绩效考核与管理外文翻译文献.docx

1、绩效考核与管理外文翻译文献绩效考核与管理外文翻译文献 (文档含中英文对照即英文原文和中文翻译)原文：The Dilemma of Performance AppraisalPeter Prowse and Julie Prowse Measuring Business Excellence,Vol.13 Iss:4,pp.69 - 77AbstractThis paper deals with the dilemma of managing performance using performance appraisal. The authors will evaluate the histor

2、ical development of appraisals and argue that the critical area of line management development that was been identified as a critical success factor in appraisals has been ignored in the later literature evaluating the effectiveness of performance through appraisals.This paper willevaluatethe aims a

3、nd methodsof appraisal, thedifficulties encountered in the appraisalprocess. It also re-evaluates the lack of theoretical development in appraisaland move from he psychological approachesof analysistoamorecritical realisation ofapproaches before re-evaluating the challenge to remove subjectivity and

4、 bias in judgement of appraisal.13.1IntroductionThis paper will define and outline performance management and appraisal. It will start by evaluating what form of performance is evaluated, then develop links to the development of different performance traditions (Psychological tradition, Management b

5、y Objectives, Motivation and Development).It will outline the historical development of performance management then evaluate high performance strategies using performance appraisal. It will evaluate the continuing issue of subjectivity and ethical dilemmas regarding measurement and assessment of per

6、formance. The paper will then examine how organisations measure performance before evaluation of research on some recent trends in performance appraisal. This chapter will evaluate the historical development of performance appraisal from management by objectives (MBO) literature before evaluating th

7、e debates between linkages between performance management and appraisal. It will outline the development of individual performance before linking to performance management in organizations. The outcomes of techniques to increase organizational commitment, increase job satisfaction will be critically

8、 evaluated. It will further examine the transatlantic debates between literature on efficiency and effectiveness in the North American and the United Kingdom) evidence to evaluate the HRM development and contribution of performance appraisal to individual and organizational performance. 13.2 What is

9、 Performance Management?The first is sue to discuss is the difficulty of definition of Performance Management. Armstrong and Barron(1998:8) define performance management as: A strategic and integrated approach to delivering sustained success to organisations by Improving performance of people who wo

10、rk in them by developing the capabilities of teams And individual performance. 13.2.1 Performance AppraisalAppraisal potentially is a key tool in making the most of an organisations human resources. The use of appraisal is widespread estimated that 8090%of organizations in the USA and UK were using

11、appraisal and an increase from 69 to 87% of organisations between 1998 and 2004 reported a formal performance management system (Armstrong and Baron, 1998:200).There has been little evidence of the evaluation of the effectiveness of appraisal but more on the development in its use. Between 1998 and

12、2004 a sample from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD, 2007) of 562 firms found 506 were using performance appraisal in UK. What is also vital to emphasise is the rising use of performance appraisal feedback beyond performance for professionals and managers to nearly 95% of w

13、orkplaces in the 2004 WERS survey (seeTable 13.1).Clearly the use of Appraisals has been the development and extension of appraisals to cover a large proportion of the UK workforce and the coverage of non managerial occupations and the extended use in private and public sectors. 13.2.2 The Purpose o

14、f Appraisals The critical issue is what is the purpose of appraisals and how effective is it ？Researched and used in practice throughout organizations? The purpose of appraisals needs to be clearly identified. Firstly their purpose. Randell (1994) states they are a systematic evaluation of individua

15、l performance linked to workplace behaviour and/or specific criteria. Appraisals often take the form of an appraisal interview,usually annual,supported by standardised forms/paperwork.The key objective of appraisal is to provide feedback for performance is provided by the linemanager.The three key q

16、uestions for quality of feedback: 1. What and how are observations on performance made? 2. Why and how are they discussed? 3. What determines the level of performance in the job? 1 It has been argued by one school of thought that these process cannot be performed effectively unless the line manager

17、of person providing feedback has the interpersonal interviewing skills to providethat feedback to people being appraised. This has been defined as the “Bradford Approach” which places a high priority on appraisal skills development (Randell, 1994). This approach is outlined in Fig. 13.1 whichidentif

18、ies the linkages betweeninvolving,developing, rewarding and valuing people at work.13.2.3 Historical Development of Appraisal The historical development of performance feedback has developed from a range of approaches.Formal observation of individual work performance was reported in Robert Owenss Sc

19、ottish factory inNew Lanarkin the early 1800s (Cole, 1925). Owen hung over machines a piece of coloured wood over machines to indicate the Super intendents assessment of the previous days conduct (white forexcellent, yellow, blue and then black for poor performance).The twentieth centuryled to F.W.

20、Taylor and his measured performance and the scientific management movement (Taylor, 1964). The 1930sTraits Approaches identified personality and performance and used feedback using graphic rating scales, a mixed standard of performance scales noting behaviour in likert scale ratings.This was used to

21、 recruit and identify management potential in the field of selection. Later developments to prevent a middle scale from 5 scales then developed into a forced-choice scale which forced the judgement to avoid central ratings.The evaluation also included narrative statements and comments to support the

22、 ratings (Mair, 1958). In the 1940s Behavioural Methods were developed. These included Behavioural Anchored Rating Scales (BARS); Behavioural Observation Scales (BOS); Behavioural Evaluation Scales (BES); critical incident;job simulation. All these judgements were used to determine the specific leve

23、ls of performance criteria to specific issues such as customer service and rated in factors such asexcellent,average or needs to improve or poor.These ratings are assigned numerical values and added to a statement or narrative comment by the assessor. It would also lead to identify any potential nee

24、d for training and more importantly to identify talent for careers in linemanagement supervision and future managerial potential. Post1945 developed into the Results-oriented approaches and led to the development of management by objectives (MBO). This provided aims and specific targets to be achiev

25、edand with in time frames such as pecific sales, profitability,and deadlines with feedback on previous performance (Wherry, 1957). The deadlines may have required alteration and led to specific performance rankings of staff. It also provided a forced distributionof rankingsof comparative performance

26、 and paired comparison ranking of performance and setting and achieving objectives. In the 1960s the developmentof Self-appraisal by discussion led to specific time and opportunity for the appraisee to reflectively evaluate their performance in the discussion and the interview developed into a conve

27、rsation on a range of topics that the appraise needed to discuss in the interview. Until this period the success of the appraisal was dependent on skill of interviewer. In the 1990s the development of 360-degree appraisal developed where information was sought from a wider range of sources and the f

28、eedback was no longer dependent on the manager-subordinate power relationship but included groups appraising the performance of line managers and peer feedback from peer groups on individual performance (Redman and Snape, 1992). The final development of appraisal interviews developed in the 1990s wi

29、th the emphasis on the linking performance with financial reward which will be discussed later in the paper. The deadlines mayIn the 1960s thedevelopmentof Self-appraisalbydiscussion ledtospecific time13.2.4 Measures of Performance The dilemma of appraisal has always to develop performance measures

30、and the use of appraisal is the key part of this process. Quantitative measure of performance communicated as standards in the business and industry level standards translated to individual performance. The introduction of techniques such as the balanced score card developed by Kaplan and Norton (19

31、92). Performance measures and evaluation included financial, customer evaluation, feedback on internal processes and Learning and Growth. Performance standards also included qualitative measures Which argue that there is an over emphasis on metrics of quantitative approach above the definitions of q

32、uality services and total quality management.In terms of performance measures there has been a transformation in literature and a move in the 1990s to the financial rewards linked to the level of performance.The debates will be discussed later in the paper. 13.3 Criticism of AppraisalsCritiques of a

33、ppraisal have continued as appraisal shave increased in use and scope across sectors and occupations. The dominant critique is the management framework using appraisal as an orthodox technique that seeks to remedy the weakness and propose of appraisals as a system to develop performance. This “orthodox” approach