Recent commentary has suggested that performance management (PM) is fundamentally “broken,” with negative feelings from managers and employees toward the process at an all-time high (Pulakos, Hanson, Arad, & Moye, ; Pulakos & O'Leary, ). In response, some high-profile organizations have decided to eliminate performance ratings altogether as a solution to the growing disenchantment. Adler et al. () offer arguments both in support of and against eliminating performance ratings in organizations. Although both sides of the debate in the focal article make some strong arguments both for and against utilizing performance ratings in organizations, we believe there continue to be misunderstandings, mischaracterizations, and misinformation with respect to some of the measurement issues in PM. We offer the following commentary not to persuade readers to adopt one particular side over another but as a call to critically reconsider and reevaluate some of the assumptions underlying measurement issues in PM and to dispel some of the pervasive beliefs throughout the performance rating literature.

No description available.

Various solutions have been proposed to “fix” performance management (PM) over the last several decades. Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad, and Moye (2015) have presented a holistic approach to improving PM in organizations. Although this approach addresses several key elements related to the social context of PM, namely the buy-in of organizational stakeholders, timely and regular feedback, and future-directed feedback, we believe that several robust findings from the PM research literature could further improve this process. Are Pulakos et al. looking at the forest but missing the trees? In the following commentary, we offer several reasons that performance judgments and perhaps even informal ratings are still operating and occurring in the proposed holistic system. Therefore, advancements in other areas of PM research may offer additional ways to fix PM.

A survey of performance management (PM) practices in 101 U.S. organizations explored whether their PM systems, as perceived by human resources (HR) executives, reflect the best practices advocated by researchers to provide a benchmark of current PM practices. Results suggest that many of the PM practices recommended in the research literature are employed across the organizations surveyed, but several gaps between research and practice remain. Results also indicated that the majority of PM systems are viewed by HR executives as effective and fair. Implications for the science and practice of PM are discussed.

Performance management (PM) research has traditionally been criticized because of its supposed lack of impact on PM practice. A survey of PM practices in the United States was conducted to determine the current state of PM in organizations and to evaluate the gaps between science and practice. Implications are discussed.