1、绩效考核外文文献及其译文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 historical development of appraisals and argue
2、 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 and methodsof appraisal, thedifficulties
3、encountered in the appraisalprocess。 It also reevaluates the lack of theoretical development in appraisaland move from he psychological approachesof analysistoamorecritical realisation ofapproaches before re-evaluating the challenge to remove subjectivity and bias in judgement of appraisal.13。1Intro
4、ductionThis 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 by Objectives, Motivation and Development)
5、.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 performance. The paper will then examine how
6、 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 the debates between linkages between perfor
7、mance 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 evaluated. It will further examine the t
8、ransatlantic 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 Performance Management?The first is sue
9、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 work in them by developing the capabilities
10、 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 appraisal and an increase from 69 to 87%
11、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 2004 a sample from the Chartered Institut
12、e 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 workplaces in the 2004 WERS survey (seeTabl
13、e 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 of Appraisals The critical issue is what is
14、 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 individual performance linked to workplace behaviou
15、r 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 questions for quality of feedback: 1。 What
16、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 of person providing feedback has the inter
17、personal 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 whichidentifies the linkages betweeninvolving,developi
18、ng, 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 Scottish factory inNew Lanarkin the early 18
19、00s (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。 Taylor and his measured performance and th
20、e 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 recruit and identify management potential
21、 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 ratings (Mair, 1958). In the 1940s Behavi
22、oural 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 levels of performance criteria to specific iss
23、ues 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 need for training and more importantly to ide
24、ntify 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 achievedand with in time frames such as pecific
25、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 and paired comparison ranking of performa
26、nce 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 conversation on a range of topics that the appr
27、aise 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 feedback was no longer dependent on the man
28、agersubordinate 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 with the emphasis on the linking performance
29、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 and the use of appraisal is the key part of
30、 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 (1992)。 Performance measures and evaluation in
31、cluded 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 quality services and total quality managemen
32、t.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 appraisal have continued as appraisal shave
33、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 argues there are conflicting purposes of appraisal
copyright@ 2008-2022 冰豆网网站版权所有
经营许可证编号:鄂ICP备2022015515号-1