Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4 (2011), 179–181.Copyright © 2011 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1754-9426/11

Why Performance ManagementWill Remain Broken:Authoritarian Communication

ROBERT G. JONESMissouri State University

SATORIS S. CULBERTSONKansas State University

We agree with Pulakos and O’Leary (2011)that the focus of efforts in performanceappraisal should be on the relationshipbetween managers and their employees.We also agree with their focus on relationalprocesses rather than structures (e.g., meritgrids) or outcomes (e.g., goals) as ways tointervene in and evaluate effectiveness ofperformance management systems. How-ever, separating appraisal systems from thisfocal relationship is perhaps more of an ana-lytic lever, based on reductionist attemptsto analyze and understand the complexphenomena around performance feedback,than it is a solid basis for practical action.

We suggest here that performance man-agement systems are cultural artifacts thatcarry messages to organization membersabout the appropriate relationships betweenparties. Indeed, Pulakos and O’Leary hintat this when they state, ‘‘Done effectively,performance management communicateswhat’s important to the organization, drivesemployees to achieve results, and imple-ments the organization’s strategy. Donepoorly, performance management not onlyfails to achieve these benefits but can also

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Robert G. Jones.E-mail: RobertJones@MissouriState.edu

Address: Department of Psychology, Missouri StateUniversity, Hill Hall 101, Springfield, MO 65804

undermine employee confidence and dam-age relationships.’’ We take this further,however, and argue that training aboutfeedback and focusing on relationships,although they may create a more efficientmedia for ‘‘communicating clearer workexpectations,’’ are still not enough for opti-mal communication and also fall prey to anauthoritarian mandate.

Based on previous research and prac-tice related to voice (Cawley, Keeping, &Levy, 1998) and self-appraisal-based per-formance appraisal (Steel & Ovalle, 1984),we suggest that two-way, non authoritar-ian performance management systems andrelationships are likely to provide the great-est clarity among all parties about workexpectations and the feedback that followsfrom observation of work behaviors. Wewill briefly review and suggest ‘‘relationshipmessengers’’ imbedded in systems that mayclearly communicate a less authoritarianculture, facilitating greater communicationabout work expectations.

Separation of the System Fromthe Relationship

Pulakos and O’Leary set out the responsibil-ities of managers implicit in traditional per-formance appraisal systems. Unfortunately,there is an important assumption in thisdescription that is not addressed in their arti-cle and that seems to have been recognized

179

180 R.G. Jones and S.S. Culbertson

in some previous work. Although it is truethat the central relationship that makes mostsystems ineffective is the assumed ‘‘super-visor–subordinate relationship,’’ a funda-mental assumption about the nature of thisrelationship needs to be addressed. Thisrelationship is generally framed as man-agers being responsible for defining criteriaand standards, then observing and provid-ing the formal and informal job feedback atthe core of performance management, withemployees taking this feedback and follow-ing it. Although 360-degree systems vestthe observation and evaluation functions inother parties, the standards for performanceare still predetermined. The point is thatthese approaches posit a sort of ‘‘emptyvessel’’ wherein employees follow orders,with little or no judgment or input aboutstandards or criteria, while managers per-form the role of absolute authority in thesematters. It also belies the obvious reality thatperformance appraisal discussions actuallyare discussions—substantive conversationsbetween two adults in the workplace.

Perhaps even more troublesome is thenotion that human resource and indus-trial–organizational (I–O) professionals areresponsible for ‘‘training’’ managers andimpressing upon them the importanceof performance management. Again, thisbelies a ‘‘father knows best’’ approach thatis, in our view, bound to fail in many orga-nizations. In particular, flat organizationswith very fluid work roles and relationships,peopled by professionals with their owncodes of ethical conduct and standards,will complicate authoritarian approaches.Recent views presented in this very jour-nal (e.g., Highhouse, 2008 and subsequentcommentaries) have dealt with the prob-lems associated with professional I–O psy-chologists attempting to treat their expertiseas ascendant.

How the System InformsRelationship Expectations

Nevertheless, major initiatives in the per-formance appraisal literature suggest thatauthors (including Pulakos & O’Leary), at

some level, understand that the effective-ness of an appraisal system relies on broad-ening of the relationships that define criteriaand standards. These are self-appraisal-based performance evaluations at GeneralElectric (GE) (Farh, Werbel, & Bedeian,1988; Meyer, 1980), management by objec-tives and its offspring (e.g., Pritchard, Jones,Roth, Stuebing, & Ekeberg, 1989; alsomentioned as ‘‘cascading goals’’ inPulakos & O’Leary), and multisource rat-ings (Klimoski & London, 1974). In eachcase, the traditional, top-down relationshipcentral to common performance reviewis significantly altered. In self-appraisal-based performance appraisals, the subor-dinate prepares the document from whichappraisal discussions devolve. In manage-ment by objectives, a negotiation betweensubordinate and supervisor is prescribedas the basis for future standards for feed-back and discussion. Multisource feed-back is perhaps the most extensive andin some ways most effective (Atwater,Brett, & Charles, 2007) approach to exp-anding the relational basis for feedback,except that ‘‘work expectations’’ remain.

An even more prominent attempt to alterthis relationship assumption is the researchon employee voice. Here, employees aregiven a chance to alter both the nature andoutcomes of feedback. This comes closerto a real, adult conversation between equalpartners. Still, a strong voice in the defi-nition of performance expectations, ratherthan treating these as ‘‘constants,’’ is largelymissed in this literature. In fact, the idea of‘‘fixed’’ job expectations is itself increas-ingly untenable, given rapid changes inwork functions and processes.

In our view, the core issue here iswho defines work expectations. A con-stant assumption even in management byobjectives is that of the authoritarian rela-tionship between manager and employee.Pulakos and O’Leary assume this in theiruse of language but, like other progressiveresearchers, do not take the additional stepof thinking of many manager–employeerelationships as negotiated, ongoing jobdefinition processes. Specifically, attention

Performance management will remain broken 181

to the causes of work behavior mentionedin their article (subordinate motivation, abil-ity, and awareness of expectations) ignoresthe possibility that employees themselvesmay have better ideas about how to per-form their jobs than do their managers.We suspect that many successful man-agers habitually treat considerable portionsof professional and management work assubjects of continuous, job-defining conver-sations. This sort of continuous, mutual jobanalysis (Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007)has the benefit of helping managers under-stand the work of their professional staff inorder to better advocate for resources, clar-ify for others what their units are up to, anddevelop approaches to cope with emergentcircumstances. Our data (Youngcourt et al.,2007) also suggest that employees are con-siderably more satisfied when they perceivetheir performance approached this way.

Concluding Thoughts

Although we agree with the basic premiseof Pulakos and O’Leary’s stance, witha focus on the relationship betweenemployee and manager in lieu of a focuson formal administrative systems with anoveremphasis on prescribed steps, webelieve there needs to be a removal, tosome extent, of the authoritarian nature ofthe relationship before there can be any realprogress. The communication between thetwo parties must be one of mutual respectand consideration, with a focus on definingand redefining standards and expectations.Until this occurs, the ‘‘communication’’that occurs in many appraisal situationsbetween managers and employees will

continue to result in ‘‘broken’’ performancemanagement systems and calls for theabolishment of such systems.

ReferencesAtwater, L. E., Brett, J. F., & Charles, A. C. (2007). Mul-

tisource feedback: Lessons learned and implica-tions for practice. Human Resource Management,46, 285–307. doi:10.1002/hrm.20161

Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (1998).Participation in the performance appraisal processand employee reactions: A meta-analytic reviewof the field investigations. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 83, 615–633. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.615

Farh, J., Werbel, J. D., & Bedeian, A. G. (1988). Anempirical investigation of self-appraisal-basedperformance evaluation. Personnel Psychology,41, 141–156. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00636.x

Highhouse, S. (2008). Stubborn reliance on intu-ition and subjectivity in employee selection.Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Per-spectives on Science and Practice, 1, 333–342.doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00058.x

Klimoski, R. J., & London, M. (1974). Role of therater in performance appraisal. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 59, 445–451. doi:10.1037/h0037332

Meyer, H. H. (1980). Self-appraisal of job per-formance. Personnel Psychology, 33, 291–295.doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1980.tb02351.x

Pritchard, R. D., Jones, S. D., Roth, P. L., Stuebing,K. K., & Ekeberg, S. E. (1989). The evaluation of anintegrated approach to measuring organizationalproductivity. Personnel Psychology, 42, 69–115.doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1989.tb01552.x

Pulakos, E. D., & O’Leary, R. S. (2011). Why is perfor-mance management broken? Industrial and Organi-zational Psychology: Perspectives on Science andPractice, 4, 146–164.

Steel, R. P., & Ovalle, N. K. (1984). Self-appraisalbased upon supervisory feedback. PersonnelPsychology, 37, 667–685. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1984.tb00532.x

Youngcourt, S. S., Leiva, P. I., & Jones, R. G. (2007).Perceived purposes of performance appraisal: Cor-relates of individual- and position-focused pur-poses. Human Resource Development Quarterly,18, 315–343. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1207