Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
DOI 10.1007/s10869-011-9222-9
Carolyn Stine
Abstract Based on a study conducted in a large corpo- research that clarifies for managers which of these activi-
ration (XINC, a pseudonym) and other research, it appears ties have the strongest impact on employee engagement.
that performance management can be used to increase
levels of employee engagement. We begin this article with Keywords Employee engagement Burnout
a discussion of employee engagement, define engaged Performance management Performance appraisal
employees as those who feel involved, committed, pas- Goal setting Stretch goals Feedback Recognition
sionate, and empowered, and demonstrate those feelings in Employee development Coaching Learning Trust
work behavior. We then discuss an expanded view of Empowerment
performance management, conceptualizing it as five major
activities that serve to organize relevant behaviors shown
to be either direct or indirect predictors of employee Overview
engagement in the study at XINC. These major activities
include setting performance and development goals, pro- Is performance management truly at the wheel driving
viding ongoing feedback and recognition, managing employee engagement in organizations?
employee development, conducting mid-year and year-end There is evidence to suggest performance management
appraisals, and building a climate of trust and empower- can be conceptualized as the overarching framework for
ment. In turn, we briefly discuss how each of these major guiding managers in their efforts to increase engagement in
activities contributes to employee engagement, suggest their organizations (Mone and London 2009); other authors
which activities benefit from further research, and recom- (see Introduction) who recently address the topic of
mend possible studies. Although there is evidence for engagement (or burnout) provide support for this concep-
performance management as a driver of employee tualization as they suggest that certain performance man-
engagement, we conclude there is a need for additional agement practices can lead to higher levels of engagement.
This article begins with a brief discussion of employee
engagement, setting the stage for exploring the relationship
between performance management and employee engage-
ment. Five major components of performance management
are then outlined; each component frames a set of manager
E. Mone (&) behaviors shown to drive engagement. Recommendations
Edward Mone Consulting LLC,
are suggested for research under each component to further
6 Sands Court, Port Washington, NY 11050, USA
e-mail: emone@optonline.net clarify the specific nature of the performance management
actions managers can take to drive engagement in their
C. Eisinger K. Guggenheim C. Stine teams and organizations. We bring the article to a close
CA Technologies, Islandia, NY, USA
with a discussion of performance management as a set of
B. Price interrelated processes driving engagement and some con-
PepsiCo, Incorporation, Purchase, NY, USA cluding thoughts.
123
206 J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:205212
123
J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:205212 207
Table 1 Conceptual framework: performance management activities, manager behaviors and employee engagement
Performance management activity Manager behaviors associated with both performance management and driving
employee engagement
affects the level of engagement. Managers would probably organizational direction and alignment and their level of
assume the greater the degree of stretch, the greater the engagement could also help to better understand this
level of engagement, but they might be wrong and their relationship.
actions could lead to burnout (see, e.g., Maslach and Leiter
1997).
Similarly, goal alignment and cascading of goals is seen as Providing Ongoing Feedback and Recognition
important to organizational success (Labovitz and Rosansky
1997; Kaplan and Norton 1996). Schiemann (2009) cites a An important component of the performance management
number of studies showing the positive impact of alignment, process is the effective use of feedback (London 2003), and
including increases in employee satisfaction, but not neces- providing ongoing feedback to employees that helps
sarily engagement. From Mone and London (2009), we know improve performance is a key driver of employee
that communication about organization strategy and direction engagement (Mone and London 2009). In fact, Catteeuw
and helping employees understand how their efforts align to et al. (2007) also highlight the connection between pro-
the companys efforts promotes engagement. We need to viding honest feedbackthat helps ensure employees
better understand the impact that timing, frequency, and depth understand their performance strengths and areas of
of communication have on engagement. developmentand greater employee engagement. Consis-
One way to empirically examine the relationship tent with this notion, research from Mone and London
between engagement and stretch goals is through a study (2009) suggests that managers drive engagement when they
that engages different participants in tasks that have vari- provide ongoing feedback and recognition to direct and
ous degrees of difficulty, and then measuring the extent to improve performance and have career-planning discussions
which the participants felt engaged by the demands of the with their employees.
task. A simple measure might be based on how absorbed Receiving feedback on performance is generally con-
(Macey et al. 2009) or involved, committed, passionate, sidered a positive and motivating experience, especially in
and empowered (Mone and London 2009) participants the context of constructive feedback (London 2003;
were in completing the task. A modification to this kind of Smither and London 2009a). What remains unclear, how-
study could allow for exploring the relationship between ever, is the exact relationship between constructive feed-
communication about the importance of the task and how it back and employee engagement. For example, does
aligns with a larger purpose and its impact on engagement constructive feedback minimize feelings of engagement or
levels. In a field setting, exploring the relationship between does it provide additional motivation to become engaged?
the extent to which employees feel informed about These questions are important because managers might
123
208 J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:205212
assume that an increased reliance on constructive feedback skills over time, including the capacity to view the world
may make employees more engaged, when in fact the through a more-informed inclusive perspective (Mone and
feedback could actually lead to the employee experiencing London 2009). Development focuses on the integration and
burnout (Maslach and Leiter 1997). application of learning. Therefore, development depends
Recognition can be viewed as a form of feedback rooted on the ability to learn which can be influenced by a number
in positive reinforcement and tied to an employees behavior of factors, including employees learning styles (Honey
or accomplishment of a specific goal or task. Research from and Mumford 1989, 1990; Kolb 1984) and characteristics
Mone and London (2009) suggests that recognition and (Kolb 1984; Mone and London 2009; Sessa and London
reward are critical to employee engagement and they 2006).
enhance satisfaction, motivation, and morale. In addition, as In the context of employee engagement, Mone and
reported in Brun and Dugas (2008), beyond sending a London (2009) demonstrate that when managers provide
positive message to employees in terms of value, research sufficient opportunities for training and support regarding
shows that recognition links to employee performance and career development efforts, they help foster employee
company success; however, if employees are not recognized development and drive employee engagement. Bakker
for their efforts, they could experience mental and emotional et al. (2008) report that employees need more than learning
distress and burnout (Maslach and Leiter 1997). opportunities alonethey need motivational support and
Clearly, managers need to ensure they are providing the resources to accomplish their development goals.
their employees with feedback and recognition, but what Consider, also, that opportunities for training and devel-
are the best answers to the questionswhat, how, when, opment can be incidental, informal, or formal (Marsick and
and how oftenwhen it comes to promoting higher Watkins 1990), and it might be inferred that informal and
levels of employee engagement? According to Mulvey and incidental learning, which lead to greater learning in the
Ledford (2002), managers should provide timely and workplace (Rowden 2002), can also enhance employee
ongoing feedbackthat is, both positive and constructive engagement. Jacob et al. (2008) support this notion that
(Seijts and Crim 2006)to employees about their obser- employee engagement is enhanced when managers offer
vable behaviors and performance and areas for improve- their employees on-the-job learning opportunities as well as
ment, and recognition of optimal performance. We can the autonomy to pursue those learning opportunities.
speculate that too much recognition could adversely affect Mone and London (2009) also found that a direct pre-
an employees intrinsic motivation (Deci 1980; Deci and dictor of employee engagement is the extent to which
Flaste 1995), so perhaps the best approach is for managers to employees are satisfied with their opportunities for career
get to know each individuals needs and wants to determine progression and promotion, a finding supported by Seijts
the appropriate answers to these questions (Brun and Dugas and Crim (2006) who suggest that employees will feel more
2008; Mone and London 2009). Gostick and Elston (2007) engaged if managers provide challenging and meaningful
and Mone and London (2009) offer managers practical best- work with opportunities for career advancement.
practice suggestions for how to recognize employees. From our perspective, managers like to know the kinds of
Further research could focus on understanding the impact training and development opportunities they should offer
of constructive feedback, the timing and frequency of feed- employees that meet both learning needs and foster
back, and the frequency and amount of recognition on engagement. As previously discussed, evidence suggests
employee engagement. In a field setting, a survey (given of that informal learning can promote engagement. However, it
course, the inclusion of an engagement measure) could remains unclear if any informal learning methodologies
contain questions asking employees about the extent to reading books or journals, watching videos or webcasts,
which their feedback was largely constructive, considering being mentored, learning from colleagues, etc.have a
as well the timing and frequency of the feedback. A similar greater or lesser impact on engagement. And to what extent
survey approach could focus on questions about how varia- do formal learning opportunities affect engagement? An
tions in recognition practices affect employee engagement. empirical approach to answering these questions might
Finally, given the research cited above, other questions could involve providing a complex task to individuals that could
examine the extent to which the form of recognition was only be completed with additional learning, with different
tailored to meet the individuals unique needs and wants. groups of individuals provided a different way to learn about
the task, and then measure their levels of engagement. If the
groups are large enough, interaction effects from learner
Managing Employee Development styles, characteristics, etc., should be mitigated.
Coaching, which can occur throughout the performance
Development, in the context of performance management, management process, provides another informal learning
is the accumulation and application of new knowledge and opportunity for employees. Although coaching is often
123
J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:205212 209
viewed as a personal and professional developmental overarching corporate or departmental objectives, the more
experience, few studies appear to have been published on they tend to be perceived as fair.
its effectiveness (Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson 2001). Furthermore, according to Roch et al. (2007), the format
Although a handful of studies do attempt to address this of the appraisals rating systemabsolute versus relative
gap (e.g., Evers et al. 2006), most research centers around affects an employees perception of the appraisals fairness.
the use of external or executive coaches instead of man- Specifically, they found that absolute appraisal formats are
agers acting as coaches for employees. Mone and London perceived to be fairer than relative formats. They also dis-
(2009) discuss effective coaching as a way for managers to cuss how perceptions of fairness have been linked to a
support employee learning and growth and suggest three variety of organizational outcomes: organizational com-
areas of coaching focus: helping employees adapt, mitment, job satisfaction, questions over the legitimacy of
improving performance, and developing potential. What organizational theories and policies, organizational citi-
we do not know about the manageremployee coaching zenship behaviors, disobeying authorities decisions, and
relationship, however, is whether a focus in one area or the turnover. One important organizational outcome that is
other will lead to greater employee engagement, although missing from this list is employee engagement. Given
previously discussed findings might suggest the latter strong advocates in the popular business press either
developing potential for future jobs. favoring relative or forced distribution (Welch and Welch
One area of study researchers may want to explore is the 2005) or absolute (Lawler and Worley 2006) rating systems,
link between coaching focus and engagement to help further research in this area would be of interest.
managers determine how to best use the time they have Because most organizations typically use either a rela-
available for coaching. For example, a possible field study tive or absolute rating system, and not both at the same
could have three groups of individuals receive coaching time, we suggest a laboratory study. The study could
one whose focus is on learning how to adapt, another involve two groups, each perhaps with a task that is com-
whose focus is on improving performance, and the last plex and challenging to arouse sufficient motivation. Those
whose focus is on developing potentialand then measure evaluated under the absolute rating system would be told in
the level of employee engagement among the three groups. advance how different levels of outcomes lead to different
One could hypothesize that there might be higher levels of levels of evaluation and reward; those evaluated under the
engagement across all the groups after the coaching then relative system would be told that their overall level of
before, even if no significant differences between the evaluation and reward is based on their performance
groups regarding their levels of engagement are found against others performing the same task. We suggest that
based on the focus of the coaching. the overall levels of engagement in the task and perception
of fairness of the evaluation and rewards should be mea-
sured after the individuals involved are provided with their
Conducting Mid-Year and Year-End Appraisals overall evaluation and reward.
123
210 J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:205212
climate of trust and empowerment. Mone and London (2009) employee engagement. Insight, for example, into what is
further review and discuss other key drivers of trust, for the appropriate degree of stretch in a goal, the impact of
example, the effective use of position power, acting with the constructive feedback, the type of learning opportunity, etc.
propensity to trust, and demonstrating managerial trust- A final recommendation for further studyunderstand-
worthy behaviors, such as being an advocate for, displaying ing the impact (and variance explained) by each key per-
an interest in and showing confidence in employees, acting formance management activity on engagementcould be
with integrity, demonstrating openness, acting as a trusted survey-based in an applied setting. Included in the survey
coach, and managing the performance of employees. would be a measure of employee engagement, high-level
Additionally, Mone and London (2009) report that questions about each performance activity (e.g., setting
employees having the resources to perform their jobs performance and development goals), and then questions
effectively and being encouraged to be innovative and targeting the what, how, when, and how often aspects, as
creative to improve their work processes and productivity appropriate (e.g., the degree of stretch involved). The latter
are both primary drivers of employee engagement. set of questions could take the form of the following: I feel
Although most management experts agree that trust and most engaged at work when my performance goals:
empowerment are important concepts, and a number of (a) require very little effort for me to achieve, (b) require a
actions that managers can take that drive trust and moderate amount of effort for me to achieve, and (c) will
empowerment and increase engagement were suggested require a substantial amount of effort for me to achieve.
above, managers become faced with the challenge of Structural equation modeling (e.g., Blunch 2008) can be used
determining which trust-building and empowerment in the analysis to identify the high-value relationships for
behaviors are more crucial to driving the overall level of managers and help them focus their efforts proportionately
employee engagementand avoiding burnout (Maslach on the performance management activities and behaviors
and Leiter 1997, 2008). As a result, we propose that a field that contribute the most to driving employee engagement.
study could help managers better face this challenge. Using
a survey, employees can evaluate their managers on the
extent to which they demonstrate the range of behaviors (as Concluding Thoughts
suggested here) that demonstrate trustworthiness and
empowerment; the survey would also incorporate a mea- Is performance management truly at the wheel driving
sure of employee engagement. employee engagement in organizations?
Yes, this is the same question we asked at the opening of
this article, and we do believe that an expanded view of
Performance Managementan Interrelated Set performance management can serve as a useful framework
of Processes, Activities, and Behaviors for managers, one that guides them in the day-to-day
management of their employees performance while also
It is logical to pose the question at this point that if per- fostering high levels of employee engagement and avoid-
formance management is typically defined as a set of ing burnout.
processes, activities, and behaviors (Mone and London Yet, we realize that there is more to learn to capitalize
2009; Pulakos 2009; Rotchford 2002), and each activity on the research to date. As a result, we have suggested
contributes to explaining the variance in employee some avenues for further exploration and ideas for possible
engagement, how much additional variance does each studies about the manager behaviors associated with per-
activity explain in relation to the others? Practically formance management and employee engagement. In the
speaking, how much extra effort should managers put into end, we need to understand more clearly the extent to
certain performance management activities if the impact on which each performance management activity explains the
employee engagement might not be worth the effort? In variance in employee engagement, and the specific nature
some ways, this can help answer the question for managers: of the behaviors associated with those activities so that
Does the whole of performance management have a greater managers can better determine what to do and how to focus
impact on employee engagement than the sum of parts? and maximize their time and effort when it comes to using
In the previous sections, we discussed the key perfor- performance management to drive employee engagement
mance management activities, such as setting performance in their organizations.
and development goals, raised questions about how each
affects engagement, and suggested avenues for further
research. These suggestions hopefully will inspire others to Appendix
provide more insight into the what, how, when, and how
often aspects of each of these activities in relation to See Table 2.
123
J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:205212 211
123
212 J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:205212
Roch, S. G., Sternburgh, A. M., & Caputo, P. M. (2007). Absolute vs. Seijts, G. H., & Crim, D. (2006, March/April). What engages
relative performance rating formats: implications for fairness employees the most or, the ten cs of employee engagement. Ivey
and organizational justice. International Journal of Selection and Business Journal, 15.
Assessment, 15(3), 302316. Sessa, V. I., & London, M. (2006). Continuous learning in
Rotchford, N. (2002). Performance management. In J. W. Hedge & E. organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
D. Pulakos (Eds.), Implementing organizational initiatives: Smither, J. W., & London, M. (2009a). Best practices in performance
steps, processes and best practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. management. In J. W. Smither & M. London (Eds.), Perfor-
Rowden, R. W. (2002). The relationship between workplace learning mance management: putting research into action. San Francisco:
and job satisfaction in U.S. small to midsize businesses. Human Jossey-Bass.
Resource Development Quarterly, 13(4), 407425. Smither, J. W., & London, M. (Eds.). (2009b). Performance
Schiemann, W. A. (2009). Aligning performance management with management: putting research into action. San Francisco:
organizational strategy, values and goals. In J. W. Smither & M. Jossey-Bass.
London (Eds.), Performance management: putting research into Welch, J., & Welch, S. (2005). Winning. New York: Harper Collins
action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Publishers.
123
Copyright of Journal of Business & Psychology is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.