评语大全之绩效管理考核英文评语

绩效考评英文评语【篇一：绩效考评外文文件及其译文】thedilemmaofperformanceappraisalpeterprowseandjulieprowsemeasuringbusinessexcellence,vol.13iss:4,pp.69-77abstractthispaperdealswiththedilemmaofmanagingperformanceusingperformanceappraisal.theauthorswillevaluatethehistoricaldevelopmentofappraisalsandarguethatthecriticalareaoflinemanagementdevelopmentthatwasbeenidentifiedasacriticalsuccessfactorinappraisalshasbeenignoredinthelaterliteratureevaluatingtheeffectivenessofperformancethroughappraisals.thispaperwillevaluatetheaimsandmethodsofappraisal,thedifficultiesencounteredintheappraisalprocess.italsore-evaluatesthelackoftheoreticaldevelopmentinappraisalandmovefromhepsychologicalapproachesofanalysistoamorecriticalrealisationofapproachesbeforere-evaluatingthechallengetoremovesubjectivityandbiasinjudgementofappraisal.13.1introductionthispaperwilldefineandoutlineperformancemanagementandappraisal.itwillstartbyevaluatingwhatformofperformanceisevaluated,thendeveloplinkstothedevelopmentofdifferentperformancetraditions(psychologicaltradition,managementbyobjectives,motivationanddevelopment).itwilloutlinethehistoricaldevelopmentofperformancemanagementthenevaluatehighperformancestrategiesusingperformanceappraisal.itwillevaluatethecontinuingissueofsubjectivityandethicaldilemmasregardingmeasurementandassessmentofperformance.thepaperwillthenexaminehoworganisationsmeasureperformancebeforeevaluationofresearchonsomerecenttrendsinperformanceappraisal.thischapterwillevaluatethehistoricaldevelopmentofperformanceappraisalfrommanagementbyobjectives(mbo)literaturebeforeevaluatingthedebatesbetweenlinkagesbetweenperformancemanagementandappraisal.itwilloutlinethedevelopmentofindividualperformancebeforelinkingtoperformancemanagementinorganizations.theoutcomesoftechniquestoincreaseorganizationalcommitment,increasejobsatisfactionwillbecriticallyevaluated.itwillfurtherexaminethetransatlanticdebatesbetweenliteratureonefficiencyandeffectivenessinthenorthamericanandtheunitedkingdom)evidencetoevaluatethehrmdevelopmentandcontributionofperformanceappraisaltoindividualandorganizationalperformance.13.2whatisperformancemanagement?thefirstissuetodiscussisthedifficultyofdefinitionofperformancemanagement.armstrongandbarron(1998:8)defineperformancemanagementas:astrategicandintegratedapproachtodeliveringsustainedsuccesstoorganisationsbyimprovingperformanceofpeoplewhoworkinthembydevelopingthecapabilitiesofteamsandindividualperformance.13.2.1performanceappraisalappraisalpotentiallyisakeytoolinmakingthemostofanorganisation’shumanresources.theuseofappraisaliswidespreadestimatedthat80–90%oforganizationsintheusaandukwereusingappraisalandanincreasefrom69to87%oforganisationsbetween1998andreportedaformalperformancemanagementsystem(armstrongandbaron,1998:200).therehasbeenlittleevidenceoftheevaluationoftheeffectivenessofappraisalbutmoreonthedevelopmentinitsuse.between1998andasamplefromthecharteredinstituteofpersonnelanddevelopment(cipd,)of562firmsfound506wereusingperformanceappraisalinuk.whatisalsovitaltoemphasiseistherisinguseofperformanceappraisalfeedbackbeyondperformanceforprofessionalsandmanagerstonearly95%ofworkplacesinthewerssurvey(seetable13.1).clearlytheuseofappraisalshasbeenthedevelopmentandextensionofappraisalstocoveralargeproportionoftheukworkforceandthecoverageofnonmanagerialoccupationsandtheextendeduseinprivateandpublicsectors.13.2.2thepurposeofappraisalsthecriticalissueiswhatisthepurposeofappraisalsandhoweffectiveisit？researchedandusedinpracticethroughoutorganizations?thepurposeofappraisalsneedstobeclearlyidentified.firstlytheirpurpose.randell(1994)statestheyareasystematicevaluationofindividualperformancelinkedtoworkplacebehaviourand/orspecificcriteria.appraisalsoftentaketheformofanappraisalinterview,usuallyannual,supportedbystandardisedforms/paperwork.thekeyobjectiveofappraisalistoprovidefeedbackforperformanceisprovidedbythelinemanager.thethreekeyquestionsforqualityoffeedback:1.whatandhowareobservationsonperformancemade?2.whyandhowaretheydiscussed?3.whatdeterminesthelevelofperformanceinthejob?ithasbeenarguedbyoneschoolofthoughtthattheseprocesscannotbeperformedeffectivelyunlessthelinemanagerofpersonprovidingfeedbackhastheinterpersonalinterviewingskillstoprovidethatfeedbacktopeoplebeingappraised.thishasbeendefinedasthe“bradfordapproach”whichplacesahighpriorityonappraisalskillsdevelopment(randell,1994).thisapproachisoutlinedinfig.13.1whichidentifiesthelinkagesbetweeninvolving,developing,rewardingandvaluingpeopleatwork..13.2.3historicaldevelopmentofappraisalthehistoricaldevelopmentofperformancefeedbackhasdevelopedfromarangeofapproaches.formalobservationofindividualworkperformancewasreportedinrobertowens’sscottishfactoryinnewlanarkintheearly1800s(cole,1925).owenhungovermachinesapieceofcolouredwoodovermachinestoindicatethesuperintendent’sassessmentofthepreviousday’sconduct(whiteforexcellent,yellow,blueandthenblackforpoorperformance).thetwentiethcenturyledtof.w.taylorandhismeasuredperformanceandthescientificmanagementmovement(taylor,1964).the1930straitsapproachesidentifiedpersonalityandperformanceandusedfeedbackusinggraphicratingscales,amixedstandardofperformancescalesnotingbehaviourinlikertscaleratings.thiswasusedtorecruitandidentifymanagementpotentialinthefieldofselection.laterdevelopmentstopreventamiddlescalefrom5scalesthendevelopedintoaforced-choicescalewhichforcedthejudgementtoavoidcentralratings.theevaluationalsoincludednarrativestatementsandcommentstosupporttheratings(mair,1958).inthe1940sbehaviouralmethodsweredeveloped.theseincludedbehaviouralanchoredratingscales(bars);behaviouralobservationscales(bos);behaviouralevaluationscales(bes);criticalincident;jobsimulation.allthesejudgementswereusedtodeterminethespecificlevelsofperformancecriteriatospecificissuessuchascustomerserviceandratedinfactorssuchasexcellent,averageorneedstoimproveorpoor.theseratingsareassignednumericalvaluesandaddedtoastatementornarrativecommentbytheassessor.itwouldalsoleadtoidentifyanypotentialneedfortrainingandmoreimportantlytoidentifytalentforcareersinlinemanagementsupervisionandfuturemanagerialpotential.post1945developedintotheresults-orientedapproachesandledtothedevelopmentofmanagementbyobjectives(mbo).thisprovidedaimsandspecifictargetstobeachievedandwithintimeframessuchaspecificsales,profitability,anddeadlineswithfeedbackonpreviousperformance(wherry,1957).thedeadlinesmayhaverequiredalterationandledtospecificperformancerankingsofstaff.italsoprovidedaforceddistributionofrankingsofcomparativeperformanceandpairedcomparisonrankingofperformanceandsettingandachievingobjectives.inthe1960sthedevelopmentofself-appraisalbydiscussionledtospecifictimeandopportunityfortheappraiseetoreflectivelyevaluatetheirperformanceinthediscussionandtheinterviewdevelopedintoaconversationonarangeoftopicsthattheappraiseneededtodiscussintheinterview.untilthisperiodthesuccessoftheappraisalwasdependentonskillofinterviewer.inthe1990sthedevelopmentof360-degreeappraisaldevelopedwhereinformationwassoughtfromawiderrangeofsourcesandthefeedbackwasnolongerdependentonthemanager-subordinatepowerrelationshipbutincludedgroupsappraisingtheperformanceoflinemanagersandpeerfeedbackfrompeergroupsonindividualperformance(redmanandsnape,1992).thefinaldevelopmentofappraisalinterviewsdevelopedinthe1990swiththeemphasisonthelinkingperformancewithfinancialrewardwhichwillbediscussedlaterinthepaper.13.2.4measuresofperformancethedilemmaofappraisalhasalwaystodevelopperformancemeasuresandtheuseofappraisalisthekeypartofthisprocess.quantitativemeasureofperformancecommunicatedasstandardsinthebusinessandindustrylevelstandardstranslatedtoindividualperformance.theintroductionoftechniquessuchasthebalancedscorecarddevelopedbykaplanandnorton(1992).performancemeasuresandevaluationincludedfinancial,customerevaluation,feedbackoninternalprocessesandlearningandgrowth.performancestandardsalsoincludedqualitativemeasureswhicharguethatthereisanoveremphasisonmetricsofquantitativeapproachabovethedefinitionsofqualityservicesandtotalqualitymanagement.intermsofperformancemeasurestherehasbeenatransformationinliteratureandamoveinthe1990stothefinancialrewardslinkedtothelevelofperformance.thedebateswillbediscussedlaterinthepaper.13.3criticismofappraisalscritiquesofappraisalhavecontinuedasappraisalshaveincreasedinuseandscopeacrosssectorsandoccupations.thedominantcritiqueisthemanagementframeworkusingappraisalasanorthodoxtechniquethatseekstoremedytheweaknessandproposeofappraisalsasasystemtodevelopperformance.this“orthodox”approacharguesthereareconflictingpurposesofappraisal(strebleretal,).appraisalcanmotivatestaffbyclarifyingobjectivesandsettingclearfutureobjectiveswithprovisionfortraininganddevelopmentneedstoestablishtheperformanceobjective.theseconflictswithassessingpastperformanceanddistributionofrewardsbasedonpastperformance(bach,:301).employeesarereluctanttoconfideanylimitationsandconcernsontheircurrentperformanceasthiscouldimpactontheirmeritrelatedrewardorpromotionopportunities(newtonandfindley,1996:43).thisconflictswithperformanceasacontinuumasappraisersarechallengedwithdifferingrolesasbothmonitorsandjudgesofperformancebutanunderstandingcounsellorwhichrandell(1994)arguesfewmanagershavenotreceivedtherainingtoperform.appraisalmanager’sreluctancetocriticisealsostemsfromclassicevidencefrommcgregorthatmanagersarereluctanttomakeanegativejudgementonanindividual’sperformanceasitcouldbedemotivating,leadtoaccusationsoftheirownsupportandcontributiontoindividualpoorperformanceandtoalsoavoidinterpersonalconflict(mcgregor,1957).oneconsequenceofthisavoidanceofconflictistorateallcriterionascentralandavoidanyconflictknownasthecentraltendency.inastudyofseniormanagersbylongneckeretal.(1987),theyfoundorganisationalpoliticsinfluencedratingsof60seniorexecutives.thefindingswerethatpoliticsinvolveddeliberateattemptsbyindividualstoenhanceorprotectself-interestswhenconflictingcoursesofactionarepossibleandthatratingsanddecisionswereaffectedbypotentialsourcesofbiasorinaccuracyintheirappraisalratings(longeneckeretal.,1987).therearemethodsoffurtherbiasbeyondlongenecker’sevidence.thepoliticaljudgementsandtheyhavebeendistortedfurtherbyoverratingsomeclearcompetenciesinperformanceratherthanbeingcriticalacrossallratedcompetenciesknownasthehaloeffectandifsomecompetenciesarelowertheymayprejudicethejudgmentacrossthepositivereviewsknownasthehornseffect(acas,1996).someratingsmayonlycincluderecenteventsandtheseareknownastherecencyeffects.inthiscaseonlyrecenteventsarenotedcomparedtomanagersgatheringandusingdatathroughouttheappraisalperiod.aparticularconcernistheequityofappraisalforratingswhichmaybedistortedbygender,ethnicityandtheratingsofappraisersthemselves.arangeofstudiesinboththeusandukhavehighlightedsubjectivityintermsofgender(alimo-metcalf,1991;white,1999)andethnicityoftheappraiseandappraiser(geddesandkoad,).suggestionsandsolutionsonresolvingbiaswillbereviewedlater.thesecondanalysisistheradicalcritiqueofappraisal.thisisthemorecriticalmanagementliteraturethatarguesthatappraisalandperformancemanagementareaboutmanagementcontrol(newtonandfindley,1996;townley,1993).itarguesthattightermanagementcontroloveremployeebehaviourcanbeachievedbytheextensionofappraisaltomanualworkers,professionalasmeanstocontrol.thisdevelopstheliteratureoffoucaultusingpowerandsurveillance.thisliteratureusescasesinexamplesofpublicservicecontrolonprofessionalssuchateachers(healy,1997)anduniversityprofessionals(townley,1990).thisevidencearguestheincreasedcontrolofpublicservicesusingappraisalasamethodofcontrolandthattheoutcomeofmanagerialobjectivesignoresthedevelopmentalroleofappraisalandratingsareawardedforpeoplewhoacceptandembracethecultureandorganizationalvalues.however,thisliteratureignorestheemployeeresistanceandtheuseofprofessionalunionstochallengetheattemptstoexertcontroloverprofessionalsandstaffintheappraisalprocess(bach,:306).oneofthedifferentissuesofremovingbiaswastheuseofthetestmetaphor(folgeretal.,1992).thiswasbasedontheassumptionthatappraisalratingswereatechnicalquestionofassessing“true”performanceandthereneededtobeincreasedreliabilityandvalidityofappraisalasaninstrumenttodevelopmotivationandperformance.thesourcesofraterbiasanderrorscanberesolvedbyimprovedorganisationaljusticeandincreasingreliabilityofappraiser’sjudgement.howevertherewereproblemssuchasanassumptionthatyoucanstatejobrequirementsclearlyandtheorganizationis“rational”withobjectivesthatreflectvaluesandthatthejudgmentbyappraisers’arevaluefreefrompoliticalagendasandpersonalobjectives.secondlythereisthesecondissueofsubjectivityifappraisalratingswheredecisionsonappraisalareratedbya“politicalmetaphor”(hartle,1995).this“politicalview”arguesthataappraisalisoftendonebadlybecausethereisalackoftrainingforappraisersandappraisersmayseetheappraisalasawasteoftime.thisbecomesaprocesswhichmanagershavetoperformandnotasapotentialtoimproveemployeeperformance.organisationsinthiscontextare“political”andtheappraisersseektomaintainperformancefromsubordinatesandviewappraisesasinternalcustomerstosatisfy.thismeansmanagersuseappraisaltoavoidinterpersonalconflictanddevelopstrategiesfortheirownpersonaladvancementandseekaquietlifebyavoidingcensurefromhighermanagers.thisperceptionmeansmanagersalsoseeappraiseeseeksgoodratingandgenuinefeedbackandcareerdevelopmentbyseekingevidenceofcombiningemployeepromotionandpayrise.thismeansappraisalratingsbecomepoliticaljudgementsandseektoavoidinterpersonalconflicts.theapproachesofthe“test”and“political”metaphorsofappraisalareinaccurateandlackobjectivityandjudgementofemployeeperformanceisinaccurateandaccuracyisavoided.theissueishowcanorganisationsresolvethislackofobjectivity?13.3.1solutionstolackofobjectivityofappraisalgrint(1993)arguesthatthesolutionstoobjectivityliesinpartwithmcgregor’s(1957)classiccritiquebyretrainingandremovalof“topdown”ratingsbymanagersandreplacementwithmultipleraterevaluationwhichremovesbiasandtheobjectivitybyupwardperformanceappraisal.thevalidityofupwardappraisalmeanstheremovalofsubjectiveappraisalratings.thisapproachisalsosuggestedtoremovegenderbiasinappraisalratingsagainstwomeninappraisals(fletcher,1999).thesolutionofmultiplereporting(internalcolleagues,customersandrecipientsofservices)willreducesubjectivityandinequityofappraisalratings.thisargumentdevelopsfurtherbytheriseintheneedtoevaluateprojectteamsandincreasinglevelsofteamworktoincludepeerassessment.thesolutionsalsointheorymeanincreasedclosercontactwithindividualmanagerandappraisesandincreasingserviceslinkedtocustomerfacingevaluations.however,negativefeedbackstilldemotivatesandplentyoffeedbackandexplanationbymanagerwhocollatesfeedbackratherthanjudgesperformanceandfailtosummariseevaluations.therearehoweverstillproblemswithaccuracyofappraisalobjectivityaswalkerandsmither(1999)5yearstudyof252managersover5yearperiodstillidentifiedissueswithsubjectiveratingsin360degreeappraisals.therearestillissuesonthesubjectivityofappraisalsbeyondtheareasoflackoftraining.thecontributionofappraisalisstronglyrelatedtoemployeeattitudesandstrongrelationshipswithjobsatisfaction(fletcherandwilliams,1996).theevidenceonappraisalstillremainspositiveintermsofreinvigoratingsocialrelationshipsatwork(townley,1993)andthewidespreadadoptioninlargepublicservicesintheuksuchasthenationalhealthservice(nhs)isthevaluablecontributiontolinemanagersdiscussionwithstaffontheirpastperformance,discussingpersonaldevelopmentplansandtraininganddevelopmentaspositiveissues.onefurtherconcernistheopennessofappraisalrelatedtoemployeerewardwhichwenowdiscuss.13.3.2linkingappraisalswithrewardmanagement【篇二：绩效考评评价四种方法】1.平衡计分卡平衡计分卡(balancedscorecard)(简称bsc)，是20世纪90年代美国哈佛商学院教授卡普兰(roberts.kaplan)和复兴全球战略集团总裁诺顿(davidnorton)对12家企业进行了为期1年考证研究后提出一个绩效考评方法。它关键从四个方面对企业绩效进行考评：用户、内部运作、财务、学习和发展。平衡计分卡四个纬度是相互支撑。从财务方面看，它关注目标是处理“股东怎样看待我们？”和“企业运作达成什么样标准才能使我们股东满意？”。从用户角度来看，它关注目标是处理“用户怎样看待我们？”和“要达成我们财务目标，我们必需满足怎样用户需求？”。从内部运作来看，它关注目标是处理“我们优势是什么?”和“要使我们股东和用户满意，我们必需在哪些业务步骤和内部运作上超越她人?”。从职员成长和学习角度来看，它目标是处理“我们怎样提升自己能力?”和“为了实现财务目标和用户需求，内部运作需要我们应具什么样技能和知识?”，企业需要依据战略要求和企业关键，随时打造符合企业战略要求职员队伍，通常来讲，一旦企业战略关键发生调整，企业运作模式、组织步骤就会随之而发生调整，对应地，也就对职员知识结构、技能水平提出了更高要求[16]。为了取得最终财务绩效，必需要有良好市场表现，关注用户；为了获取市场，必需在内部运行上做改善；为了有效内部运行，企业职员必需能够不停地学习和发展。平衡计分卡四个维度即使各自有特定评价对象和指标，但相互之间存在着亲密联络，是相互支持。全部这些指标组成了一个完整评价体系，能够首先追踪财务结果，首先亲密关注能使企业提升能力并取得未来增加潜力无形资产等方面进展。平衡记分卡法综合考虑了各个关键原因，使用滞后和超前指标，协调了长久和短期目标，平衡了财务和非财务指标，满足了内部和外部多方需要，从而使得管理者能整体把握和控制企业，最终实现企业战略目标。所以，平衡计分卡其关键思想是经过四个指标之间相互驱动因果关系展现组织是战略轨迹，实现绩效考评——绩效改善——战略实施——战略修正目标。平衡计分卡，首先考评企业产出(上期结果)；其次，考评企业未来成长潜力(下期估计)。再从用户角度和从内部业务角度两方面考评企业运行情况参数，充足把企业长久战略和企业短期行动联络起来，把远景目标转化为一套系统绩效考评指标。平衡计分卡是一个很好绩效考评工具，但它不是万能，它不适合全部企业,它也并不一定能确保战略和愿景成功，不过，在制订平衡计分卡过程中，管理人员能够深入地思索企业战略和愿景，将其用一个能够描述及量化方法表示出来，在整个企业内部建立起一套通用“语言系统”，让职员能够对战略、愿景进行讨论，在此基础上用愈加主动态度去面对绩效管理。平衡计分卡利用还需要企业有明确战略目标、高素质职员、扁平组织结构和以效率为导向企业文化企业等[17]。平衡计分卡优点是：从四项指标进行综合衡量，组织得以明确和严谨手法来诠释其策略，它首先保留传统上衡量过去绩效财务指标，而且兼顾了促成财务目标绩效原因之衡量；在支持组织追求业绩之余，也监督组织行为应兼顾学习和成长面向，而且透过一连串互动因果关系，组织得以把产出（outcome）和绩效驱动原因（performancedriver）串联起来，以衡量指标和其量度做为语言，把组织使命和策略转变为一套前后连贯系统绩效评核量度，把复杂而笼统概念转化为正确目标，藉以寻求财务和非财务衡量之间、短期和长久目标之间、落后和领先指标之间，和外部和内部绩效之间平衡。不过，在具体应用过程中，平衡记分卡法也有一定缺点。如平衡计分卡难实施性，一份经典平衡计分卡需要5-6个月去实施，另外再需多个月去调整结构，使其规则化。同时衡量指标有可能极难量化，而衡量方法却又会产生太多绩效衡量指标。利用平衡计分卡难点在于试图使其“自动化”。平衡计分卡中有部分条目是极难解释清楚或是衡量出来。当组织战略或结构变更时候，平衡计分卡也应该随之重新调整。而负面影响也随之而来，因为保持平衡计分卡随时更新和有效需要花费大量时间和资源。中国外实践结果表明，要想成功建立和实施平衡计分卡，企业一定要从多方面考察和发觉问题，做好充足准备，能够从以下多个方面入手，一是使组织结职位分工标准化、明晰化；二是激励和创建主动沟通渠道；三是加强绩效信息搜集和处理；四是提升认识。2.关键绩效指标法kpi(keyperformanceindicators)是衡量企业战略实施效果关键指标，其目标是建立一个机制，将企业战略转化为内部过程和活动，以不停增强企业关键竞争力和连续地取得高效益。kpi能够使部门主管明确部门关键特征，并以此为基础，明确部门人员业绩衡量标准。建立kpi指标关键点在于步骤性、计划性和系统性。要建立企业kpi体系，必需首先明确所建立kpi体系导