The-Dilemma-of-Performance-Appraisal绩效考核的困境大学毕业论文外文文献翻译及原文

行政岗位绩效考核总结英文范文BackgroundThe performance appraisal for administrative positions is a crucial process that helps organizations evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of their employees in a structured manner. This process allows managers to assess the skills, competencies, and achievements of their employees, and provide feedback on their performance.ObjectivesThe main objective of the performance appraisal for administrative positions is to evaluate how well employees have performed their duties and responsibilities, and to provide feedback on areas of improvement. The performance appraisal also aims to identify the strengths and weaknesses of employees, and to set goals for future development.Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)To evaluate the performance of administrative employees, organizations can use a range of key performance indicators (KPIs) that measure their ability to meet specific goals and objectives. Some common KPIs for administrative positions include:1. Accuracy and attention to detail: This KPI measures the ability of employees to produce accurate and error-free work, as well as their attention to detail in completing tasks.2. Time management: This KPI evaluates how well employees manage their time and prioritize tasks to meet deadlines and achieve goals.3. Communication skills: This KPI assesses the ability of employees to communicate effectively with colleagues, clients, and other stakeholders in a professional and clear manner.4. Problem-solving skills: This KPI measures how well employees can identify, analyze, and solve problems that arise in their work.5. Teamwork: This KPI evaluates the ability of employees to work collaboratively with others to achieve common goals and objectives.Performance Appraisal ProcessThe performance appraisal process for administrative positions typically follows a four-step approach:1. Setting goals and objectives: At the beginning of the performance appraisal period, managers and employees should set clear and measurable goals and objectives that align with the organization's strategic priorities.2. Monitoring performance: Throughout the performance appraisal period, managers should monitor the performance of their employees and provide feedback on their progress towards achieving their goals.3. Evaluating performance: At the end of the performance appraisal period, managers should conduct a formal evaluation of their employees' performance against the set goals and objectives.4. Providing feedback and development opportunities: Based on the evaluation, managers should provide constructive feedback to employees on their performance and identify areas for improvement. They should also discuss development opportunities that can help employees enhance their skills and competencies.ChallengesThe performance appraisal process for administrative positions can pose a number of challenges for organizations, including:1. Bias and subjectivity: Managers may have biases that influence their evaluation of employees, leading to unfair and inaccurate assessments.2. Lack of clear criteria: In the absence of clear and objective criteria for evaluating performance, managers may struggle to provide accurate feedback to employees.3. Resistance to feedback: Some employees may be resistant to receiving feedback on their performance, which can hinder their development and growth.Best PracticesTo overcome these challenges and ensure a fair and effective performance appraisal process for administrative positions, organizations can implement the following best practices:1. Training for managers: Organizations should provide training for managers on how to conduct performance appraisals objectively and fairly, and how to provide constructive feedback to employees.2. Clear and measurable goals: Managers and employees should set clear and measurable goals and objectives at the beginning of the performance appraisal period, to guide the evaluation process.3. Regular feedback: Managers should provide regular feedback to employees throughout the performance appraisal period, to keep them informed of their progress and areas for improvement.4. Development opportunities: Organizations should offer development opportunities to employees, such as training programs and mentoring, to help them enhance their skills and competencies.ConclusionThe performance appraisal process for administrative positions is a critical tool that helps organizations evaluate the performance of their employees and provide feedback on areas for improvement. By using key performance indicators, following a structured process, and implementing best practices, organizations can ensure a fair and effective performance appraisal process that promotes employee development and growth.。

绩效翻译Performance appraisal (also known as performance evaluation or performance review) is a process that involves assessing an individual or a group's performance in relation to predefined goals and objectives. It is typically conducted by the organization's managers or supervisors, and serves as a tool for measuring and improving employee productivity and development.The main purpose of performance appraisal is to ensure that employees' performance meets the organization's expectations, and to provide feedback and guidance for improvement. It helps identify strengths and weaknesses, and sets the basis for further training and development opportunities. By evaluating performance, organizations can reward high performers, motivate underperformers, and establish a fair and objective system for determining compensation and promotions.There are different methods and approaches that can be used for performance appraisal, depending on the organization's culture, resources, and goals. Some of the commonly used methods include:1. Rating scales: This method involves the use of a predefined set of criteria against which the individual's performance is rated. The criteria may include factors such as job knowledge, quality of work, problem-solving abilities, communication skills, and teamwork.2. 360-degree feedback: In this approach, feedback is collected from multiple sources, including supervisors, peers, subordinates, and sometimes even clients or customers. This provides a more holistic view of the individual's performance, as it takes intoaccount different perspectives and opinions.3. Management by objectives (MBO): This method involves setting specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals for employees, and then assessing their performance based on the extent to which these goals are achieved. It focuses on outcomes and results, rather than on the process or the means used to achieve them.4. Behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS): This technique involves defining specific behavioral indicators that are linked to different levels of performance. Supervisors then observe and assess the employee's behavior against these indicators, and rate their performance accordingly.Regardless of the method used, it is important that the performance appraisal process is conducted in a fair, objective, and transparent manner. Employees should be provided with clear and timely feedback on their performance, and given the opportunity to discuss and provide their own input. The process should also be linked to the organization's overall goals and objectives, and used as a tool for continuous improvement and development.In conclusion, performance appraisal plays a crucial role in managing and developing employees. It helps in aligning individual and organizational goals, identifying areas for improvement, and recognizing and rewarding high performers. By implementing an effective performance appraisal system, organizations can enhance their overall performance and competitiveness.。

绩效评估考核（Performance appraisal and assessment）The so-called performance appraisal, is through the system method and principle to assess and measure employees in the work of the behavior and effect. The results can affect the staff salary adjustment, bonuses and job rise and fall, career design and many other vital interests. The ultimate goal is to improve the performance of employees, while achieving business goals, improve employee satisfaction and future sense of accomplishment, and ultimately to achieve "win-win" development of enterprises and individuals". But it is also a "double-edged sword", well used to maximize the enthusiasm of employees and tap the potential of employees; on the contrary, it will undermine employees, and bring negative impact on enterprise development. The following 10 years of work experience, we should talk about the current situation and existing problems of enterprise staff performance appraisal, as well as suggestions for effective performance appraisal.First, the correct management idea of performance appraisal has not been successfully implanted in EnterprisesTo carry out performance appraisal work, the first question is why we should carry out performance appraisal work. This problem is not clear, and it will inevitably lead to blind performance appraisal. To carry out performance appraisal, the core problem is to achieve the strategic goal of the enterprise. Enterprises in the implementation of the performance appraisal, it is necessary to do a good job of propaganda and training, but the training and publicity if there is no real intention to highlight the performance appraisal, performance appraisal can not let employees understand very well, so the performanceappraisal is very difficult to achieve the goal.But in many enterprises, performance management is only senior managers in the little master, did not get a good promotion at the grassroots level, in the implementation process will inevitably lead to such problems, and some departments will think the performance appraisal is the human resources department that has nothing to do with other departments within the enterprise. At the same time, in the performance evaluation system design, the pursuit of one step in the design of indicators, without considering the actual situation of the enterprise, then some of the assessment will be difficult to achieve good results in actual operation.Two, the assessment indicators are primary and secondary, and the design is not reasonable enoughPerformance appraisal is a scientific measurement and evaluation of employees' job performance with various techniques and methods to meet the needs of personnel selection, allocation and training, as well as organizational change and development. There is no doubt that performance appraisal is a work, and it is a highly technical work. Therefore, the performance evaluation of the program design and formulation of a high demand. Normally, we are used to complete the mission, from the perspective of organization development, to design and establish evaluation scheme, and the scheme is the result of some cover and contain everything, non quantitative indicators were artificially "quantified", the "quantitative index" ready to accept either course caused by the examiners and examinees were at a loss.Three, the implementation of the organization is not enoughAmerican management scientist Larry Idy and Ram Charan in "execution: put forward how to complete the task of learning" in the book: not because of business failure often take the wrong strategy, but because of the good strategy is not performed correctly, ineffective implementation is the real cause of business failure.Business strategy and planning are important, but only execution can make them potentially useful. A lack of executive power of enterprise will make it work out the strategy and eventually become a mere scrap of paper, so is the performance appraisal. A good assessment system can not be carried out well, but it is also a waste of effort. There is a process to realize the strategic goal of an enterprise. The concrete process is execution, and executive ability is the ability to change the strategic vision into reality. The executive power of an enterprise is determined by three key factors, namely strategy, personnel and operation process. The effective implementation of performance appraisal also needs the coordination of personnel and the selection of the method of implementation and the process control.The author knows from many enterprises,More and more workers and even some executives believe that the performance appraisal is a kind of form, not to play its due role in the human face, not essential; performance appraisal is so feeble. The author believes that the main reason for thisdecline in the execution may be: (1) performance evaluation related to inadequate training; (2) the performance appraisal is not high-level practical support; (3) the performance appraisal index itself is unreasonable, contributed to the subjectivity and uncontrollable sex; (4) effect interpersonal relationship; (5) subordinate departments, the lack of effective communication mechanism; (6) "to advance inertia and culture to the people".Four, performance appraisal results and rewards and punishments are not equalFor enterprises, performance management is a part of corporate culture, fair and scientific performance appraisal can optimize its organizational structure, improve the overall performance, performance management for employees, create a positive work environment, through the performance appraisal, the staff to correctly understand their own advantages and disadvantages, and the development direction of the self correction, so as to get more opportunities and greater development performance.But at present, many enterprise managers regard performance appraisal as the task and requirement of the enterprise or superior. Therefore, in the process of assessment, the work attitude is not serious, the examination form is unitary, and the work is done carelessly. After that, the performance appraisal results are shelved. On the whole, performance appraisal results will have little impact on the final pay of the person being evaluated and the promotion of the future position. The intensity of punishment is not consistent withthe results of performance appraisal, to give material and spiritual rewards for the performance of employees are not significant, employee punishment for poor performance is not enough, this will inevitably lead to employees' work enthusiasm is not high, thus losing the purpose of the performance appraisal. In dealing with the assessment results on the one hand to ensure the fairness and justice, on the other hand also from the human point of view, considering the differences in temperament of employees, take individual mode of communication, the performance feedback to be assessed, and help them to find causes analysis, the result is good or bad, so as to arouse by re assessment of the rise of hope, to establish confidence in the work, and they help enterprises grow together and progress.。

绩效考评名词解释绩效考评是指通过对员工在工作中表现和成果的评估，以确定其工作绩效水平和能力的一种评价机制。

下面对绩效考评中常见的几个名词进行解释。

1. 绩效考评（Performance Appraisal）: 绩效考评是对员工在一定时间内工作表现的评估过程。

它主要通过评价员工的工作成果、工作行为和能力水平，以确定员工的绩效水平和能力，并为组织提供决策依据。

2. 目标管理（Goal Management）：目标管理是在绩效考评中重要的一个环节，它通过明确员工的工作目标和职责，将员工与组织的目标对接起来。

目标管理的主要任务是设定明确的目标、跟踪进度、提供支持和反馈，以确保员工围绕目标展开工作，并在评估中得到准确的反映。

3. 360度评估（360-degree Feedback）：360度评估是从多个角度对员工的绩效进行评估的一种方法。

它不仅包括上级对下级的评估，还涵盖同事、下级和客户对员工的评估。

通过多角度的评估，可以提高绩效评价的全面性和客观性，减少主观偏见和误差。

4. KPI（Key Performance Indicator）：KPI是关键绩效指标的简称，它是衡量员工绩效的重要指标。

KPI是根据组织的战略目标和关键成功因素确定的，可以是数量指标、质量指标、效率指标等。

KPI的设定要具体、可衡量、可追踪，并与员工的目标、岗位职责相对应。

5. 评估标准（Assessment Criteria）：评估标准是在绩效考评中用于评判员工绩效水平的标准和指引。

评估标准可以分为定性和定量两种类型。

定性标准主要包括工作态度、团队合作、沟通能力等方面的评估指标；定量标准则包括工作产出、目标完成情况、工作效率等方面的评估指标。

以上是绩效考评中常见的几个名词的解释。

绩效考评在组织中起到了重要的作用，可以帮助组织了解员工的绩效情况，激励员工发挥潜力，提高工作绩效，进而实现组织目标的达成。

一、名词解释1、绩效：英文performance,又称工作表现.它一般包括两个方面：一方面指工作结果，相当地通常所说的业绩,如工作的效率、工作产生的效益或利润等；另一方面指影响工作结果产生的行为、技能、能力和素质等。

P32、战略：是企业为了达成组织发展目标、应对外部竞争环境的计划。

P283、绩效评价：英文performance appraisal,又称绩效考核,或者绩效考评,或者绩效评估。

主要是根据人力资源管理需要，对组织中人员绩效进行识别、衡量和反馈的活动过程。

P94、绩效目标：在绩效管理中也称目的或责任，它为评估者提供基本的评价标准，便于讨论和衡量。

P33 5、绩效管理：是一个完整的系统，它将员工绩效和组织绩效相融合，将员工绩效管理提升到战略管理层面。

P106、绩效评价指标：是对绩效进行评价的维度，比如产品的数量、质量、成本等。

P557、战略性目标：指将员工的绩效目标与组织目标紧密相连，将员工绩效管理的实践活动与企业经营战略相结合。

P458、开发性目标：指服务于员工培训、员工职业发展咨询、员工改进等，强调绩效管理的未来导向和开发功能。

P469、绩效目标：在绩效管理中也称为目的或责任，它为评估者和被评估者提供基本的评价标准，便于讨论和衡量。

P3310、绩效评价指标：是对绩效进行评价的维度，比如产品的数量、质量、成本等。

P5511、基本标准：就是合格标准，是对评估对象的基本期望，是通过努力能够达到的水平。

P5812、行为锚定评价量表法：是以图尺评价量表法和关键行为事件法为基础开发出来的评估方法。

P8913、卓越标准：它是指对评估对象没有做强制要求，但是通过努力，一小部分人能够达到的绩效水平。

P58 14、任务绩效行为：所规寂的行为或与特定的工作熟练有关的行为，这些行为直接或者间接帮助实现企业目标。

P6515、周边绩效行为：指那些促进组织气氛、社会关系和心理环境的待业，又被称为组织公民行为，或者亲社会组织行为。

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。

绩效管理绩效: （performance）绩效是指某一组织或员工在一定时间与条件下完成某一工作任务所表现出来的工作行为和所取得的工作结果，对组织而言，绩效的表现形式主要体现在三个方面：工作效率、工作数量与质量、工作效益。

绩效考核：（Performance appraisal）绩效考核又叫绩效评估或绩效评价，它通过系统的方法，原理来评定和测量员工在职务上的工作行为和工作效果。

就是在工作一端时间或工作完成后，对照工作说明书或绩效标准，采用科学的方法，检查和评定员工对职务所规定的职责和履行程度以及员工个人发展的情况，对员工的工作结果进行评价，并将评定结果反馈给员工的过程。

目标管理:(management by objective,MBO)目标管理是以目标为导向，以人为中心，以成果为标准，而使组织和个人取得最佳业绩的现代管理方法。

目标管理亦称“成果管理”，俗称责任制。

是指在企业个体职工的积极参与下，自上而下地确定工作目标，并在工作中实行“自我控制”，自下而上地保证目标实现的一种管理办法。

目标管理法：(Target administration)目标管理法是一种管理过程，在这一过程中通过使主管人员和下属共同参与制定双方同意的目标、目的，从而使组织的目的得到确定和满足。

绩效计划：(Performance Plan)绩效计划是被评估者和评估者双方对员工应该实现的工作绩效进行沟通的过程，并将沟通的结果落实为订立正式书面协议即绩效计划和评估表，它是双方在明晰责、权、利的基础上签订的一个内部协议。

绩效计划的设计从公司最高层开始，将绩效目标层层分解到各级子公司及部门，最终落实到个人。

对于各子公司而言，这个步骤即为经营业绩计划过程，而对于员工而言，则为绩效计划过程。

绩效目标：（Performance objective/Performance goal）绩效目标（常被称为目的和责任,英文Achievement imitates a target）是指给评估者和被评估者提供所需要的评价标准，以便客观地讨论、监督、衡量绩效。

绩效考核与管理外文翻译文献(文档含中英文对照即英文原文和中文翻译)原文：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 byevaluating 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 formal performance 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 ap proaches.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 or needs to improve or poor.These ratings are assigned numerical values and added to a statement or narrative comment by the assessor. It would also lead to identify any potential need for training and more 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 powerrelationship 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 purposes 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 with assessing 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 si t 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 political judgements andthey 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 resolved by 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 org anization 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 appra isal are rated by a “political metaphor”(Hartle, 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” metapho rs of appraisal are inaccurate and lack objectivity and judgement ofemployee 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 AppraisalGrin t(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 employ ee “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 4 major 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 asthis 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).译文：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。