绩效考核的困境外文翻译及原文.docx

绩效考核的困境外文翻译及原文.docx

《绩效考核的困境外文翻译及原文.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《绩效考核的困境外文翻译及原文.docx（21页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

绩效考核的困境外文翻译及原文

原文一：

TheDilemmaofPerformanceAppraisal

ByPeterProwseandJulieProwse

Itwilloutlinethedevelopmentofindividualperformancebeforelinkingtoperformancemanagementinorganizations.Theoutcomesoftechniquestoincreaseorganizationalcommitment,increasejobsatisfactionwillbecriticallyevaluated.ItwillfurtherexaminethetransatlanticdebatesbetweenliteratureonefficiencyandeffectivenessintheNorthAmericanandtheUnitedKingdom）evidencetoevaluatetheHRMdevelopmentandcontributionofperformanceappraisaltoindividualandorganizationalperformance.

Appraisalpotentiallyisakeytoolinmakingthemostofanorganisation’shumanresources.Theuseofappraisaliswidespreadestimatedthat80–90%oforganizationsintheUSAandUKwereusingappraisalandanincreasefrom69to87%oforganisationsbetween1998and2004reportedaformalperformancemanagementsystem（ArmstrongandBaron,1998:

200）.Therehasbeenlittleevidenceoftheevaluationoftheeffectivenessofappraisalbutmoreonthedevelopmentinitsuse.Between1998and2004asamplefromtheCharteredInstituteofPersonnelandDevelopment（CIPD,2007）of562firmsfound506wereusingperformanceappraisalinUK.

Whatisalsovitaltoemphasiseistherisinguseofperformanceappraisalfeedbackbeyondperformanceforprofessionalsandmanagerstonearly95%ofworkplacesinthe2004WERSsurvey（seeTable13.1）.ClearlytheuseofAppraisalshasbeenthedevelopmentandextensionofappraisalstocoveralargeproportionoftheUKworkforceandthecoverageofnonmanagerialoccupationsandtheextendeduseinprivateandpublicsectors.

Critiquesofappraisalhavecontinuedasappraisalshaveincreasedinuseandscopeacrosssectorsandoccupations.Thedominantcritiqueisthemanagementframeworkusingappraisalasanorthodoxtechniquethatseekstoremedytheweaknessandproposeofappraisalsasasystemtodevelopperformance.

This“orthodox”approacharguesthereareconflictingpurposesofappraisal（Strebleretal,2001）.Appraisalcanmotivatestaffbyclarifyingobjectivesandsettingclearfutureobjectiveswithprovisionfortraininganddevelopmentneedstoestablishtheperformanceobjective.Theseconflictswithassessingpastperformanceanddistributionofrewardsbasedonpastperformance（Bach,2005:

301）.

Employeesarereluctanttoconfideanylimitationsandconcernsontheircurrentperformanceasthiscouldimpactontheirmeritrelatedrewardorpromotionopportunities（NewtonandFindley,1996:

43）.ThisconflictswithperformanceasacontinuumasappraisersarechallengedwithdifferingrolesasbothmonitorsandjudgesofperformancebutanunderstandingcounsellorwhichRandell（1994）arguesfewmanagershavenotreceivedtherainingtoperform.AppraisalManager’sreluctancetocriticisealsostemsfromclassicevidencefromMcGregorthatmanagersarereluctanttomakeanegativejudgementonanindividual’sperformanceasitcouldbedemotivating,leadtoaccusationsoftheirownsupportandcontributiontoindividualpoorperformanceandtoalsoavoidinterpersonalconflict（McGregor,1957）.

Oneconsequenceofthisavoidanceofconflictistorateallcriterionascentralandavoidanyconflictknownasthecentraltendency.InastudyofseniormanagersbyLongneckeretal.（1987）,theyfoundorganisationalpoliticsinfluencedratingsof60seniorexecutives.Thefindingswerethatpoliticsinvolveddeliberateattemptsbyindividualstoenhanceorprotectself-interestswhenconflictingcoursesofactionarepossibleandthatratingsanddecisionswereaffectedbypotentialsourcesofbiasorinaccuracyintheirappraisalratings（Longeneckeretal.,1987）.

TherearemethodsoffurtherbiasbeyondLongenecker’sevidence.Thepoliticaljudgementsandtheyhavebeendistortedfurtherbyoverratingsomeclearcompetenciesinperformanceratherthanbeingcriticalacrossallratedcompetenciesknownasthehaloeffectandifsomecompetenciesarelowertheymayprejudicethejudgmentacrossthepositivereviewsknownasthehornseffect（ACAS,1996）.

OneconsequenceofthisavoidanceofconflictistorateallcriterionascentralTherearemethodsSomeratingsmayonlycincluderecenteventsandtheseareknownastherecencyeffects.Inthiscaseonlyrecenteventsarenotedcomparedtomanagersgatheringandusingdatathroughouttheappraisalperiod.Aparticularconcernistheequityofappraisalforratingswhichmaybedistortedbygender,ethnicityandtheratingsofappraisersthemselves.ArangeofstudiesinboththeUSandUKhavehighlightedsubjectivityintermsofgender（Alimo-Metcalf,1991;White,1999）andethnicityoftheappraiseandappraiser（GeddesandKonrad,2003）.Suggestionsandsolutionsonresolvingbiaswillbereviewedlater.

Thesecondanalysisistheradicalcritiqueofappraisal.Thisisthemorecriticalmanagementliteraturethatarguesthatappraisalandperformancemanagementareaboutmanagementcontrol（NewtonandFindley,1996;Townley,1993）.Itarguesthattightermanagementcontroloveremployeebehaviourcanbeachievedbytheextensionofappraisaltomanualworkers,professionalasmeanstocontrol.ThisdevelopstheliteratureofFoucaultusingpowerandsurveillance.Thisliteratureusescasesinexamplesofpublicservicecontrolonprofessionalssuchateachers（Healy,1997）andUniversityprofessionals（Townley,1990）.

Thisevidencearguestheincreasedcontrolofpublicservicesusingappraisalasamethodofcontrolandthattheoutcomeofmanagerialobjectivesignoresthedevelopmentalroleofappraisalandratingsareawardedforpeoplewhoacceptandembracethecultureandorganizationalvalues.However,thisliteratureignorestheemployeeresistanceandtheuseofprofessionalunionstochallengetheattemptstoexertcontroloverprofessionalsandstaffintheappraisalprocess（Bach,2005:

306）.

ThisevidencearguesOneofthedifferentissuesofremovingbiaswastheuseofthetestmetaphor（Folgeretal.,1992）.Thiswasbasedontheassumptionthatappraisalratingswereatechnicalquestionofassessing“true”performanceandthereneededtobeincreasedreliabilityandvalidityofappraisalasaninstrumenttodevelopmotivationandperformance.Thesourcesofraterbiasanderrorscanberesolvedbyimprovedorganisationaljusticeandincreasingreliabilityofappraiser’sjudgement.

Howevertherewereproblemssuchasanassumptionthatyoucanstatejobrequirementsclearlyandtheorganizationis“rational”withobjectivesthatreflectvaluesandthatthejudgmentbyappraisers’arevaluefreefrompoliticalagendasandpersonalobjectives.Secondlythereisthesecondissueofsubjectivityifappraisalratingswheredecisionsonappraisalareratedbya“politicalmetaphor”（Hartle,1995）.

This“politicalview”arguesthataappraisalisoftendonebadlybecausethereisalackoftrainingforappraisersandappraisersmayseetheappraisalasawasteoftime.Thisbecomesaprocesswhichmanagershavetoperformandnotasapotentialtoimproveemployeeperformance.Organisationsinthiscontextare“political”andtheappraisersseektomaintainperformancefromsubordinatesandviewappraisesasinternalcustomerstosatisfy.Thismeansmanagersuseappraisaltoavoidinterpersonalconflictanddevelopstrategiesfortheirownpersonaladvancementandseekaquietlifebyavoidingcensurefromhighermanagers.

Thisperceptionmeansmanagersalsoseeappraiseeseeksgoodratingandgenuinefeedbackandcareerdevelopmentbyseekingevidenceofcombiningemployeepromotionandpayrise.Thismeansappraisalratingsbecomepoliticaljudgementsandseektoavoidinterpersonalconflicts.Theapproachesofthe“test”and“political”metaphorsofappraisalareinaccurateandlackobjectivityandjudgementofemployeeperformanceisinaccurateandaccuracyisavoided.Theissueishowcanorganisationsresolvethislackofobjectivity?

Grint（1993）arguesthatthesolutionstoobjectivityliesinpartwithMcGregor’s（1957）classiccritiquebyretrainingandremovalof“topdown”ratingsbymanagersandreplacementwithmultipleraterevaluationwhichremovesbiasandtheobjectivitybyupwardperformanceappraisal.Thevalidityofupwardappraisalmeanstheremovalofsubjectiveappraisalratings.Thisapproachisalsosuggestedtoremovegenderbiasinappraisalratingsagainstwomeninappraisals（Fletcher,1999）.Thesolutionofmultiplereporting（internalcolleagues,customersandrecipientsofservices）willreducesubjectivityandinequityofappraisalratings.Thisargumentdevelopsfurtherbytheriseintheneedtoevaluateprojectteamsandincreasinglevelsofteamworktoincludepeerassessment.Thesolutionsalsointheorymeanincreasedclosercontactwithindividualmanagerandappraisesandincreasingserviceslinkedtocustomerfacingevaluations.

However,negativefeedbackstilldemotivatesandplentyoffeedbackandexplanationbymanagerwhocollatesfeedbackratherthanjudgesperformanceandfailtosummariseevaluations.TherearehoweverstillproblemswithaccuracyofappraisalobjectivityasWalkerandSmither（1999）5yearstudyof252managersover5yearperiodstillidentifiedissueswithsubjectiveratingsin360degreeappraisals.Therearestillissuesonthesubjectivityofappraisalsbeyondtheareasoflackoftraining.

Thecontributionofappraisalisstronglyrelatedtoemployeeattitudesandstrongrelationshipswithjobsatisfaction（FletcherandWilliams,1996）.Theevidenceonappraisalstillremainspositiveintermsofreinvigoratingsocialrelationshipsatwork（Townley,1993）andthewidespreadadoptioninlargepublicservicesintheUKsuchasthenationalhealthService（NHS）isthevaluablecontributiontolinemanagersdiscussionwithstaffontheirpastperfor