员工激励机制外文翻译文献.docx

1、员工激励机制外文翻译文献员工激励机制外文翻译文献(文档含中英文对照即英文原文和中文翻译) 原文：Performance Appraisal as a Guide for Training and Development:A Research Note on the Iowa Performance Evaluation SystemBy Dennis Daley owa State University This paper examines one facet of performance appraisal-its use as a guide for the drafting of em

2、ployee training and development plans. The scope is limited in that it excludes any consideration as to whether these plans are actually implemented. Our interest focuses only on the extent to which supervisors endeavor to assist employees in correcting or overcoming weaknesses and in enhancing or d

3、eveloping 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 service reform has been instituted in one jurisdiction after another in order to further assure objective, performance based personnel prac

4、tices, 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 turn, led to a renewed interest in the study of the actual workings of performance appraisal systems. The uses to which performance

5、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 typical orientation toward the uses of performance appraisal, recommending that personnel managers and supervisors use the results of perfo

6、rmance appraisal as. a basis for training, rewarding, reassigning, promoting, reducing in grade, retaining, and removing employees. Performance appraisal systems can also serve to validate personnel testing and selection procedures, although such systems are themselves also subject to affirmative ac

7、tion validation requirements. The economic recessions of the 1970s and 1980s have placed significant restraints on these uses, however. The imposition of hiring freezes, the diminishment of promotional opportunities, the advent of reductions-in-force, and the near abandonment of merit pay provisions

8、 by financially strapped governmental entities have contributed to the loss of enthusiasm for performance appraisal in many quarters. Under such circumstances, performance appraisal一limited in its use to the more negative functions of employee evaluation-takes on the dreaded image ascribed to them b

9、y Douglas McGregor (1957). In their search to salvage something positive from amidst these circumstances personnel specialists have alighted upon the use of performance appraisal as a guide for employee training and development. This offers them the opportunity of providing public employees with a s

10、ervice that employees view as beneficial. Although public employees have shown little confidence in specific performance appraisal systems or in the managerial abilities of those responsible for their implementation (McGregor, 1957; Levinson, 1976; Nalbandian,1981), they have tended to demonstrate a

11、 more favorable attitude when the purpose of performance appraisal has been perceived to be employee development (Decotiis and Petit, 1978;Cascio, 1982). This, of course, still poses a significant problem to a multipurpose system such as that found in the State of Iowa. Disenchantment or distrust wi

12、th one aspect of the performance appraisal system may significantly contribute to the weakening of the entire evaluation system.THE IOWA PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM In all public service systems employees are evaluated periodically; most often this is done informally. The introduction of formal sy

13、stems of performance appraisal, usually in addition to continued informal assessment, is a relatively recent event. Formal systems of performance appraisal are designed to provide a systematic and objective measure of individual job performance and/or potential for development. Although the use of f

14、ormal 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 rating scale), these occurred within a fragmented setting. Individual departments and agencies retained descretion over the choice of su

15、ch 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 reforms was the creation of the State Merit System of Personnel Administration, administered by the Iowa Merit Employment Department,

16、 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 appointments. The executive reform movement was continued throughout the lengthy service of Governor Robert Ray (1969-1983). Strong

17、 executive support was placed behind the development of the personnel system. Governor Ray unsuccessfully advocated expanding the IMED jurisdiction through the elimination of the existing coverage exemptions and by integrating the separate merit systems into an executive personnel department. Notwit

18、hstanding the somewhat 1imited success of recent Iowa governors, the basis for a professionalized public service was established during those years. One reflection of this basis is the fact that the use of a statewide appraisal-by-objectives system was inaugurated in 1977. The implementation of this

19、 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 application or extension of the MBO approach, it was felt that by this means executive support for performance appraisal could be more rea

20、dily 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. The Iowa performance evaluation system is an ideal-typical descriptive example of the appraisal-by-objectives technique. The introduct

21、ion 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 new supervisors and periodic refresher courses appear to have been given a low priority in Iowa, as is generally the case in public

22、 sector personnel systems. Iowas use of appraisal-by-objectives is designed as a participatory system. Employee participation is a hallmark found among most modern management approaches and has been linked to successful public sector performance appraisal systems (Lovrich, et al，1981). The Iowa perf

23、ormance evaluation process is initiated with joint completion of Section A:Responsibilities and Standards/Results Expected (also referred to as the job description)by the supervisor and employee. This is the first of three sections included in the performante appraisal form/process. Section A is com

24、pleted 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 conference and supplied copies of previous evaluation for use as guides. Eight to ten major responsibilities (four to five is the norm) are

25、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 responsibilities are weighted through the use of an additive formula which factors in the time spent on each task and the evaluation of

26、 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 responsibility ratings(also based on a five point scale). In the event that these responsibilities need to be subject to modification

27、 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 encouraged to use a critical incident approach. Both formal (with written copy inserted into the employees file) and informal communicat

28、ions between employees and supervisors are encouraged. For negative incidents it is important that a record of corrective action be documented; employees must be notified if they are doing something wrong and the supervision must indicate how they can correct their behavior. At the end of the evalua

29、tion period, again following advanced notice, the employee and supervisor meet to discuss the employees job performance in light of the responsibilities outlined in the employees Section A. Worksheets are used at this meeting with a formal evaluation prepared only afterward. At this appraisal interv

30、iew the supervisor discusses SectionB: Performance Review/Rating with the employee. Employees are also given the opportunity to formally comment on the final evaluation form. Historically only five percent do so,of which under two percent can be classified as negative comments. Section C: Summary of

31、 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 to list the employees areas of strength and those areas needing improvement. In the latter instances training and developmental plans

32、 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 monitoring of its appraisal-by-objectives evaluation system. The results of this monitoring project, involving the sampling of perf

33、ormance 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