人力资源管理绩效管理外文翻译文献

人力资源管理绩效管理外文翻译文献

人力资源管理绩效管理外文翻译文献

(文档含中英文对照即英文原文和中文翻译)

1

原文 ：

Performance Management: Reconciling Competing Priorities

Ian 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: It's an ongoing relationship to balance the need to evaluate people

with the need to develop them. It's not about bromides, forms, scores, tools or

2

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, it's about whether the

organization judges people based on meritocracy (results), hierarchy (power) or

relationships (connections). At the systems level, it's about determining whether

people meet or miss objectives. At the personal level, it's about assessing the

individual's 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

3

debate and disagreement?

Boudreau: The biggest debate has been about what are we trying to achieve? It's

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