绩效考核的困境外文翻译及原文

公共部门绩效评论外文翻译文献4-1 公共部门绩效评论外文翻译文献(文档含中英文对照即英文原文和中文翻译)译文：公共部门中的绩效悖论一、引言现在，国家投入了比以往任何时候都要多的注意力、时间和金钱在公共部门的绩效衡量和评价上（经济合作与发展组织［的绩效衡量和评价上（经济合作与发展组织［OECD OECD OECD］］，19961996；；Pollitt & Bouckaert ，2000；p.87；Power ，1997）。

基于结果的管理是各级公共部门一整天的话题，从地方、区域、国家，甚至前国家。

学校和大学，地方政府，其他行政组织，发展援助机构（非政府组织和国际非政府组织），和组织，世界银行都参与绩效结果上的数据和信息制造，如果可能的话，也包括对绩效结果的影响。

上的数据和信息制造，如果可能的话，也包括对绩效结果的影响。

Power Power Power（（19941994，，19971997，，20002000）甚至提到“审计爆炸”或“审计的社会”）甚至提到“审计爆炸”或“审计的社会”。

新公共管理领域的信徒将一个高度优先事项归于计量产出和成果。

他们旨在根据这种理想信息基础上的新政策和管理活动，使得政策的执行更有效率和效力。

但是，评价研究表明，很多试图引进基于结果的管理方式最后仍然不成功（例如Leeuw & Van Gils, 1999, 荷兰研究述评）。

不过，衡量产出、成果、和评价活动的需要在政治家和行政人员发表的改善政府工作表现的声明中仍然是一个重要的组成部分。

员发表的改善政府工作表现的声明中仍然是一个重要的组成部分。

下面，我们将表明以下观点：公共部门产出计量的增加会导致某些意想不到的后果，的后果，不仅可能会废止公共部门绩效的结论，不仅可能会废止公共部门绩效的结论，不仅可能会废止公共部门绩效的结论，也会消极地影响这个绩效。

也会消极地影响这个绩效。

也会消极地影响这个绩效。

我们我们将通过一些不同的例子表明，公共部门的一些特征在发展和使用绩效指标之后还会适得其反。

中文3100字，2000单词，1.1万英文字符出处：Kipchumba T B, Yano K L. Perceived Usefulness of the 360-Degrees Appraisal Tool and Its Usage in Performance in Nakuru, Kenya[J]. Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics & Management Sciences, 2014, 5.原文Perceived Usefulness of the 360-Degrees Appraisal Tool and Its Usage in Performance in Nakuru, KenyaKipchumba, Tarus Benjamin; Yano, Kuto LukaAbstractThe study examined the perceived usefulness of the 360 degrees appraisal tool and the extent of its usage in performance in Municipal Council of Nakuru, Kenya. A survey research design was applied because it was an intensive descriptive and holistic analysis of Municipal Council of Nakuru as a single entity. The study targeted employees from 8 departments with a total population of 1062 employees but it targeted 282 respondents which was 26.6% of the total population. Stratified sampling technique was used in arriving at strata on the basis of departments for employees. To arrive at specific respondents among employees, purposive sampling technique was used. The data obtained was coded and analysis was done using central tendency, bar graphs, percentages and Chi-square. It was revealed that 360 degrees as an appraisal tool is adopted by the Council and it has improved its performance. The Chi-square tests carried out revealed that there is a significant relationship between use of 360 degrees and organization performance and perceived usefulness. The study recommended the need to educate employees more on the importance of 360 degrees appraisal tool and encourage them to participate fully in development and implementation process. The findings and recommendations of the study are also important to the management when planning for performance appraisal sessions as well as in reviewing individual performance.Keywords: perceived usefulness, 360-degrees appraisal tool, usage, performance, nakuru, KenyaINTRODUCTIONThe 360°review, also referred to as 360°performance assessments or multi-rater feedback, is a method and a tool that provides employees feedback from their peers, co-workers, clients, those who are direct reports, and direct supervisors, thereby offering multiple perspectives of the employee's overall job performance. Most 360°feedback tools include the employee's self-review; hence the "full-circle" meaning behind the name. The results are tabulated and shared with the employee. Ideally, this type of assessment helps the employee gain a better understanding of her/his skills and behaviours as they relate to the organization's mission, values, goals and vision. Additionally, this feedback is geared towards assisting each employee understand her or his strengths and weaknesses, and can contribute insights into areas of work that may need professional development. The feedback is viewed as useful in defining the skills and behaviours needed to exceed client/customer expectations. The results from 360°review are often used by the person receiving the feedback to plan their training and development. The results are also used by some organizations when making promotional or pay decisions. The 360- degree feedback process offers a unique opportunity for employees at all levels to discover how their work colleagues perceive and are impacted by their behaviour. As one commentator describes the 360- degree feedback, "It is like having a full length portrait, a profile, a close up shot in the face and a view from the back all in one!" (Heather, 2012).IMPORTANCE OF 360-DEGREES PERFORMANCE TOOLWhereas there might be some negative feelings associated with traditional top-down performance appraisal, there can be numerous benefits stemming from a 360-degree performance appraisal system. "The 360-degree feedback serves as a key relationship building tool that organizations can use to enhance team processes and work interrelationships" (Tornow et al., 1998, p. 85). When co-workers are open with each other and hold each other accountable for performance and productivity then the working relationships improve and the productivity will thus improve. Not only will the relationships between the workers and managers improve but as they improve and get stronger, but the employees morale will also improve. "When implemented properly, subordinate appraisal systems enhance worker job satisfaction and morale" (Benardin, 1986, p. 421).The 360-degree appraisal also can help the employee or manager discovers their own strengths and weaknesses. Through feedback employees are able to see where a co-worker excels. They can also see where the person needs to improve. "The 360 degreefeedback can have enormous power perhaps more than any other technique to bring an individual's shortcomings to his attentions and confirm that areas of perceived strengths are actual and recognized strengths" (Grote, 1996, p. 292). The depth of the 360-degree process gives it greater validity and reliability. The objectivity and the anonymity of the raters will help to defend the organization. "Numerous advantages of using multiple raters have been cited ... improved defensibility of the performance appraisal program from a legal standpoint" (Harris &Schaubroek, 1988, p. 43).Another benefit of 360-degree appraisal is the relative low cost of implementation. Compared to bringing in an appraisal company from the outside or developing an assessment centre approach, the cost is really quite minimum. "The costs of installing, maintaining, and monitoring a subordinate appraisal system for managers is minimal relative to the costs incurred in with developing an in house assessment centre or contracting out for the service" (Bernardin, 1986, p. 433). So there are numerous reasons an organization should think about employing a 360-degree appraisal programme. In addition to having an effect on employee performance and productivity, the process can improve managerial performance as well.The 360-degree performance appraisal system has the potential to positively effect on the performance and productivity of managers and supervisors. Managers need sources of appraisal additional to their superiors. "The 360-degree approach recognizes that little change can be expected without feedback and that different constituencies are a source of rich and useful information to help managers guide behaviour" (London &Beatty, 1993, p. 354). With this type of appraisal, the managers will have better morale themselves and will develop better communication skills with their subordinates as well as with their superiors. Just like the development of the employees, managers can also take advantage of the differing sources of feedback about their productivity and make positive changes. The 360-degree appraisal can help assess the strengths and weakness of the manager. If a manger has been made aware of some of his own managerial shortcomings ... his ability to communicate should be improved and his faith in his own managerial abilities should be strengthened (Rowland, 1970, p. 303).The employees can also benefit when a manager has undergone a 360-degree appraisal. Organizational commitment and productivity may increase when the employees feel the 360-degree appraisal taken is seriously. Ideally, subordinates will start noticing the manager's behaviour more as a result of the 360- degree appraisal. "Upward feedback leads to subordinates perceiving positive changes in the boss's subsequentbehaviour" (Reilly et al., 1996, p. 600). A possible result of the manager's changed behaviour is a stronger working relationship between the manager and the subordinates. Just as the validity of 360- degree appraisals is higher than traditional top-down appraisal concerning subordinates, the validity is higher with managers as well. "Subordinate appraisals have shown a higher validity for predicting managerial success than assessment centre performance" (Schultz &Schultz, 1994, p. 170). Atwater et al. (1995, p.36) have found that "input from subordinates was effective in eliciting modest changes in managerial behaviour."London and Beatty (1993), while agreeing that mixing development and appraisal purposes is problematic, conclude "using feedback for development only can impede the effective use of the results unless there is a requirement for the manager to be responsible to the feedback" (p. 367). Despite the relatively simple technology in using the 360- degree, its costs for the company are potentially much higher than expected. First, there seems to be some agreement that 360s are not a one-shot deal, but must be used consistently over several years (DeNisi &Kluger,2000; Snader, 1997). Second, using the simpler structured instruments that Centre for Creative Leadership puts out ($195 per assessee) can defeat the developmental purposes because the feedback and interpretation is too difficult (i.e., comparative results are complicated by a variety of situation-specific factors (Ghorpade, 2000). On the other hand, constructing a custom instrument that is specific to the performance requirements for the company demands significantly more time and money to develop. Finally, the best way to overcome the interpretation of results problem is to invest in consultants or at least invest time from support people to deliver and consult with target managers.Purposes of 360-Degrees Performance ToolThe tool is expected to serve a number of purposes simultaneously. Noe et al. (1997, p. 198-199) and Swanepoel (2003, p. 372-373) and Schofield (1996) agree on the following purposes of the 360-degrees appraisal tool:Strategic PurposesNoe et al. (1997, p. 198) and De Cenzo et al. (1996, p. 322) concur that a performance appraisal system should link employee activities with the organization's goals. This calls for flexibility in the system in order for it to be adjusted to the changing goals and strategies of an organization. Many companies do not use performanceappraisal to communicate its objectives. This is supported by Noe et al. (1997, p. 198-199) regarding the purposes of performance appraisal where nothing was included about the extent to which it is tied to the company's strategic objectives. This is also in support of what Schofield (1996) lists establishing and monitoring objectives and targets, maintaining equity in treatment of staff, facilitating succession planning and monitoring the effectiveness of personnel policies as strategic.Administrative PurposesAdministrative purposes, according to Swanepoel (2003, p. 372), and supported by Noe et al. (1997, p. 199), concern the use of performance data to make reward decisions, placement decisions, promotion and retrenchment and for validating selection procedures. Schofield (1996) lists examples of this as providing feedback on individual performance, reviewing salary, conditions of service and other rewards, providing a basis for promotion, dismissal, probation, and avoiding trouble through meeting legal or political needs.Developmental PurposesThis third purpose is utilized to develop employees who are both effective and ineffective at their jobs. It provides individual employees feedback on their strengths and weaknesses and how to improve future performance (Noe et al., 1997, p. 199; Swanepoel, 2003, p. 373). Swanepoel (ibid.) adds that it can focus on the organizational level as well by: "facilitating organizational diagnosis and development by specifying performance levels and suggesting overall training needs; providing essential information for affirmative action programmes; promoting effective communication within the organization through ongoing interaction between superiors and subordinates." This is supported by Schofield (1996) who lists the purposes as: providing a basis for self-evaluation; diagnosing of training and career development needs, and discovering individual and department potential as some of the developmental purposes of performance appraisal.Documentary PurposesDe Cenzo et al. (1996, p. 322) suggest that the final purpose of performance appraisal is the issue of documentation. They also suggest that the evaluation system support the legal needs of the organization. It is important to have documentation to support that any personnel action taken was appropriate.Critical Issues on the Usefulness of the 360- Degrees AppraisalMany organizations are faced with various challenges as they endeavour to achieve their mission and vision. Human Resource provides the much needed skills and expertise to accomplish various tasks. It is important for management to ensure that they have motivated workforce who enjoy job satisfaction thus gain maximum quality productivity. The human inclination to judge the appraisal process can create serious motivational, ethical and legal problems in the workplace. Without a structured appraisal system, there is little chance of ensuring that the judgments made will be lawful, fair, defensible and accurate. There is a basic human tendency to make judgments about colleagues at work as well as about an appraisal, which seems, is inevitable and universal. In the absence of a carefully structured system of appraisal, people tend to judge the work performance of others, including subordinates, naturally, normally and arbitrarily. The Human Resource department designs a performance appraisal method in order to check what the competencies are and how they are displayed by the employee during his/her job. Then a comparison is made between the competencies that the direct boss of the employee was looking for and the competencies being displayed by the employee in his/her job. This provides the gaps and missing links which should be addressed by training. The degrees to which these competencies are required in performing a job also matter a lot.译文360度绩效评价工具的感知有用性，及其在肯尼亚的纳库鲁地区绩效考核方面的应用摘要这项研究调查了360度评价工具的感知有用性，及其在纳库鲁的市政委员会绩效考核方面的使用程度。

Performance management-how to appraise employee performance AbstractPerformance appraisal is an important content of human resource management in modern enterprises. According to the problems existing at the present stage Chinese enterprise performance evaluation, put forward the improvement measures to improve the performance appraisal. Performance management is the responsibility between managers and employees and improve the communication performance of the ongoing. The partners should understand why they become partners, thereby supporting the work. Performance evaluation is a part of performance management, do not confuse the twoIntroductionChallenges of performance managementReasons to avoid performance management: Manager: reports and program has no meaning; no time; afraid of conflict; feedback and observation. (performance management, prevent problems in investment in time, ensure the managers have the time to do the thing you should do staff: bad experience; what was about to happen no bottom; do not understand the significance of performance management; don't like received criticism. Criterion two, performance management, organizational success: 1 Factors: coordination among units means, towards a common goal; problem, find the problems, find problems or prevent problems; obey the law, be protected by the law; make major decisions, a way of getting information; improve the quality of staff, to make the organization more competitive., performance management of organization,must be useful to managers, the only reason of performance management is to help employees to success. to understand better how to design and what made him act. , the performance management challenge is how to find practical,meaningful ways to finish it, which need thought and wisdom.Performance management is a systemThe performance plan -- starting point of performance management:employees and managers to work together, as employees do what, do what degree of problem identification, understanding.Continuous performance communication: both trackingprogress, find the obstacles that affect performance and process so that the two sides success required information. Communication methods: (1) around were observed;(2)employees; (3) allow employees to work review;Performance diagnosis: to identify individuals, departments and organizational performance by the real reason for the problem of communication and problem solving process.Performance management is a small system in the large system. If you want to get the maximum profit, must complete the performance management process,and not a part of.Performance management and strategic planning, budget, staff ,employee salary incentive system, improve the quality of plans are related. Do the performance management process to do the preparation of 1, there are two key points: with the staff to collect meaningful, to establish the information needed to measurable goals; to do some basic work, so that in the whole process of performance management and employee can fully cooperation. In part, access to information and data of performance management effect is it can help organizations, units and employees towards a direction some "target"information each employee's job description; (2) employee last performance review data and related documents.The performance plan three steps: preparation, meeting, finalize plans. your job, you should do what, how to measure your success, sets threat mosphere and seize the key; to review the relevant information, ask more,talk less; the job duties and specific goal; determine the success criteria; discuss what are the difficulties and need what help; discuss the importance level and authorized to ask problem; 4, note: in the performance management process, should pay attention to communication with staff thought is the action guide, to carry out effective performance communication, we must pay attention to in the thought. All aspects of the performance communication throughout the performance cycle, plays an important role in any one link in the chain, leaving the performance communication, any unilateral decisions managers will affect the enthusiasm of the staff, performance management. No performance communication there is no performance management. In order to make the performance management on the right track, truly play its role,enterprises mustput the supervisor and employee performance communication as a priority among priorities to research and development, through the system specification, performance management become competent habit, the habit of employees, to solve the performance problem employees work for dialogue and exchanges, the performance management into effect.Three methods of performance evaluation: Predicament 1, individual performance evaluation --: the best opera actor and amateur orchestra concert.The opera actors play the extreme, but the effect is very bad. No one is isolated,only focus on the individual, can not solve the problem. We call on an individual basis on employee performance evaluation, but if we emphasize individual performance but not the antecedents and consequences and conditions of performance, we do not progress, because we did not find the real reason -- may be because employees can not control things and punish employees, may also be because of the wrong reason 2, regardless of the what way to assess performance, avoid two traps are important: 1) don't do performance problems or"always the fault of employees" this hypothesis; 2) without any assessment can give the "why" and "what is happening in the picture". Evaluation is just the beginning, is a further discussion as well as the starting point of diagnosis. Three methods of performance evaluation: 3, 1) rating method:: features, to and behavior project; identify each project performance level gauge and other ways. Advantages: easy to finish the work of assessment. Disadvantages:forget why do this work; too vague, in the performance plan, prevention,protection and development staff and so did not what role in improving methods:with employees regularly write brief conversation; evaluation; interpretation and evaluation project meaning; together with the staff rating 2) ranking method:forcing staff to compete with each other, have stimulation can be short term, long term may cause internal malicious competition. 3) target and standard evaluation method: Standard: according to the prior and employees a series of established criteria to measure the performance of employees. Advantages: the personal goals and work together to reduce the possibility of target; both sides disagree;defect: need more time; text work more; more energy.Communication method and communication technologyWay of thinking: the process of performance management is the process of communication.Relationship with the staff is not only reflected in the behavior on performance management, but also should reflect the daily and how successful way of thinking: A, the process of performance management is a complete process together with the staff, not a for staff B, except for some unilateral disciplinary action, performance plan, communication and assessment should adopt a cooperative mode; C, most of the staff, once you understand what they are asked to do things, will try the method can meet the requirements D,performance management is not the purpose of staring past mistakes, clear posibility, but in the problem solving problems and possible e, performance deficit to be clear, the cause of the deficit, whether for personal reasons or the system reason; F, in most cases, if the manager will support staff as their work,so that each employee 2, must set some skills communication skills: Manager here guide employees to participate in the discussion process and understand the process of responsibility. Purpose: don't most probably it did not actually happen. Be prepared to establish a common responsibility and each stage all contribute to the relationship, the target. Clear the common responsibility: to improve the performance is not only the responsibility of the staff. Clear procedures: prevent conflict resolution skills: clear individual responsibility, invites employees to take advice. For the people of the criticism and comments: avoid if you don't listen, you don't know what you talking about,could you be quiet for a while, you read the report in the past did not remarks:avoid such as how many years, you always can't finish the job on time, we have ried that, there is no with the need need making guide guilty intent: to avoid if you really care about the team, you should work harder; I guess you don't care about this project not appropriate advice and sure: avoid as I know the project is late, but I'm sure you'll catch up; you will do well. You will understand the need,need to unsolicited advice and sure: avoid you must do it; this is the only way; to finish this today, and put it on my desk. A provocative question: Why did you say those who avoid. What you think; is the need to need; what is you get this conclusion? Don't trust to avoid language: are you sure you can finish on time?I've heard you need to exaggerate these need: avoid you never finish the work on time; you always try to reject my proposal. The cooling technique of fierce debate.The performance of a, discuss the process of dispute, we should pay attention to two goals: must make suggestions on conflict; avoid damage relations, cause new problems in the future performance. B, give employees a vent frustration and anger for feeling, not very fast counter attack. C, remember the people when they do appear conflict. D, the way of handling conflicts: conflicts through persuasion, won the right to try to understand the means; staff positions, find a solution. E, conflict is the most effective treatment technology is active listening.F, and be confused in mind or angry employees dealing, the basic principle is the first concern of his emotional. G, disputes arise, request the dispute settle ment measures, but never from the subject. H, too excited, communication should be suspended.The performance of communication is the core of performance management, is refers to between the employers and employees performance evaluation reflects the problems and evaluation mechanism itself to conduct substantive interviews,and tries to seek countermeasures, a management method for service in the later stage of enterprise and employee performance, improve and enhance the.A process of performance management is on the lower level on the performance target setting and implementation and ongoing two-way communication.绩效管理——如何考评员工表现摘要绩效考核是现代企业人力资源管理的重要内容。

关于绩效的英语小作文英文回答：Performance, a crucial aspect of human behavior, encompasses the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of one's actions. It evaluates the extent to which an individual or organization achieves their desired goals and objectives. Performance measurement is a critical tool for understanding, improving, and optimizing outcomes.Performance Management.A comprehensive performance management system involves setting clear goals and objectives, measuring progress regularly, and providing feedback and coaching to enhance performance. Effective performance management fosters a culture of accountability, transparency, and continuous improvement.Factors Influencing Performance.Numerous factors influence performance, including:Intrinsic Motivation: The internal drive that compels individuals to act without external rewards.Extrinsic Motivation: Rewards or punishments from external sources that encourage desired behavior.Cognitive Ability: The intellectual capacity to acquire knowledge, solve problems, and make decisions.Personality Traits: Stable patterns of behavior that influence how individuals respond to situations and perform tasks.Environment: The physical and social context in which performance occurs, including resources, support systems, and cultural norms.Improving Performance.Improving performance requires a multifaceted approach that addresses both individual and organizational factors. Strategies include:Goal Setting: Establishing specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound goals.Feedback and Coaching: Providing constructive criticism, guidance, and support to help individuals improve their performance.Training and Development: Investing in training programs and resources to enhance skills and knowledge.Performance Rewards: Recognizing and rewarding high levels of performance to incentivize desired behavior.Culture of Innovation and Learning: Fostering a workplace environment that encourages experimentation,risk-taking, and continuous growth.中文回答：绩效。

中文3100字，2000单词，1.1万英文字符出处：Kipchumba T B, Yano K L. Perceived Usefulness of the 360-Degrees Appraisal Tool and Its Usage in Performance in Nakuru, Kenya[J]. Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics & Management Sciences, 2014, 5.原文Perceived Usefulness of the 360-Degrees Appraisal Tool and Its Usage in Performance in Nakuru, KenyaKipchumba, Tarus Benjamin; Yano, Kuto LukaAbstractThe study examined the perceived usefulness of the 360 degrees appraisal tool and the extent of its usage in performance in Municipal Council of Nakuru, Kenya. A survey research design was applied because it was an intensive descriptive and holistic analysis of Municipal Council of Nakuru as a single entity. The study targeted employees from 8 departments with a total population of 1062 employees but it targeted 282 respondents which was 26.6% of the total population. Stratified sampling technique was used in arriving at strata on the basis of departments for employees. To arrive at specific respondents among employees, purposive sampling technique was used. The data obtained was coded and analysis was done using central tendency, bar graphs, percentages and Chi-square. It was revealed that 360 degrees as an appraisal tool is adopted by the Council and it has improved its performance. The Chi-square tests carried out revealed that there is a significant relationship between use of 360 degrees and organization performance and perceived usefulness. The study recommended the need to educate employees more on the importance of 360 degrees appraisal tool and encourage them to participate fully in development and implementation process. The findings and recommendations of the study are also important to the management when planning for performance appraisal sessions as well as in reviewing individual performance.Keywords: perceived usefulness, 360-degrees appraisal tool, usage, performance, nakuru, KenyaINTRODUCTIONThe 360°review, also referred to as 360°performance assessments or multi-rater feedback, is a method and a tool that provides employees feedback from their peers, co-workers, clients, those who are direct reports, and direct supervisors, thereby offering multiple perspectives of the employee's overall job performance. Most 360°feedback tools include the employee's self-review; hence the "full-circle" meaning behind the name. The results are tabulated and shared with the employee. Ideally, this type of assessment helps the employee gain a better understanding of her/his skills and behaviours as they relate to the organization's mission, values, goals and vision. Additionally, this feedback is geared towards assisting each employee understand her or his strengths and weaknesses, and can contribute insights into areas of work that may need professional development. The feedback is viewed as useful in defining the skills and behaviours needed to exceed client/customer expectations. The results from 360°review are often used by the person receiving the feedback to plan their training and development. The results are also used by some organizations when making promotional or pay decisions. The 360- degree feedback process offers a unique opportunity for employees at all levels to discover how their work colleagues perceive and are impacted by their behaviour. As one commentator describes the 360- degree feedback, "It is like having a full length portrait, a profile, a close up shot in the face and a view from the back all in one!" (Heather, 2012).IMPORTANCE OF 360-DEGREES PERFORMANCE TOOLWhereas there might be some negative feelings associated with traditional top-down performance appraisal, there can be numerous benefits stemming from a 360-degree performance appraisal system. "The 360-degree feedback serves as a key relationship building tool that organizations can use to enhance team processes and work interrelationships" (Tornow et al., 1998, p. 85). When co-workers are open with each other and hold each other accountable for performance and productivity then the working relationships improve and the productivity will thus improve. Not only will the relationships between the workers and managers improve but as they improve and get stronger, but the employees morale will also improve. "When implemented properly, subordinate appraisal systems enhance worker job satisfaction and morale" (Benardin, 1986, p. 421).The 360-degree appraisal also can help the employee or manager discovers their own strengths and weaknesses. Through feedback employees are able to see where a co-worker excels. They can also see where the person needs to improve. "The 360 degreefeedback can have enormous power perhaps more than any other technique to bring an individual's shortcomings to his attentions and confirm that areas of perceived strengths are actual and recognized strengths" (Grote, 1996, p. 292). The depth of the 360-degree process gives it greater validity and reliability. The objectivity and the anonymity of the raters will help to defend the organization. "Numerous advantages of using multiple raters have been cited ... improved defensibility of the performance appraisal program from a legal standpoint" (Harris &Schaubroek, 1988, p. 43).Another benefit of 360-degree appraisal is the relative low cost of implementation. Compared to bringing in an appraisal company from the outside or developing an assessment centre approach, the cost is really quite minimum. "The costs of installing, maintaining, and monitoring a subordinate appraisal system for managers is minimal relative to the costs incurred in with developing an in house assessment centre or contracting out for the service" (Bernardin, 1986, p. 433). So there are numerous reasons an organization should think about employing a 360-degree appraisal programme. In addition to having an effect on employee performance and productivity, the process can improve managerial performance as well.The 360-degree performance appraisal system has the potential to positively effect on the performance and productivity of managers and supervisors. Managers need sources of appraisal additional to their superiors. "The 360-degree approach recognizes that little change can be expected without feedback and that different constituencies are a source of rich and useful information to help managers guide behaviour" (London &Beatty, 1993, p. 354). With this type of appraisal, the managers will have better morale themselves and will develop better communication skills with their subordinates as well as with their superiors. Just like the development of the employees, managers can also take advantage of the differing sources of feedback about their productivity and make positive changes. The 360-degree appraisal can help assess the strengths and weakness of the manager. If a manger has been made aware of some of his own managerial shortcomings ... his ability to communicate should be improved and his faith in his own managerial abilities should be strengthened (Rowland, 1970, p. 303).The employees can also benefit when a manager has undergone a 360-degree appraisal. Organizational commitment and productivity may increase when the employees feel the 360-degree appraisal taken is seriously. Ideally, subordinates will start noticing the manager's behaviour more as a result of the 360- degree appraisal. "Upward feedback leads to subordinates perceiving positive changes in the boss's subsequentbehaviour" (Reilly et al., 1996, p. 600). A possible result of the manager's changed behaviour is a stronger working relationship between the manager and the subordinates. Just as the validity of 360- degree appraisals is higher than traditional top-down appraisal concerning subordinates, the validity is higher with managers as well. "Subordinate appraisals have shown a higher validity for predicting managerial success than assessment centre performance" (Schultz &Schultz, 1994, p. 170). Atwater et al. (1995, p.36) have found that "input from subordinates was effective in eliciting modest changes in managerial behaviour."London and Beatty (1993), while agreeing that mixing development and appraisal purposes is problematic, conclude "using feedback for development only can impede the effective use of the results unless there is a requirement for the manager to be responsible to the feedback" (p. 367). Despite the relatively simple technology in using the 360- degree, its costs for the company are potentially much higher than expected. First, there seems to be some agreement that 360s are not a one-shot deal, but must be used consistently over several years (DeNisi &Kluger,2000; Snader, 1997). Second, using the simpler structured instruments that Centre for Creative Leadership puts out ($195 per assessee) can defeat the developmental purposes because the feedback and interpretation is too difficult (i.e., comparative results are complicated by a variety of situation-specific factors (Ghorpade, 2000). On the other hand, constructing a custom instrument that is specific to the performance requirements for the company demands significantly more time and money to develop. Finally, the best way to overcome the interpretation of results problem is to invest in consultants or at least invest time from support people to deliver and consult with target managers.Purposes of 360-Degrees Performance ToolThe tool is expected to serve a number of purposes simultaneously. Noe et al. (1997, p. 198-199) and Swanepoel (2003, p. 372-373) and Schofield (1996) agree on the following purposes of the 360-degrees appraisal tool:Strategic PurposesNoe et al. (1997, p. 198) and De Cenzo et al. (1996, p. 322) concur that a performance appraisal system should link employee activities with the organization's goals. This calls for flexibility in the system in order for it to be adjusted to the changing goals and strategies of an organization. Many companies do not use performanceappraisal to communicate its objectives. This is supported by Noe et al. (1997, p. 198-199) regarding the purposes of performance appraisal where nothing was included about the extent to which it is tied to the company's strategic objectives. This is also in support of what Schofield (1996) lists establishing and monitoring objectives and targets, maintaining equity in treatment of staff, facilitating succession planning and monitoring the effectiveness of personnel policies as strategic.Administrative PurposesAdministrative purposes, according to Swanepoel (2003, p. 372), and supported by Noe et al. (1997, p. 199), concern the use of performance data to make reward decisions, placement decisions, promotion and retrenchment and for validating selection procedures. Schofield (1996) lists examples of this as providing feedback on individual performance, reviewing salary, conditions of service and other rewards, providing a basis for promotion, dismissal, probation, and avoiding trouble through meeting legal or political needs.Developmental PurposesThis third purpose is utilized to develop employees who are both effective and ineffective at their jobs. It provides individual employees feedback on their strengths and weaknesses and how to improve future performance (Noe et al., 1997, p. 199; Swanepoel, 2003, p. 373). Swanepoel (ibid.) adds that it can focus on the organizational level as well by: "facilitating organizational diagnosis and development by specifying performance levels and suggesting overall training needs; providing essential information for affirmative action programmes; promoting effective communication within the organization through ongoing interaction between superiors and subordinates." This is supported by Schofield (1996) who lists the purposes as: providing a basis for self-evaluation; diagnosing of training and career development needs, and discovering individual and department potential as some of the developmental purposes of performance appraisal.Documentary PurposesDe Cenzo et al. (1996, p. 322) suggest that the final purpose of performance appraisal is the issue of documentation. They also suggest that the evaluation system support the legal needs of the organization. It is important to have documentation to support that any personnel action taken was appropriate.Critical Issues on the Usefulness of the 360- Degrees AppraisalMany organizations are faced with various challenges as they endeavour to achieve their mission and vision. Human Resource provides the much needed skills and expertise to accomplish various tasks. It is important for management to ensure that they have motivated workforce who enjoy job satisfaction thus gain maximum quality productivity. The human inclination to judge the appraisal process can create serious motivational, ethical and legal problems in the workplace. Without a structured appraisal system, there is little chance of ensuring that the judgments made will be lawful, fair, defensible and accurate. There is a basic human tendency to make judgments about colleagues at work as well as about an appraisal, which seems, is inevitable and universal. In the absence of a carefully structured system of appraisal, people tend to judge the work performance of others, including subordinates, naturally, normally and arbitrarily. The Human Resource department designs a performance appraisal method in order to check what the competencies are and how they are displayed by the employee during his/her job. Then a comparison is made between the competencies that the direct boss of the employee was looking for and the competencies being displayed by the employee in his/her job. This provides the gaps and missing links which should be addressed by training. The degrees to which these competencies are required in performing a job also matter a lot.译文360度绩效评价工具的感知有用性，及其在肯尼亚的纳库鲁地区绩效考核方面的应用摘要这项研究调查了360度评价工具的感知有用性，及其在纳库鲁的市政委员会绩效考核方面的使用程度。

员工对绩效考核系统的感知外文文献翻译最新译文The ___ can only stay ahead of their rivals by being innovative。

and a key aspect of this is having a valid and accurate performance appraisal system (PAS) in place to rate employee performance (Armstrong。

2003.Bohlander & Snell。

2004)。

However。

it is ___ (___。

2003).2.___Aperformanceappraisalsystem(PAS)___ Dessler (2005)。

___ and potential。

The PAS is a critical tool in the human resource management process that ___ weaknesses。

and to provide feedback on how employees can improve their performance。

It also helps to align employee performance with the overall goals of the n (Dessler。

2005.Armstrong。

2003).3.___This ___ research method that involves the n and analysis of data from a single case or a small number of cases (Yin。

2003)。

A purposive sampling technique was used to select participants for the study。

绩效考核中英文对照外文翻译文献(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)绩效考核与员工满意摘要：绩效考核通常也称为业绩考评或“考绩”，是针对企业中每个职工所承担的工作，应用各种科学的定性定量的方法，对职工行为的实际效果及其对企业的贡献或价值进行考评。

绩效考核作为一种有效的企业管理手段，在企业管理中发挥着非常重要的作用，是企业人力资源管理的核心。

本文对当前我国绩效考核中存在的问题做了详细的分析。

针对问题，文章提出从绩效考核的各个角度进行控制，从而确保绩效考核高效到位，最终发挥人力资源管理的作用。

关键词：绩效考核问题分析建议21世纪是知识经济时代，随着经济竞争的加剧，人们越来越认识到人力资源是当今时代经济发展的第一资源。

随着人力资源管理在中国企业的发展的日趋成熟,绩效管理作为人力资源管理的重要组成部分在企业内部的地位也越发重要。

绩效考核是人力资源管理的核心问题之一，是保障并促进企业内部管理机制有序运转，实现企业各项经营管理目标所必须进行的一种管理行为。

美国组织行为学家约翰·伊凡斯维其认为，绩效考核可以达到以下八个方面的目的：为员工的晋升、降职、调职和离职进行评估；组织对员工的绩效考评的反馈；对员工和团队对组织的贡献进行评估；为员工的薪酬决策提供依据；对招聘选择和工作分配的决策进行评估；了解员工和团队的培训和教育的需要；了解员工和团队的培训和教育的需要；对工作计划、预算评估和人力资源规划提供信息。

绩效考核是企业管理员工的有效手段,也是主要途径,在企业管理中具有不可替代的核心地位。

但是,现在有很多企业的绩效考核与企业的发展策略相脱节,企业绩效考核体系也只是一个空壳而已,根本达不到对员工进行考核的目的,甚至还适得其反,导致人才流失。

因此，对企业的绩效考核工作进行分析，找出存在的问题，并解决这些问题成为企业势在必行的工作。

1当前绩效考核中存在问题及原因分析1.1对绩效考核的认识不充分（1）认为绩效考核只是人力资源部的事。

绩效考核英文篇一：浅谈人力资源管理中的绩效考核管理中英文翻译//浅谈人力资源管理中的绩效考核管理中英文翻译introductiontohumanresourcemanagementintheperformanceappraisalman agementinbothchineseandEnglishtranslation摘要：人力资源管理已经随着时代的发展在企事业单位所占的位置越来越重要，企事业单位的发展无处不需要员工的劳动和贡献，在以人为本的社会体制下，要对人力资源进行有效的管理就需要建立良好的绩效管理制度，通过绩效考核来促进企业内部人力资源的良性发展，从而最大限度上为企业的反正提供动力。

本文主要论述人力资源中的绩效管理中需要注意的问题。

abstract:humanresourcemanagementhasalongwiththedevelopmentoftheera ofmoreandmoreimportantinenterprisesandinstitutionsoftheposition,thedev elopmentoftheenterprisesandinstitutionsisnotneedtoemployeesandthecontr ibutionoflabor,underthesocialsystemofpeople-oriented,tocarriesontheeffec tivemanagementofhumanresourceswillneedtosetupagoodperformanceman agementsystem,throughtheperformanceevaluationtopromotethevirtuousde velopmentoftheenterpriseinternalhumanresources,soastomaximizetheany way,providepowerfortheenterprise.Thispapermainlydiscussesproblemsneedtopayattentiontointheperformancemanagementofhumanresources.关键词：人力资源管理绩效考核管理策略Keywords:humanresourcemanagement,performanceappraisalmanagement strategy世界经济发展正朝着一体化方向迈进，我国的企业管理模式改革也应该紧紧跟上世界经济发展的部分，进行系统的改变，把人力资源当做发展的重中之重，通过加强人力资源管理中的绩效考核实施力度，将人力资源管理推上新的台阶，为企事业单位发展提供充足的动力保障。

The Fatal Flaw in Pay for Performance绩效薪酬的致命缺陷by Ben W. Heineman, Jr.小本杰明·海涅曼Many corporate boards, responding to shareholder and public pressure, are designing pay-for-performance plans to hold CEOs accountable. But there is often a crucial flaw in such schemes: They don’t pay for performance with integrity.迫于股东和公众压力，许多公司董事会都在努力建立与业绩挂钩的薪酬体系，以期CEO们恪尽职守。

但是，此类薪酬体系往往存在一个致命缺陷：仅关注业绩，而忽略了操守。

The omission—evident from compensation committee reports in top companies’ proxy statements—is striking. Corporations, after all, face unceasing pressures to make the numbers by bending the rules, and an integrity miss can have catastrophic consequences, including indictments, fines, dismissals, and collapse of market capitalization. Furthermore, performance with integrity creates the fundamental trust—inside and outside the company—on which corporate power is based.从顶级公司股东委托书所附的薪酬委员会报告可以看出，这种忽略是显而易见的。

The Dilemma of Performance AppraisalPeter Prowse and Julie ProwseMeasuring Business Excellence,V ol.13 Iss:4,pp.69 - 77AbstractThis paper deals with the dilemma of managing performance using performance appraisal. The authors will evaluate the historical development of appraisals and argue that the critical area of line management development that was been identified as a critical success factor in appraisals has been ignored in the later literature evaluating the effectiveness of performance through appraisals.This paper willevaluatethe aims and methodsof appraisal, thedifficulties encountered in the appraisalprocess. It also re-evaluates the lack of theoretical development in appraisaland move from he psychological approachesof analysistoamorecritical realisation ofapproaches before re-evaluating the challenge to remove subjectivity and bias in judgement of appraisal.13.1IntroductionThis paper will define and outline performance management and appraisal. It will start by evaluating what form of performance is evaluated, then develop links to the development of different performance traditions (Psychological tradition, Management by Objectives, Motivation and Development).It will outline the historical development of performance management then evaluate high performance strategies using performance appraisal. It will evaluate the continuing issue of subjectivity and ethical dilemmas regarding measurement and assessment of performance. The paper will then examine how organisations measure performance before evaluation of research on some recent trends in performance appraisal.This chapter will evaluate the historical development of performance appraisal from management by objectives (MBO) literature before evaluating the debates between linkages between performance management and appraisal. It will outline the development of individual performance before linking to performance management in organizations. The outcomes of techniques to increase organizational commitment, increase job satisfaction will be critically evaluated. It will further examine the transatlantic debates between literature on efficiency and effectiveness in the North American and the United Kingdom) evidence to evaluate the HRM development and contribution of performance appraisal to individual and organizational performance.13.2 What is Performance Management?The first is sue to discuss is the difficulty of definition of Performance Management. Armstrong and Barron(1998:8) define performance management as: A strategic and integrated approach to delivering sustained success to organisations by Improving performance of people who work in them by developing the capabilities of teams And individual performance.13.2.1 Performance AppraisalAppraisal potentially is a key tool in making the most of an organisation’s human resources. The use of appraisal is widespread estimated that 80–90%of organizations in the USA and UK were using appraisal and an increase from 69 to 87% of organisations between 1998 and 2004 reported a formalperformance management system (Armstrong and Baron, 1998:200).There has been little evidence of the evaluation of the effectiveness of appraisal but more on the development in its use. Between 1998 and 2004 a sample from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD, 2007) of 562 firms found 506 were using performance appraisal in UK.What is also vital to emphasise is the rising use of performance appraisal feedback beyond performance for professionals and managers to nearly 95% of workplaces in the 2004 WERS survey (seeTable 13.1).Clearly the use of Appraisals has been the development and extension of appraisals to cover a large proportion of the UK workforce and the coverage of non managerial occupations and the extended 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 organizations? The purpose of appraisals needs to be clearly identified. Firstly their purpose. Randell (1994) states they are a systematic evaluation of individual performance linked to workplace behaviour and/or specific criteria. Appraisals often take the form of an appraisal interview,usually annual,supported by standardised forms/paperwork.The key objective of appraisal is to provide feedback for performance is provided by the linemanager.The three key questions for quality of feedback:1. What and how are observations on performance made?2. Why and how are they discussed?3. What determines the level of performance in the job?It has been argued by one school of thought that these process cannot be performed effectively unless the line manager of person providing feedback has the interpersonal interviewing skills to providethat feedback to people being appraised. This has been defined as the “Bradford Approach” which places a high priority on appraisal skills development (Randell, 1994). This approach is outlined in Fig. 13.1 whichidentifies the linkages betweeninvolving,developing, rewarding and valuing people at work..13.2.3 Historical Development of AppraisalThe historical development of performance feedback has developed from a range of approaches.Formal observation of individual work performance was reported in Robert Owens’s Scottish factory inNew Lanarkin the early 1800s (Cole, 1925). Owen hung over machines a piece of coloured wood over machines to indicate the Super intendent’s assessment of the previous day’s conduct (white forexcellent, yellow, blue and then black for poor performance).The twentieth centuryled to F.W. Taylor and his measured performance and the scientific management movement (Taylor, 1964). The 1930sTraits Approaches identified personality and performance and used feedback using graphic rating scales, a mixed standard of performance scales noting behaviour in likert scale ratings.This was used to recruit and identify management potential in the field of selection. Later developments to prevent a middle scale from 5 scales then developed into a forced-choice scale which forced the judgement to avoid central ratings.The evaluation also included narrative statements and comments to support the ratings (Mair, 1958).In the 1940s Behavioural Methods were developed. These included Behavioural Anchored Rating Scales (BARS); Behavioural Observation Scales (BOS); Behavioural Evaluation Scales (BES); critical incident;job simulation. All these judgements were used to determine the specific levels of performance criteria to specific issues such as customer service and rated in factors such asexcellent,average orneeds 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 importantly to identify talent for careers in linemanagement supervision and future managerial potential.Post1945 developed into the Results-oriented approaches and led to the development of management by objectives (MBO). This provided aims and specific targets to be achievedand with in time frames such as pecific sales, profitability,and deadlines with feedback on previous performance (Wherry, 1957).The deadlines may have required alteration and led to specific performance rankings of staff. It also provided a forced distributionof rankingsof comparative performance and paired comparison ranking of performance and setting and achieving objectives.In the 1960s the developmentof Self-appraisal by discussion led to specific time and opportunity for the appraisee to reflectively evaluate their performance in the discussion and the interview developed into a conversation on a range of topics that the appraise needed to discuss in the interview. Until this period the success of the appraisal was dependent on skill of interviewer.In the 1990s the development of 360-degree appraisal developed where information was sought from a wider range of sources and the feedback was no longer dependent on the manager-subordinate power relationship but included groups appraising the performance of line managers and peer feedback from peer groups on individual performance (Redman and Snape, 1992). The final development of appraisal interviews developed in the 1990s with the emphasis on the linking performance with financial reward which will be discussed later in the paper.13.2.4 Measures of PerformanceThe dilemma of appraisal has always to develop performance measures and the use of appraisal is the key part of this process. Quantitative measure of performance communicated as standards in the business and industry level standards translated to individual performance. The introduction of techniques such as the balanced score card developed by Kaplan and Norton (1992).Performance measures and evaluation included financial, customer evaluation, feedback on internal processes and Learning and Growth. Performance standards also included qualitative measures Which argue that there is an over emphasis on metrics of quantitative approach above the definitions of quality services and total quality management.In terms of performance measures there has been a transformation in literature and a move in the 1990s to the financial rewards linked to the level of performance.The debates will be discussed later in the paper.13.3 Criticism of AppraisalsCritiques of appraisal have continued as appraisal shave increased in use and scope across sectors and occupations. The dominant critique is the management framework using appraisal as an orthodox technique that seeks to remedy the weakness and propose of appraisals as a system to develop performance.This “orthodox” approach argues there are conflicting pur poses of appraisal (Strebler et al, 2001). Appraisal can motivate staff by clarifying objectives and setting clear future objectives with provision for training and development needs to establish the performance objective. These conflicts withassessing past performance and distribution of rewards based on past performance (Bach, 2005:301).Employees are reluctant to confide any limitations and concerns on their current performance as this could impact on their merit related reward or promotion opportunities(Newton and Findley, 1996:43).This conflicts with performance as a continuum as appraisers are challenged with differing roles as both monitors and judges of performance but an understanding counsell or which Randell(1994)argues few manager shave not received the raining to perform.Appraisal Manager’s reluctance to criticise also stems from classic evidence fromMcGregor that managers are reluctant to make an egative judgement on an individual’s performance a sit could be demotivating,leadto accusationsoftheirown supportand contributiontoindividual poor performance and to also avoid interpersonal conflict (McGregor, 1957).One consequence of this avoidance of conflict is to rate all criterion as central and avoid any conflict known as the central tendency.In a study of senior managers by Long neckeretal.(1987),they found organisational politics influenced ratings of 60 senior executives.The findings were that politics involved deliberate attempts by individuals to enhance or protect self-interests when conflicting courses of action are possible and that ratings and decisions were affected by potential sources of bias or inaccuracy in their appraisal ratings (Longeneckeret al., 1987).There are methods of further bias beyond Longenecker’s evidence. The polit ical judgements and they have been distorted further by overrating some clear competencies in performance rather than being critical across all rated competencies known as the halo effect and if some competencies arelower they may prejudice the judgment acrossthe positive reviews known as the horns effect (ACAS, 1996).Some ratings may only cinclude recent events and these are known as the recency effects. In this case only recent events are noted compared to managers gathering and using data throughout the appraisal period .A particular concern is the equity of appraisal for ratings which may be distorted by gender ,ethnicity and the ratings of appraisers themselves .A range of studies in both the US and UK have highlighted subjectivity in terms of gender (Alimo-Metcalf, 1991;White, 1999) and ethnicity of the appraise and appraiser(Geddes and Konrad, 2003). Suggestions and solutions on resolving bias will be reviewed later.The second analysis is the radical critique of appraisal. This is the more critical management literature that argues that appraisal and performance management are about management control(Newton and Findley, 1996;Townley, 1993). It argues that tighter management control over employee behaviour can be achieved by the extension of appraisal to manual workers, professional as means to control. This develops the literature of Foucault using power and surveillance. This literature uses cases in examples of public service control on professionals such a teachers (Healy, 1997) and University professionals(Townley, 1990).This evidence argues the increased control of public services using appraisal as a method of control and that the outcome of managerial objectives ignores the developmental role of appraisal and ratings are awarded for people who accept and embrace the culture and organizational values . However, this literature ignores the employee resistance and the use of professional unions to challenge the attempts to exert control over professionals and staff in the appraisal process (Bach, 2005:306).One of the different issues of removing 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” performance and there needed to be increased reliability and validity of appraisal as an instrument to develop motivation and performance. The sources of rater bias and errors can be resolvedby improved organisational justice and increasing reliability of appraiser’s judgement.However there were problems such as an assumption that you can state job requirements clearly and the organization is “rational” with objectives that reflect values and that the judgment by appraisers’ are value free from political agendas and personal objectives. Secondly there is the second issue of subjectivity if appraisal ratings where decisions on appraisal are rated by a “political metaphor”(Hart le, 1995).This “political view” argues that 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 managers have to perform and not as a potential to improve employee performance .Organisations in this context are “political” and the appraisers seek to maintain performance from subordinates and view appraises as internal customers to satisfy. This means managers use appraisal to avoid interpersonal conflict and develop strategies for their own personal advancement and seek a quiet life by avoiding censure from higher managers.This perception means managers also see appraisee seeks good rating and genuine feedback and career development by seeking evidence of combining employee promotion and pay rise.This means appraisal ratings become political judgements and seek to avoid interpersonal conflicts. The approaches of the “test” and “political” metaphors of appraisal are inaccurate and lack objec tivity and judgement of employee performance is inaccurate and accuracy is avoided.The issue is how can organisations resolve this lack of objectivity?13.3.1 Solutions to Lack of Objectivity of AppraisalGrint(1993)argues that the solutions to objectivity lies in part with McGregor’s (1957) classic critique by retraining and removal of “top down” ratings by managers and replacement with multiple rater evaluation which removes bias and the objectivity by upward performance appraisal. The validity of upward appraisal means there moval of subjective appraisal ratings.This approach is also suggested to remove gender bias in appraisal ratings against women in appraisals (Fletcher, 1999). The solution of multiple reporting(internal colleagues, customers and recipients of services) will reduce subjectivity and inequity of appraisal ratings. This argument develops further by the rise in the need to evaluate project teams and increasing levels of teamwork to include peer assessment. The solutions also in theory mean increased closer contact with individual manager and appraises and increasing services linked to customer facing evaluations.However, negative feedback still demotivates and plenty of feedback and explanation by manager who collates feedback rather than judges performance andfail to summarise evaluations.There are however still problems with accuracy of appraisal objectivity asWalker and Smither (1999)5year studyof 252 managers over 5 year period still identified issues with subjective ratings in 360 degree appraisals.There are still issues on the subjectivity of appraisals beyond the areas of lack of training.The contribution of appraisal is strongly related to employee attitudes and strong relationships with job satisfaction(Fletcher and Williams, 1996). The evidence on appraisal still remains positive in terms of reinvigo rating social relationships at work (Townley,1993)and the widespread adoption in large public services in the UK such as the national health Service (NHS)is the valuable contribution to line managers discussion with staff on their past performance, discussing personal development plans and training and development as positive issues.One further concern is the openness of appraisal related to employee reward which we now discuss.13.3.2 Linking Appraisals with Reward ManagementAppraisal and performance management have been inextricably linked to employee reward since the development of strategic human resource management in the 1980s. The early literature on appraisal linked appraisal with employee control (Randell, 1994;Grint, 1993;Townley, 1993, 1999) and discussed the use of performance related reward to appraisals. However therecent literature has substituted the chapter titles employee “appraisal” with “performance management”(Bach, 2005; Storey, 2007) and moved the focus on performance and performance pay and the limits of employee appraisal. The appraisal and performance pay link has developed into debates to three key issues:The first issue is has performance pay related to appraisal grown in use?The second issue is what type of performance do we reward?and the final issue is who judges management standards?The first discussion on influences of growth of performance pay schemes is the assumption that increasing linkage between individual effort and financial reward increases performance levels. This linkage between effort and financial reward increasing levels of performance has proved an increasing trend in the public and private sector (Bevan and Thompson, 1992;Armstrong and Baron, 1998). The drive to increase public sector performance effort and setting of targets may even be inconsistent in the experiences of some organizational settings aimed at achieving long-term targets(Kessler and Purcell, 1992;Marsden, 2007). The development of merit based pay based on performance assessed by a manager is rising in the UK Marsden (2007)reported that the: Use of performance appraisals as a basis for merit pay are used in65 percent of public sector and 69 percent of the private sector employees where appraisal covered all nonmanagerial staff(p.109).Merit pay has also grown in use as in 1998 20% of workplaces used performance related schemes compared to 32% in the same organizations 2004 (Kersley et al., 2006:191). The achievements of satisfactory ratings or above satisfactory performance averages were used as evidence to reward individual performance ratings in the UK Civil Service (Marsden, 2007).Table 13.2 outlines the extent of merit pay in 2004.The second issue is what forms of performance is rewarded. The use of past appraisal ratings as evidence of achieving merit-related payments linked to achieving higher performance was the predominant factor developed in the public services. The evidence on Setting performance targets have been as Kessler (2000:280) reported “inconsistent within organizations and problematic for certain professional or less skilled occupations where goals have not been easily formulated”. There has been inconclusive evidence from organizations on the impact of performance pay and its effectiveness in improving performance. Evidence from a number of individual performance pay schemes report organizations suspending or reviewing them on the grounds that individual performance reward has produced no effect in performance or even demotivates staff(Kessler, 2000:281).More in-depth studies setting performance goals followed by appraisal on how well they were resulted in loss of motivation whilst maintaining productivity and achieved managers using imposing increased performance standards (Marsden and Richardson, 1994). As Randell(1994) had highlighted earlier, the potential objectivity and self-criticism in appraisal reviews become areas that appraisees refuse to acknowledge as weaknesses with appraisers if this leads to a reduction in their merit pay.Objectivity and self reflection for development becomes a weakness that appraises fail to acknowledge as a developmental issue if it reduces their chances of a reduced evaluation that will reduce their merit reward. The review of civil service merit pay (Makinson, 2000)reported from 4major UK Civil Service Agencies and the National Health Service concluded that existing forms of performance pay and performance management had failed to motivate many staff.The conclusions were that employees found individual performance pay divisive and led to reduced willingness to co-operate with management ,citing managerial favorites and manipulation of appraisal scores to lower ratings to save paying rewards to staff (Marsden and French, 1998).This has clear implications on the relationship between line managers and appraises and the demotivational consequences and reduced commitment provide clear evidence of the danger to linking individual performance appraisal to reward in the public services. Employees focus on the issues that gain key performance focus by focusing on specific objectives related to key performance indicators rather than all personal objectives. A study of banking performance pay by Lewis(1998)highlighted imposed targets which were unattainable with a range of 20 performance targets with narrow short term financial orientatated goals. The narrow focus on key targets and neglect of other performance aspects leads to tasks not being delivered.This final issue of judging management standards has already highlighted issues of inequity and bias based on gender (Beyer, 1990; Chen and DiTomasio, 1996; Fletcher, 1999). The suggested solutions to resolved Iscrimination have been proposed as enhanced interpersonal skills training are increased equitable use of 360 degree appraisal as a method to evaluate feedback from colleagues as this reduces the use of the “political metaphor”(Randell, 1994;Fletcher, 1999).On measures linking performance to improvement require a wider approach to enhanced work design and motivation to develop and enhance employee job satisfaction and the design of linkages between effort and performance are significant in the private sector and feedback and awareness in the public sector (Fletcher and Williams, 1996:176). Where rises be in pay were determined by achieving critical rated appraisal objectives, employees are less self critical and open to any developmental needs in a performance review.13.4 ConclusionAs performance appraisal provides a major potential for employee feedback that could link strongly to increasing motivation ,and a opportunity to clarify goals and achieve long term individual performance and career development why does it still suffers from what Randell describes as a muddle and confusion which still surrounds the theory and practice?There are key issues that require resolution and a great deal depends on the extent to which you have a good relationship with your line manager . Barlow(1989)argued `if you get off badly with your first two managers ,you may just as well forget it (p. 515).The evidence on the continued practice of appraisals is that they are still institutionally elaborated systems of management appraisal and development is significant rhetoric in the apparatus of bureaucratic control by managers (Barlow, 1989). In reality the companies create, review, change and even abolish appraisals if they fail to develop and enhance organisational performance(Kessler, 2000). Despite all the criticism and evidence the critics have failed to suggest an alternative for a process that can provide feedback, develop motivation, identify training and potential and evidence that can justify potential career development and justify reward(Hartle, 1997).绩效考核的困境Peter Prowse and Julie Prowse摘要本文旨在用绩效考核方法来解决绩效管理的困境。