当前位置:首页 >> 人力资源管理 >>

Alternative paradigms and the study and practice of performance


Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 148–157

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / h u m r e s

Alternative paradigms and the study and practice of performance management and evaluation
Steve McKenna a,?, Julia Richardson b, Laxmikant Manroop a
a b

School of Human Resource Management, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario, M3J1P3, Canada School of Administrative Studies, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario, M3J1P3, Canada

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Performance management and evaluation (PME) is a well-established element of any organizational system of human resource management. However, the research field for PME is dominated by a one-dimensional approach located within positivist ontology. This paper explores and compares this positivist approach to PME with approaches located in other paradigms, more specifically interpretivism and critical theory. The paper argues that paradigmatic diversity in the study of PME would contribute a multidimensional, more sophisticated and nuanced approach. While research on PME within interpretivist and critical paradigms has been conducted over many years it is largely ignored or rejected in North America where a focus on managerialist prescriptions drives the research agenda. This paper calls for innovation through paradigmatic diversity in PME research and scholarship rather than further, incremental development of prescriptive models. ? 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Multiple paradigms Interpretivism Critical theory Performance management

1. Introduction Performance management and evaluation (PME) is widely accepted as a central feature of the human resource management (HRM) system in contemporary organizations. As a sub-set of HRM, PME is subject to the considerable growing pains that continue to be endured by HRM despite its evolution as a scholarly ?eld in recent years (Jamrog & Overholt, 2004). Indeed, HRM scholars and practitioners alike continue to struggle to explain its parameters and objectives; what is the core focus of HRM? What are its unique characteristics? Can it be a ‘science’? Can there be a ‘grand theory’ of HRM? Thus, for example, Paauwe (2004) questions whether a ‘grand theory’ is needed? As a specialism within the HRM ?eld, scholars and practitioners of PME pose similar questions: what are its parameters and objectives? What is its core focus? What, if any, are its unique characteristics? Can PME really be a ‘science’ with predictive and prescriptive qualities? Is it possible to have a universally applicable ‘grand theory’ of PME? The purpose of this paper is to identify the value and contribution of alternative paradigms for ‘discovering’ knowledge and their potential contribution to a broader, more sophisticated and nuanced body of research and practice in PME. By alternative paradigms, we refer to paradigms that are situated outside the positivist ontologies which have dominated HRM research and practice more broadly. In this regard, the paper responds to Ferris, Hall, Todd Royle and Martocchio (2004) who call for HRM scholars to adopt and engage with different paradigmatic perspectives. Indeed, following their lead, this paper signals the potential contribution that alternative paradigms make to HRM as a discipline. First, however, in order to ensure that this paper is appropriately contextualized, it is useful to address the pervasiveness of positivist ontologies in HRM and PME and the concomitant resistance to alternative paradigms. Whilst much of the North American HRM and PME literature is ?rmly located within a positivist paradigm, positivism continues also to dominate scholarly activity elsewhere. In this regard resistance to or ignorance of alternative paradigms is

? Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: smckenna@yorku.ca (S. McKenna), jrichard@yorku.ca (J. Richardson), lmanroop@yorku.ca (L. Manroop). 1053-4822/$ – see front matter ? 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.002

S. McKenna et al. / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 148–157

149

ubiquitous. Brewster (1999, p. 49), for example, has noted that resistance to alternative paradigmatic scholarship in HRM is “like the ?sh's knowledge of the water” where he suggests that “these researchers not only see no alternatives but do not consider the possibility that there could be any…some of those who become aware of the alternative paradigm respond…by denying the value of the alternative….” Focusing speci?cally on PME and continuing this line of thought further, this paper extends the debate by signalling the conceptual and empirical value of work carried out within alternative paradigms. Avoiding a ‘clash of epistemologies’, the paper will suggest that just as these paradigms contribute to a more composite view of PME, they also offer an alternative ‘world view’. This view, we will suggest, introduces an important and yet overlooked political and ideological dimension to the debate concerning the role of PME in contemporary HRM scholarship and practice. Much of the North American PME research is ?rmly rooted in a positivist/functionalist paradigm characterized by a focus on cause–effect relationships, statistical testing and linear thinking (Latham, Almost, Mann, & Moore, 2005). This is not to say, however, that PME research conducted outside of North America is immune to this positivist bias, far from it. Yet, it is important to note that a positivist scholarly agenda drives much of the publication in North American journals, the criteria for research-funding, professorial hiring and tenure and promotion practices. In this regard the paper focuses initially on a characterization of the development of PME scholarship in a North American context. In particular, we problematize the idea of PME as a ‘scienti?c’ ?eld of study concentrating explicitly on the conceptual, methodological and practical limitations of relying solely on positivist paradigms. The idea of PME theory will then be discussed, highlighting the limitations of viewing PME in a one-dimensional and essentially uncritical fashion. The paper then investigates PME with the intention of emphasizing the value of multidimensionality and paradigmatic diversity. The concluding section argues that unless PME scholars are willing to embrace more diverse ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies, they will be con?ned to a narrow understanding of its respective processes and practices. 2. PME in North America: A characterization A characterization of PME research, as it has developed in North America, is clearly speci?c to the respective context and motivated predominantly by North American scholarly concerns and inclinations. Legge (2005, p. 3), for example, has noted that “under the in?uence of US academic imperialism, modernist positivistic perspectives are now dominant…re?ected in evidencebased approaches that privilege the search for causal relationships in the service of performativity”. North American work in the ?eld of PME is, indeed, located predominantly in the realm of industrial and organizational psychology which, by de?nition, excludes a broader critical social science perspective (Watson, 2004). The need for multidimensionality is important in order to align scholarship in PME with the multidimensionality that is emerging, albeit slowly, in HRM scholarship more generally. It will also align PME scholarship to contemporary debates about multiple ‘capitalisms’ that have emerged in HR scholarship (Amin, 1994; Best, 1993; Clegg, 1990; Whitley, 2000). Thus, the development of PME as an emergent ?eld of ‘scienti?c inquiry’ in North America, deriving from the history of scienti?c management, the human relations movement and industrial psychology, presents an interesting contrast to the evolution of other forms of ‘people management’ which have been very different elsewhere and which have had diverse implications for PME because of the diversity of institutional and the social arrangements of capitalism (Baddar Al-Husan, Brennan, & James, 2009; Bamber, Lansbury, & Wailes, 2004; Bjorkman, Fey, & Park, 2007; Chow, 2004; Farndale & Paauwe, 2007; Gamble, 2003, 2006; Sparrow & Hiltrop, 1997). In short, consideration of contextual and institutional in?uences extends our understanding of the limitations of a ‘scienti?c’ approach towards PME. Furthermore, the in?uence of scienti?c management on PME research and the ontology and epistemology it re?ects is represented in the idea that ‘best’ practice can be ‘discovered’ through quasi-natural science methods. While the human relations movement theoretically sought to mitigate the negative effects of the early industrialized work environment, in fact, scienti?c management and human relations have come together in the modern industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology axis. I/O psychology seeks to establish prescriptions for not only the ‘best’ way to undertake work of various kinds, and to measure performance at doing it, but also to identify the ‘best’ behavioural competencies that employees should demonstrate, for example ‘best’ ways to coach employees within a performance management system (Latham et al., 2005). Indeed, we would argue that the idea of ‘discovering best practices’ is the contemporary focus of I/O psychology in North America, and a distinguishing feature of its PME scholarship. This focus emphasizes ‘good science’ by replicating the study of the natural and physical world in order to establish ‘laws’ which form the basis for subsequent work in the area of HRM generally and very speci?cally PME. PME ‘developments’, therefore, are constrained by ‘discovered laws’ of performance management and evaluation (e.g. DeShon, Kozlowski, Schmidt, Milner, & Wiechmann, 2004; Donovan & Williams, 2003; Drach-Zahavy & Erez, 2002; Heslin, Carson & VandeWalle, 2009; LePine, 2005; Seijts, Latham, Tasa, & Latham, 2004; Wiese & Freund, 2005; Yearta, Maitlis, & Briner, 1995). In North America in particular, the dominance of I/O psychology and the positivist paradigm has presented signi?cant challenges for those PME scholars who are interested in exploring and/or adapting different paradigmatic approaches. As Brewster (1999 p. 48) has noted …even where the data and analyses are sound, however, a disadvantage of this paradigm, perhaps of US research tradition in particular, is that the pressure to publish and the restricted nature of what is acceptable has led to much careful statistical analysis of small-scale, often narrow, questions whose relevance to wider theoretical and practical debates is sometimes hard to see. The following section brie?y juxtaposes the assumptions about the nature of ‘science’ implicit in the dominant positivist I/O psychology approach to PME with those that characterize interpretivist and critical paradigms.

150

S. McKenna et al. / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 148–157

3. Assumptions about the nature of ‘science’ and PME While we may debate the character of PME and PME scholarship and how they vary in relation to unique institutional and cultural contexts, more fundamental concerns deserve immediate attention. The idea of ‘science’ introduced previously, for example, and the extent to which PME can be studied ‘scienti?cally’ is especially pertinent here. More speci?cally, we should be concerned with the extent to which the scienti?c study of a social phenomenon, such as PME, is closely connected to broader understandings and debates about the nature of ‘science’ and the attendant themes of ontology, epistemology, conceptualizations of individual action and research methodology. Exploring this theme further, we begin by addressing the idea of ‘science’ more fully in relation to PME and contrast it with alternative ontologies, epistemologies and research methodologies to consider their potential contribution to a deeper understanding of PME. 3.1. Positivist ontology, epistemology and methodology A positivist ontology assumes that the “social world exists independently of an individual's appreciation of it” (Burrell & Morgan, 1979, p. 4) and can, therefore, be understood as a collection of ‘facts’. PME scholars working within the positivist paradigm assume a world of actors and agents that can be understood by using statistical validity and reliability to measure ‘reality’ and its effects. Characterized by an intention to deal with applied problems and guide further research, this type of ‘scienti?cally’ informed investigation requires clear de?nition of major constructs and relationships (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). Hypothesizing and testing of relationships between ‘relevant’ variables is seen as the only way and the ‘correct approach’ to ensure the development of PME theory and to prescribe effective practice. A consequence of this ‘way of seeing’ is that a certain ‘way of knowing’ about the world evolves. In other words, knowledge about PME is predicated on discovering statistical relationships between identi?ed variables in order to enable the formulation of prescriptions for action. Precise ‘desirable’ outcomes can be expected, even predicted, if certain ‘rules’ or ‘laws’ are followed. Similarly, individual action can be determined, at least to some extent, as a result of its ‘scienti?c’ underpinning. This expectation has pervaded work in PME for many years to the point where ‘new developments’ are largely a rehash of old arguments (Latham et al., 2005). Indeed, if positivist work in PME has produced ‘laws’, any ‘new development’ would in any case be expected to be merely an incremental development of those ‘laws’ and the ‘truth’ that it represents, not a paradigmatic break from them. We take this argument up more substantially later. 3.2. Interpretivist ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies Positivism and postpositivism are well rehearsed arguments in the literature as the received wisdom in social and behavioural science (Fuller, 2006). Non-positivism and anti-positivism, however, although broadly grouped under interpretivism, are not so clearly delineated. Burrell and Morgan (1979 p. 227) note that “the interpretive paradigm embraces a wide range of philosophical and sociological thought which shares the common characteristic of attempting to understand and explain the social world primarily from the point of view of the actors directly involved in the process”. Thus, the interpretivist paradigm is predicated on assumptions about the social world that are somewhat different from those that characterize positivism. In particular the idea that rather than one truth to be discovered that might be used as the guide for action, there are multiple, socially constructed truths. Interpretivists are not, therefore, concerned with knowing about ‘objective reality’ that exists ‘out there’. Rather, their concern is with knowing and exploring speci?c subjective realities that exist ‘in here’, in the experiences and thinking of actors in the social world. Consequently the methodology required and the methods used to conduct such investigations are (and must be) essentially different from those employed by positivists. Gubrium and Holstein (1997) offer a helpful way of organizing key elements of the interpretivist paradigm while recognizing that it is represented in many different streams of thought. First, they note that interpretivists are ‘sceptical’ of received wisdom and that this scepticism infuses their methodology to challenge the ‘commonsensical’, the ‘obvious’ and the ‘supposed ‘real”. Second, as interpretivists are interested in ‘speci?c realities’ they are concerned to explore and scrutinize the social world at close quarters. Third, individuals are viewed as agentic, constructing, reconstructing and designing their lives and the social worlds within which their lives evolve. They and their actions are not merely determined by discovered ‘laws’ of behaviour or by the desire of their ‘superiors’ to control them and make them compliant. Fourth, subjectivity is to be celebrated as an essential aspect of the researcher, the research participant and the research process. Therefore, rather than striving for the impossibility of achieving objectivity in research in and on the social world, recognition of the inherently subjective nature of social research creates greater integrity in the research process. Finally, scholars working within an interpretive paradigm emphasize the inherent complexity of the social world where life and experience cannot be simpli?ed, rationalized and/or predicted because it is ambiguous, discontinuous, fragmented, compartmentalized and differentiated. From this perspective, then, the ‘fatal ?aw’ of the positivist paradigm is that it seeks to squeeze order into a social world where there can never be any at the expense of the disorder that requires much more focused research attention. 3.3. Critical ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies In addition to representing an objective, rationalist, ‘scienti?c’ and therefore prescriptive view of the social world, uncritical positivist approaches have also been identi?ed as managerialist. This argument, advanced by critical sociologists and those involved in critical management studies, proposes that the prescriptive, functionalist and normative approach associated with

S. McKenna et al. / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 148–157

151

conventional research privileges management and managerial need for control as a central research agenda. Firmly located in a positivist epistemology, these approaches are neither objective nor neutral, but fundamentally informed by managerial need for control over the workforce. Research conducted within this dominant paradigm, therefore, is not concerned with ef?cient working practices and meeting the needs of the employees. Rather, its concern is control of and power over the labour process in order to ensure that what is done, how it is done and by whom remains securely within managerial control. Research on work processes and practices, therefore, particularly those undertaken in I/O psychology, is simply an extension of Taylorist control mechanisms. There are two main strands of thought that we wish to highlight in relation to a critical ontology, both of which emphasize the centrality of the concepts of control and power. First, structuralism highlights the idea that power and therefore control, is embedded in the structures of society. As a consequence, we can understand workplace relationships better if we appreciate power imbalances and inherent inequalities that pervade the social system. These imbalances can be based on social hierarchy, gender, race, etc., but they are important in determining how control is exercised in the workplace. The second strand relates to post-structuralism which contends that power is not something that is owned but that “forms of power are exercised through subjecting individuals to their own identity or subjectivity” (Knights & Willmott, 1989, p. 553). Power is not structurally located, therefore, it is interactional and shows itself as much in the micro-processes of the social world as in the macro-processes. From a critical ontology it is important to defamiliarize what is portrayed in conventional, functionalist and prescriptive approaches. In particular, we must identify how processes re?ect power and control not only in how work is carried out, but also in how people are expected to carry it out. The speci?c value of these critical approaches is that they seek to uncover the ways in which subjectivity and identity are created through power in an attempt to develop dependence, apathy and compliance, and therefore control, while purportedly building trust, commitment and empowerment. As a consequence, mechanisms, measures and processes are developed in organizations that enable individuals to self-regulate and self-monitor. Critical structuralists may identify with the possibility of a ‘truth’ that can be discovered, however, they operate within critical realism (Archer, 2000), suggesting that in order to access this truth, broad social, political and economic forces need to be acknowledged. A key plank of critical structuralism, therefore, is the assumption that social, political and economic forces re?ect the power and control needs of a dominant group(s). Conversely, post-structuralists argue that power and control are exercised at a more micro-level but that they also produce the dependent subject, involved in their own subordination. What is common to both structuralism and post-structuralism is the idea that things are done to people. As we consider critical approaches in relation to PME in the following section, however, we also contend that people are more agentic in confronting power and control than is acknowledged in the current body of critical scholarly work. Employees are not simply duped into following managerial initiatives. 4. Exploring positivist, interpretivist and critical approaches to the study of PME 4.1. Positivist approaches to PME Like HRM more generally, we recognize that the study of PME is dominated by “the unquestionably modernist perspective of positivism” (Legge, 2005 p. 337). Positivist research in PME is driven by a concern to provide managers with better ‘tools’ with which to manage employees and employment relations. It is, therefore, prescriptive and managerialist in its orientation. Positivist approaches to PME commence from the assumption that ‘performance’ is identi?able, de?nable and measurable; it is, in other words, an ‘objective fact’. It also assumes that processes can be discovered through which the achievement of performance can be enhanced. Thus, causal relationships between variables can be ‘uncovered’ or ‘discovered’ in a systematic way and used to determine the actions and behaviour necessary to augment performance as it has been de?ned by the organization/manager. Goal-setting theory and its speci?c elements, for example, are ?rmly established as ‘laws’ of PME, where goals are critical in directing human action because they make it purposeful. The essentially functionalist and ‘scienti?c’ nature of this theory is evident when Locke and Latham (1996, p. 5) write that “the ultimate basis of goal-directed action is the organism's need to sustain life by taking the actions its nature requires”. Positivist scholarship offers considerable support for the ‘phenomena’ that enable performance to be managed and enhanced (Aguinis, 2007; Antoni & Beckmann, 1990; Longenecker, Scazzero, & Stans?eld, 1994; Mourier, 2000), for example, that dif?cult goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, provided the former have valence for the individual actor; speci?c goals are more effective than ‘do your best’ statements; ongoing feedback is important; commitment to goals is important and so on. Indeed, any ‘new’ developments in PME are mere extensions of these ‘laws’, offering further prescriptions to improve PME (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998; Latham et al., 2005). From this perspective, setting goals and other practices, are important ‘laws’ that determine performance enhancement because they have been scienti?cally ‘validated’ and are, therefore, ‘social facts’. While positivist approaches have clearly offered much in the way of direction to managers and organizations as to how performance might be enhanced there are scholarly as well as practical limitations of this one-dimensional approach to the study of PME. McLean (2008) has noted that PME in the positivist, functionalist paradigm is concerned with the need for control over the way work is done by managers, and as a consequence work performance and workplace behaviour is subject to rating, judgment and description by those in positions of power in the organizational hierarchy. Systems of PME are put in place that re?ect the prescriptive ‘laws’ that have become the ‘regime of truth’. If employees react negatively to these systems they are considered dysfunctional and PME systems need to be readjusted or the training of ‘coaches’ needs to be more effectively conducted (Latham et al., 2005). There is inherent in positivist/functionalist approaches to PME the assumption that the system of PME is neutral; that managers and employees share the same goals and objectives once they have been mutually agreed on and; that an accurate measure of

152

S. McKenna et al. / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 148–157

performance can be established. Research within this paradigm constantly seeks to produce more accurate and ‘scienti?c’ laws of PME that can be universally applied. Yet, there is a wealth of research that indicates how problematic it is to achieve the ideal PME system for a number of reasons, e.g., the political context of organizational life (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, & Cardy, 2006; Hartel et al., 2007; Longenecker, Gioia, & Sims, 1987; Murphy & Cleveland, 1995), legal rami?cations (Marrin, Barrol, & Kehoe, 2000), performance goals (Loomis, 2003; Schweitzer, Ordonez, & Douma, 2004) and rating errors (Cleveland & Murphy, 1992; Levy & Williams, 2004; Martin & Bartol, 1998). However, positivist/functionalist solutions to these limitations are driven by the search for more sophisticated and nuanced schemes and techniques ‘validated’ through ‘science’. There is an assumed connection between PME systems and organizational performance, the validity of PME itself is never questioned. McLean (2008, p. 25) noted that: The prescriptive literature, even when it attempts to be critical of appraisal, addresses criticisms by reviewing the impact of appraisals on managers or organizational performance rather than through giving effective ‘voice’ to workers. In the positivist, prescriptive approach to PME ‘voice’ is related to interactional justice, summarized in the following question — were the views of an individual taken into account within the pre-determined PME system and processes that have been established? (Latham et al., 2005). The ‘voice’ given to employees is offered within the system for enhancing organizational performance, it is not about the system itself and the potential impact of a PME system on employees or indeed the organization. Despite Deming's (1986) warning that PME systems could have a debilitating effect on performance and employee morale, the dominant paradigm in PME perpetuates the importance of a validated and ‘just’ system. The ‘voice’ of the employee should be heard within the system to ensure ‘justice’. Furthermore, employees' voices should be heard through multisource feedback, where self-appraisal is part of the gamut of comments made about an employee that enables an organization to gain a holistic view of every individual. 5. Interpretivist approaches to PME The prescriptive nature of positivist approaches to PME offer some insight into how PME systems should operate in an ideal environment that is subject to managerial control and where performance of the organization in a way de?ned by management is paramount. Interpretivism challenges assumptions that are implicit in positivist functionalism, such as the notion that ideal environments can ever exist. This challenge evidently limits the potential success of positivist prescriptions because there can never be an ideal environment in which the prescriptions can be applied (Goodall, Wilson, & Waagen, 1986; Pacanowsky & O'Donnell-Trujillo, 1983). For example, social constructionist approaches would argue that behaviour is a function of employees' interactions, perceptions and interpretations of the work environment, which in turn in?uences performance (Pacanowsky & O'Donnell-Trujillo, 1983). In this regard, positivist approaches to PME are unable to capture the dynamic social context and other environmental contingencies to which participants react and as they are experienced (Farr & Levy, 2006). For interpretivists, therefore, prescriptions while interesting, are actually much less useful than positivists would suggest and are always inevitably de?cient. Consequently, interpretivists argue that PME processes and systems operate within complex human systems and in mysterious ways. Thus, an objective of interpretivist research is to appreciate and acknowledge the mystery of PME and how it evolves by taking into account respective contextual and individual processes. We have noted that while positivist PME research seeks to identify general ‘laws’ and rules that can be applied to the way systems are designed and operated, these systems are rarely applicable in ‘real’ organizational contexts where complex and composite contextual features will establish how such systems actually function. Beard (1997) for example, in a study of the performance appraisal of public accounting interns found that while performance appraisal as a process is conducted, the interns “were frequently dissatis?ed with the quality of information received” (Beard, 1997, p. 16). Eleven interns kept journals of their personal experiences of work and were interviewed upon completion of their internship. Beard (1997) contends that the culture of public sector accounting centres performance appraisal on outcomes not employees' development. More importantly, she found that the interns developed “intuitive evaluation”; that is, ways of getting feedback outside of the performance management and appraisal process. This informal feedback, however, was initiated by the interns themselves, not by the public accounting ?rms within which they worked. Beard (1997, p. 23) posits that modern, formal performance management systems are no longer relevant in a “post-positivist work environment”. Such systems are not suitable for managing and evaluating performance where work is not mechanistically performed with strictly de?ned job responsibilities. People need to be evaluated, therefore, in a manner that is consistent with the way work needs to be done, and this is very context speci?c and must take into account the micro-level circumstances of an organization. These cannot be articulated in the form of a standardized system and set of processes. Pursuing this line of thought further, Murphy and Cleveland (1991) suggest that positivist models of PME have paid inadequate attention to the organizational context in which appraisals occur. In this regard, they make a strong argument for new approaches to PME that would take into consideration the relevant social and situational context. Similarly, Ilgen, Barnes-Farrell, & McKellin (1993) argued passionately for a new direction in PME scholarship and practice — one that acknowledges the rating environment or the “social milieu” in which people operate. Barlow's (1989) case study of a speci?c PME system offers a useful exemplar of a constructionist approach to latent functions (Merton, 1957) in the performance evaluation of managers. The case study highlights that although the intended function of the respective management evaluation system was to evaluate managerial goals and objective achievement, its latent functions were far more consequential. In particular, the study proposed that rewards, especially promotion, were based more on political

S. McKenna et al. / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 148–157

153

processes involving senior management than ‘objective’ criteria. Within the case study organization any manager who wanted advancement had to recognize that the formal performance system was an institutionalized myth, which operated as a “facade behind which myths of technique and irreconcilable contradictions of power were sheltered from examination” (Barlow, 1989, p. 512). Senior management could continue to protect entry to their cadre through social selection by relying on the formal system of performance evaluation to avoid inspection. The speci?c bene?t of this type of qualitative case study research is that it allows access to the micro-practices and politics of everyday organizational life while raising signi?cant questions concerning ethical practice and abuse of power. Boyd and Kyle's (2004) discussion of social justice offers another example of how PME can be investigated from an interpretive perspective. Their approach re?ects a more critical perspective of PME by challenging the notion that “one's personal life and work life can and should be separated”, and that a person can be “evaluated as an abstract individual fairly, independent of one's race, gender, [and] family responsibilities” (p. 256). For Boyd and Kyle (2004), this practice promotes injustice and limits the scope of PME because it ignores employees' experiences of reality as both members of broad social groups and as unique individuals. They argue that organizational development can only be enhanced if managers are willing to become interpretive researchers by allowing workers to take ownership of the performance evaluation process, and reporting on their performance to other members of the organization, instead of being reported on by management (Boyd and Kyle, 2004). In this way the PME system is effectively ‘constructed’ by employees themselves. Following this tradition, Goodall et al. (1986) argue that organizations stand to bene?t from PME insofar as it re?ects the realities of the work situation. Employees' performance depends on their perception and understanding of their respective organizational culture, structure, climate, and their interaction with others. In other words, employees construct meanings about their work situation which guide their organizational actions. Positivist PME, with its narrow focus on performance outcomes, is ill equipped to consider contextual factors. Consequently, scholars in the interpretive tradition over many years have called for a redesigned PME system that can capture the broader organizational context (Beard, 1997; Goodall et al., 1986; McKenna, 2002; Pacanowsky & O'Donnell-Trujillo, 1983). As a further example, in an in-depth qualitative study of 60 senior executives, Longenecker et al. (1987) examined the extent to which political considerations in?uenced executives when they appraised subordinates. The authors found that factors other than the subordinates' actual performance frequently determined the ratings subordinates received. In the study, executives openly admitted that politics was a reality in the PME process. Longenecker et al. (1987) concluded that upper level managers acted not because their organization's PME procedures were not sound, but rather decided to play by their own rules that they had constructed instead of those associated with the system. The examples previously discussed highlight the extent to which PME systems can sometimes be appropriated to hide/serve other purposes. They also enable the identi?cation of latent functions that override the apparent manifest functions of such a system (Merton, 1957) and focus attention on the importance of attaching HRM activity generally and PME systems speci?cally to wider systems of power in organizations. Rather than being neutral and rational ways of measuring performance objectively, we see here how PME systems re?ect the exercise of power in organizational contexts in ways that are anything but neutral and objective. The particular value of this type of research encourages a deeper approach to the study of morality and ethical behaviour in organizations which can promote further debate over a more ‘humane’ body of HRM practices (Legge, 2005). Several scholars have touched upon the ethical dilemmas of positivist PME in organizations. For example, Banner and Cooke (1984) signalled the challenges of managing the procedural aspects of PME such as evaluation criteria, measurement indicators, and type of instruments. Longenecker and Ludwig (1990) argue that the key ethical concern in PME is not so much its procedural aspects but the ethical integrity of the person doing the actual rating. Citing the works of Sherman et al. (1988) and Peters and Austin (1983), Longenecker and Ludwig (1990) argue that managers violate the theoretical assumptions of positivist PME such as objectivity, honesty, and accuracy in the interest of practical reality because they “operate in organizational environments that place a high priority on getting results, on minimizing con?ict, and ultimately, on survival” (p. 962). As a result, the dynamics of the environment force managers to focus on their own self-interests and those of the organization in their effort to manage subordinates (Longenecker & Ludwig, 1990). Ontologically and methodologically the interpretivist paradigm offers important alternatives for the investigation of PME because it is sceptical of the ‘received wisdom’ of functionalist approaches associated with positivism. Moreover, research located within this paradigm has identi?ed how PME systems operate naturalistically and how they are constructed by ‘users’ to operate in ways that produce functions entirely at odds with the manifest functions that the respective system was designed to have. These ?ndings make signi?cant contributions to developments within PME from a scholarly as well as practical perspective because they emphasize how micro-practices impact on the way ‘ideal’ PME systems actually work in practice. Furthermore, much of the research to which we make reference in this section is not ‘new’, but the insights remain under-developed in contemporary PME research, where issues of ethics and power and abuse of power in organizations are more important than ever before. 6. Critical approaches to PME As previously noted, critical approaches to PME develop from the tradition of structuralism or post-structuralism. In a broad sense, both structuralism and post-structuralism posit that PME is something that is used to control a workforce in the interests of those who hold power and who wish to maintain a measure of societal and workplace inequality. In other words, it is a technique or device used by management to retain control of the way work is done and over the labour process more generally. Not only is

154

S. McKenna et al. / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 148–157

this power and control embedded in the systems of work and, as a consequence within the system of PME, it is also, according to some critical scholars, internalized by the workforce themselves who accept it to the point that they become self-monitoring and self-regulating in line with the behaviours and competencies management requires of them. A good exemplar of post-structuralist work in this area is that of Townley (1993, 1994). Using Foucault's (1995) concept of disciplinary power, she argues that PME systems are techniques whose aim it is to classify and order individuals as subjects. PME systems function, therefore, in an essentially unnoticed way to create, de?ne and enforce an identity on employees while they are at work (Barratt, 2002). To that extent, employees are controlled indirectly through PME systems which are designed to shape the contribution they make in the workplace. PME is primarily concerned with ensuring that employees are manageable and perhaps even malleable through techniques of classi?cation, monitoring and measurement (job description, job speci?cation, job analysis, goal-setting, etc.). They are also manipulated into becoming self-regulating; that is, they self-monitor to ensure that they conform to the managerially determined requirements of appropriate thought and action. If they do not conform they will have to take corrective action to ‘get back on track’; a notion implicit in the idea of persistent feedback in PME. Critical approaches raise important questions about the functions of PME and whose interests it represents. Rather than being designed for the bene?t of all employees and thus serving neutral and unitarist purposes uniting all employees in an organization around mutually agreed interests, PME is viewed as representing partial interests. The objective of PME, therefore, is to remove control from employees rather than to empower them and as a consequence re?ects and adheres to the principles of Taylorism. From this standpoint, PME systems are not concerned with measuring performance accurately or fairly, but with transmitting management's expectations about required performance to employees, who will then internalize those expectations as a form of control. If this is the case, one way of looking at PME in organizations is to view it as an arena within which management and employees vie for control of the way in which work is done and the behaviours and identity of the person doing it. Managers need to persuade employees to accept their de?nition of the way work should be done and what kind of an employee should do it. From a Foucauldian (Foucault, 1995) approach this concerns the extent to which managers are able to persuade employees to accept their own subordination (McLean, 2008). Yet, it also raises research and practical questions concerning how employees might accept, resist or negotiate such persuasion. Critical approaches to PME highlight the responses of employees to the imposition of PME systems, noting that organizations are sites of con?ict and plurality, not simply compliance/commitment and shared values. What is particularly important about critical approaches to PME is that they highlight the “submerged voice of those who experience HRM initiatives” (Legge, 2005, p. 41). Moreover, they allow and acknowledge that employees are active agents whose acceptance, resistance or negotiation of managerial initiatives in HRM generally and PME speci?cally, shapes the actual form that these initiatives take within any given organizational context. Furthermore, employees have some capability to determine the identities that they create for themselves in organizational contexts within structural constraints (Archer, 2000). In a study of the introduction of American PME practices and other HRM initiatives into a Chinese organization, for example, McKenna, Richardson, Singh and Xu (forthcoming) report how employees decided which to accept, which to negotiate and which to resist or ignore, thus fundamentally shaping the operation of any given practice in the organizational context. Investigation of how employees make sense of PME is critical, therefore, if we are to understand how it actually operates within organizations. The same can also be said of research that identi?es how employees accept, negotiate and resist PME initiatives (McKinlay & Taylor, 1996; Truss, 2001; Brown & Benson, 2003; Watson, 2004). In this regard, perfecting performance management and evaluation techniques through enhanced training or measurement sophistication is irrelevant to the functioning of PME systems. PME systems are located within a social context which must be understood and acknowledged when investigating how (and for whom) they function. Critical approaches offer an alternative to positivist/functionalist approaches to PME because, among other things, they question the assumption that organizations represent the interests of all its members. PME systems may be introduced by management to enhance performance in accordance with managerial de?nitions of performance but may not be acceptable to employees. This opposition does not re?ect ‘dysfunctional’ behaviour, as positivist/functionalist arguments would suggest, but the response of active agents individually or collectively, asserting their own interests and identities that they wish to preserve and represent. Investigating these interests, identities, resistances and negotiations is at the core of much critical research that places employees rather than managers at the centre of study. 7. Conclusion: Alternative paradigms and the study and practice of PME The speci?c purpose of this paper has been to identify the value of alternative epistemologies, ontologies and methodologies in the study of PME in order to contribute towards a more composite and dynamic body of PME scholarship. We have focused attention on juxtaposing the dominant approaches associated with positivist functionalism with alternative approaches located within interpretivism and critical theory. To contextualize the discussion, the paper commenced by addressing the dominance of positivist functionalism in North American PME scholarship. This dominance was juxtaposed with the willingness of scholars, some in North America but most elsewhere, to embrace more emic issues and concerns. We also considered assumptions about the nature of ‘science’ more broadly and how the concept of ‘science’ is viewed differently from disparate ontological positions. The main body of the paper explored positivist, interpretivist and critical approaches to the study of PME. We have acknowledged that the dominant positivist approach has made contributions to the study and practice of PME from a managerialist perspective, seeking to prescribe ways in which managers can better control the outcomes of work in organizations. However, we also contend that if PME scholarship and practice are to evolve into a richer body of knowledge, its current trajectory, understood as ‘more of the same’ or a rejection of alternative and equally valid views of PME, must be challenged. In other words, the search for a deeper, more complex understanding of PME theory and practice must extend beyond the functionalist paradigm

S. McKenna et al. / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 148–157

155

and positivist methodologies, and must question not simply serve, the practical concerns of managers. Instead, we must be prepared to embrace a diversity of approaches, which may challenge the very premise of what has been constructed thus far. 7.1. Implications for research and issues of ‘practical value’ An approach to PME informed by critical and/or interpretivist perspectives would enable an understanding of PME that is quite different to that provided by the dominant positivist perspective. It would especially privilege the alternative ‘voice’ of the employee; that which is not manipulated or manufactured by management. Critical and interpretivist approaches represent a rich and organized system of critical knowledge which can be applied to PME in a manner that is as ‘valid’ as those proposed by managerialist scholarship. For example, we have highlighted how interpretivist research can give ‘voice’ to those impacted by PME initiatives. The idea of giving voice, not constrained by voice within a PME system, to the usually unrepresented is important. PME is a technique of management, knowing what employees make of PME initiatives is of obvious importance. Constructionism (Burr, 2003) can highlight the underlying political, emotional and social processes that in?uence the creation and function of PME systems as in Barlow's (1989) and Longenecker et al.'s (1987) studies. Knowledge of these processes enables researchers' engagement with them. PME is better and more fully understood if viewed from divergent and perhaps even contradictory perspectives using a range of creative methods. Constructionism enables researchers to interpret how PME systems are politically and socially constructed. Critical post-structuralist approaches facilitate the exposure of the potential for manipulation, injustice and immorality in PME systems and may facilitate the development of more humane and ethical systems of management. Furthermore, critical approaches identify the fundamental role that employees play in the way in which PME systems operate. Employees do not simply accept such systems as imposed by management, they have agency to accept, resist or negotiate the manner of the system's operation (McKenna et al., forthcoming; Delbridge & Ezzamel, 2005). For ‘real’ innovation to occur in PME scholars are better advised to look beyond the more immediate locales to explore alternative perspectives. In doing so they can move towards a more holistic and potentially more useful body of knowledge about PME. Yet, such a move would require paradigmatic tolerance and an acceptance that positivism represents only a partial view of the ?eld under study. There is a need to embrace and engage with theoretical and practical diversity that is informed by multiple ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies. This is not to say that prescription is in itself a problem but rather that any prescriptions, if it is within a paradigm to offer them, needs to be based on a fuller appreciation of speci?c contexts. As a simple example, it seems intuitively important that PME research is concerned with the voice and concerns of both managers and employees at a much deeper and more nuanced level than positivist approaches allow. Furthermore, it is also important to acknowledge that within critical approaches there is a level of thinking that fundamentally rejects the idea of PME and contends that its only concern is to support ‘performativity’; that is, the objectives of organizational ‘performance’, competitiveness and pro?tability (Watson, 2004; Legge, 2005). Scholars adopting this position may, quite reasonably from this paradigm, reject the proposition that their work can be used to complement and overcome the practical limitations of positivist scholarship. Additionally they might actively oppose suggestions that their work can be used to further embed managerial prerogative in the workplace, and argue that their motivation is to expose, rather than support, the PME agenda as an array of tools that are rooted in a system of control over employees and the desire to create a conforming ‘subject’. More work is required to identify how employees oppose and re-negotiate this pressure to conform, what outcomes it produces and how it impacts on the working lives of people individually and collectively. Such research enables more productive debate of the kind that is now occurring in the ?eld of management study more broadly (Clegg, Kornberger, Carter, & Rhodes, 2006). In PME like HRM more generally (Watson, 2004) a critical analysis is needed to enhance comprehension of how PME systems develop within speci?c organizational situations. By de?nition PME systems and practices are techniques for managerial action and control and there will be many (most) researchers whose objective it is to ‘discover’ how better this control (effectiveness) can be achieved. From a scholarly position, however, this is not enough. Not only is it paradigmatically one-dimensional, but by focusing only on the enhancement of the techniques of PME, such research ignores the existence of a diverse body of stakeholders. ‘New developments’ in PME should relate not simply to the development of new prescriptions for managerial action, but should question the very basis of these prescriptions and the very basis of the ideals that they may serve. Paradigmatic development and tolerance for a more composite picture of a social phenomenon under study is surely the objective of scholarly work. In PME such rich diversity has been palpably lacking. Finally, what is the practical value of paradigmatic diversity for performance management and evaluation? Clearly both interpretivists and those adopting a critical approach would respond with, “what exactly does practical value mean?” and “practical value for whom?” Even Deming (1986), hardly a radical thinker in the tradition of critical management studies, argued that PME systems produced mediocrity in performance and a decline in moral and should be abolished. Have any organizations been courageous enough to try this experiment? And, if so, with what success? If the requisite performance can be achieved without PME systems we might conclude that such systems have another purpose, perhaps to control. Have organizations established performance management systems in a way that has involved all organizational stakeholders? Are systems in operation where the power relationship in managing performance has been neutralized? Where are the organizations who distribute more fairly and equitably the outcomes of collective good performance to all organizational members, regardless of title? Instead of ?nding ever more ‘scienti?cally’ validated ways to prescribe ‘best practice’ in PME, researchers might engage with actual organizations that make fairer and more just systems actually work. Researchers might also ?nd examples of where ethical and equitable PME actually exist, thereby rede?ning ‘best practice’ from practice itself, rather than engaging in the endless (and meaningless) search to provide ‘best practice’ in the abstract. Practical value derives, we argue, from the close study of practice

156

S. McKenna et al. / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 148–157

itself, from which lessons can be learned about fairness or unfairness, justice or injustice, ethical or unethical activity in PME. Engaging with the social and organizational world at close quarters is a prerequisite for appreciating how practice evolves in the world and it is here that ‘practical value’ is created. ‘New’ developments in PME require this close engagement. References
Aguinis, H. (2007). Performance management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Amin, A. (1994). Post-Fordism. Oxford: Blackwell. Antoni, C. H., & Beckmann, J. (1990). An action control conceptualization of goal-setting and feedback effects. In U. Kleinbeck (Ed.), Work motivation (pp. 41?52). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Archer, M. S. (2000). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge: University Press. Baddar Al-Husan, F. Z., Brennan, R., & James, P. (2009). Transferring Western HRM practices to developing countries: The case of a privatized utility in Jordan. Personnel Review, 38, 104?123. Bamber, G. J., Lansbury, R. D., & Wailes, N. (2004). International and comparative employment relations. London: Sage. Banner, D. K., & Cooke, R. A. (1984). Ethical dilemmas in performance appraisal. Journal of Business Ethics, 3, 327?333. Barlow, G. (1989). De?ciencies and the perpetuation of power: Latent functions in management appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 26, 499?517. Barratt, E. (2002). Foucault, Foucauldianism and human resource management. Personnel Review, 31, 189?204. Beard, V. K. (1997). Performance appraisal of public accounting interns: A qualitative analysis of self reported de?ciencies. Issues in Accounting Education, 12, 15?26. Best, M. (1993). The new competition. Boston: Harvard University Press. Bjorkman, I., Fey, C. F., & Park, H. J. (2007). Institutional theory and MNC subsidiary HRM practices: Evidence from a three-country study. Journal of International Business Studies., 38, 430?446. Boyd, N. M., & Kyle, K. (2004). Expanding the view of performance appraisal by introducing social justice concerns. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 26, 249?278. Brewster, C. (1999). Strategic human resource management: The value of different paradigms. Management International Review, 39, 45?64. Brown, M., & Benson, J. (2003). Rated to exhaustion? Reaction to performance appraisal processes. Industrial Relations Journal, 34, 67?81. Burr, V. (2003). Social constructionism. London: Psychology Press. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing. Chow, I. H. (2004). The impact of institutional context on human resource management in three Chinese societies. Employee Relations, 26, 626?642. Clegg, S. (1990). Modern organizations: Organization studies in the post-modern world. London: Sage. Clegg, S. R., Kornberger, M., Carter, C., & Rhodes, C. (2006). For management? Management Learning, 37, 7?27. Cleveland, J. N., & Murphy, K. R. (1992). Analyzing performance appraisal as goal directed behavior. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 10, 121?185. Delbridge, R., & Ezzamel, M. (2005). The strength of difference: Contemporary conceptions of control. Organization, 12, 603?618. Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridege, Mass: MIT Press. DeShon, R. P., Kozlowski, W. J., Schmidt, A. M., Milner, K. R., & Wiechmann, D. (2004). Multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1035?1056. Donovan, J. J., & Williams, K. J. (2003). Missing the mark: Effects of time and causal attributions on goal revision in response to goal performance discrepancies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 379?390. Drach-Zahavy, A., & Erez, M. (2002). Challenge versus threat effects on the goal-performance relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 88, 667?682. Farndale, E., & Paauwe, J. (2007). Uncovering competitive and institutional drivers of HRM practices in multinational corporations. Human Resource Management Journal, 17, 355?375. Farr, J. L., & Levy, P. E. (2006). Performance appraisal. In L. L. Koppes (Ed.), Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 311?327). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ferris, G. R., Hall, A. T., Todd Royle, M., & Martocchio, J. J. (2004). Theoretical development in the ?eld of human resources management: Issues and challenges for the future. Organizational Analysis., 12, 231?254. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish. New York: Vintage Book. Fuller, S. (2006). Kuhn vs. Popper. Thriplow: Icon Books. Gamble, J. (2003). Transferring human resource practices from the United Kingdon to China: The limits and potential for convergence. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 369?387. Gamble, J. (2006). Introducing western-style HRM practices to China: Shop?oor perceptions in a British multinational. Journal of World Business, 41, 328?343. Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Balkin, D. B., & Cardy, R. L. (2006). Managing human resources. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Goodall, H. L., Wilson, G. L., & Waagen, C. L. (1986). The performance appraisal interview: An interpretive reassessment. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 72, 74?87. Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (1997). The new language of qualitative method. New York: Oxford University Press. Hartel, C. E. J., Fujimoto, Y., Strybosch, V. E., & Fitzpatrick, K. (2007). Human resource management. Pearson Education: Transforming theory into practice. NSW. Heslin, P. A., Carson, J. B., & VandeWalle, D. (2009). Practical applications of goal-setting theory to performance management. In J. W. Smither, & M. London (Eds.), Performance management: Putting research into action (pp. 89?107). San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Ilgen, D. R., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & McKellin, D. B. (1993). Performance appraisal process research in the 1980s: What has it contributed to appraisals in use? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 321?368. Jamrog, J., & Overholt, M. (2004). Building a strategic HR function: Continuing the evolution. Human Resources Planning, 7, 51?62. Knights, D., & Willmott, H. (1989). Power and subjectivity at work: From degradation to subjugation in social relations. Sociology, 23, 535?558. Latham, G., Almost, J., Mann, S., & Moore, C. (2005). New developments in performance management. Organizational Dynamics, 34, 77?87. Legge, K. (2005). Human resource management: Rhetorics and realities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. LePine, J. A. (2005). Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: Effects of goal dif?culty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1153?1167. Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. (2004). The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the future. Journal of Management, 30, 881?905. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. (1996). Goal setting theory: An introduction. In R. Steers, L. Porter, & G. Bigley (Eds.), Motivation and leadership at work (pp. 95?121). New York: McGraw-Hill. Longenecker, C. O., Gioia, D. A., & Sims, H. P. (1987). Behind the mask: The politics of employee appraisal. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183?193. Longenecker, C. O., & Ludwig, D. (1990). Ethical dilemmas in performance appraisal revisited. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 961?969. Longenecker, C. O., Scazzero, J. A., & Stans?eld, T. T. (1994). Quality improvement through team goal setting, feedback and problem solving. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 11, 45?52. Loomis, C. (2003). Fortune, 7, 88?96 July. Marrin, D. C., Barrol, K. M., & Kehoe, P. E. (2000). The legal rami?cations of performance appraisal: The growing signi?cance. Public Personnel Management, 29, 379?406. Martin, D. C., & Bartol, K. M. (1998). Performance appraisal: Maintaining system effectiveness. Public Personnel Management, 27, 223?230. McKenna, S. (2002). Can knowledge of the characteristics of ‘high-performers’ be generalised? Journal of Management Development, 21, 680?701.

S. McKenna et al. / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 148–157

157

McKenna, S., Richardson, J., Singh, P., & Xu, J.J. (forthcoming). Negotiating, accepting and resisting ‘HRM’: A Chinese case study, International Journal of Human Resource Management. McKinlay, A., & Taylor, P. (1996). Power, surveillance, and resistance: Inside the factory of the future. In P. Ackers, C. Smith, P. Smith, & The New (Eds.), Workplace and trade union (pp. 279?300). London: Routledge. McLean, P. (2008). At the coalface: Identity implications of performance appraisal at an underground coal mine. Unpublished Dissertation Thesis, University of Wollongong. Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Mourier, P. (2000). Goal translation: How to create a results-focused organizational culture. Performance Improvement, 39, 15?24. Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1991). Performance appraisal: An organizational perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational and goal-oriented perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Paauwe, J. (2004). HRM and performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pacanowsky, M., & O'Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983). Organizational communication as cultural performance. Communication Monographs, 50, 127?147. Peters, T. J., & Austin, M. (1983). A passion for excellence. Fortune, May, 13, 20?33. Schweitzer, M. E., Ordonez, L., & Douma, B. (2004). Goal setting as a motivator of unethical behaviour. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 422?432. Seijts, G. H., Latham, G. P., Tasa, K., & Latham, B. W. (2004). Goal setting and goal orientation: An integration of two different yet related literatures. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 227?239. Sherman, A. W., Bohlander, G. W., & Chruden, H. J. (1988). Managing human resources. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing Co. Sparrow, P., & Hiltrop, J. -M. (1997). Re-de?ning the ?eld of European human resource management: A battle between national mindsets and forces of business transition? Human Resource Management, 36, 201?219. Townley, B. (1993). Foucault, power/knowledge and its relevance for human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 18, 518?545. Townley, B. (1994). Reframing human resource management: Power, ethics and the subject at work. London: Sage. Truss, C. (2001). Complexities and controversies in linking HRM with organizational outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 38, 1121?1149. Watson, T. J. (2004). HRM and critical social science analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 447?467. Whitley, R. (2000). Divergent capitalisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wiese, B. S., & Freund, A. M. (2005). Goal progress makes one happy, or does it? Longitudinal ?ndings from the work domain. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 1?19. Yearta, S., Maitlis, S., & Briner, R. B. (1995). Goal setting theory: A motivational theory that really works? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68, 237?252.


相关文章:
英汉翻译(8)重复法_图文.ppt
the ancient performance which the sea cannot claim...代词 所指代的名词先行词) Classroom Practice (1)...to study and analyze the situation of the enemy...
Perceptual and cognitive_图文.pdf
The scientific study of expert performance provides...purposeful practice, experts in sport (as in other...‘recognition’ paradigms have been employed ...
L1_Research-process-Xian_图文.ppt
and performance in the United States-China joint ...Paradigms involve different assumptions of truth or...impact on future management research and practice....
ABSTRACT Magic of Today Tomorrow’s Technology”.pdf
paradigms and frameworks and introduces the ...the domains of educational theory and practice, ...alternative forms of educational interaction and the...
Management factors affecting the performance of tec....doc
Management factors affecting the performance of technology firms Extensive margin, quantity and pric_经济/市场_经管营销_专业资料。New paradigms Quality food ...
practice makes perfect.txt
Take the study of English for example. Practice enables us to spell words correctly and master the rules of grammar quickly and practice also makes us ...
The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.pdf
of performance at the personal, managerial, and ...Practice continuous improvement Core competencies ...? Describe ineffective paradigms of human ...
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of nonca....pdf
(1983) Imagery paradigms: How vulnerable are they...fallacy”: Common misconceptions and alternative ...and Macromolecules: The Theory and Practice of ...
Kalman Filtering Theory and Practice Using MATLAB.pdf
and UD Filters Other Alternative Implementation ...performance of the estimator as a function of ...These cover only 500 years, and the study and ...
...image denoising schemes using generalized Gaussian and ....pdf
\true" model is rarely available in practice. Because...performance over a broad class of signals or ...While the Bayesian and wavelet{shrinkage paradigms ...
Monitoring quality in the practice-led PhD_图文.ppt
Background to the study Significance of the Study...performance Practice-led research Practice-led ...Account for the broad paradigms (cultural, ...
国贸International Trade Theory and Practice_图文.ppt
国贸International Trade Theory and Practice_经济学_...International trade is the exchange of goods and ...Alternative duty 选择税 (1) Specific duty 从量...
The practice of capital punishment is as old as gov....doc
The practice of capital punishment is as old as...In 1764 Italian jurist and philosopher Cesare ...Because of these alternative viewpoint, there is ...
...P. LeSage J.The Theory and Practice of Spatial E....pdf
LeSage J.The Theory and Practice of Spatial Econometrics_天文/地理_自然科学...can estimate and compare a host of alternative spatial econometric model ...
The Theory and Practice of Intention Reconsideration.pdf
The Theory and Practice of Intention Reconsideration - Abstract. One of the key problems in the d...
Discourse_and_Social_Change.pdf
linguistics by formalistic and cognitive paradigms. ...and a greater diversity of theory and practice ...and the study of discourse focuses upon its construct...
No 8 The Role and Responsibilties of the Study Dire....pdf
OF GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE AND COMPLIANCE ...the study and receiving and evaluating their ...assumes responsibility for the performance of the ...
The-Impact-of-High-Performance-Human-Resource-Pract....pdf
roles in the HR practiceperformance relationship....of this nature, this study examined the ...it is likely that one or more alternative explanations...
The Advantages and Disadvantages of Teaching Englis....doc
the study and the practice improve the language makings of the students all...who come from remote country, are lack of consciousness of performance. Some...
Manhattan or Non-ManhattanA Study of Alternative VL....pdf
Manhattan or Non-ManhattanA Study of Alternative ...We also present results showing the performance of...freedom, and can explore new routing paradigms. ...
更多相关标签: