PERFORMANS DEĞERLENDİRMELERİNE PARADİGMATİK BİR BAKIŞ: YÖNETİCİ VE ÇALIŞAN İLİŞKİLERİ AÇISINDAN EPİSTEMOLOJİK BİR İNCELEME

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, yorumsamacı paradigma yaklaşımının performansdeğerlendirmelerine katkısını incelemektir. Yazında yer alan bir çokaraştırma, performans değerlendirmelerinin daha çok işlevselci paradigmaçerçevesinde, pozitivist ve nesnel bir yaklaşımla yapıldığını göstermektedir.Bununla birlikte yorumsamacı paradigma yaklaşımının, performansdeğerlendirmelerinde yaygın olarak kullanılan pozitivist yaklaşımlar ilebir arada ele alınmasının, değerlendirme sonuçlarının doğruluğuna katkısağlayacağı düşünülmektedir. Makalede yorumsamacı paradigmanın,işlevselci paradigmayla birlikte ele alınmasının performans değerlendirmesonuçlarının doğruluğuna sağlayacağı katkılar, yönetici ve çalışan ilişkileriçerçevesinde, epistemolojik boyutlarıyla değerlendirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yorumsamacı Paradigma, Performans Değerlendirme, İşlevselci Paradigma, Pozitivizm, Epistemoloji

A PARADIGMATIC OVERVIEW FOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS: AN EPISTEMOLOGIC INVESTIGATION FROM THE POINT OF MANAGER AND EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIPS

Öz

This study is aimed to the contribution of interpretivist paradigm approach to performance evaluations. Lots of research in literature show that performance evaluations perform in the frame of functionalist paradigm, positivist and objective approaches. There are some researches, which shows that positivist approaches widely used in performance evaluations are dealt with interpretivist paradigm together, increase the accuracy of evaluation results. In this paper, the contributions of accuracy of performance evaluation results are investigated with functionalist paradigm dealt with interpretivist paradigm together in the framework of manager and employee relationship and epistemological dimensions

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Interpretivist Paradigm,Performance Evaluation,Functionalist Paradigm,Positivism,Epistemology

Kaynakça

1. Baird, L. ve Meshoulam, I. (1988), “Managing two fits of strategic human resource management”, Academy of Management Review, 13, 1, 116-128.
2. Banner D. K. ve Cooke R. A. (1984), “Ethical dilemmas in performance appraisals”, Journal of Business Ethics, 3. 327-333.
3. Barlow, G. (1989), “Deficiencies and the perpetuation of power: Latent functions in management appraisal”, Journal of Management Studies, 26, 499−517.
4. Bobic M. P. ve Davis W. E. (2003), “A kind word for Theory X: or why so many newfangled management techniques quickly fail”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol 13, no 3, pp. 239-264.
5. Boyd, N. M. ve Kyle, K. (2004), “Expanding the view of performance appraisal by introducing social justice concerns”, Administrative Theory and Praxis, 26, 249−278.
6. Bretz, R. D., Milkovich, G. T ve Read, W. (1992), “The current state of performance appraisal research and practice: Concerns, directions, and implications”, Journal of Management, 18(2): 321.
7. Buijs, Jan. (1998), “Viewpoint: towards a new theory X”, Creativity and Innovation Management. 7. No. 1: 17-22.
8. Burrell, G. ve Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.

9. Cooperrider D. L. ve Srivastva S. (1987), “Appreciative inquiry in organizational life”, Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol.1, pages 129-169.
10. Decotiis T. ve Petit A. (1978), “The performance appraisal process: a model and some testable propositions”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 3, No. 3 (Jul., 1978), pp. 635-646.
11. Dixon J. ve Dogan R. (2003), “A philosophical analysis of management: improving praxis”, Journal of Management Development. Vol. 22 No. 6, 2003. pp. 458-482.
12. Duarte N. T., Goodson J. R. ve Klick N. R. (1994), “Effects of dyadic quality and duration on performance appraisal”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, No. 3, 499-521.
13. Evered R. ve Louis M. R. (1981), “Alternative perspectives in the organizational sciences: ‘Inquiry from the inside’ and ‘Inquiry from the outside’”. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 6, No. 3, 385-395.
14. Flint D. H. (1999), “The role of organizational justice in multi-source performance appraisal: theory- based applications and directions for research”, Human Resource Management Review, Volume 9, Number 1, 1999, pages 1-20.
15. Hartog D. N., Boselie P., ve Paauwe J. (2004), “Performance management: a model and research agenda”, Applied Psychology: An Interntional Review, 53 (4), 556 –569.
16. Hogan, E, A. (1987), “Effects of prior expectations on performance ratings: a longitutional study”, Academy of Management Journal, 30: 354-368.
17. Ilgen, D. R. ve Feldman, J. M. (1983), “Performance appraisal: A process focus”, In B. M. Staw., L. L. Cummings (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior, vol. 4: 141- 197. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
18. Judge T. A. ve Ferris G. R. (1993), “Social context of performance evaluation decision” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, No.1, 80-105.
19. Latham, G., Almost, J., Mann, S. ve Moore, C. 2005. New developments in performance management. Organizational Dynamics, 34, 77−87.
20. Lee A. S. (1991), “Integrating Positivist and Interpretive Approaches to Organizational Research”, Organization Science, Vol. 2, No. 4 , 342-365.
21. Levy, P. E. ve Williams, J. R. (2004), “The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the future”, Journal of Management.30, 881−905.
22. Longenecker, C. O. ve Ludwig, D. (1990), “Ethical dilemmas in performance appraisal revisited”, Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 961−969.
23. Longenecker, C. O., Gioia, D. A. ve Sims, H. P. (1987), “Behind the mask: The politics of employee appraisal”, Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183−193.
24. Luthans F. ve Davis T.R.V. (1982), “An idiographic approach to organizational behavior research: The use of single case experimental designs and direct measures”. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 7, No. 3, 380-391.
25. Lynham S.A. (2000), “Theory building in the human resource development profession”, Human Resource Development Quarterly. 11, 2; 159-178.
26. Maanen J. V. (1979), “Reclaiming Qualitative Methods for Organizational Research: A Preface”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 4, Qualitative Methodology. 520-526.
27. McGregor, D. (1960), Theory X and Theory Y. In Pugh., D. S. Ed., Organization Theory: Selected Readings. London. Penguin.
28. McKenna S., Richardson J. ve Manroop L. (2011), “Alternative paradigms and the study and practice of performance management and evaluation”, Human Resource Management Review,. 21, 148 - 157.
29. Mitchell, T. (1983), The effects of social, task, and situational factors on motivation, performance, and appraisal, In F. Landy, S. Zedeck, J. Cleveland (Eds.), Performance measurement and theory: 39-59. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Morey N. ve Luthans F. (1984), “An emic perspective and ethnoscience methods for organizational research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, 27-36.
31. Morgan, G. (1980), “Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory”, Administrative Science Quarterly. 24.605-622.
32. Mount, M. K. ve Thomson D. E. (1987), “Cognitive categorization and quality of performance ratings”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 72:240-246.
33. Murphy, K. R. ve Cleveland, J. N. (1991), Performance appraisal: An organizational perspective, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
34. Pollack J. (2006), “The changing paradigms of project management”, International Journal of Project Management, Elsevier.
35. Steffy, B. D., ve Grimes, A. J. (1986), “A critical theory of organization science”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, No.2, 322-336.
36. Sullivan, J. J. (1986). “Human nature, organizations, and management theory”, Academy of Management Review, 11, 3, 534-49.
37. Taylor, M. S., Tracy, K. B., Renard, M. K., Harrison, J. K. ve Carroll, S. J. (1995), “Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 459-523.
38. Truss C., Gratton L., Hope-Hailey V., McGovern P. ve Stiles P. 1997. “Soft and hard models of human resource management”, Journal of Management Studies, 34:1.
39. Whitford C.M. ve Coetsee W. J. (2006), “A model of the underlying philosophy and criteria for effective implementation of performance management”, SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 4 (1), 63-73.
40. Wilson F. (2002), “Dilemmas of appraisal”, European Management Journal. Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 620–629.
41. Winch, P. (1990), The idea of social science and its relation to philosophy, 2nd ed., Routledge, London.