Way, Kïrsten A; Cooney, Oscar; Neall, Annabelle; Acutt, Georgia; Lee, Joanna.

Research on performance management has predominantly focused on positive outcomes such as improved job performance, despite it being an organisational process that also has the potential to cause psychological distress. Not surprisingly then, the mechanisms by which performance management causes psychological distress remain unclear and research findings are fractured and poorly integrated. This study aims to synthesize extant empirical research to examine whether studies exploring psychosocial hazards – work characteristics with the potential to cause stress-mediated harm – may help explain the performance management-psychological distress relationship. A systematic review was conducted investigating two research questions: 1. What are the relationships between performance management and psychosocial hazards, and 2. Can psychosocial hazards help explain the boundary conditions and/or mechanisms in relationships between performance management and psychological distress?

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, developing a review protocol that was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023454541). Schleicher et al.’s, (2018) framework was used to structure findings of relationships between psychosocial hazards and five core tasks of performance management systems (setting performance expectations, observing performance, formal summative performance evaluation, creating and delivering performance feedback, the formal performance review meeting) as well rater/supervisor and ratee/employee characteristics/relationships.

A total of 120 empirical (quantitative) studies published from 1980 to 2023 that met the inclusion criteria were included in the review, the majority of which were of high or moderate quality. While a meta-analysis is currently being conducted, an initial narrative synthesis of study findings indicates that aspects of performance management were positively associated with certain psychosocial hazards (role overload, role conflict, and a sense of injustice; k = 21). Other aspects of performance management, however, were reported to have negative associations with psychosocial hazards indicating that good performance management was seen as a job resource (i.e., via perceptions of increased support, improved job control, or acting to ensure performance management processes are fair; k = 179). Studies also reported that organisational justice, support, role overload, role conflict, and role clarity mediated (k = 19) or moderated (k = 4) the performance management-psychological distress relationship. These results indicate performance management may function as a challenge stressor when it is perceived as fair and supportive but may function as a hindrance stressor and cause greater employee distress when it is perceived as unfair, contributing to role overload, and causing greater role conflict. Strengths, limitations, and future directions are discussed.

At the conclusion of this event, attendees will be able to
1. Explain relationships between elements of performance management, psychosocial hazards, and psychological distress.
2. Think critically about the design and implementation of performance management processes and apply learnings to workplace contexts to reduce the risk of psychological harm.
3. Think critically about performance management in the context of compliance with new psychosocial hazard regulations in Australian health and safety laws.