某企业绩效管理问题研究(外文翻译).doc

本科毕业论文（设计）外文翻译题 目 某企业绩效管理问题研究 学 院 商学院 专 业 人力资源管理 班 级 人力101 学 号 201052115115 学生姓名 田倩倩 指导教师 蒋懿 外文题目 Can Performance Management Foster Intelligent Behavior? 外文出处 People & Strategy 外文作者 Nagpal, Gyan 8原文一：Can Performance Management Foster Intelligent Behavior?Bjarte BogsnesThe world has changed, not just in increasingly fast-changing and unpredictable ways, but also the competence and expectations of people in our organizations. Unfortunately, too few seem to understand or accept that these developments call for radically new and different ways of leading and managing. Traditional management practices do not make us the agile organizations we need to be.The problem starts with the label, Performance Management implying, If I dont manage you, there will be no performance.We need a new mindset, one that is less about managing performance and more about creating conditions for great performance to occur. We need self-regulating models, requiring less management, but more leadership from everyone.Think about traffic, where we want good performance and a safe good flow. Traffic authorities have different ways of making this happen. The traffic light is a popular choice, but those managing the process (programmers) are not in the situation; information used in their process is not fresh, which is clear as you wait in front of that red light.The roundabout is a very different alternative. Those managing are the drivers themselves. The information used is real time, coming from own observations. While that information is also available in front of the traffic light, drivers do not have the authority to act on it. By the way, the zipper or every second car through is not a rule, but a guiding principle.The roundabout normally is more efficient than the traffic light, because of two significant differences in the decision-making process, information and authority. A third element is also required for the roundabout to be more efficient: while the traffic light is a simple-rules based system, the roundabout is values-based. A value-set based on, Me first, I dont care about the rest, is not a big a problem in front of the red light, but is a serious problem in a roundabout. Here, a positive common purpose of wanting a safe and good flow is critical. Drivers must be more considerate, open about own intentions while trying to understand the intentions of peers. Instead of managing performance, traffic authorities have created conditions for self-managed performance to occur.What would the implications be for the loathed performance review? The principles and practices described at Return Path are sensible and interesting. I like the concept of horizontal commitments toward peers, instead of vertical commitments to higher management. At the same time, we need to broaden our definition of performance. In traditional performance, a commitment is too often about hitting the number. This is too narrow. We need to ask questions such as, how are we doing compared to peers? How are we using KPIs to reflect on performance, or using hindsight and management assessment to verify results? Did we really move toward our longer-term ambitions? How sustainable are the results? Last but not least, there has to be room for values if performance systems are to foster intelligent behavior; we need to ask, how where those results achieved?At Statoil our integrated performance management approach links ambitions to actions. Our targets reflect a broad set of ambitions, including people, health, safety, environment, operations and financial performance. Read more about our management model and how we apply a holistic and values-based approach to this broader performance agenda.The words of Dee Hock, former GEO of Visa, should guide the design of our management processes, including our performance reviews: Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex, intelligent behavior. Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple, stupid behavior.While researching my book. Talent Economics, I interviewed employees about what really motivates todays workforce. I discovered a disconnect between the performance support my interviewees wanted versus how managers recounted their contribution to these conversations.Over the last 20 years, the employee mindset has evolved faster than has the art and science of management. Nowhere is this starker than in the area of performance management practices, particularly the annual review. In both the developed and developing world, employees report that this end-of-year activity breeds stress, anxiety and mistrust. How ironic that a process aimed at improving organizational performance, is itself underperforming!Its time to reboot our performance management operating system, installing two specific system updates:l. The Democracy update. As much as we try to make the performance appraisal a two way dialogue, we cannot run away from the fact that at its core, the conversation today is often a top-down review. My research shows that many 21st century employees are rejecting conversations that are one-way: in hot job markets today, managers must realize who is appraising whom. With other offers readily available, many employees enter a performance dialogue privately considering if their manager is worth another year of their career. The performance management conversation now reflects a companys Employee Value Proposition, much as we learn in the lead Perspective.The Democracy update means that managers only gain the right to give feedback when they first genuinely seek the same on their own performance as leaders. Not just through 360-degree reviews, but also through authentic conversations asking, How am I performing as your manager? and How can I help you succeed? Only then can the conversation shift to, How you can improve? and This is what you should focus on.2. The Success module. Greater employee autonomy and empowerment also changes the meaning of management. We have gone from a supervisor of task and outcomes to an enabler of performance, innovative thinking and collective success. To make this shift, we must give up the judges robes for the coachs uniform. If employees dont succeed, managers are on the hook, too.This is particularly relevant when coaching a team to success. People bring different skills to a team and how well they work together really matters. If team reviews work better to achieve a goal, so be it. The Return Path story illustrates how review processes can be designed and executed around what matters most, and where everyone dons the uniforms of player and coach.What if, instead of making the heart of a performance conversation the evaluation, it became a vehicle to improve success of the individual, the team and the business? What if performance feedback was paired with dialogue about transforming the business, the product or customer experience? This genuinely reboots and upgrades performance management to focus on individual and organizational success.It is indeed time to upgrade performance management practices: we can no longer manage a 21st century employee using 20th century mindsets.People & Strategy. 2013, Vol. 36 Issue 2, p12-13. 2p.译文一： 绩效管理能促进自我管理行为吗?Bjarte Bogsnes世界随着时间的推移而变化莫测，连那些与时变化而不可预测的通道也随之改变，与此同时组织人员的能力和期望也顺应时代潮流。不可想象的是，那些关于基于新的与众不同的领导和管理的方式的开发，似乎很少被人们理解或接受。传统的管理方法已经无法满足当前所要求的灵活管理的组织。就像如“绩效管理”的一些标语所揭示的“如果我不进行管理,就不会有绩效的存在。” 我们需要一个新的理念, 来表述那种创造更多优秀绩效的产生却很少涉及绩效管理的新思路。同时需要一种自我调节的模型, 即每一个人员在被管理的时候，要求尽量少的管理行为和尽量多的领导关系。思考下那些我们经常关注的良好安全的交通流通问题。引起交通事故发生的原因有很多。虽然交通指示灯很管用，但却不被列入交通事故管理程序（即程序管理）中。就像当你在十字路口等待红绿灯时，看到它作为交通管理，会觉得没有什么好在意的。车行绕道是一个与众不同的驾驶选择。这由司机自己通常驾驶方式所决定，也就是说使用实时的信息,来自于自己日常观察所累积的经验。当过十字路口的时候，有些行驶的方式是被禁止的。顺便说一下,“三叉路口”或“每秒钟汽车通行量”所表示的并不是一个规则,而是一种通行指导。一般车行绕道通常都比常规过红绿灯更有效率，这是因为两种行使方式的差别在于决策、信息和权威的行使过程。必要而有效的车行绕道的第三个影响因素：当交通灯是基于一个简单的规则的系统,则车行绕道通行是一种基于价值选择的方式。一个基于设置“第一，我不在乎休息” 的价值观，尽管过红灯前不是大的问题，但相对于绕道通行就是一个严肃的问题。在这里，对于想要有一个安全良好的车辆流通，有一个积极共同的目标是至关重要的。当试图了解同行的规则时候，司机必须发散思想并考虑更多。车行流通的例子为自我管理的绩效方式进行了深入解说，贬低了管理绩效的实用性能。影响绩效考核结果很差的因素是什么？返回上面的思考可以知道，熟悉规则和进行实践是非常重要的。我喜欢向同级人员进行平行工作上的交流，而不喜欢向高级管理进行垂直工作上的交流。与此同时,我们需要深入理解绩效的定义。在传统的绩效中，承诺就像一个固定形式，如“设定这个数字”，那是一种狭隘的思维想法设定。值得考虑的是，例如我们如何在同级人员之间进行比较？我们如何使用关键业绩指标（KPI）去反映绩效，或者先预测和管理评估去验证绩效结果？我们正走向我们长期追求的目标吗？如何维持良好绩效结果？最后值得一提，绩效系统能促进自我管理空间价值的行为。我们需自问,从哪里获得此成果？挪威国家石油公司采取综合绩效管理方法与追求的目标相联系。我们当前的目标与未来目标相联系,包括人、健康、安全、环境、运营和财务表现。通过开放的绩效议程了解更多关于我们的管理模式，以及我们如何整体应用以价值为基础的方法。前任签证局的CEO，Dee Hock曾说过这句话“言简意赅的目标和原则产生复杂的自我管理行为。而复杂规则和法规则产生简单而愚蠢的行为”，这告诉我们如何更好设计管理和绩效考核。当探讨我所著的书人才经济学。我采访了当时正受正激励的员工。我发现那些支持我的观点的受访者，他们希望从我采访他们的对话中讲诉他们的贡献，而我却与之相背离。在过去的20年里,员工的心态变化速度超过过去管理方法的范围。尤其是年度审查，这明显不是绩效管理实践领域。在发达国家和发展中国家的员工报告中,这种年终活动充满压力、焦虑和不信任。有讽刺意味的是,这一过程旨在改善组织绩效,其本身实行效果并不佳！是时候“重启”我们的绩效管理操作系统,安装更新两个特定系统:1. “民主”的更新。当今对话方式通常是一个自上而下的评估方式，但我们不可能逃避绩效考核的核心事实，应该尽量使绩效考核保持双向评估状态。在我的研究表明中,21世纪的员工大多数拒绝单向的对话: 在火热的就业市场中，管理者们必须意识到“评价者是谁”。此外，应与其他可提供的事实相比较，如员工认为他们的管理者是直接关系到他们下一年的职业生涯，那么他们更愿意进入私人绩效对话交谈中。目前绩效管理的沟通对话方式从某方面也反映了一个公司的员工价值主张,就像我们以领导的视角去学习一样。民主的更新意味着，当员工们第一次真诚寻求与同自己的表现一样领导者交流的时候，此时管理者才能获得正确的反馈信息。不仅只是通过360度去评价, 同时也要通过真实的对话进行询问:“作为你们的管理者，我该怎么做？”，此外可以把话题意思转换为“你怎么改进？”和“这就是你应该所注重的。”2. 成就模型。更多给予员工自主管理范围和权力下方的管理方式也改变了管理原来意义。我们从“任务和成果的监控”到一个“动力绩效、创新思维和集体的成就。”的转变，可以认识到其意义。通过这种认识，我们必须放弃一般上级管理者的架势。如果员工不能做成功，那么管理者的价值也将受贬低。引导一个团队绩效工作成功，将带来一个特别重大的意义。一个团队人员带来各自不同的技能，他们将相互学习，把好的工作行为渗透到工作中。如果团队评估工作的成果能达到任务的目标，那就随他去吧。返回上面的故事再说明下，评估过程根据最佳绩效成果和同等角色做同等事物的比较，来进行设计和执行。假设认为绩效评价的核心理念是一个提高个人、团队和业务成功的工具，它将是怎么样的？如果绩效反馈与有关业务的转变、产品或客户体验相关联，它又是怎样的？专注于个人和组织的成功就是真正的重新启动和升级绩效管理。绩效管理实践需及时更新：我们不应该以20世纪管理思想去管理21世纪员工。People & Strategy. 2013, Vol. 36 Issue 2, p12-13. 2p.7 本科毕业论文（设计）外文翻译题 目 某企业绩效管理问题研究 学 院 商学院 专 业 人力资源管理 班 级 人力101 学 号 201052115115 学生姓名 田倩倩 指导教师 蒋懿 外文题目 Performance Management: Reconciling Competing Priorities外文出处 People & Strategy 外文作者 Ziskin, Ian 原文二 ：Performance Management: Reconciling Competing PrioritiesIan Ziskin Four HR thought leaders from academia John Boudreau of the USC Center for Effective Organizations, Chris Collins of the Cornell Center for Advanced HR Studies, Pat Wright of the Moore College of Business at the University of South Carolina, and Dave Ulrich of University of Michigan and the RBL Group engaged in discussions on Performance Management with Ian Ziskin, President, EXec EXcel Group LLC and Board member, HR People & Strategy. Ian asked John, Chris,Pat, and Dave to share their perspectives on topics including: What Performance Management is? What makes the biggest difference to effective vs. ineffective Performance Management? What the biggest sources of debate and disagreement have been regarding Performance Management over the years, and whether we have made any progress in resolving these issues？ If they were going to fix or kill anything about Performance Management, what it would be and why？ What big implications there are for future required changes to Performance Management in light of future work, workforce and workplace trends？Ziskin: There is a lot of talk in organizations about whether Performance Management is working effectively or ever has. What do you think Performance Management is? Collins: This may be the question of the year. Performance Management has become everything and therefore nothing. It serves so many purposes compensation, feedback, talent development, succession, etc. that it may not serve any purpose very well. Boudreau: Its an ongoing relationship to balance the need to evaluate people with the need to develop them. Its not about bromides, forms, scores, tools or systems. Wright: Performance Management is about aligning behavior in a way that increases organizational effectiveness. Ulrich: I think we need to look at Performance Management from three levels: cultural, systems and personal. At the cultural level, its about whether the organization judges people based on meritocracy (results), hierarchy (power) or relationships (connections). At the systems level, its about determining whether people meet or miss objectives. At the personal level, its about assessing the individuals dedication to deliver both financial and social results. Ziskin: Given your point of view about Performance Management, what makes the biggest difference to whether it is effective vs. ineffective? Collins: It starts with having a culture of openness, honesty and real feedback and then holding people accountable. This process begins and ends with good leaders, and all of our money should be invested in developing leaders to lead, rather than spending money on new Performance Management systems and tools.Boudreau: Effectiveness rests in the skills and motivations of the people involved, not in the Performance Management system itself. It is particularly important to create a shared framework and priorities between managers and their employees. Ulrich: The four generic steps of Performance Management have remained relatively stable over time: set standards, assess against those standards, allocate consequences and provide feedback. Improvements in the effectiveness of Performance Management have come from enabling external stakeholders to provide input on standards and performance, making the performance discussion more about the future than the past, using technology to simplify the process, tailoring the consequences to better reflect individual employee contributions and value, and accommodating both team as well as individual feedback. Wright: Bad tools, bad evaluations, bad feedback and bad links to reward systems lead to bad Performance Management. Ziskin: If you look back over the years of debate about Performance Management, what one or two things stand out in your mind as the biggest sources of debate and disagreement?Boudreau: The biggest debate has been about what are we trying to achieve? Its always been about development of people vs. evaluation of their performance, and whether these two different priorities can be reconciled. Collins: Do you separate performance feedback from compensation, and how do you do both? We also need to learn to separate the discussion about current performance from the future future roles and future performance requirements. Wright: The debate continues over simplifying tools vs. customizing unique tools to specific jobs, roles, situations and individuals. Ulrich: There are a number of old debates and some new debates. The old debates include Performance Management should be used for discussing financial results or development potential (yes to both), whether we should measure results as well as behavior (yes to both), whether managers should be accountable to do performance reviews (yes), and who should own Performance Management the line or HR (the line owns it, HR is the architect). Ziskin: Have we made any progress in resolving the debate over these issues? Boudreau: We have made progress in something, such as the growing recognition that effective Performance Management is much less about forms and much more about relationships. Collins: I am gravely disappointed in the progress weve made in the past 20 years, especially in accommodating new ways of working such as more distributed, virtual work. We also have not made enough progress in accounting for team performance instead of just individual performance. Wright: We are making progress in linking results, behaviors and rewards. Id say we are beginning to achieve best principles in Performance Management, but we have not yet achieved best practices. Ulrich: The following new debates are more interesting to me than the old debates I mentioned above, and even though we are beginning to make some progress, we need much more: how we simplify the process, how we have meaningful personal conversations between leaders and employees and how we build a performance culture where meritocracy is expected. Ziskin: In light of the Performance Management debates and related mixed progress we have discussed, if you were going to fix or kill one thing related to Performance Management, what it would it by and why? Collins: I would fix Performance Management by investing in better leaders giving better feedback, rather than trying to fix Performance Management by investing in better tools. Boudreau: I would kill the debate about Performance Management forms, tools and technology enhancements, and instead put more than 80 percent of our resources into teaching and developing leaders and employees to get the most out of the performance feedback discussion. Ulrich: I would kill Performance Management complexity, and simplify the process. Sometimes, the process becomes the end itself, and there is means/end inversion. Wright: I would kill the parochialism that comes from my way, my tool and my process. There is a lot to be learned from how others are doing Performance Management. Ziskin: When you consider the future of work, the workplace and the workforce and how all these things are changing and affecting business performance what one or two big implications are there for required changes to Performance Management in the future? Ulrich: The biggest implications for the future I see