Performance Management: A Systematic Review of the Literature and an Agenda for Future Research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performance Management (PM), in all its guises, is a core business practice across the majority of organizations; whether this occurs formally through an official organizational process or informally through daily dialogue. Given its inherent importance our aim was to understand how academics have explored PM and therefore we conducted a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) of the scholarly PM literature over a period of more than 11 years, resulting in 219 articles from X different journals. The prevalent themes related to the role of organizational culture, the psychometric properties of Performance Appraisals (PAs) and the linkage of the PM system to other human resource management (HRM) systems; but what we saw was a gap in the scholarly literature as it relates to how we enact PM in practice. Therefore, we conclude with a suggested future research agenda to bridge this research-practice gap, with an emphasis on moving scholarly research from a focus on performance appraisal (or annual performance review) to PM.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it