绩效考核为导向的培训和发展 毕业论文外文翻译.doc

毕业论文题目：xx企业绩效考核体系的现状分析及对策研究英文文献原文：performance appraisal as a guide for training and development:a research note on the iowa performance evaluation systembydennis daleyiowa 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 focuses 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 service 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 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 typical 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 also 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 freezes, 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, performance 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 performance 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 abilities 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 course, 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 system in 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 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 rating 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 reforms 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 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 elimination 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 this 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 application 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. the 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 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 management 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 the 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 conference 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 responsibilities 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 responsibility 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 encouraged 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 notified 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 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 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 to 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 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 weaknesses, areas needing improvement were prescribed. this study is based on the results of a second monitoring project conducted by the imed.the questions addressed in this study were, in part, raised by the first monitoring project.while the first monitoring focused primarily on the basic or general implementation of the performance evaluation system (i.e., was there compliance with the mandated requirements?), the second is more concerned with how well it is working. the format used here is that of action research or troubleshooting (starling, 1979, pp. 495一514; rossi and freeman, 1982). imed staff served as judges who assessed the qualitative aspects of performance appraisals. a stratified approach to sampling was employed in order to assure that sufficient supervisory, professional and managerial appraisals were included. the resultant data base consisted of 535 performance appraisals submitted between july and december of 1981.data analysis the primary results assessing how well iowas performance appraisal system is working are reported elsewhere (daley, 1983). this paper focuses only on those aspects related to the specification of training and development plans. because iowa employs a multipurpose approach in the use of performance appraisals it is hardly surprising that there are many instances, 43 percent of those monitored, in which no training and development are specified. this, however, poses the task of somehow separating the cases in which training plans should most definitely be present. a supervisor may choose to list training and development plans for three reasons. first,unrelated to any individual strengths or weaknesses, he may choose to use this performance appraisal section as a memo or reminder of a training activity which all employees are routinely given. the inclusion of such activities in an official performance appraisal may serve to provide added political weight in order to insure their being performed; it is all to easy amidst the pressing, day-to-day concerns of administrative firefighting to let training and development activities slide off the edge. second, supervisors may choose to promote employee development. they may either pickup on some strength an individual already possesses or for which he may have an aptitude and attempt to polish, refine, or enhance those skills. while this is not an automatic relationship, not all strengths would require additional or follow-up training, it is important for both organizational and individual well-being. obviously, such activities benefit the organization by increasing its administrative or technical capacity. one can also expect that the individual employee benefits through material rewards and/or enhanced self-esteem. as such, this represents one of the positive uses to which performance appraisal can be put.hence, it has an added importance. finally, training plans should be specified in those instances in which a supervisor notes that an employee needs improvement. as such remarks may become the basis for an adverse personnel action (reassignment, reduction in grade, removal, etc.) it is legally incumbent that the state demonstrate that it has made a good faith effort to correct such deficienties. due process demands that public employees not be dealt with a star chamber fashion.an employee cannot be expected to correct inadequate work behaviors if he is neither told that they are inadequate nor, it told, not instructed or assisted in how to correct them. in monitoring iowas performance appraisals room was allowed to record up to three strengths and areas needing improvement for each employee. supervisors tended to list employee strengths twice as often as they detailed areas needing improvement (1223 to 506),and as one would expect there is a pronounced tendency to note both strengths and areas needing improvement vis-a-vis individual employees (58 percent of the monitored appraisals combine both strengths and areas needing improvement). a count of the number of listed strengths and areas needing improvement was made use of (zero to three for each variable) in analyzing this data. while this fails to measure the importance or significance of each strength or area needing improvement, it was felt that in some way the number of such instances would be related to or a rough indicator of the overall seriousness underlying the specification or training plans (i.e., as the number of instances increased so would the need for a training plan to be specified). furthermore, training plans were judged not only as to their existence but also as to whether they were deemed to represent a poor or good relationship between the plan and the listed strengths and areas needing improvement. the nature of this relationship may also be interpreted in terms of partial or full compliance. good plans would be seen as following-up on the listed strengths and/or areas needing improvement and, hence, as complying with the personnel systems intention to use performance appraisals as a guide for training and development. in addition to the above analysis the count of strengths and areas needing improvement were also compared to the rounded performance ratings given to each individual. it was felt that there should be evidence here, too, albeit tangential in nature, of a relationship; those employees garnering more mentions of strengths and/or of fewer areas needing improvement should possess higher ratings.文献翻译（4000字以上）：绩效考核为导向的培训和发展：在爱荷华州的一份关于绩效评估系统的研究报告丹尼斯戴利爱荷华州立大学本文探讨的是一个方面的性能评估的使用作为一个指南起草员工培训和发展计划。范围是有限的,它不包括任何考虑关于这些计划是否得到有效执行。我们的兴趣只集中在何种程度上尽力协助员工纠正或克服的弱点和加强或发展感知优势。本篇报告是根据1981年监测的由爱荷华州使用的绩效考核制度。作为公务员制度改革而设立的一个司法辖区，以进一步保证客观，基于性能的人事惯例，绩效考核已成为20世纪80年代的人事管理中的关键问题之一。这个高度的重要性和严肃感，进而导致在实际工作绩效考核系统研究的新兴趣。绩效考核的用途可以是无数的。最近的1978年的公务员改革法案作为在这方面的模型。在这里，我们发现阐明什么可被视为典型的面向绩效考核的用途，建议人事经理和主管“绩效考核结果作为使用的基础培训，奖励，重新分配，促进，减少级，保留，除去员工。”绩效考核系统也可以用来验证人员的测试和选拔程序，虽然这样的系统本身也受到扶持行动验证要求。经济衰退的1970年代和1980年代有放置重要限制这些用途,然而，实行冻结招聘,晋升机会的减少,裁员的出现, 不久的放弃绩效工资由财政拮据的政府实体规定造成了损失,绩效考核的热情为许多方面的损失作出了贡献。在这种情况下，绩效考核一员工评估更多的负面功能需要赋予他们可怕的形象，由道格拉斯麦格雷戈（1957年）在其使用的限制。在他们的搜索中打捞一些积极的东西，从这些情况之中人员下车后，使用绩效考核作为员工培训和发展的指导专家。这为他们提供了机会，提供公共雇员是有益的服务。虽然具体的绩效考核系统或那些负责执行（麦格雷戈，1957年，莱文森，1976年，纳尔班迪安，1981年）中的管理能力缺乏信心，他们倾向于展示一个更有利的态度当绩效考核的目的被认为是员工发展(decotiis和珀蒂,1978年;卡西欧, 1982年)。当然,这仍然是一个重要的问题,一个多用途系统如发现爱荷华州的。觉醒的一个方面或不信任与绩效考核制度可能会极大的影响了整个评价体系的弱化。爱荷华州的绩效评价体系在所有的公共服务系统员工定期进行评估，最通常的做法就是非正式的。正式的绩效考核制度，平时除了继续非正式的评估，引进是一个相对较新的事件。正式系统的绩效考核的目的是提供一个系统的和客观的衡量个人的工作表现和/或发展潜力。虽然使用正式的绩效考核在爱荷华州至少可以追溯到20世纪50年代初（数量有限，在大多数情况下，这种基本方法为论文或图形评定量表)，这些发生在一个支离破碎的设置。个别部门和机构保留裁量权在选择这类人员的做法一直延续到20世纪60年代。在州长哈罗德休斯（1963一1969）进行了一些努力，加强行政机关。在这些改革是建立国家绩效系统的人员管理,由爱荷华州,在1967年的就业部门绩效。即便如此，有许多限制豁免其覆盖的程度，无论是在其管辖范围之外的独立的考绩制度方面光顾任命。行政改革运动是贯穿在整个漫长的州长罗伯特雷(1969 - 1983)的服务期间。人事制度的发展有强大的行政在背后支持。州长雷不主张扩大imed通过消除的覆盖现有豁免和执行人事部门通过整合独立的考绩制度管辖失。尽管近期爱荷华州州长比较有限的成功，专业化的公共服务的基础建立在那些年。此基础上的一个反映的事实是，目标系统的一次评估使用于1977年。该系统的实现遵循目标概念的一些较大的国家机构之间的管理导论。从评价的目标是管理层收购的方法，一个特定的应用程序或扩展，它认为这对绩效考评工具的支持会更容易得到执行。据了解，当然，缺乏管理的支持是一个重要的促进因素在许多绩效考核系统失败的例子当中。爱荷华的绩效评估体系是一个理想的典型的描述实例的评价目标技术。1977年采用这种方法是伴随着一系列的培训课程（burke，1977年）和监督员工手册的支持。然而，新的监事和周期性的“进修”似乎已经在爱荷华的一个低优先级的训练，通常是在公共部门人事系统的情况下。目标评价爱荷华的使用作为一个参与系统设计。员工参与是一个标志性的现代管理方法中，大多数已与成功的公共部门绩效评估系统（罗夫李奇，等人，1981年）。在爱荷华州启动“a部分：岗位职责和标准/预期的结果”（也被称为“工作描述”）的主管和员工共同完成绩效评估过程。这是第一个包括三个部分在绩效考核的形式/过程。a节开始在年度考核期内完成，部分b和c是在其结论开始完成。员工要事先通知会议，并提供先前的评估副本作为指导使用。八到十个主要职责（4到5是常态）进行选择，并在实现这些结果来衡量的具体标准以业绩为导向的格式写下来的。这些个人的责任是加权通过添加剂配方因素在花在每个任务和它的重要性或错误的后果评价使用时间（五点李克特式量表是用于两个）。员工的整体评级是这些个人责任评级（也可根据五点量表上）的加权平均。如果在这些责任需要根据不断变化的情况下修改，一个新的部分将由主管和员工的准备。评估期过程中，主管也鼓励使用“关键事件”的做法。正式（书面副本