Introduction
Academic articles are meant to provide credible information on various matters, yet some papers are not completely free of assumptions that may misguide the reader. For instance, in their report, DeNisi and Smith (2014) argue about the connection between individual- and firm-level performance and propose their own model of leveraging productivity. Consequently, one area for future research advocated for by the writers involves the measurement of the constructs proposed in their model (DeNisi & Smith, 2014). The authors’ approach to employee efficiency and the recommendations of how the concepts should be assessed may raise several questions, but most directions seem to be justified.
Evidence
First, the article’s writers offer evidence of the necessity to analyze their proposed model. Paul and Elder (2020) state that reasoning is based on proof associated with using accurate information. Accordingly, DeNisi and Smith (2014) claim that they have reviewed considerable works on performance, but each was incomplete, and many lacked empirical evidence. For instance, DeNisi and Smith (2014) mention two models that discuss PMSs (Performance Management Systems) but suggest that their own approach goes “a bit further” in examining the effects of strategic goals (p. 154). In particular, the authors refer to the conclusions of Herman Aguinis and Elaine Pulakos, who discuss associations between individual and operational objectives (DeNisi & Smith, 2014). Moreover, the writers suggest that they apply some terminology and ideas that resemble concepts from other scholarly sources in the field (DeNisi & Smith, 2014). For example, the model is affiliated with the term “climate for performance,” which has a meaning similar to “emergent enabling process” by Robert Ployhart and Thomas Moliterno (DeNisi & Smith, 2014, p. 156). The writers’ proposed model and recommendations for its examination are consistent with evidence from other researchers.
Assumptions
Consequently, the reasoning behind the directions is affiliated with certain presumptions. Paul and Elder (2020) state that assumptions represent matters that people take for granted and that might be questioned. For instance, DeNisi and Smith (2014) imply that future research should analyze their model further because it is more inclusive than other approaches. Nonetheless, the authors do not seem to provide justification for the belief, such as comments on their framework from their peers. Furthermore, some unnamed assumptions revolve around the model and guidance on measuring its constructs being based on research that has been conducted in a Western context (DeNisi & Smith, 2014). Although the writers acknowledge the limitation of the model to be used in different cultures, they do not appear to consider that it may also jeopardize their suggestions on scales that can be employed. However, one must remember that DeNisi and Smith (2014) make suggestions on what they believe to be practical but base those directions on the findings from multiple other papers. Therefore, while the authors make assumptions about how their model should be analyzed, their recommendations do not seem biased.
Conclusion
To summarize, the article’s writers advocate that future research should examine the constructs of their new framework on employee performance due to deeming that their approach surpasses previous methods. Before attempting to identify measurements for the proposed model’s concepts, one should question whether it is as inclusive and relevant for other cultures as claimed by the authors. Nevertheless, the assumptions in the paper, especially those regarding suggested scales, seem warranted, as they are supported by evidence from other researchers.
References
DeNisi, A., & Smith, C. (2014). Performance appraisal, performance management, and firm-level performance: A review, a proposed model, and new directions for future research.The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 127–179. Web.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2020). The miniature guide to critical thinking: Concepts and tools. Rowman & Littlefield.