Home Home | About Us | Sitemap | Contact  
  • Info For
  • Professionals
  • Students
  • Educators
  • Media
  • Search
    Powered By Google

IOP Journal Commentary Deadline Approaching

12/2/2015-

by SIOP Administrative Office

Deadline for Submission December 15!

Two focal articles have recently been accepted for Volume 9 Issue 2 of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice. They are now available for comment on the SIOP website.

  Commentaries are being accepted until December 15.  

The first focal article for this issue is Getting Rid of Performance Ratings: Genius or Folly? A Debateby Seymour Adler, Michael Campion, Alan Colquitt, Amy Grubb, Kevin Murphy, Rob Ollander-Krane, and Elaine D. Pulakos. Despite years of research and practice, dissatisfaction with performance appraisal is at an all-time high. Organizations are contemplating changes to their performance management systems, the most controversial of which is whether to eliminate performance ratings. The pros and cons of retaining performance ratings were the subject of a lively, standing-room-only debate at the 2015 SIOP conference in Philadelphia (Adler, 2015). Given the high interest in this topic, this paper recaps the points made by the panelists who participated in the debate. The arguments for eliminating ratings include: (a) disappointing interventions, (b) disagreement when multiple raters evaluate the same performance, (c) the failure to develop adequate criteria for evaluating ratings, (d) the weak relationship between the performance of ratees and the ratings they receive, (e) the conflicting purposes of performance ratings in organizations, (f) the inconsistent effects of performance feedback on subsequent performance, and (g) the weak relationship between performance rating research and practice in organizations. The arguments for retaining ratings include: (a) confusion between performance ratings and performance management, (b) performance is always evaluated in some manner, (c) “too hard” is no excuse for I-O psychology, (d) ratings and differentiated evaluations have many merits for improving organizations, (e) artificial tradeoffs are driving organizations to inappropriately abandon ratings, (f) the alternatives to ratings may be worse, and (7) the better questions are: How could performance ratings be improved and are we conducting the entire performance management process properly? The paper closes with questions organizational members have found useful for driving effective performance management reform.

The second article is How Much Do We Really Know About Employee Resilience? by Thomas W. Britt, Winny Shen, Robert R. Sinclair, Matthew Grossman, and David Klieger. Past research purporting to study employee resilience suffers from a lack of conceptual clarity about the resilience construct as well as methodological designs that examine resilience without ensuring the occurrence of significant adversity. The overall goal of this article is to address our contemporary understanding of employee resilience and identify pathways for the future advancement of resilience research in the workplace. We first address conceptual definitions of resilience both inside and outside of I-O psychology and make the case that researchers have generally failed to document the experience of significant adversity when studying resilience in working populations. Next, we discuss methods used to examine resilience, with an emphasis on distinguishing the capacity for resilience and the demonstration of resilience. Representative research is then reviewed examining self-reports of resilience or resilience-related traits along with research on resilient and non-resilient trajectories following significant adversity. We then briefly address the issues involved in selecting resilient employees and building resilience in employees. The article concludes with recommendations for future research studying resilience in the workplace, including documenting significant adversity among employees, assessing multiple outcomes, using longitudinal designs with theoretically supported time lags, broadening the study of resilience to occupations outside the military who may face significant adversity and addressing the potential dark side of an emphasis on resilience. 

The journal page also contains details on the process of preparing and submitting a commentary. Please contact Editor John C. Scott at JScott@APTMetrics.com with any questions about the commentary process.