管理最重要的资产:二十年绩效管理文献回顾

IF 0.9 Q4 MANAGEMENT
Ebina Justin M.A., Manu Melwin Joy
{"title":"管理最重要的资产:二十年绩效管理文献回顾","authors":"Ebina Justin M.A., Manu Melwin Joy","doi":"10.1108/jmh-04-2021-0023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>The three objectives served by this review are to provide readers a limpid insight about the topic performance management (PM), to analyse the latest trends in PM literature and to illustrate the theoretical perspectives. It would be fascinating for the practitioners and researchers to see the latest trends in the PM system, which is not yet covered in previous reviews. The study covers the historical and theoretical perspectives of human resource management practices. We also try to unveil some of the theoretical debates and conflicts regarding the topic.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>We reviewed 139 studies on PM published within the last 20 years (2000–2020). The method used here is the integrative review method. The criteria used to determine studies are articles from peer-reviewed journals regarding the PM system published between 2000 and 2020. The initial search for studies was conducted using an extensive journal database, and then an intensive reference-based search was also done. Each selected article was coded, themes were identified, and trends for every 5 years were determined. All the articles were analysed and classified based on the methodology used to identify qualitative and quantitative studies.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The review concludes that PM literature's emphasis shifted from traditional historical evaluations conducted once or twice a year to forward-looking, feedback-enriched PM systems. By segregating the studies into 5-year periods, we could extract five significant trends that prevailed in the PM literature from 2000 to 2020: reactions to PM system, factors that influence PM system, quality of rating sources, evaluating the PM system and types of the PM system. The review ends with a discussion of practical implications and avenues for future research.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Research limitations/implications</h3>\n<p>It is equally a limitation and strength of this paper that we conducted a review of 139 articles to cover the whole works in PM literature during the last 20 years. The study could not concentrate on any specific PM theme, such as exploring employee outcomes or organizational outcomes. Likewise, the studies on public sector and non-profit organizations are excluded from this review, which constitutes a significant share of PM literature. Another significant limitation is that the selected articles are classified only based on their methodology; further classification based on different themes and contexts can also be done.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>The study is an original review of the PM literature to identify the latest trends in the field.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":45819,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management History","volume":"5 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Managing the most important asset: a twenty year review on the performance management literature\",\"authors\":\"Ebina Justin M.A., Manu Melwin Joy\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jmh-04-2021-0023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Purpose</h3>\\n<p>The three objectives served by this review are to provide readers a limpid insight about the topic performance management (PM), to analyse the latest trends in PM literature and to illustrate the theoretical perspectives. It would be fascinating for the practitioners and researchers to see the latest trends in the PM system, which is not yet covered in previous reviews. The study covers the historical and theoretical perspectives of human resource management practices. We also try to unveil some of the theoretical debates and conflicts regarding the topic.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\\n<p>We reviewed 139 studies on PM published within the last 20 years (2000–2020). The method used here is the integrative review method. The criteria used to determine studies are articles from peer-reviewed journals regarding the PM system published between 2000 and 2020. The initial search for studies was conducted using an extensive journal database, and then an intensive reference-based search was also done. Each selected article was coded, themes were identified, and trends for every 5 years were determined. All the articles were analysed and classified based on the methodology used to identify qualitative and quantitative studies.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Findings</h3>\\n<p>The review concludes that PM literature's emphasis shifted from traditional historical evaluations conducted once or twice a year to forward-looking, feedback-enriched PM systems. By segregating the studies into 5-year periods, we could extract five significant trends that prevailed in the PM literature from 2000 to 2020: reactions to PM system, factors that influence PM system, quality of rating sources, evaluating the PM system and types of the PM system. The review ends with a discussion of practical implications and avenues for future research.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Research limitations/implications</h3>\\n<p>It is equally a limitation and strength of this paper that we conducted a review of 139 articles to cover the whole works in PM literature during the last 20 years. The study could not concentrate on any specific PM theme, such as exploring employee outcomes or organizational outcomes. Likewise, the studies on public sector and non-profit organizations are excluded from this review, which constitutes a significant share of PM literature. Another significant limitation is that the selected articles are classified only based on their methodology; further classification based on different themes and contexts can also be done.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\\n<p>The study is an original review of the PM literature to identify the latest trends in the field.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\",\"PeriodicalId\":45819,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Management History\",\"volume\":\"5 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Management History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jmh-04-2021-0023\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jmh-04-2021-0023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的本综述的三个目标是为读者提供关于绩效管理(PM)主题的清晰见解,分析PM文献的最新趋势,并说明理论观点。对于实践者和研究人员来说,看到项目管理系统的最新趋势是非常吸引人的,这在以前的评论中还没有涉及到。该研究涵盖了人力资源管理实践的历史和理论视角。我们也试图揭示一些关于这个话题的理论争论和冲突。设计/方法/方法我们回顾了过去20年(2000-2020年)发表的关于项目管理的139项研究。这里使用的方法是综合复习法。用于确定研究的标准是2000年至2020年间发表的同行评审期刊上关于PM系统的文章。最初的研究搜索是使用一个广泛的期刊数据库进行的,然后进行了密集的基于参考文献的搜索。每篇选定的文章都进行了编码,确定了主题,并确定了每5年的趋势。所有的文章被分析和分类的基础上使用的方法,以确定定性和定量研究。研究结论:项目管理文献的重点从传统的一年进行一到两次的历史评估转向了前瞻性的、反馈丰富的项目管理系统。通过将研究划分为5年周期,我们可以提取2000年至2020年PM文献中流行的五个重要趋势:对PM系统的反应,影响PM系统的因素,评级来源的质量,评估PM系统和PM系统的类型。文章最后讨论了未来研究的实际意义和途径。研究的局限性/意义同样是本文的局限性和优势,我们对139篇文章进行了回顾,以涵盖过去20年PM文献中的全部作品。该研究不能集中于任何具体的项目管理主题,如探索员工成果或组织成果。同样,对公共部门和非营利组织的研究也被排除在本综述之外,这构成了PM文献的重要份额。另一个重要的限制是所选文章仅根据其方法进行分类;还可以根据不同的主题和上下文进行进一步的分类。原创性/价值本研究是对PM文献的原始回顾,以确定该领域的最新趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Managing the most important asset: a twenty year review on the performance management literature

Purpose

The three objectives served by this review are to provide readers a limpid insight about the topic performance management (PM), to analyse the latest trends in PM literature and to illustrate the theoretical perspectives. It would be fascinating for the practitioners and researchers to see the latest trends in the PM system, which is not yet covered in previous reviews. The study covers the historical and theoretical perspectives of human resource management practices. We also try to unveil some of the theoretical debates and conflicts regarding the topic.

Design/methodology/approach

We reviewed 139 studies on PM published within the last 20 years (2000–2020). The method used here is the integrative review method. The criteria used to determine studies are articles from peer-reviewed journals regarding the PM system published between 2000 and 2020. The initial search for studies was conducted using an extensive journal database, and then an intensive reference-based search was also done. Each selected article was coded, themes were identified, and trends for every 5 years were determined. All the articles were analysed and classified based on the methodology used to identify qualitative and quantitative studies.

Findings

The review concludes that PM literature's emphasis shifted from traditional historical evaluations conducted once or twice a year to forward-looking, feedback-enriched PM systems. By segregating the studies into 5-year periods, we could extract five significant trends that prevailed in the PM literature from 2000 to 2020: reactions to PM system, factors that influence PM system, quality of rating sources, evaluating the PM system and types of the PM system. The review ends with a discussion of practical implications and avenues for future research.

Research limitations/implications

It is equally a limitation and strength of this paper that we conducted a review of 139 articles to cover the whole works in PM literature during the last 20 years. The study could not concentrate on any specific PM theme, such as exploring employee outcomes or organizational outcomes. Likewise, the studies on public sector and non-profit organizations are excluded from this review, which constitutes a significant share of PM literature. Another significant limitation is that the selected articles are classified only based on their methodology; further classification based on different themes and contexts can also be done.

Originality/value

The study is an original review of the PM literature to identify the latest trends in the field.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
50.00%
发文量
28
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信