评语大全之绩效考核英文评语

1、评语大全之绩效考核英文评语绩效考核英文评语【篇一：绩效考核外文文献及其译文】the dilemma of performa nee appraisalpeter prowse and julie prowsemeasuri ng bus in ess exeelle nce,vol.13 iss:4,pp.69 - 77abstractthis paper deals with the dilemma of managing performa nee using performanee appraisal. the authors will evaluate the historical de

2、velopment of appraisals and argue that the critical area of line management development that was been identified as a critical success factor in appraisals has bee n ignored in the later literature evaluati ng the effective ness of performa nee through appraisals.this paper willevaluatethe aims and

3、methodsof appraisal, thediffieulties eneoun tered in the appraisalproeess. it also re-evaluates the lack of theoretical developme nt in appraisala nd movefrom he psychological approachesofanalysistoamorecritical realisation ofapproaches before re-evaluat ing the challe nge to remove subjectivity and

4、 bias in judgeme nt of appraisal.13.1i ntroductionthis paper will define and outline performanee management and appraisal. it will start by evaluating what form of performanee is evaluated, then develop links to the developme nt of differe nt performa nee traditi ons (psychological traditi on, man a

5、geme nt by objectives, motivati on and development).it will outline the historical development of performa nee man ageme nt the n evaluate high performa neestrategies using performanee appraisal. it will evaluate the continuing issue of subjectivity and ethical dilemmas regard ing measureme nt and a

6、ssessme nt of performa nee. the paper will then exam ine how orga ni sati ons measure performa nee before evaluati on of research on some rece nt trends in performa nee appraisal.this chapter will evaluate the historical development of performa nee appraisal from man ageme nt by objectives (mbo) lit

7、erature before evaluating the debates between linkages betwee n performa nee man ageme nt and appraisal. it will outli ne the developme nt of in dividual performa nee before lin ki ng to performa nee man ageme nt in orga ni zati ons. the outcomes of tech niq ues to in crease orga ni zati onal commit

8、me nt, i ncrease job satisfaction will be critically evaluated. it will further exam ine the tran satla ntic debates betwee n literature on efficie ncy and effective ness in the n orth america n and the un ited kin gdom) evide nee to evaluate the hrm developme nt and con tributi on of performa nee a

9、ppraisal to in dividual and orga ni zatio nal performa nee.13.2 what is performa nee man ageme nt?the first is sue to discuss is the difficulty of definition of performa nee man ageme nt. armstro ng and barron (1998:8) defi ne performa nee man ageme nt as: a strategic and in tegrated approach to del

10、iveri ng susta ined success to orga ni sati ons by improvi ng performa nee of people who work in them by develop ing the capabilities of teams and in dividual performa nee.13.2.1 performa nee appraisalappraisal pote ntially is a key tool in making the most of an organisation s human resources. the u

11、se of appraisal iswidespread estimated that 80-90%of orga ni zati ons in the usaand uk were using appraisal and an in crease from 69 to 87% of orga ni satio ns betwee n 1998 and 2004 reported a formal performa nee man ageme nt system (armstr ong and baron, 1998:200).there has been little evidenee of

12、 the evaluation of the effective ness of appraisal but more on the developme nt in its use. betwee n 1998 and 2004 a sample from the chartered institute of personnel and development (cipd, 2007) of 562 firms found 506 were using performa nee appraisal in uk.what is also vital to emphasise is the ris

13、ing use of performa nee appraisal feedback bey ond performa nee for professi on als and man agers to n early 95% of workplaces in the 2004 wers survey (seetable 13.1).clearly the use of appraisals has bee n the developme nt and exte nsion of appraisals to cover a large proporti on of the uk workforc

14、e and the coverage of non man agerial occupati ons and the exte nded use in private and public sectors.13.2.2 the purpose of appraisalsthe critical issue is what is the purpose of appraisals and how effective is it ? researched and used in practice throughout orga ni zati ons? the purpose of apprais

15、als n eeds to be clearly iden tified. firstly their purpose. ran dell (1994) states they are a systematic evaluati on of in dividual performa nee lin ked to workplace behaviour an d/or specific criteria. appraisals ofte n take the form of an appraisal in terview,usually annu al,supported by sta ndar

16、dised forms/paperwork.the key objective of appraisal is to provide feedback for performa nee is provided by the linemanager.the three key questions for quality of feedback:1. what and how are observatio ns on performa nee made?2. why and how are they discussed?3. what determ ines the level of perfor

17、ma nee in the job?it has bee n argued by one school of thought that these process cannot be performed effectively uni ess the line man ager of pers on provid ing feedback has the in terpers onai in terviewi ng skills to providethat feedback to people being appraised. this has bee n defi ned as the“

18、bradford approachwhich places a high priority on appraisal skills development (ran dell, 1994). this approach is outli ned in fig. 13.1 whichide ntifies the lin kages betwee nin volv in g,develop ing, reward ing and val uing people at work.13.2.3 historical developme nt of appraisalthe historical de

19、velopme nt of performa nee feedback has developed from a range of approaches.formal observati on of in dividual wor k performa nee was reported in robert owe ns sscottish factory innew lanarkin the early 1800s (cole, 1925). owe n hung over mach ines a piece of coloured wood over machines to indicate

20、 the super intendent s assessment of theprevious day s con duct (white fore xcelle nt, yellow, blue and then black for poor performa nce).the twen tieth cen turyled to f.w. taylor and his measured performance and the scientific management movement (taylor, 1964). the 1930straits approaches ide ntifi

21、ed pers on ality and performa nce and used feedback using graphic rat ing scales, a mixed sta ndard of performa nce scales noting behaviour in likert scale rat in gs.this was used to recruit and ide ntify man ageme nt pote ntial in the field of selecti on. later developme nts to preve nt a middle sc

22、ale from 5 scales then developed into a forced-choice scale which forced the judgeme nt to avoid cen tral rati ngs.the evaluati on also in cluded n arrative stateme nts and comme nts to support the ratings (mair, 1958).in the 1940s behavioural methods were developed. thesein cluded behavioural an ch

23、ored rati ng scales (bars); behavioural observati on scales (bos); behavioural evaluati on scales (bes); critical incident;job simulation. all thesejudgeme nts were used to determ ine the specific levels of performa nee criteria to specific issues such as customer service and rated in factors such a

24、sexcelle nt,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 importa ntly to ide ntify tale nt for careers in lin ema nageme nt superv

25、isi on and future man agerial pote ntial.post1945 developed into the results-orie nted approaches and led to the developme nt of man ageme nt by objectives (mbo). this provided aims and specific targets to be achievedand with in time frames such as pecific sales, profitability,and deadlines with fee

26、dback on previous performa nee (wherry, 1957).the deadlines may have required alteration and led to specific performa nee rankings of staff. it also provided a forced distributi onof rankin gsof comparative performa nee and paired comparis on ranking of performa nee and sett ing and achiev ing objec

27、tives.in the 1960s the developme ntof self-appraisal by discussi on led to specific time and opportunity for the appraisee to reflectively evaluate their performa nee in the discussi on and the in terview developed into a eon versati on on a range of topics that the appraise n eeded to discuss in th

28、e in terview. un til this period the success of the appraisal was depe ndent on skill of in terviewer.in the 1990s the developme nt of 360-degree appraisal developed where in formati on was sought from a wider range of sources and the feedback was no Ion ger depe ndent on the man ager-subord in ate

29、power relati on ship but in eluded groups apprais ing the performa nee of line man agers and peer feedback from peer groups on in dividual performa nee (redma n and sn ape, 1992). the final developme nt of appraisal in terviews developed in the 1990s with the emphasis on the linking performa nee wit

30、h finan cial reward which will be discussed later in the paper.13.2.4 measures of performa neethe dilemma of appraisal has always to develop performa nee measures and the use of appraisal is the key part of this process. qua ntitative measure of performa nee com muni cated as sta ndards in the bus i

31、n ess and in dustry level sta ndards tran slated to in dividual performa nee. the in troducti on of tech niq ues such as the bala need score card developed by kaplan and norton (1992).performa nee measures and evaluati on in eluded finan cial, customer evaluati on, feedback on internal processes and

32、 learning and growth. performa nee sta ndards also in eluded qualitative measures which argue that there is an over emphasis on metrics of qua ntitative approach above the definitions of quality services and total quality management.in terms of performa nee measures there has bee n a tran sformati o

33、n in literature and a move in the 1990s to the finan cial rewards lin ked to the level of performa nce.the debates will be discussed later in the paper.13.3 criticism of appraisalscritiques of appraisal have continued as appraisal shave in creased in use and scope across sectors and occupatio ns. th

34、e dominant critique is the man ageme nt framework using appraisal as an orthodox tech nique that seeks to remedy the weak ness and propose of appraisals as a system to develop performa nee.this “ orthodox ” approach argues there are eonflicting purposes of appraisal (strebler et al, 2001). appraisal

35、 can motivate staff by clarify ing objectives and sett ing clear futureobjectives with provisi on for training and developme nt n eeds to establish the performa nee objective. these con flicts with assess ing past performa nee and distributio n of rewards based on past performa nee (bach, 2005:301).

36、ueta neeemployees are relucta nt to con fide any limitati ons and concerns on their curre nt performa nee as this could impact on their merit related reward or promoti on opport un ities( newt on and findley, 1996:43).this conflicts with performance as a con ti nuum as appraisers are challe nged wit

37、h differi ng roles as both mon itors and judges of performa nce but an un dersta nding coun sell or which ran dell(1994)argues few man ager shave not received the raining to perform.appraisal manager s reto criticise also stems from classic evide nce frommcgregor that man agers are relucta nt to mak

38、e an egative judgeme nt on an in dividual s performa nce a sit could be demotivat in g,leadtoaccusati on softheirow n supporta nd con tributi on toin dividual poor performa nce and to also avoid in terpers onal con flict (mcgregor, 1957).one con seque nce of this avoida nce of con flict is to rate a

39、ll criterion as central and avoid any conflict known as the central tenden cy.i n a study of senior man agers by long n eckeretal.(1987),they found orga ni sati onal politics in flue need ratings of 60 senior executives.the findings were that politics involved deliberate attempts by individuals to e

40、nhance or protect self-in terests whe n eon flict ing courses of acti on are possible and that rati ngs and decisi ons were affected by pote ntial sources of bias or in accuracy in their appraisal rati ngs (lo ngen eckeret al., 1987).there are methods of further bias beyond longenecker s evide nee.

41、the political judgeme nts and they have bee n distorted further by overrati ng some clear compete ncies in performance rather than being critical across all rated compete ncies known as the halo effect and if some compete ncies arelower they may prejudice the judgme nt acrossthe positive reviews kno

42、wn as the horns effect (acas, 1996).some rat ings may only cin clude rece nt eve nts and these are known as the rece ncy effects. in this case only rece nt eve nts are no ted compared to man agers gatheri ng and using data throughout the appraisal period .a particular concern is the equity of apprai

43、sal for ratings which may be distorted by gen der ,eth ni city and the rati ngs of appraisers themselves .a range of studies in both the us and uk have highlighted subjectivity in terms of gen der (alimo-metcalf, 1991;white, 1999) and eth ni city of the appraise and appraiser(geddes and koad, 2003).

44、 suggesti ons and soluti ons on resolv ing bias will be reviewed later.the second analysis is the radical critique of appraisal. this is the more critical man ageme nt literature that argues that appraisal and performa nee man ageme nt are about man ageme nt con trol( newt on and fin dley, 1996;tow

45、nl ey, 1993). it argues that tighter man ageme nt con trol over employee behaviour can be achieved by the exte nsion of appraisal to manual workers, professi onal as means to con trol. this develops the literature of foucault using power and surveilla nee. this literature uses cases in examples of p

46、ublic service con trol on professi on als such a teachers (healy, 1997) and uni versity professi on als(tow nley, 1990).this evide nee argues the in creased con trol of public services using appraisal as a method of con trol and that the outcome of man agerial objectives ignores the developme ntal r

47、ole of appraisal and rati ngs are awarded for people who accept and embrace the culture and organizational values . however, this literature ignores the employee resista nee and the use of professional unions to challenge the attempts to exert control over professi on als and staff in the appraisal

48、process (bach,2005:306). one of the differe nt issues of remov ing bias was the use of the test metaphor (folgeretal.,1992).this was based on the assumption that appraisal ratings were a technical question of assessing“ true ” performanee and there needed tobe in creased reliability and validity of

49、appraisal as an in strume nt to develop motivatio n and performa nee. the sources of rater bias and errors can be resolvedby improvedorga ni sati onaljustice and in creas ing reliabilityof appraiser s judgement.however there were problems such as an assumpti on that you can state job requireme nts c

50、learly and the orga ni zatio n is“ rational” with objectives that reflect values and that thejudgment b y appraisers are value free from political agendas and pers onal objectives. sec on dly there is the sec ond issue of subjectivity if appraisal ratings where decisions on appraisal are rated by a

51、“ political metaphor ” (hartle, 1995).this “ political view ” esrghat a appraisal is often done badly because there is a lack of training for appraisers and appraisers may see the appraisal as a waste of time. this becomes a process which man agers have to perform and not as a pote ntial to improve

52、employee performa nee .orga ni sati ons in this con text are “ political ” and the appraisers seek to maintain performa nee from subord in ates and view appraises as in ternal customers to satisfy. this means man agers use appraisal to avoid in terpers onal con flict and develop strategies for their

53、 own pers onal adva nceme nt and seek a quiet life by avoid ing cen sure from higher man agers.this percepti on means man agers also see appraisee seeks good rati ng and genuine feedback and career development by seek ing evide nee of comb ining employee promoti on and pay rise.this means appraisal

54、ratings become political judgements and seek to avoid in terpers onal eon flicts. the approaches of the“ test ” and “ political ” metaphors of appraisal are in accurate and lack objectivity and judgeme nt of employee performa nee is in accurate and accuracy is avoided.the issue is how can organisati

55、ons resolve this lack of objectivity?13.3.1 soluti ons to lack of objectivity of appraisalgrin t(1993)argues that the soluti ons to objectivity lies in part with mcgregor s (1957)classic critique by retraining and removal of“ top down ” ratings by managers and replacementwith multiple rater evaluati

56、on which removes bias and the objectivity by upward performa nee appraisal. the validity of upward appraisal means there moval of subjective appraisal rati ngs.this approach is also suggested to remove gen der bias in appraisal ratings against women in appraisals (fletcher, 1999). the soluti on of m

57、ultiple report in g(i nternal colleagues, customers and recipie nts of services) will reduce subjectivity and in equity of appraisal rat in gs. this argume nt develops further by the rise in the n eed to evaluate project teams and in creas ing levels of teamwork to in clude peer assessme nt. the sol

58、uti ons also in theory mean in creased closer con tact with in dividual man ager and appraises and in creas ing services lin ked to customer facing evaluati ons.however, negative feedback still demotivates and plenty of feedback and expla nati on by man ager who collates feedback rather tha n judges

59、 performa nee an dfail to summarise evaluati on s.there are however still problemswith accuracy ofappraisal objectivity aswalker and smither (1999)5year studyof 252 managers over 5 year period still identified issues with subjective rat ings in 360 degree appraisals.there are still issues on the subjectivity of appraisals bey ond the areas of lack of trai ning.the contribution of appraisal