European context, presented the Balanced Scored Card (BSC) as a tool for evaluating teaching performance, research performance, career advancement, and financial performance. Guarini et al. ( 2020 ) studied NPM in the Italian context where the Italian National NPM model has been used in the Italian HE system since early 2000s by both management and academics. The National Agency for the Evaluation of Universities & Research Institutes (ANVUR) was established in 2011 based on a research assessment framework (VQR) to evaluate universities’ performance. The Italian university had adopted its government’s (external) NPM model for its (internal) performance evaluation at the organizational level (Guarini et al. 2020 ). Despite being contradictory in nature both logics, business and academic, were found to mutually strengthen each other using the VQR model. In the British context, Franco-Santos and Doherty ( 2017 ), observed two models of performance management. These models include: Direct based on Agency theory, and Enabling based on Stewardship theory. The authors observed the impact of both models in presence of ‘perceptions of employees regarding their experience of work’ as mediator. These perceptions were based on how academics perceived job demands, job control, and management support. Contrary to the directive model, the perceived use of enabling performance management (such as resources, greater consultation, opportunities for development, excellence recognition, and communication) improved well-being directly impacting vitality and indirectly improved the stress levels. Consequently, the performance management systems needs to be compatible with organizational culture considering HC as well to implement appropriate performance tools at the organizational level (Hutaibat et al. 2021a , b ). There has been increasing research on performance management in British HEIs since 2001 which presented various effective approaches to implement a well-adjusted NPM: employee perspective (Decramer et al. 2013 ), student-centred teaching, organizational capacity perspective and Balanced Scored Card’s (BSC) financial perspective (Camilleri 2021 ).

Publicly funded research into British HE developments argues for a fuller role for HRM. There is a need to create and maintain balance in the workload over academics focusing all of the three tasks: quality teaching, research performance, and other activities (Guarini et al. 2020 ; Hutaibat et al. 2021a , b ), with the expansion in the range of academics’ task load invited more attention towards boosting academic productivity through focusing performance management, workload allocation and other such resources and systems (Camilleri 2021 ). More flexible responses to students’ demands for improved access to staff and more formal planning and measurement of academics’ activities are also seen as widespread implications of institutional strategies in a changing sectoral context. This postulated enhanced role for better management of performance in the HE sector also finds an echo in the more general literature. Research showed that performance management at the centre of academics work life (Hutaibat et al. 2021a , b ), with changing cultural and environmental conditions (Guarini et al. 2020 ), dealt with ‘hard measures’ (Clarke and Knights 2015 ). Stein et al. ( 2019 ) highlighted three factors that can play a role in providing meaningfulness to any datafication work experience: a) the design that accountability systems follows along with characteristics of datafication of work, b) the institutional context in which that system operates, c) the responses adopted as appropriate to retain the meaningfulness of any particular datafication work experience. Other than this, some of the main enabling mechanisms included consultation, information sharing, and communication along with model refinement and adjustments (Rigby et al. 2021 ). Furthermore, these hard measures tend to direct employees’ behaviours. A survey by Decramer et al. ( 2013 ) focused upon contributions by individuals to their organizations’ objectives in the form of compliant behaviour, capability, and performance. Increasingly organisations are promoting compliant behaviour and expecting their employees behave in a certain manner. Now, organisations are also concerned about the process through which outputs are generated rather than focusing only the outputs (Clarke and Knights 2015 ). This more nuanced and inclusive approach promises success, especially when it is applied to knowledge workers whose interactions with clients often demand sophisticated behavioural routines to achieve the required levels of service (Clarke and Knights 2015 ). There are obvious normative assumptions about the content and practice of performance management, which have specific resonances for staff in HE.

As per conventional wisdom, an appropriate, fair, systematic, intelligent, effective and motivating performance management system is needed by HEIs. Tjahjadi et al. ( 2019 ) explained a positive association between performance management system and public Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) organizational performance having Intellectual Capital (IC) as the mediator which was found mediating this positive association partially. Therefore, strengthened IC via improved performance management systems has beneficial implications for the organizations. Depending upon structural (includes explicit knowledge about different aspects of organization: promotion, communication etc.; and technological resources) and relational capital (an organization’s relations with its environment i.e. an institution’s relationships with other HEIs, stakeholders, and its reputation), the Intellectual Capital of Higher Education Institutions (ICHEIs) influence the institution’s performance positively (de Matos Pedro et al. 2020 ). Furthermore, Mabaso and Dlamini ( 2018 ) concluded that both performance management and total rewards are positively correlated with organizational commitment. Moreover, Goh ( 2012 ) presented three important factors: learning and evaluation-centred organizational culture, increased managerial discretion, and involvement of stakeholders to have significant influence as necessary for the effective implementation of performance management systems. Considering the involvement of stakeholders, Decramer et al. ( 2013 ) emphasized the role of employees and advocated the incorporation of employees’ perspective while examining performance management. A higher level of employees’ satisfaction within performance management systems was found to be achievable if the performance management system had great internal consistency, tight control, and positively-perceived communication at both ends (Decramer et al. 2013 ).

Therefore, according to Martin-Sardesai et al. ( 2020 ), there is a need to take practical steps for the effective implementation of performance management systems rather than taking universities back to traditional setups. They highlighted the urgent need for strategic responses to configure expectations from academic work again. They also indicated the need for new approaches: distributing academic work among the staff, perceptions regarding academic work and the value attached with it, along with recognition and rewarding of achievements. Moreover, to prevent the loss of academics, universities need to consider working conditions, rewards, and efforts to deal with pressures balancing maintenance of teaching quality with research productivity. Esarey and Valdes ( 2020 ) suggesting a need for more nuanced approaches to replace SET such as peer evaluation as an effective tool to evaluate performance in ‘teaching’. Compensation systems and performance appraisals can be used for motivating academics and directing their activities in accordance with HRM and strategic plans of the institutions (Allui and Sahni 2016 ). The incorporation of the concept of ‘public good’ has been proven successful in handling the increased demand for public accountability from HE and re-positioning HE (Hazelkorn and Gibson 2019 ). Decramer et al. ( 2013 ) argued for ‘effective performance management’ as crucial for developing a high quality and successful HE workforce. In a recent study of British Universities’ HR professionals, Mansour et al. ( 2015 ) found that respondents were keen to reorient their institutions towards a more top-down form of organization, suggesting a move away from a more traditional view of universities as participatory institutions. The concepts of careering, and attachment of reward and failure with scholarly activities, resulted in material as well as symbolic success. These were found to reduce resistance among academics against the ‘meritocratic’ performance measurement system.In a public management context, Iacovino et al. ( 2017 ) indicated the need for implementation of performance management in the public sector to achieve service quality, savings on public spending, efficient administration and effective implementation of public policy.

5.1 A contextual framework for the diversification of HRM in universities

Any such consideration must be influenced by the increased diversification in strategy and mission among HEIs (Hutaibat et al. 2021a , b ), albeit located within general concerns about balancing of teaching and research activity (Clarke and Knights 2015 ; Guarini et al. 2020 ); winning new revenue streams (Guarini et al. 2020 ); stronger international profiles, and, improved and fairer access for students (Hutaibat et al. 2021a , b ). This diversity is tackled by different institutional strategies, related to the academic and business portfolio that expresses the distinctive identity of an HEI. The portfolio comprises the position within different income streams available to the sector: ‘public research’ (HEFCE QR grants etc.), ‘private research’ (contracts from private and public sources), ‘publicly funded teaching’ (mainly HEFCE T grants, primarily defunct from 2012/13), ‘privately funded teaching’ (unregulated fees), ‘academic enterprise’ (IP commercialisation and consultancy) and ‘other services’ (catering, accommodation, lettings and other revenue generation). Institutions’ patterns of revenue from these sources will vary widely, compounded by the different ‘market positioning’ adopted in each of these business areas, such as ‘international’, ‘national’ and ‘local’ sources of demand and funding (Dobija et al. 2019a , b ; Hutaibat et al. 2021a , b ).

This varying dependence on different income streams and various stakeholders to which an institution is exposed is synthesised into five relatively independent categories of institutional strategy: ‘primary research’ (a world-class reputation in primary research), ‘research-led teaching’ (‘international recognition for research-informed education’), ‘professional formation’ (emphasis on research-informed practice), ‘research-based solutions’ (for international and national clients) and ‘specialist/niche provision’ (Dobija et al. 2019a , b ). Each category brings with it specific environmental drivers and related critical success factors, informing in turn the key capabilities required of the organisation. It is within this strategic context that workforce requirements are shaped, encompassing numbers, demographic profile, skill-set, working arrangements and employment structures. These are matched with institutional strategies through recruitment and retention.

This model has important implications for the nature and quality of managerial leadership at different organisational levels, as well as an impact on specific HR strategies and practices. While some developments are seen as common to all institutional strategies, such as a broadening of academic responsibilities and, with it, greater resource and performance management of lecturers, others depend on the specific demands of an overarching business strategy. As such, a relatively powerful model is offered, capturing differentiation in HR practices and their primary drivers. Nevertheless, its top-down linearity and implicit determinism are two potential criticisms, as is its tendency to treat HEIs as principally ‘U-form’ structures, rather than complex, multidivisional organisations whose faculties may pursue distinctive business and HR strategies. This is certainly commensurate with the business unit level of analysis typical of the strategy literature. Moreover, the designation of ‘outdated policies for industrial relations’ and ‘unwieldy decision-making procedures’ (Iacovino et al. 2017 ), together with the obstruction to ‘agility and flexibility’ posed by the single grading and pay framework, national pay bargaining and standard terms of employment (Iacovino et al. 2017 ), all suggest a unitarist perspective that underplay issues of resistance and identity formation among academics.

Substantial barriers remain to the enhanced managerial direction of academics’ performance, especially the emblematic cultural norm of academic autonomy, showing the centrality of agency (Clarke and Knights 2015 ; Guarini et al. 2020 ), and of the negotiation to outcomes (Guarini et al. 2020 ). Evidence of poorly developed line management (Guest and Clinton 2007 ) and its incapacity or indifference to extending managerial control may also counter or moderate attempts by often embattled HR functions to increase the sophistication and efficacy of performance management systems. This is perhaps reflected in performance appraisal not being clearly embedded in other HR practices, with one group of case studies showing no link between promotion and appraisal (Guarini et al. 2020 ).

6 Pilot study

The multidivisional structure of HEIs strongly recommends a faculty level of analysis that captures any key strategic drivers of HRM beyond often more open-ended institutional goals. This domain also enables important details of a performance management system to be captured and analysed. Given the closeness of Business Schools to commercial practice, it is reasonable to suggest that they are likely to be at the forefront of relevant developments and, therefore, a fruitful locus of enquiry. It was, therefore, decided to consider Business Schools as our unit of analysis.

Five higher education institutions were selected for the telephone interviews. These institutions representing the two main tiers of the British higher education sector. This included three universities from pre-1992 institutions (the old cluster, including Russell Group universities) and post-1992 institutions (mostly ex-polytechnics). The identity of the institutions and respondents are not revealed for data protection reasons. Senior HR officials (including directors, in some cases) were interviewed from these five institutions. Key lines of inquiry in this phase were based on a number of preliminary questions such as (a) what is being done, in the universities, to improve (manage) the performance of academics? (b) Has PM policy changed recently in the respondents’ institutions? Are any changes planned? (c) Is PM aligned with School/Faculty/Academic-departmental goals? (d) Are more metrics being used currently to manage performance of academic staff compared with 5 years ago? (e) Is there more focus on outcomes as opposed to inputs now compared with 5 years ago? (f) Is PM subject to negotiation with relevant unions recently or currently?

7 Preliminary findings and discussions of pilot study

A number of interesting themes emerged from this first phase of preliminary telephonic interviews. There appeared unanimity that PM is a key issue in the respondents' institutions, with substantial and recent changes in policy, procedure and practice across all institutions. This was in line with the suggestion, made earlier in the paper, that PM is a priority in the management of academic staff. The general emphasis, however, seemed developmental and 'positive', but there is also clear evidence of the increased incidence of harder or more quantitative measures that focus on output and metrics. In fact, all of the respondents acknowledged that there is now more stress on outcomes rather than inputs. There are mixed views on benefits of using managerial and accounting practices in measuring performance of HEIs or academics. Argento et al. ( 2020 ) noted that it is possible to achieve positive changes at organizational and individual level through such measures. On the other hand it is argued that metric fetishization, instead of improving higher education sector weakens the noble and socially minded visions of what a university should stand for (Spence, 2018).

One respondent even cited the employment of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) for restructuring and redundancies, as has already been seen among some London universities. Some reference was made to PMs use within workload modelling. These findings are at variance with the normative literature on PM, which argues for an increasing emphasis on the desired behaviour of employees. Furthermore, it is suggested that collegial ethos of judgement is more appropriate for measuring performance in HEIs rather than a managerialist ethos of quantifications and measurement (Spence 2018). The measures used vary between the 'old' and 'new' university respondents. For the former, the emphasis is, as perhaps expected, on the Research Excellence Framework (REF) and research citations, although two out of the three respondents from the old cluster mentioned the importance they attach to the National Student Survey (NSS) for student feedback. The REF is the system for assessing the quality of research in UK higher education institutions while the NSS is primarily used to assess students’ satisfaction about the quality of teaching. Both of the respondents from the new cluster (ex-polytechnic) mentioned Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), suggesting a more formal and even comprehensive approach, adopting all 'multi-rater' sources of feedback. The data point to interesting 'strategic' dimensions of PM. All, though more particularly the old universities, demonstrate strategic integration in an 'internal' or 'horizontal' sense, with appraisal linked to development, promotion and reward (although the more precise meaning of the latter is not clear). However, the 'vertical' integration of PM with institutional strategic goals is significantly more varied. While there is some claim to 'top-to-bottom' alignment, others assess that there is patchy integration with institutional or even faculty or departmental goals. This is important because PM relies definitionally on a meaningful correspondence between individuals' objectives and wider business objectives.

Three out of the five respondents stated that the University and College Union (UCU) is hostile or militant towards their policies on performance management. The UCU is the largest trade union for academics, researchers and academic-related staff working in higher education throughout the UK. This clearly requires fuller investigation, offering resistance, 'negotiated order' and 'social exchange' theory as potentially fruitful lines of enquiry. The respondents' limited control over line management further argues for the difficulty of translating PM policy into embedded practice. The final major finding is the blanket exclusion of hourly paid staff from PM systems, reinforcing the depiction of this group of employees as a sub-stratum of academics with little formal connection to developmental and reward opportunities. These preliminary findings underscore the need for a large-scale research agenda, across the British higher education sector, to capture the changing contours of performance management regimes and its implications, particularly in response to the unprecedented upheavals the sector is undergoing.

The findings from the preliminary round of investigation set the stage for a profound policy debate and leads to the generation of the following research calls:

8 Research questions

What are the features of the performance management systems in place? For example, what criteria are used to evaluate individual or team performance, including the relative stress on outcomes versus inputs, such as demonstrating required behaviours. Sources of evaluative data from different raters, such as line managers, peers and students, will also be addressed, along with the frequency and length of performance appraisals

What are the outcomes of performance management? The emphasis of normative accounts on the developmental thrust of appraisals may be counter-posed in increasingly difficult economic circumstances by a growing incidence of performance review and evaluation, reflected in ‘harder’ or more quantifiable objectives. Morris et al. (op. cit.) found that the most popular use of performance data was in the management of poor performers, and its incidence may be increasing.

To what extent are the strategic goals of the institution and faculty inscribed in the objectives set for staff? Outcomes may produce evidence of a ‘line of sight’ from individual performance appraisals to organisational objectives, and demonstrate the recognition of the ‘strategic capabilities’ (HEFCE, February 2010) required to achieve them. Alternatively, appraisals may be highly individualised and dislocated from supervening concerns.

Is there evidence of the integration of performance appraisals with other HR practices? One would anticipate a close relationship with staff development, but a more sophisticated performance management system would also include integration with decisions about promotion and rewards in the fullest sense, thereby including work allocation

Are there major variations in the experience of performance management for different segments of the academic workforce? In particular, do part-time or temporary employees receive the same treatment, and what differences are there between age and experience cohorts?

Finally, how can the formation of performance management systems in HEIs be assessed to capture the current dynamics and direction of change? This will necessitate retrospective analysis of key processual elements, embracing managerial aims and intentions, sources of their moderation and resistance and influential contingencies in the experience of respondents. A range of theoretical perspectives are implied here, which include strategy formation in HRM (Boxall and Purcell, op. cit; Jackson and Schuler, 2000), ‘performance norms’ (Fenwick and Cordey-Hayes 2000) and labour process approaches (Knights 1990 ) with their foregrounding of employee resistance.

What role funding and accreditation agencies can play in the development of performance management in HEIs in the UK?

These above research questions are similar to recent recommendations highlighted by empirical studies. For example, Grossi et al ( 2020a , b ) in their study highlighted that the future research should tackle the strategic responses universities employ in improving their organizational and individual performances in a context of varying competing pressures from the arena of higher education. They also suggested that further studies could also advance our understanding of other factors having bearing on these internal changes for academic members of staff. Moreover, future studies could include the role of key actors (academics, managers etc.) who enable changes (i.e., the institutional entrepreneurs) by considering their interests, role and pursuit for legitimacy. Likewise, Williamson et al ( 2020 ) argued that quantifications of teaching in higher education remains a key focus for future studies,

Dougherty and Natow ( 2020 ) focussed on neo-liberal theory driven outcomes in HEIs. The authors particularly raised questions on efficiency; for whom and for what in HEIs context? They also suggested examining if the gains in organizational efficiency and social functionality are reaped at the cost of harming those disadvantaged by systems of class, race, gender, and other inequalities in HEIs.

9 Conclusion

Rapid contextual changes and upheavals are likely to generate quite distinctive business contexts for higher education institutions in the United Kingdom (Hutaibat et al 2021a , b ). These pressures are further compounded by the growing importance of university rankings and league tables and are likely to result in more stringent performance regimes across the sector, especially among hard-pressed institutions, thus shifting employment relations (Lynch et al 2015 ). The context in which each UK HEI operates will influence its choice of performance management mechanisms. Hence, a variegated approach might emerge necessitating a more systematic management of performance of academics leading to changes in performance regimes (Iacovino et al. 2017 ). This is of particular interest if these changes are likely to create resistance from the academic staff. This paper has attempted to invoke a policy debate and suggested a future research agenda for exploring the performance management system in place, and how the formation of performance management can be assessed, to capture the current dynamics of change in the British Higher Education sector.

Allui, A., Sahni, J.: Strategic human resource management in higher education institutions: empirical evidence from Saudi. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 235 (October), 361–371 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.11.044

Article   Google Scholar  

Argento, D., Dobija, D., Grossi, G.: The disillusion of calculative practices in academia. Qual. Res. Account. Manag. 17 (1), 1–17 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-12-2019-0130

Bleiklie, I. and Kogan, M.: Organization and governance of universities. High. Educ. Policy 20 (4), 477–493 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300167

Bloch, C., et al.: Does quality work work? A systematic review of academic literature on quality initiatives in higher education. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 46 (5), 701–718 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1813250

Burnes, B., Wend, P. and By, R.T.: The changing face of English universities: reinventing collegiality for the twenty-first century. Stud. High. Educ 39 (6), 905–926 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.754858

Cadez, S., Dimovski, V., Zaman Groff, M.: Research, teaching and performance evaluation in academia: the salience of quality. Stud. High. Educ. 42 (8), 1455–1473 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1104659

Camilleri, M.A.: Using the balanced scorecard as a performance management tool in higher education. Manag. Educ. 35 (1), 10–21 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020620921412

Cave, M., Hanney, S., Henkel, M.: Performance measurement in higher education-revisited. Public Money Manag. 15 (4), 17–23 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1080/09540969509387890

Christensen, T.: Post-NPM and Changing Public Governance. Meiji J. Polit. Sci. Econom. 1 , 1–11 (2012)

Google Scholar  

Clarke, C.A., Knights, D.: Careering through academia: Securing identities or engaging ethical subjectivities? Human Relat. 68 (12), 1865–1888 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715570978

de Matos Pedro, E., Alves, H., Leitão, J.: In search of intangible connections: intellectual capital, performance and quality of life in higher education institutions. High. Educ. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00653-9

Decramer, A., Smolders, C., Vanderstraeten, A.: Employee performance management culture and system features in higher education: relationship with employee performance management satisfaction. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 24 (2), 352–371 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.680602

Deem, R., Hillyard, S., Reed, M. and Reed, M.: Knowledge, higher education, and the new managerialism: The changing management of UK universities. Oxford University Press (2007)

Dobija, D., et al.: Rational and symbolic uses of performance measurement: experiences from Polish universities. Account. Auditing Account. J. 32 (3), 750–781 (2019a). https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-08-2017-3106

Dobija, D., Górska, A.M., Pikos, A.: The impact of accreditation agencies and other powerful stakeholders on the performance measurement in Polish universities. Balt. J. Manag. 14 (1), 84–102 (2019b). https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-01-2018-0018

Dougherty, K.J., Natow, R.S.: Performance-based funding for higher education: how well does neoliberal theory capture neoliberal practice? High. Educ. 80 (3), 457–478 (2020)

Esarey, J., Valdes, N.: Unbiased, reliable, and valid student evaluations can still be unfair. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 45 (8), 1106–1120 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1724875

Franco-Santos, M., Doherty, N.: Performance management and well-being: a close look at the changing nature of the UK higher education workplace. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 28 (16), 2319–2350 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1334148

Gralka, S., Wohlrabe, K. and Bornmann, L.: How to measure research efficiency in higher education? Research grants vs. publication output. J. High. Educ. Policy. Manag 41 (3), 322–341 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1588492

Goh, S.C.: Making performance measurement systems more effective in public sector organizations. Meas. Bus. Excell. 16 (1), 31–42 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1108/13683041211204653

Grossi, G., et al.: Accounting, performance management systems and accountability changes in knowledge-intensive public organizations: a literature review and research agenda. Account. Auditing Account. J. 33 (1), 256–280 (2020a). https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-02-2019-3869

Guest, D.E. and Clinton, M.: Human resource management and university performance. Lead. Found. High. Educ (2007)

Grossi, G., Dobija, D., Strzelczyk, W.: The impact of competing institutional pressures and logics on the use of performance measurement in hybrid universities. Public Perform. Manag. Rev. 43 (4), 818–844 (2020b)

Guarini, E., Magli, F., Francesconi, A.: Academic logics in changing performance measurement systems: an exploration in a university setting. Qual. Res. Account. Manag. 17 (1), 109–142 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-06-2019-0076

Habersam, M., Piber, M., Skoog, M.: Calculative regimes in the making: implementation and consequences in the context of Austrian public universities. Qual. Res. Account. Manag. 18 (2), 169–194 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-01-2019-0021

Hazelkorn, E., Gibson, A.: Public goods and public policy: what is public good, and who and what decides? High. Educ. 78 (2), 257–271 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0341-3

Hood, C.: De-sir humphreyfying the westminster model of bureaucracy: a new style of governance? Governance 3 (2), 205–214 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.1990.tb00116.x

Hornstein, H.A.: Student evaluations of teaching are an inadequate assessment tool for evaluating faculty performance. Cogent Edu. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1304016

Hutaibat, K., Alhatabat, Z., von Alberti-Alhtaybat, L., Al-Htaybat, K.: Performance habitus: performance management and measurement in UK higher education. Meas. Bus. Excell. 25 (2), 171–188 (2021a). https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-08-2019-0084

Hutaibat, K., et al.: Performance habitus: performance management and measurement in UK higher education. Meas. Bus. Excell. 25 (2), 171–188 (2021b). https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-08-2019-0084

Iacovino, N.M., Barsanti, S., Cinquini, L.: Public organizations between old public administration, new public management and public governance: the case of the Tuscany Region. Public Organization Review 17 (1), 61–82 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-015-0327-x

Kallio, K.M., Kallio, T.J.: Management-by-results and performance measurement in universities - implications for work motivation. Stud. High. Educ. 39 (4), 574–589 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.709497

Knights, D.: Subjectivity, power and the labour process. In: Knights, D., Willmott, H. (eds.) Labour process theory, pp. 297–335. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-20466-3_10

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lynch, K.: Control by numbers: new managerialism and ranking in higher education. Critical Studies in Education 56 (2), 190–207 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2014.949811

Lynch, J., Walker-Gibbs, B., Herbert, S.: Moving beyond a ‘bums-on-seats’ analysis of progress towards widening participation: reflections on the context, design and evaluation of an Australian government-funded mentoring programme. J. High. Educ. Policy Manag. 37 (2), 144–158 (2015)

Mabaso, C.M., Dlamini, B.I.: Total rewards and its effects on organisational commitment in higher education institutions. SA J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 16 , 1–8 (2018). https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v16i0.913

Martin-Sardesai, A., Guthrie, J.: Human capital loss in an academic performance measurement system. J. Intellect. Cap. 19 (1), 53–70 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-06-2017-0085

Martin-Sardesai, A., Guthrie, J., Tucker, B.P.: What you see depends on where you look: performance measurement of Australian accounting academics. Account. Auditing Account. J. 33 (6), 1193–1218 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-08-2019-4133

Mansour, H.F., Heath, G. and Brannan, M.J.: Exploring the role of HR practitioners in pursuit of organizational effectiveness in higher education institutions. J. Change Manag 15 (3), 210–230 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2015.1045539

Mkasiwa, T.A.: Budgetary practices in a Tanzanian University: Bourdieu's theory. J. Pub. Budg. Account. Financ. Manag (2020). https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-08-2019-0119

Pechmann, P., Haase, S.: How policy makers employ the term quality in higher education policymaking. Scand. J. Educ. Res. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1869081

Rigby, J., et al.: Implementing responsibility centre management in a higher educational institution. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-05-2020-0218

Stein, M.K., et al.: Datification and the pursuit of meaningfulness in work. J. Manage. Stud. 56 (3), 685–717 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12409

Shattock, M.: University governance, leadership and management in a decade of diversification and uncertainty. High. Educ. Q 67 (3), 217–233 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12017

Ter Bogt, H.J. and Scapens, R.W.: Performance management in universities: Effects of the transition to more quantitative measurement systems. Eur. Account. Rev 21 (3), 451–497 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2012.668323

Tjahjadi, B., et al.: Does intellectual capital matter in performance management system-organizational performance relationship? experience of higher education institutions in Indonesia. J. Intellect. Cap. 20 (4), 533–554 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-12-2018-0209

Waring, M.: Management and leadership in UK universities: exploring the possibilities of change. J. High. Educ. Policy. Manag 39 (5), 540–558 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2017.1354754

Williamson, B., Bayne, S., Shay, S.: The datafication of teaching in higher education: critical issues and perspectives. Teach. High. Educ. 25 (4), 351–365 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1748811

Woelert, P., Yates, L.: Too little and too much trust: performance measurement in Australian higher education. Crit. Stud. Educ 56 (2), 175–189 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2014.943776

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Business Administration (IBA), Karachi, Pakistan

Abdullah Zafar Sheikh

Royal Docks School of Business & Law, University of East London, London, UK

John Chandler

University of Management and Technology (UMT), Lahore, Pakistan

Basharat Hussain

Visiting Fellow, Nottingham University Business School, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

Nottingham University Business School, University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK

Stephen Timmons

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Basharat Hussain .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sheikh, A.Z., Chandler, J., Hussain, B. et al. Performance measurement and management in the British higher education sector. Qual Quant 56 , 4809–4824 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-022-01339-3

Download citation

Accepted : 27 January 2022

Published : 21 February 2022

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-022-01339-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Performance management
• Human resource strategies
• Higher education sector
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

Performance →

• 02 Apr 2024
• Research & Ideas

Employees Out Sick? Inside One Company's Creative Approach to Staying Productive

Regular absenteeism can hobble output and even bring down a business. But fostering a collaborative culture that brings managers together can help companies weather surges of sick days and no-shows. Research by Jorge Tamayo shows how.

• 02 Jan 2024
• What Do You Think?

Do Boomerang CEOs Get a Bad Rap?

Several companies have brought back formerly successful CEOs in hopes of breathing new life into their organizations—with mixed results. But are we even measuring the boomerang CEOs' performance properly? asks James Heskett. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 22 Nov 2023

Humans vs. Machines: Untangling the Tasks AI Can (and Can't) Handle

Are you a centaur or a cyborg? A study of 750 consultants sheds new light on the strengths and limits of ChatGPT, and what it takes to operationalize generative AI. Research by Edward McFowland III, Karim Lakhani, Fabrizio Dell'Acqua, and colleagues.

• 06 Oct 2023

Yes, You Can Radically Change Your Organization in One Week

Skip the committees and the multi-year roadmap. With the right conditions, leaders can confront even complex organizational problems in one week. Frances Frei and Anne Morriss explain how in their book Move Fast and Fix Things.

• 28 Aug 2023

The Clock Is Ticking: 3 Ways to Manage Your Time Better

Life is short. Are you using your time wisely? Leslie Perlow, Arthur Brooks, and DJ DiDonna offer time management advice to help you work smarter and live happier.

• 08 Aug 2023

The Rise of Employee Analytics: Productivity Dream or Micromanagement Nightmare?

"People analytics"—using employee data to make management decisions—could soon transform the workplace and hiring, but implementation will be critical, says Jeffrey Polzer. After all, do managers really need to know about employees' every keystroke?

• 01 Aug 2023

As Leaders, Why Do We Continue to Reward A, While Hoping for B?

Companies often encourage the bad behavior that executives publicly rebuke—usually in pursuit of short-term performance. What keeps leaders from truly aligning incentives and goals? asks James Heskett. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 14 Jun 2023

Four Steps to Building the Psychological Safety That High-Performing Teams Need

Struggling to spark strategic risk-taking and creative thinking? In the post-pandemic workplace, teams need psychological safety more than ever, and a new analysis by Amy Edmondson highlights the best ways to nurture it.

• 05 Jun 2023

Is the Anxious Achiever a Post-Pandemic Relic?

Achievement has been a salve for self-doubt for many generations. But many of the oldest members of Gen Z, who came of age amid COVID-19, think differently about the value of work. Will they forge a new leadership style? wonders James Heskett. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 27 Feb 2023

How One Late Employee Can Hurt Your Business: Data from 25 Million Timecards

Employees who clock in a few minutes late—or not at all—often dampen sales and productivity, says a study of 100,000 workers by Ananth Raman and Caleb Kwon. What can managers do to address chronic tardiness and absenteeism?

• 01 Feb 2023

Will Hybrid Work Strategies Pull Down Long-Term Performance?

Many academics consider remote and hybrid work the future, but some business leaders are pushing back. Can colleagues working from anywhere still create the special glue that bonds teams together? asks James Heskett. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 23 Aug 2022
• Cold Call Podcast

Management Lessons from the Sinking of the SS El Faro

Captain Michael Davidson of the container ship SS El Faro was determined to make his planned shipping trip on time—but a hurricane was approaching his intended path. To succeed, Davidson and his fellow officers had to plot a course to avoid the storm in the face of conflicting weather reports from multiple sources and differing opinions among the officers about what to do. Over the 36-hour voyage, tensions rose as the ship got closer and closer to the storm. And there were other factors compounding the challenge. The El Faro was an old ship, about to be scrapped. Its owner, TOTE Maritime, was in the process of selecting officers to crew its new ships. Davidson and some of his officers knew the company measured a ship’s on-time arrival and factored that into performance reviews and hiring decisions. When the ship ultimately sunk on October 1, 2015, it was the deadliest American shipping disaster in decades. But who was to blame for the tragedy and what can we learn from it? Professor Joe Fuller discusses the culpability of the captain, as well as his subordinates, and what it reveals about how leaders and their teams communicate under pressure in his case, "Into the Raging Sea: Final Voyage of the SS El Faro."

• 01 Aug 2022

Does Religious Belief Affect Organizational Performance?

Chinese firms exposed to Confucianism outperformed peers and contributed more to their communities, says a recent study. James Heskett considers whether the role of religion in management merits further research. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 22 Mar 2022

How Etsy Found Its Purpose and Crafted a Turnaround

Etsy, the online seller of handmade goods, was founded in 2005 as an alternative to companies that sold mass-manufactured products. The company grew substantially, but remained unprofitable under the leadership of two early CEOs. Ten years later, Etsy went public and was forced into a new arena, where it was beholden to stakeholders who demanded financial success and accountability. Unable to contain costs, the company was almost bought out by private equity firms in 2017—until CEO Josh Silverman arrived with a mission to save the company financially and, in the process, save its soul. Harvard Business School professor Ranjay Gulati discusses the purpose-driven turnaround Silverman and his team led at Etsy—to make the company profitable and improve its social and environmental impact—in the case, “Etsy: Crafting a Turnaround to Save the Business and Its Soul.” Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 09 Nov 2021

The Simple Secret of Effective Mentoring Programs

The employees who need guidance most rarely seek it out. New research by Christopher Stanton sheds light on what companies stand to gain from mentorship programs that include everyone. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 22 Oct 2021

Want Hybrid Work to Succeed? Trust, Don’t Track, Employees

Many companies want employees back at desks, but workers want more flexibility than ever. Tsedal Neeley offers three rules for senior managers trying to forge a new hybrid path. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 13 Jul 2021

Strategies for Underdogs: How Alibaba’s Taobao Beat eBay in China

In 2007, Alibaba’s Taobao became China’s leading consumer e-commerce marketplace, displacing the once dominant eBay. How did underdog Taobao do it? And will it be able to find a way to monetize its marketplace and ensure future success? Professor Felix Oberholzer-Gee discusses his case, “Alibaba’s Taobao,” and related strategy lessons from his new book, Better, Simpler Strategy: A Value-Based Guide to Exceptional Performance. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 20 Oct 2020
• Sharpening Your Skills

Steps to Help You Get Out of Your Own Way

These research-based tips will help you slow down, fight the fog, and improve both your home life and work life. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 08 Oct 2020

Keep Your Weary Workers Engaged and Motivated

Humans are motivated by four drives: acquire, bond, comprehend, and defend. Boris Groysberg and Robin Abrahams discuss how managers can use all four to keep employees engaged. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 29 Sep 2020

Employee Performance vs. Company Values: A Manager’s Dilemma

The Cold Call podcast celebrate its five-year anniversary with a classic case study. Harvard Business School Dean Nitin Nohria discusses the dilemma of how to treat a brilliant individual performer who can't work with colleagues. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

Performance Management Research Paper Topics

Performance management research paper topics are an area of academic inquiry that delves into the methods, strategies, and challenges involved in the evaluation, motivation, and enhancement of employee performance within an organizational context. This field is multifaceted and intersects with various disciplines such as human resources, organizational behavior, psychology, and leadership studies. This page aims to provide an exhaustive list of research paper topics in performance management, divided into ten distinct categories. Additionally, it includes a comprehensive article elucidating performance management principles and the breadth of research paper topics it encompasses. Guidance on how to choose and write a research paper in this field is also provided, along with an overview of iResearchNet’s custom writing services, offering expert assistance for those in need of tailored support for their academic endeavors in performance management.

100 Performance Management Research Paper Topics

The field of performance management is a dynamic and expansive area that bridges various domains such as human resources, organizational behavior, leadership, and technology. The study of performance management helps in understanding the strategies, tools, and methodologies used to assess, enhance, and sustain employee performance within an organization. This comprehensive list of performance management research paper topics is organized into ten distinct categories, each focusing on different aspects of performance management. These topics can serve as a starting point for students, researchers, and practitioners to explore new avenues and contribute to this growing field.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

• Designing Effective Performance Appraisal Systems
• Biases in Performance Evaluation
• 360-Degree Feedback Mechanisms
• The Role of Self-Assessment in Performance Evaluation
• Peer Evaluation and Team Performance
• Integrating Technology in Performance Appraisals
• Legal and Ethical Considerations in Appraisals
• Aligning Performance Appraisal with Organizational Goals
• Continuous versus Annual Performance Reviews
• The Relationship between Appraisal and Employee Motivation
• Aligning Performance Management with Organizational Strategy
• Role of Leadership in Performance Management
• Performance Management in Non-Profit Organizations
• Integrating KPIs within Performance Management Strategy
• Role of Organizational Culture in Performance Management
• Global Performance Management Strategies
• Implementing Balanced Scorecard Approach
• Managing Performance in Virtual Teams
• The Impact of Mergers and Acquisitions on Performance Management
• Performance Management in Family-Owned Businesses
• Identifying and Fostering High-Potential Employees
• Career Development and Performance Management
• Performance Management for Remote Workers
• The Role of Mentoring in Employee Development
• Individual Development Plans and Performance
• Employee Empowerment and Performance Management
• Customized Training Programs and Performance Enhancement
• Integrating Soft Skills Development in Performance Management
• Cross-Functional Training and Performance
• Managing Underperformance and Performance Improvement Plans
• AI and Machine Learning in Performance Management
• Utilizing Big Data in Performance Analysis
• Mobile Technologies for Continuous Performance Management
• Integrating HRIS Systems for Performance Tracking
• Privacy and Security Concerns in Performance Management Technology
• Automation and Performance Management
• The Impact of Social Media on Performance Management
• Cloud-Based Performance Management Solutions
• Virtual Reality Training and Performance Enhancement
• Technology Adoption and Change Management in Performance Systems
• Transformational Leadership and Performance
• The Role of Emotional Intelligence in Leadership Performance
• Authentic Leadership and Employee Performance
• Ethical Leadership and Performance Management
• Coaching Leadership and Performance Enhancement
• Gender Differences in Leadership and Performance
• Leadership Styles and Organizational Performance
• Developing Leadership Talent within an Organization
• Cross-Cultural Leadership and Global Performance Management
• Succession Planning and Leadership Performance
• Performance Management in Healthcare
• Educational Institutions and Performance Management
• Performance Management in the Public Sector
• Performance Management in Manufacturing Industries
• Hospitality Industry and Performance Management
• Performance Management in Start-ups
• Retail Sector and Performance Metrics
• Performance Management in the Gig Economy
• Outsourcing and Performance Management
• Performance Metrics in the Entertainment Industry
• Ethical Considerations in Performance Appraisal
• Whistleblowing and Organizational Performance
• Managing Ethical Dilemmas in Performance Management
• Sustainability and Performance Management
• Corporate Social Responsibility and Performance Metrics
• Ethical Leadership and Organizational Performance
• Integrating Ethics into Organizational Performance Culture
• Transparency and Fairness in Performance Evaluation
• Ethical Treatment of Underperforming Employees
• Social Ethics and Performance Management in Multinational Corporations
• Building High-Performance Teams
• Team Dynamics and Performance Metrics
• Conflict Management within Teams
• Cross-Functional Team Performance Management
• Virtual Team Performance Metrics
• Team Diversity and Performance
• Agile Teams and Performance Management
• Measuring Team Creativity and Innovation
• Team Collaboration Tools and Performance
• Rewards and Recognition in Team Performance
• Global Performance Standards and Metrics
• Cross-Cultural Performance Management
• Performance Management in Multinational Corporations
• Managing Expatriate Performance
• Global Talent Management and Performance
• Local vs. Global Performance Appraisal Methods
• Cultural Intelligence and Performance Management
• Managing Performance in Global Virtual Teams
• Performance Management Challenges in Emerging Markets
• Global Leadership and Performance Management
• Emerging Trends and Challenges in Performance Management
• Performance Management in the Post-COVID World
• The Role of Well-being and Mental Health in Performance
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Performance Management
• Integrating Millennials and Gen Z into Performance Culture
• Resilience and Agility in Performance Management
• The Future of Performance Management with AI
• Gamification and Employee Performance
• Gig Economy and Performance Management Challenges
• Remote Work and Performance Management Post-COVID
• Sustainability and Green Performance Metrics

The exploration of performance management research paper topics is an ongoing journey that reflects the evolving nature of organizations and the workforce. These topics offer a rich array of research opportunities that cater to different interests, backgrounds, and expertise levels. The multifaceted nature of performance management ensures its relevance and applicability across various sectors and geographical contexts. It is hoped that this comprehensive list of topics will inspire new insights, stimulate creativity, and contribute to the ongoing discourse in this vital area of management studies. Whether a novice researcher or an established scholar, there is a plethora of avenues to explore within the domain of performance management that can lead to meaningful contributions to both theory and practice.

Performance Management and the Range of Research Paper Topics

Introduction to performance management.

Performance Management is a continuous, dynamic process that aims to enhance organizational efficiency by aligning individual performance with organizational goals and values. It’s not just about assessing employee performance but also about understanding, managing, and optimizing that performance to achieve strategic objectives. It involves setting clear goals, continuously monitoring and evaluating performance, providing feedback, developing employee skills, and fostering a positive work environment.

This article will explore the intricate world of performance management, discussing key principles, concepts, and the extensive range of research paper topics it offers. From the traditional methods of performance appraisal to the contemporary integration of technology and ethics in managing performance, this field is rich with potential for exploration and innovation.

Key Principles and Concepts

• Alignment with Organizational Goals: One of the primary purposes of performance management is to ensure that individual and team goals are in harmony with the overall objectives of the organization.
• Continuous Monitoring and Feedback: Performance management is not a one-time event but a continuous process. Regular feedback helps employees understand their areas of strength and opportunities for improvement.
• Employee Development: Performance management plays a crucial role in identifying the training and development needs of employees. It allows for personalized development plans that help employees grow within the organization.
• Motivation and Engagement: By recognizing and rewarding outstanding performance, and by providing support and guidance where needed, performance management can significantly enhance employee motivation and engagement.
• Fair and Transparent Evaluation: Ethical considerations, including fairness, transparency, and consistency, must be upheld in performance evaluations to ensure trust and credibility in the system.
• Integration of Technology: The use of technology, such as AI and big data analytics, is transforming the ways in which performance is monitored and analyzed, offering more accurate and real-time insights.

Range and Depth of Research Paper Topics

Performance management is a multifaceted field that offers an extensive array of research topics. Here’s a glimpse into some areas:

• Performance Appraisal and Evaluation: This area explores various methods, tools, and approaches used in evaluating employee performance. It may include studies on biases in evaluation, legal aspects, 360-degree feedback, etc.
• Technology and Performance Management: How is technology transforming performance management? Research topics here could include the use of AI in performance analysis, privacy concerns in using technology, and the effectiveness of virtual reality training.
• Leadership and Performance Management: The role of leadership in shaping and driving performance within an organization is paramount. Topics in this area might include transformational leadership, ethical leadership, and the impact of different leadership styles on performance.
• Ethics and Performance Management: Ethics in performance management ensures that evaluations and processes are conducted with integrity and fairness. This might involve research into ethical dilemmas, corporate social responsibility, and transparency in performance evaluation.
• Performance Management in Different Sectors: Performance management practices can differ widely across sectors such as healthcare, education, manufacturing, and public administration. Studies can explore the unique challenges and solutions within these sectors.
• Emerging Trends and Challenges: The field of performance management is continually evolving. Topics in this category might include performance management in the gig economy, integration of mental health considerations, and post-COVID changes in performance management.

Performance management is an integral aspect of modern organizational life. It transcends mere evaluation, encompassing a wide range of practices aimed at maximizing both individual and organizational performance. Its complexity and dynamism offer rich opportunities for scholarly research across a multitude of areas.

The range of research paper topics in performance management reflects the breadth and depth of this field. Whether examining the role of leadership, the impact of technology, ethical considerations, or sector-specific challenges, there is a vast landscape to explore and contribute to.

Understanding performance management is not only vital for business leaders and HR professionals but also offers a compelling and wide-ranging field of study for academics and students alike. The diversity of topics and the continuous evolution of practices ensure that performance management will remain a vibrant and essential area of study and application in the foreseeable future.

How to Choose Performance Management Research Paper Topics

The selection of a research paper topic is not just a random choice; it is the foundational step in the research process that can define the success of the entire project. When it comes to performance management—a field that is multifaceted and ever-changing—choosing a relevant and engaging topic can be both exciting and challenging. Below, you’ll find guidance on how to select a topic in the area of performance management that resonates with your interests, aligns with academic requirements, and contributes to the body of knowledge in this field.

1. Understand Your Interest and Passion:

• Identify what aspect of performance management genuinely interests you.
• Consider what themes, theories, or practices you are eager to explore.
• Reflect on personal experiences or observations that might inspire a specific focus.

2. Consider the Scope and Relevance:

• Evaluate if the topic is broad enough to explore in detail but narrow enough to handle within the constraints of your paper.
• Ensure that the topic is relevant to your field of study and current trends in performance management.

3. Assess Available Resources and Feasibility:

• Consider whether sufficient resources, data, and literature are available for your chosen topic.
• Assess if the research can be conducted within the given timeframe and with the resources at your disposal.

4. Align with Academic and Career Goals:

• Choose a topic that aligns with your academic goals and contributes to your future career.
• Think about how this research might fit into your broader educational or professional trajectory.

5. Check for Originality and Contribution:

• Seek topics that offer a new perspective, approach, or insight into performance management.
• Consider how your research might fill gaps in existing literature or contribute to the field.

6. Seek Guidance from Faculty or Professionals:

• Consult with professors, advisors, or professionals in the field to get insights and recommendations.
• Use their expertise to refine your topic and ensure it is academically sound.

7. Review Existing Literature:

• Conduct a preliminary literature review to understand what has already been studied.
• Identify areas that need further exploration or where you can offer a fresh perspective.

8. Consider Ethical Implications:

• Ensure that the chosen topic complies with ethical standards, especially if it involves human subjects.
• Consider the societal implications and responsibilities tied to your research.

9. Reflect on Practical Applications:

• Think about how your research might have real-world applications or implications.
• Consider the potential impact of your findings on organizational practices or policies.

10. Validate with a Research Proposal:

• Create a brief research proposal outlining your topic, research questions, and methodology.
• Use this proposal to validate the feasibility and relevance of the topic with peers or faculty.

Choosing a research paper topic in the domain of performance management is an intricate task that demands careful consideration and thoughtful planning. By understanding your interests, evaluating the scope, ensuring originality, and aligning with both academic and real-world relevance, you can select a topic that not only fulfills academic requirements but also contributes to the broader discourse in performance management. Whether you are exploring technological innovations, ethical dilemmas, leadership influences, or sector-specific challenges, the key lies in choosing a topic that resonates with you and adds value to this multifaceted field. These tips serve as a roadmap to guide you through this critical phase of your research journey, ensuring that the topic you select is engaging, achievable, and impactful.

How to Write a Performance Management Research Paper

Writing a research paper on performance management requires more than just a basic understanding of the subject. It demands a structured approach, thoughtful analysis, critical thinking, and adherence to academic standards. Performance management, being a multifaceted field that covers various aspects like employee evaluation, performance metrics, leadership strategies, organizational behavior, and technological advancements, offers a rich landscape for scholarly investigation. This section provides comprehensive guidance on how to craft a research paper in this domain, from the initial stages of idea formulation to the final draft, ensuring academic rigor and relevance.

1. Identify Your Research Focus and Questions:

• Define the Problem: Clearly state the problem or issue you plan to investigate within performance management.
• Develop Research Questions: Formulate specific research questions that guide your investigation, focusing on ‘what’, ‘how’, and ‘why’ aspects.
• Set Objectives: Outline the aims and objectives of your research, providing direction and purpose.

2. Conduct an Extensive Literature Review:

• Search Reputable Sources: Utilize academic databases to find peer-reviewed articles, books, and journals related to your topic.
• Analyze Previous Studies: Evaluate existing research to identify gaps, controversies, trends, and key theories in performance management.
• Synthesize Findings: Provide an organized summary of the existing literature, highlighting the relevance to your research.

3. Develop a Research Methodology:

• Choose the Research Design: Decide whether to conduct qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods research based on your questions and objectives.
• Select Tools and Techniques: Determine the appropriate data collection methods, such as surveys, interviews, observations, or experiments.
• Ensure Ethical Compliance: Follow ethical guidelines, especially if your research involves human subjects.

4. Collect and Analyze Data:

• Gather Relevant Data: Use systematic techniques to collect data that directly answers your research questions.
• Analyze Data Thoroughly: Apply statistical or thematic analysis to interpret the data, looking for patterns, relationships, or insights.
• Ensure Accuracy: Validate the findings by cross-referencing with the literature or using triangulation.

5. Construct a Strong Thesis Statement:

• Define Your Argument: Develop a clear, concise thesis statement that encapsulates the main argument or insight of your paper.
• Position Your Thesis: Place the thesis at the end of the introduction, ensuring it aligns with the research focus and questions.

6. Organize the Paper Effectively:

• Create an Outline: Develop a logical structure, including introduction, methodology, findings, discussion, conclusion, and references.
• Use Subheadings: Divide the content into coherent sections with subheadings, facilitating readability.
• Incorporate Visuals: Use charts, graphs, or tables if they enhance understanding.

7. Write with Clarity and Precision:

• Use Formal Language: Maintain an academic tone, avoiding colloquial expressions or jargon.
• Be Concise: Express ideas clearly and succinctly, avoiding unnecessary complexity.
• Maintain Coherence: Ensure that sentences and paragraphs flow smoothly, supporting the overall argument.

8. Cite Sources Properly:

• Follow Citation Style: Adhere to a specific citation style (APA, MLA, etc.), maintaining consistency throughout.
• Give Proper Credit: Cite all sources accurately to avoid plagiarism and to lend credibility to your argument.

9. Revise and Edit:

• Review for Content: Check that the content aligns with the research focus and that arguments are well-supported.
• Edit for Grammar and Style: Look for grammatical errors, typos, and stylistic inconsistencies.
• Seek Peer Review: Consider getting feedback from peers or faculty to ensure objectivity and quality.

10. Consider Practical Implications:

• Discuss Real-world Relevance: Highlight how your findings can be applied in practical settings or contribute to the field of performance management.
• Make Recommendations: Provide actionable recommendations or suggestions for further research.

Crafting a research paper on performance management is an intellectually stimulating and academically rewarding process. It requires careful planning, in-depth research, critical thinking, and meticulous writing. By following these ten detailed tips, aspiring researchers can navigate the complexities of the subject matter, producing a paper that not only meets academic standards but also contributes valuable insights to the field of performance management. Whether investigating leadership effectiveness, employee motivation, performance metrics, or technological interventions, the key lies in a methodical approach, intellectual curiosity, and scholarly integrity. This guide serves as a comprehensive resource to aid students in this academic endeavor, fostering excellence in research, writing, and practical application.

iResearchNet Writing Services

iResearchNet, a reputable name in academic writing services, offers a comprehensive and personalized approach to performance management research papers. Understanding the multifaceted aspects of performance management, our services are designed to meet individual needs, academic standards, and current industry insights. Let’s explore the 13 features that set iResearchNet apart:

• Expert Degree-Holding Writers: Our team consists of highly qualified writers holding academic degrees in management and related fields. With a blend of theoretical understanding and hands-on industry experience, our writers not only understand the intricate concepts of performance management but also provide real-world insights that enrich the content of your research paper.
• Custom Written Works: Every research paper at iResearchNet is crafted from scratch, based on the unique requirements, topic, and academic level of the student. We pride ourselves on delivering original and plagiarism-free work, reflecting your individual perspective, insights, and voice, making each paper truly unique.
• In-Depth Research: Our writers conduct comprehensive research using credible and up-to-date sources to support your thesis and arguments. By integrating the latest trends, findings, and methodologies in performance management, we ensure that your paper stands out for its depth of analysis and relevance to current industry practices.
• Custom Formatting: Adherence to specific formatting styles is paramount in academic writing. We meticulously follow the formatting guidelines prescribed by your institution, whether it’s APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, or Harvard style. Every citation, reference, and structural element is carefully aligned with the required standards.
• Top Quality: Quality is at the core of our services. We are committed to academic excellence and professional craftsmanship in every paper we undertake. Our attention to detail, structured approach, eloquent writing, and thorough review process ensures that each research paper meets the highest academic standards.
• Customized Solutions: iResearchNet offers flexible services tailored to your specific needs. Whether you need assistance with a particular section of your paper or a complete custom-written research paper, we collaborate with you to realize your ideas and vision. Your success is our priority, and our services are molded to your requirements.
• Flexible Pricing: We understand the varying needs and budget constraints of students. Our pricing structure is competitive and transparent, reflecting the level of expertise and customization you require. We offer affordable rates with no hidden fees, providing clear, upfront pricing information.
• Short Deadlines: Our team is equipped to handle tight deadlines without compromising quality. Whether you need a paper in three hours or three days, our rapid response and efficient process ensure timely delivery. We value your time and strive to provide time-sensitive solutions that meet your urgent academic needs.
• Timely Delivery: Punctuality is one of our hallmarks. Your research paper will be ready by the agreed deadline, allowing you time for review, feedback, and revisions if needed. Our adherence to schedules ensures a smooth and stress-free experience, giving you confidence in your academic submissions.
• 24/7 Support: iResearchNet provides round-the-clock support through our dedicated customer service team. Whether you have a query, need an update, or require assistance, our personalized care ensures constant availability and one-on-one attention. We believe in building relationships, and our 24/7 support is a testament to our commitment.
• Absolute Privacy: We value your privacy and maintain strict confidentiality. Your personal information, order details, and transactions are safeguarded with advanced security measures. Trusting us with your research paper means trusting us with your privacy, and we honor that trust with unwavering responsibility.
• Easy Order Tracking: Our user-friendly online system enables effortless tracking of your order. Monitor the status, receive regular updates, and stay informed about the progress of your paper. We believe in transparency, and our easy tracking feature offers you control and peace of mind.
• Money Back Guarantee: Customer satisfaction is our ultimate goal. If our services fall short of your expectations, we offer a clear and fair money-back guarantee. We value your investment in our services and are committed to providing value that meets your satisfaction, quality, and academic objectives.

iResearchNet’s dedication to academic excellence, personalized care, and professional integrity distinguishes us as a leader in performance management research paper writing. By focusing on your individual needs, aligning with academic standards, and embracing innovation, we create a journey of academic exploration and success. Trust us with your performance management research paper, and experience a seamless blend of quality, commitment, and excellence. Let iResearchNet be your partner in achieving your academic ambitions and scholarly growth.

Unlock Your Academic Potential with iResearchNet

You’ve come to the critical juncture in your academic journey where success and opportunity are within reach. At iResearchNet, we understand the passion, dedication, and rigor needed to create research papers that resonate with academic brilliance. We don’t just offer writing services; we offer an academic partnership tailored to help you express your ideas, insights, and innovative thinking through our custom performance management research paper services.

Perhaps you’re grappling with a complex topic or juggling numerous responsibilities; we are here to simplify the process and let your brilliance shine through. With our team of expert degree-holding writers, rigorous in-depth research, and a commitment to your unique needs, we promise an unparalleled experience that reflects your vision and aligns with academic excellence. Our 13 distinctive features encompass everything from flexible pricing to absolute privacy, all designed to ensure your success and satisfaction.

Investing in our services is not just about completing a paper; it’s about learning, growing, and achieving your academic potential. Your trust in our capabilities leads us to craft research papers that are original, insightful, and aligned with the latest trends in performance management. The quality we deliver is a testament to our commitment to your success. With iResearchNet, you’re not just a customer; you’re a part of an academic community thriving on excellence, integrity, and innovation.

Your academic journey deserves the best, and we are here to offer just that. With seamless processes, personalized care, and a promise of quality, iResearchNet invites you to take a bold step towards success. Connect with us today, and let us be the catalyst that propels your academic achievements to new heights.

Ready to take control of your academic success? Click here to explore our specialized performance management research paper services and place your order. Embrace excellence, foster innovation, and let iResearchNet be your partner in your academic triumph. Your journey to success starts with just one click!

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

• English | en
• Spanish | ES
• French | FR
• German | DE
• Portuguese | PT
• Chinese | ZH
• Japanese | JA

A new blueprint for performance management

Featured topics, october 23, 2021.

In-depth interviews with 67 elite performers have shown us where organizations are going wrong with performance management — and how to make it right.

It's time for businesses to make feedback a natural and regular part of working life

Almost nobody we speak to in the corporate world seems satisfied with their performance management processes — and absolutely nobody knows what to do about it. We’ve all tried making tweaks. We’ve revisited, revised and relaunched. But no organization has managed to crack the age-old problem of how to cultivate feedback conversations that consistently drive improvements in performance.

To get a fresh and highly informed perspective on the subject, we asked 67 top-flight performers in fields ranging from theatre, film and TV to medicine and emergency services to tell us about their experiences of performance management. What they described to us was an approach, understanding and mindset that are unlike anything we are used to in the corporate sphere.

In their world, feedback is built into the day-to-day rhythm of work, not stored up to be shared in annual performance reviews.

In their world, those giving feedback are masters in human behavior, so they do not have to fall back on fixed performance management plan of action but can instead provide personalized and highly effective input whenever and wherever it is needed.

In their world, performance management is seen as a collaborative process, where feedback givers share “notes” rather than opinions, and work with feedback receivers to co-create improvement ideas.

In their world, people become accustomed to receiving feedback very early on in their careers and see input from others as critical to driving performance.

The point is that their world works. Ours doesn’t. So, we say it’s time for us to rip up the rulebook of performance management and create a new blueprint for driving individual and team performance across the corporate world.

What’s wrong with performance management?

In the corporate world, we tend to discuss performance management in terms of ratings, structure, process and other formal procedures and techniques. But for the elite performers we spoke to, feedback is the key to shaping growth, improvement and course correction — not formal performance management plans or interventions. What’s more, feedback is viewed as a fundamental part of everyday life. Everyone expects it. Everyone is hungry for it. As British Olympian, Alex Partridge, put it:

“Feedback is the only way to improve in rowing. You come off the water and analyze immediately. This feedback loop — three times a day — ensures you constantly do what is needed.”

Learning from our research participants, we believe it is time to redefine feedback conversations and their role in how we think about performance management. Feedback should not be seen as a nice-to-have. It has to become a natural and regular part of the corporate workplace.

Create the right environment for feedback

Effective performance conversations do not just happen by chance. It is critical to develop, embed and sustain the right conditions to enable free-flowing feedback between managers and employees to thrive within an organization. We have identified three key pieces of “scaffolding” you need to have in place to create a more impactful performance management environment.

First is a shared performance purpose . This gives people reason to seek out, accept and understand feedback — because, in doing so, they are helping the team achieve a common goal.

Second: culture and values . The aim should be to create an environment where feedback becomes just “what we do around here,” and is given and received across the peer group.

Third is a climate of psychological safety. This means an environment in which people do not feel threatened by feedback, and where they know they won’t be punished for making a mistake. As Ted Brandsen, Director of the Netherlands National Ballet, explains:

“I think they’ve got to be in a place where they feel comfortable and in control, not threatened. It’s not being called into the headmaster’s office. A bit more casual, I think, would be best.”

Sort the timing

The elite performers we spoke to were shocked to learn how long feedback is routinely “stored up” in the corporate world before being shared. In their minds, feedback is something to be given in the moment, circumstances permitting. The idea that performance management plans arrange for feedback to be given on an annual, quarterly or even monthly basis is completely alien to them.

The arguments in favor of regular, spontaneous feedback are many. For one thing, people’s memories are extremely unreliable. The longer feedback is delayed, the less recognizable it becomes and the less impact it has on the receiver. For another thing, the shorter work cycles of today’s business environment are not suited to a formal process of annual or quarterly reviews. It is much better to have a performance management process where individuals can set a personal rhythm for feedback directly linked to the cycle of their work.

Achieving a constant flow of feedback between managers and employees is difficult — but doable. Organizations could start by baking “feedback moments” into the daily cycle of work (for example by starting every meeting with a quick note on what feedback attendees might want at the end) and ensuring there is time for a dedicated reflection point at the end of each performance cycle.

Help leaders see the person

Providing nuanced and actionable feedback is not easy. Organizations have tried to help feedback givers meet the challenge by providing them with conversation models, scripts, rules and formulas. But the truth is that no amount of formal support mechanisms or stringent performance management plans will ever be enough. Delivering personalized feedback in the moment requires leaders who have both a deep understanding of human behavior and a significant level of self-awareness, as well.

Our research participants have helped us identify five key traits that define a successful feedback giver: courage, humility, credibility, empathy and honesty. Through our discussions, we have also managed to define the thought process that effective feedback givers go through before delivering any feedback. It looks something like this:

“What is it specifically I see going on?

“What am I hearing? Am I totally present?”

“What is the impact of what I am seeing and hearing?”

“Will the feedback I want to give shift performance?”

“Is this the right moment for the feedback to be received?”

The final piece of the puzzle for effective feedback-giving is the concept of “notes”. It’s a concept we came across many times in our interviews with participants in fields as wide-ranging as the military and the arts. It describes an approach to collecting and summarizing observations on a performance, with the aim of making the performance better — and thus, your performance management efforts more meaningful. Most critically, the process of taking and delivering notes is a part of how the work gets done. It’s not treated as a separate activity (as feedback in industry often is).

Grow feedback-hungry individuals

Feedback is a two-way process. So, if we really want to boost performance — and make sure our performance management efforts do not fall on deaf ears — we need to look beyond feedback givers to consider what makes a good feedback receiver, as well.

The good news is that effective feedback receivers — like feedback givers — are made, not born. It demands a set of skills that can be acquired through practice. And the earlier you start building those skills, the bigger impact it will have on your long-term performance and career.

One critical area for individuals to work on is self-awareness. Not only does this make you more receptive to feedback from others, but it also promotes a mechanism for more objective self-assessment.

Another critical area is resilience. Why? Because feedback, however constructive, is a form of adversity. The more resilient you are, the better equipped you will be to handle — and benefit from — regular, honest feedback.

Driving individual and leadership accountability

Our research tells us there are some key enablers of successful performance management transformation in terms of the culture and work environment, the process fundamentals, the traits and thought processes of feedback givers, and the resilience and self-awareness of feedback receivers. Get all these interdependent elements right and you will have gone a long way to driving individual and leader accountability for great feedback conversations.

We’ll leave the last words to one of our participants, Patsy Rodenburg OBE, Head of Voice at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama in London, who provided us with a perfect description of the kind of performance management interaction we should all be aiming for:

“You can’t say, ‘Come into my office and you sit on that chair and I’ll sit here.’ You have to have a tremendous amount of respect for the person. There’s got to be a humanity in that moment when two people are present together.”

Download the full performance management whitepaper for more a detailed breakdown of our research and to discover the key steps organizations can take to create a performance management process and culture that enables individuals and teams excel.

Download the PDF

Insights to your inbox

Stay on top of the latest leadership news with This Week in Leadership—delivered weekly and straight into your inbox.

Related insights

Top Considerations for Healthcare Compensation Committees Today

To retain top leadership, tax-exempt healthcare organizations need to reevaluate their incentive plans. Learn the top things for boards to consider.

Key Skills and Traits Needed from Future Supply Chain Leaders

Supply chain leaders of the future will need new mindsets and skillsets in order to thrive in the workforce.

Imagining the Future Leader

Meet Kai, the future leader embodying critical qualities for success like adaptability, strategic vision and empathy. Are you ready for the future of leadership?

Six Strategies to Address Pharma Industry Trends in 2024

Discover six ways to navigate pharma industry trends in the New Year with actionable steps that will position your organization for growth.

• Capabilities
• Business Transformation
• Organization Strategy
• Total Rewards
• Assessment & Succession
• Talent Acquisition
• Leadership & Professional Development
• Intelligence Cloud
• Consumer Markets
• Financial Services
• Healthcare & Life Sciences
• Specialties
• Board & CEO Services
• Corporate Affairs
• Cybersecurity
• FInancial Services
• Human Resources
• Information Technology
• Risk Management
• Supply Chain
• Sustainability
• Partnerships
• Microsoft Alliance
• Duke University
• Cleveland Clinic
• Jobs with our clients
• Advance your career
• Join Korn Ferry
• Find a consultant
• Find an office
• Business impact
• Investor relations
• Press releases

© Korn Ferry. All rights reserved.

Terms of Use

Cookie Settings

Do Not Sell My Info

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, strategic turnaround: unraveling the impact of ceo power on firm performance during retrenchment.

International Journal of Law and Management

ISSN : 1754-243X

Article publication date: 16 April 2024

This paper aims to investigate the impact of retrenchment strategy on firm performance in the context of Pakistani firms while considering the moderating role of chief executive officer (CEO) power. By examining the influence of CEO duality and CEO share ownership on the relationship, this study contributes to strategic management and corporate governance knowledge within the Pakistani business environment.

Design/methodology/approach

A quantitative approach was used to analyze the relationship using data from annual financial statements. The sample consisted of 76 companies from the KSE-100 index from the year 2015 to 2020. Random effects regression models were used, along with hierarchical regression to explore the moderating effect of CEO power.

The findings demonstrate that the implementation of a retrenchment strategy positively impacts firm performance in Pakistani firms. The study also reveals that CEO power plays a crucial role in strengthening the relationship between retrenchment strategy and firm performance. Moreover, the study highlights the importance of considering the temporal sequence, size and age of firms when examining the impact of CEO power and retrenchment strategy on firm performance.

Research limitations/implications

The study enhances the understanding of the contingent nature of retrenchment strategies and the influence of CEO power in the Pakistani business context. Practically, the research contributes to strategic management and corporate governance dynamics, facilitating the development of strategies that enhance firm performance and sustainability in Pakistan.

Originality/value

This research provides original insights by specifically focusing on the Pakistani context and analyzing the interplay between retrenchment strategy, CEO power and firm performance. The study adds to the limited literature on the relationship between retrenchment and performance in the Pakistani business environment. Additionally, it highlights the significance of CEO power as a critical factor in determining the success of retrenchment.

• Retrenchment strategy
• Firm performance
• CEO duality
• CEO share ownership
• Strategic management
• Hierarchical regression analysis

Acknowledgements

Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Declaration : This research paper affirms that no artificial intelligence tools were used throughout the study. The analysis and findings presented in this research solely rely on traditional research methodologies, data collection and analysis techniques.

Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ijaz, M. , Sadiq, N. and Abbas, S.F. (2024), "Strategic turnaround: unraveling the impact of CEO power on firm performance during retrenchment", International Journal of Law and Management , Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-01-2024-0010

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2024, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here