Governments play a major role in the development process, and constantly introduce reforms and policies to achieve developmental objectives. Many of these interventions have limited impact, however; schools get built but kids don’t learn, IT systems are introduced but not used, plans are written but not implemented. These achievement deficiencies reveal gaps in capabilities, and weaknesses in the process of building state capability. This book addresses these weaknesses and gaps. It starts by providing evidence of the capability shortfalls that currently exist in many countries, showing that many governments lack basic capacities even after decades of reforms and capacity-building efforts. The book then analyzes this evidence, identifying capability traps that hold many governments back—particularly related to isomorphic mimicry (where governments copy best practice solutions from other countries that make them look more capable even if they are not more capable) and premature load bearing (where governments adopt new mechanisms that they cannot actually make work, given weak extant capacities). The book then describes a process that governments can use to escape these capability traps. Called PDIA (problem-driven iterative adaptation), this process empowers people working in governments to find and fit solutions to the problems they face. The discussion about this process is structured in a practical manner so that readers can actually apply tools and ideas to the capability challenges they face in their own contexts. These applications will help readers devise policies and reforms that have more impact than those of the past.

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/155633/1/880906634.pdf

Building State Capability

Despite years of research and practice, dissatisfaction with performance appraisal is at an all-time high. Organizations are contemplating changes to their performance management systems, the most controversial of which is whether to eliminate performance ratings. The pros and cons of retaining performance ratings were the subject of a lively, standing-room-only debate at the 2015 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology conference in Philadelphia (Adler, 2015). Given the high interest in this topic, this article recaps the points made by the panelists who participated in the debate. The arguments for eliminating ratings include these: (a) the disappointing interventions, (b) the disagreement when multiple raters evaluate the same performance, (c) the failure to develop adequate criteria for evaluating ratings, (d) the weak relationship between the performance of ratees and the ratings they receive, (e) the conflicting purposes of performance ratings in organizations, (f) the inconsistent effects of performance feedback on subsequent performance, and (g) the weak relationship between performance rating research and practice in organizations. The arguments for retaining ratings include (a) the recognition that changing the rating process is likely to have minimal effect on the performance management process as a whole, (b) performance is always evaluated in some manner, (c) “too hard” is no excuse for industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology, (d) ratings and differentiated evaluations have many merits for improving organizations, (e) artificial tradeoffs are driving organizations to inappropriately abandon ratings, (f) the alternatives to ratings may be worse, and (g) the better questions are these: How could performance ratings be improved, and are we conducting the entire performance management process properly? The article closes with questions organizational members have found useful for driving effective performance management reform.

/pdf/getting-rid-of-performance-ratings-genius-or-folly-a-debate-iqctqi6zb7.pdf

Getting Rid of Performance Ratings: Genius or Folly? A Debate

Performance evaluation will not die, but it should

In the 25+ years that the practice of 360° Feedback has been formally labeled and implemented, it has undergone many changes. Some of these have been positive (evolution) in advancing theory, research, and practice, and others less so (devolution). In this article we offer a new definition of 360° Feedback, summarize its history, discuss significant research and practice trends, and offer suggestions for all user communities (i.e., researchers, practitioners, and end users in organizations) moving forward. Our purpose is to bring new structure, discussion, and some degree of closure to key open issues in this important and enduring area of practice.

/pdf/the-evolution-and-devolution-of-360-feedback-24zb7zqie5.pdf

The Evolution and Devolution of 360° Feedback

A growing body of research explores human resource management practices that encourage employees to innovate. In this study, we examine the links between different sources of feedback (supervisor and co-worker) and employees’ innovative behavior. Drawing on social exchange theory and the job demands-resources theory, we first propose that work engagement and psychological contract breach mediate the relationship between supervisor feedback and employees’ innovative behavior. Second, we propose a moderated-mediation model in which co-worker feedback attenuates the relationships between supervisor feedback and employees’ innovative behavior through the mediating mechanisms of both work engagement and psychological contract breach. Using three waves of multi-source data from 300 Chinese employees and their 64 supervisors, we found a dual-mediation pathway by which employees’ work engagement and perceptions of psychological contract breach mediate the influence of supervisor feedback on innovative behavior. Our results also show that co-worker feedback can be used to supplement the lack of supervisor feedback when required. Organizations are advised to ensure that employees obtain regular feedback from multiple sources because such feedback can promote employees’ work engagement and perceptions that the organization is upholding its side of the psychological contract, which fosters employees’ innovative behavior.

/pdf/is-coworker-feedback-more-important-than-supervisor-feedback-47o9augwkr.pdf

Is coworker feedback more important than supervisor feedback for increasing innovative behavior

In spite of numerous attempts over decades to improve performance management (PM) systems, PM is viewed as more broken than ever, with managers and employees seeing it as a burdensome activity that is of little value. Yet, the behaviors that PM is meant to achieve are in fact important drivers of engagement and performance. So where is the disconnect? The problem is that formal PM systems have reduced PM to intermittent steps and processes that are disconnected from day-to-day work and behaviors that actually drive performance: communicating ongoing expectations, providing informal feedback in real time, and developing employees through experience. To deliver on its promise, PM needs to shift from focusing on the formal system to focusing on the PM behaviors that matter every day. We describe a 5-step PM reform process that helps organizations achieve this change and that shows promise for increasing satisfaction and positive outcomes from PM processes. Central to the intervention is that organizational members need to intentionally practice and solidify effective PM behavior through a structured, on-the-job, experiential learning intervention that yields meaningful behavior change. The change-management and training interventions discussed here provide a model for organizational culture and behavior change efforts beyond PM.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S1754942614000029

Rose Mueller Hanson

Papers

Performance Management Can Be Fixed: An On-the-Job Experiential Learning Approach for Complex Behavior Change