What is Known About Development-Oriented Performance Management Practices? A Scoping Review
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
Although a growing number of organizations now focus on the developmental aspect of their performance management practices to improve their effectiveness, little research has been conducted so far on these practices and their outcomes. To deepen our understanding of this phenomenon, we undertook a scoping review on development-oriented performance management practices (DOPMPs) within the employee development and performance management literatures. After mapping the literature on these topics, synthesizing their outcomes, and factors for implementation, we identified research gaps and proposed research avenues. Our review suggests that most of the literature on DOPMPs comes from the grey literature, that most practices are used for performance execution, but more attention needs to be given to strategic planning. By structuring the current knowledge on this topic, this review encourages researchers to produce new knowledge about DOPMPs, their synergies, and their outcomes through a systems approach.
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) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.040 |
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