人力资源管理外文翻译.doc

英文文献原文：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 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.译文正文：激励是人力资源管理的核心。在企业生产经营管理中，人力资源是企业各种经济资源中具有思想、感情、最求和能动性的亦喜爱那个经济资源，也是企业这一有机体的灵魂，因此，人力资源是比其它生产经营资源更为重要的一项资源，它不仅影响和决定了企业其他生产经营经济资源的价值和使用状况，而且其本省就是企业实力几家质量的重要组成部分之一，由于人力资源在企业生产经营经济资源中的地位和作用，所以企业管理工作成效的极致或者说要达到的理想境界的目标应该是：企业内的每一个员工都能将企业的整体利益放在首位，并为企业的目标、利益甘愿贡献自己的一切。职工的这样一种思想和精神状态在宣誓中师很难以体现的，但却是企业家、管理者孜孜以求和所要挑战的极限，要趋近这样的一种状态，只有通过企业内部的有效激励。因此，企业管理工作的重中之重是人力资源管理。与传统劳动人事管理不同，现代人力资源管理的主要特征表现在“战略性”层面上：（1）在战略指导思想上，现代人力资源管理是“以人为本”的管理；（2）在战略目标上，现代人力资源管理是为了“获取竞争优势”的目标管理；（3）在战略范围上，现代人力资源管理是“全员参加”的民主管理；（4）在战略措施上，现代人力资源管理是运用“系统化科学方法和人文艺术”的权变管理。与非人力资源管理相比较，人力资源管理是通过“激励”来实现的，它是人力资源管理的核心。所谓“激励”，就是从满足人的多层次、多元化需要出发，针对不同员工设定绩效标准和奖励值，一最大限度地激发员工工作积极性和创造性去实现组织的目标。一个企业的人力资源利用效果如何，是由许多复杂因素耦合作用的结果，但其中管理的激励作用是最重要的因素之一。人力资源不同于其他非人力资源的根本特征就是，它依附于员工的人体而存在，与员工个人须臾不可分离，其他人或组织要使用人力资源，都要经由它的天然所有这个人的“积极主动”配合才能实现。因此，人力资源管理工作能否“以人为本”，有效激发员工的积极性，最大限度地发挥员工的主观能动性和创造性，就成为决定企业生产经营绩效优劣的关键因素和企业人力资源管理成功与否的核心问题。激励管理有管理激励和制度性激励两种体系。所谓管理激励主要指在企业人力资源管理过程中，管理者面对的是一个个活生生的现实的个体，所以对人力资源的日常维持和激励使用就必须因人而异，区别对待。这就要求管理主体有高潮的“运动人”的技能和技巧，能综合运用政治学、社会学、心理学甚至人体功效学所有“人学”知识和技术，有效地“支配别人去干事”，即激发每个员工的积极性使之最大限度地运用其人力资源，为企业生产经营做贡献。它是企业的一种非对称人际关系，强调管理者的“领袖权威”知人善任、“体察民情”、“为民做主”等等。总之，是以某种科学性的、行政性的、不对等的程序和方式来体现，进而实现激励所内涵的民主性质的人本化要求。但是另一方面经济行为，即在既定的制度环境约束下追求自身利益最大化，是整个人类行为最基本、最普通、最具主导型因而也是最重要的规定性和表现形态。因此，人力资源管理的首要任务，就是遵从其天然所有者这种经济行为属性，按照“一视同仁”的公平原则，设计和建立统一的，规范的，具有可操作性的激励制度。并在整个企业范围内贯彻实施，而在所有的企业制度安排中，最根本、最核心的是产权制度。这就要求从企业所有权安排和公司治理结构高度确立人力资本的产权地位，保证其肢体权能和权益的实现，即设计和实施全员持股、民主控制的股权激励计划和措施，以及企业文化、团队精神等非正式的制度安排，无论产权制度还是具体的规章制度，正式的还是非正式的制度，期间里和实施都飞一日之功，而是要经过长期的、互动博弈和潜移默化的累计渐进才能实现。所以，相对而言，制度激励是企业需要建立的一种长期稳定的根本性激励机制，它是管理激励的基础或前提。当今世界，人力资源激励管理模式具有东西方文化背景方面的适应性和差异性，西方文化强调“契约制度”，二东方文化注重“人伦纲常”。东方文化背景下人力资源激励管理的典型形态是日本模式。其基本特征。就是注重“管理激励”，强调员工从业者主权，充分利用了人的“社会性”或“合群性”动机，通过终身雇佣、年序工资、内部晋升和开发培训等，进行人力资源激励管理。西方文化背景下人力资源激励管理的典型形态是美国模式，与经济学中的制度激励理论接近。其基本特点可以概括为：侧重“制度激励”，注重利用市场竞争机制，在企业内部专业化分工的基础上，主要通过外部市场竞争压力，对在职员工进行契约化制度管理。需要明确的是，在企业战略层面上和操作实务中，制度激励与管理激励都必须统一纳入人力资源管理这个本系统，将之有机结合起来，并整合为完整的企业激励体系和运作机制。国内企业在激励管理上存在的问题。目前，在部分企业中存在其内部员工缺乏积极性和工作主动性，人心涣散、产品缺乏市场竞争力、经营经济效益水平低等等问题，究其原因，从根本上说一个重要的原因就是企业组织激励工作不力。原因一方面是因为部分企业的领导者和管理者认识上的错误，仅仅把人力作为一种资源，使员工的积极性的发挥受到抑制。他们认为中国的劳动力处于过剩状态，是一种可以随意调用、处置的资源。在这一观念的指导下，企业领导人仅把员工作为一种“取之不尽”的资源加以选择和使用，并不忠实对企业员工的再培训和企业员工对企业忠诚度的建立，而是一味地强化所谓的监督和控制。这样做的结果导致了员工对企业缺乏认同感，认为自己只是受雇于企业，给多少钱干多少活，相互间的信任程度非常低，难以充分发挥员工的潜力，调动员工积极性和创造性，企业内部缺乏激励机制。另一方面是部分企业在激励方式上存在误区，主要体现爱一下两方面：（1）过于集中在对经营者的奖励上，对经营者的激励虽然很重要，但远远不能解决企业的全部问题，莱宾斯坦等提出的X效率理论认为，组织内部的效率取决于全体员工的努力水平，只有根据不同类型的员工不同的需要进行不同的激励制度安排，才能达到不同的激励效用，最终实现“组织与个人利益的一致性。”如果忽视了对员工