员工激励机制外文翻译文献Word文件下载.docx

1、By Dennis Daley owa State University This paper examines one facet of performance appraisal-its use as a guide for the drafting of employee training and development plans. The scope is limited in that it excludes any consideration as to whether these plans are actually implemented. Our interest focu

2、ses only on the extent to which supervisors endeavor to assist employees in correcting or overcoming weaknesses and in enhancing or developing perceived strengths. The findings reported here are based on a 1981 monitoring of the performance appraisal system used by the State of Iowa. As civil servic

3、e reform has been instituted in one jurisdiction after another in order to further assure objective, performance based personnel practices, performance appraisal has emerged as one of the key issues in the personnel management of the 1980s. This heightened sense of importance and seriousness has, in

4、 turn, led to a renewed interest in the study of the actual workings of performance appraisal systems. The uses to which performance appraisal can be put are myriad. The recent Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 serves as a model in this respect. Here we find enunciated what may be taken as the typica

5、l orientation toward the uses of performance appraisal, recommending that personnel managers and supervisors use the results of performance appraisal as. a basis for training, rewarding, reassigning, promoting, reducing in grade, retaining, and removing employees. Performance appraisal systems can a

6、lso serve to validate personnel testing and selection procedures, although such systems are themselves also subject to affirmative action validation requirements. The economic recessions of the 1970s and 1980s have placed significant restraints on these uses, however. The imposition of hiring freeze

7、s, the diminishment of promotional opportunities, the advent of reductions-in-force, and the near abandonment of merit pay provisions by financially strapped governmental entities have contributed to the loss of enthusiasm for performance appraisal in many quarters. Under such circumstances, perform

8、ance appraisal一limited in its use to the more negative functions of employee evaluation-takes on the dreaded image ascribed to them by Douglas McGregor （1957）. In their search to salvage something positive from amidst these circumstances personnel specialists have alighted upon the use of performanc

9、e appraisal as a guide for employee training and development. This offers them the opportunity of providing public employees with a service that employees view as beneficial. Although public employees have shown little confidence in specific performance appraisal systems or in the managerial abiliti

10、es of those responsible for their implementation （McGregor, 1957; Levinson, 1976; Nalbandian,1981）, they have tended to demonstrate a more favorable attitude when the purpose of performance appraisal has been perceived to be employee development （Decotiis and Petit, 1978;Cascio, 1982）. This, of cour

11、se, still poses a significant problem to a multipurpose system such as that found in the State of Iowa. Disenchantment or distrust with one aspect of the performance appraisal system may significantly contribute to the weakening of the entire evaluation system.THE IOWA PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEMI

12、n all public service systems employees are evaluated periodically; most often this is done informally. The introduction of formal systems of performance appraisal, usually in addition to continued informal assessment, is a relatively recent event. Formal systems of performance appraisal are designed

13、 to provide a systematic and objective measure of individual job performance and/or potential for development. Although the use of formal performance appraisal in Iowa can be traced back at least to the early 1950s （limited, for the most part, to such rudimentary methods as the essay or graphic rati

14、ng scale）, these occurred within a fragmented setting. Individual departments and agencies retained descretion over the choice of such personnel practices until well into the 1960s. Under Governor Harold Hughes （1963一1969） a number of efforts were undertaken tostrengthen the executive. Among these r

15、eforms was the creation of the State Merit System of Personnel Administration, administered by the Iowa Merit Employment Department, in 1967. Even so, there were numerous exemptions limiting the extent of its coverage, both in terms of separate merit systems outside its jurisdiction and of patronage

16、 appointments. The executive reform movement was continued throughout the lengthy service of Governor Robert Ray （1969-1983）. Strong executive support was placed behind the development of the personnel system. Governor Ray unsuccessfully advocated expanding the IMED jurisdiction through the eliminat

17、ion of the existing coverage exemptions and by integrating the separate merit systems into an executive personnel department. Notwithstanding the somewhat 1imited success of recent Iowa governors, the basis for a professionalized public service was established during those years. One reflection of t

18、his basis is the fact that the use of a statewide appraisal-by-objectives system was inaugurated in 1977. The implementation of this system followed the introduction of the management-by-objectives concept among a number of the larger state agencies.Since appraisal-by-objectives is a specific applic

19、ation or extension of the MBO approach, it was felt that by this means executive support for performance appraisal could be more readily obtained. It is known, of course, that the lack of managerial support is a significant contributing factor in the failure of many performance appraisal systems. Th

20、e Iowa performance evaluation system is an ideal-typical descriptive example of the appraisal-by-objectives technique. The introduction of this approach in 1977 was accompained by a series of training sessions （Burke, 1977） and supported with supervisory and employee handbooks. However, training for

21、 new supervisors and periodic refresher courses appear to have been given a low priority in Iowa, as is generally the case in public sector personnel systems. Iowas use of appraisal-by-objectives is designed as a participatory system. Employee participation is a hallmark found among most modern mana

22、gement approaches and has been linked to successful public sector performance appraisal systems （Lovrich, et al，1981）. The Iowa performance evaluation process is initiated with joint completion of Section A:Responsibilities and Standards/Results Expected （also referred to as the job description）by t

23、he supervisor and employee. This is the first of three sections included in the performante appraisal form/process. Section A is completed at the beginning of the annual appraisal period while sections B and C are written up at its conclusion. The employee is to be given prior notice of the conferen

24、ce and supplied copies of previous evaluation for use as guides. Eight to ten major responsibilities （four to five is the norm） are to be selected and， written down in a results-oriented format with specific standards by which the achievement of these results are to be measured. These individual res

25、ponsibilities are weighted through the use of an additive formula which factors in the time spent on each task and the evaluation of its importance or the consequence of error （a five point Likert-type scale is used for both）. The overall employee rating is the weighted average of these individual r

26、esponsibility ratings（also based on a five point scale）. In the event that these responsibilities need to be subject to modification due to changing circumstances, a new Section A would be prepared by the supervisor and employee. During the course of the evaluation period the supervisor is also enco

27、uraged to use a critical incident approach. Both formal （with written copy inserted into the employees file） and informal communications between employees and supervisors are encouraged. For negative incidents it is important that a record of corrective action be documented; employees must be notifi

28、ed if they are doing something wrong and the supervision must indicate how they can correct their behavior. At the end of the evaluation period, again following advanced notice, the employee and supervisor meet to discuss the employees job performance in light of the responsibilities outlined in the

29、 employees Section A. Worksheets are used at this meeting with a formal evaluation prepared only afterward. At this appraisal interview the supervisor discusses SectionB: Performance Review/Rating with the employee. Employees are also given the opportunity to formally comment on the final evaluation

30、 form. Historically only five percent do so,of which under two percent can be classified as negative comments. Section C: Summary of Total Job Performance and Future Performance Plans is also completed at this time. Basically, this is an essay evaluation. The supervisor is provided the opportunity t

31、o list the employees areas of strength and those areas needing improvement. In the latter instances training and developmental plans for correcting these are supposed to be filed.DATA COLLECTION In conjunction with its implementation efforts the Iowa Merit Employment Department engaged in a two-year

32、 monitoring of its appraisal-by-objectives evaluation system. The results of this monitoring project, involving the sampling of performance appraisals submitted in between July 1978 and December 1979, were reported to state officials in January 1980.The first monitoring project led to a number of minor changes in the performance evaluation system. For most part these modifications represented word changes; e.g., instead of listingemployee