Mariella Miraglia, Silvia Dello Russo, Gregor Bouville
{"title":"绩效管理的危害:调查绩效管理对员工缺勤和旷工的影响","authors":"Mariella Miraglia, Silvia Dello Russo, Gregor Bouville","doi":"10.1177/00187267241274619","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Performance management (PM) practices were conceived to improve employees’ performance. However, one may ask: do they also have unintended and accompanying consequences on employee well-being? In this study, we set out to answer this question, and examined the influence of three PM practices, namely goal setting, monitoring, and performance evaluation, on two behavioral indicators of employee well-being: sickness absenteeism (not working owing to illness) and presenteeism (working despite illness). Our assumption, based on labor process theory, is that PM practices are an instrument of managerial control that would intensify employees’ work and, via this process, lead to more absenteeism and presenteeism. Drawing on two matched waves of the French National Working Conditions survey ( N = 17,081), we found that goal setting and monitoring are associated with more absenteeism and presenteeism indirectly via work intensification. By contrast, performance evaluation reported negative, albeit weak, indirect associations with both behaviors. These results show that PM can take a toll on employees’ well-being and that the organizational and social context of attendance behaviors matters. They also hold clear practical implications for designing managerial practices that minimize their negative impact on well-being.","PeriodicalId":48433,"journal":{"name":"Human Relations","volume":"62 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The hazards of performance management: An investigation into its effects on employee absenteeism and presenteeism\",\"authors\":\"Mariella Miraglia, Silvia Dello Russo, Gregor Bouville\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00187267241274619\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Performance management (PM) practices were conceived to improve employees’ performance. However, one may ask: do they also have unintended and accompanying consequences on employee well-being? In this study, we set out to answer this question, and examined the influence of three PM practices, namely goal setting, monitoring, and performance evaluation, on two behavioral indicators of employee well-being: sickness absenteeism (not working owing to illness) and presenteeism (working despite illness). Our assumption, based on labor process theory, is that PM practices are an instrument of managerial control that would intensify employees’ work and, via this process, lead to more absenteeism and presenteeism. Drawing on two matched waves of the French National Working Conditions survey ( N = 17,081), we found that goal setting and monitoring are associated with more absenteeism and presenteeism indirectly via work intensification. By contrast, performance evaluation reported negative, albeit weak, indirect associations with both behaviors. These results show that PM can take a toll on employees’ well-being and that the organizational and social context of attendance behaviors matters. They also hold clear practical implications for designing managerial practices that minimize their negative impact on well-being.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48433,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Relations\",\"volume\":\"62 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Relations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267241274619\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Relations","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267241274619","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
The hazards of performance management: An investigation into its effects on employee absenteeism and presenteeism
Performance management (PM) practices were conceived to improve employees’ performance. However, one may ask: do they also have unintended and accompanying consequences on employee well-being? In this study, we set out to answer this question, and examined the influence of three PM practices, namely goal setting, monitoring, and performance evaluation, on two behavioral indicators of employee well-being: sickness absenteeism (not working owing to illness) and presenteeism (working despite illness). Our assumption, based on labor process theory, is that PM practices are an instrument of managerial control that would intensify employees’ work and, via this process, lead to more absenteeism and presenteeism. Drawing on two matched waves of the French National Working Conditions survey ( N = 17,081), we found that goal setting and monitoring are associated with more absenteeism and presenteeism indirectly via work intensification. By contrast, performance evaluation reported negative, albeit weak, indirect associations with both behaviors. These results show that PM can take a toll on employees’ well-being and that the organizational and social context of attendance behaviors matters. They also hold clear practical implications for designing managerial practices that minimize their negative impact on well-being.
期刊介绍:
Human Relations is an international peer reviewed journal, which publishes the highest quality original research to advance our understanding of social relationships at and around work through theoretical development and empirical investigation. Scope Human Relations seeks high quality research papers that extend our knowledge of social relationships at work and organizational forms, practices and processes that affect the nature, structure and conditions of work and work organizations. Human Relations welcomes manuscripts that seek to cross disciplinary boundaries in order to develop new perspectives and insights into social relationships and relationships between people and organizations. Human Relations encourages strong empirical contributions that develop and extend theory as well as more conceptual papers that integrate, critique and expand existing theory. Human Relations welcomes critical reviews and essays: - Critical reviews advance a field through new theory, new methods, a novel synthesis of extant evidence, or a combination of two or three of these elements. Reviews that identify new research questions and that make links between management and organizations and the wider social sciences are particularly welcome. Surveys or overviews of a field are unlikely to meet these criteria. - Critical essays address contemporary scholarly issues and debates within the journal''s scope. They are more controversial than conventional papers or reviews, and can be shorter. They argue a point of view, but must meet standards of academic rigour. Anyone with an idea for a critical essay is particularly encouraged to discuss it at an early stage with the Editor-in-Chief. Human Relations encourages research that relates social theory to social practice and translates knowledge about human relations into prospects for social action and policy-making that aims to improve working lives.