Approaches to performance appraisal in TQM-driven organizations: does control vs. learning approach matter?

Abstract

Additional information Versions of research works Versions of RecordIf this version is the version of record, it is the same as the published version available on the publisher's web site. Cite as the published version.

The utility of performance review systems: A total quality management perspective

“…The present study extends previous research in three ways (e.g., Bayo-Moriones & de la Torre, 2022;Jimenez-Jimenez & Martinez-Costa, 2009;Liao et al, 2023;Soltani & Wilkinson, 2020).…”

“…Altogether, these concerns about the ineffectiveness of traditional performance review systems seem most exacerbated and pronounced in contemporary organizations that adopt process improvement methodologies such as TQM and other variations on continuous improvement (Bowman, 1994;Cardy, 1998;Liao et al, 2023;Soltani & Wilkinson, 2020). One plausible explanation is that TQM and its variants necessitate engaging in multiple processes and activities, which demand employees to exhibit multitasking abilities, take ownership of their responsibilities, and occasionally surpass their prescribed duties or question established norms-a departure that contradicts traditional top-down performance review systems (Grant et al, 1994;Manz & Stewart, 1997;Wilkinson et al, 1997).…”

“…While the former refers to a competing relationship between using performance review for identifying development needs of employees and helping them improve their performance, the latter refers to the notion of self-serving bias. 6 In the context of TQM, these perennial problems undermine the significance of systems-level influences-thus attributing any performance variation solely to employees (see Adler et al, 2016;Liao et al, 2023). Despite these adverse opinions, there is little evidence to suggest that companies have abandoned annual performance review altogether (Murphy, 2020).…”

“…However, such defensive approach towards quality control suppresses the capacity to learn (the end product of TQM) and discourages line managers from analyzing the causes of performance variation. Instead, it enforces a performance review system that holds employees accountable for nonconformance and process variability (see Bowman, 1994;Liao et al, 2023;Sitkin et al, 1994).…”

“…Such incongruence may also reflect a deeper shift in thinking about the way in which change programs such as TQM are best applied in today's uncertain business environment. Alternatively, another line of reasoning stems from the intended but fundamentally different goals of TQM (i.e., control and learning) and the apparent conflict among these goals (Dahlgaard et al, 2019;Godfrey et al, 1997;Liao et al, 2023). This dynamic could lead to management's perceptions and preferences to obscure their interdependencies, thus resulting in their contradiction and the loose incorporation of TQM practices into the work design system (Sitkin et al, 1994;Waldman, 1994aWaldman, , 1994b.…”