毕业论文：XX企业绩效考核体系的现状分析及对策研究

ZHEJIANG SHUREN UNIVERSITY

《学科前沿文献读写议》课程作业

学生姓名： 金莎

学 号： 201001013307 专 业： 工商管理 班 级： 工本103

浙江树人大学管理学院 2013年11月

毕业论文题目：XX企业绩效考核体系的现状分析及对策研究 英文文献原文：

Performance Appraisal as a Guide for Training and Development: A Research Note on the Iowa Performance Evaluation System

by

Dennis Daley

Iowa State University

This paper examines one facet of performance appraisal—its use as a guide for the drafting of employee training and development plans。 The scope is limited in that it excludes any consideration as to whether these plans are actually implemented。 Our interest focuses only on the extent to which supervisors endeavor to assist employees in correcting or overcoming weaknesses and in enhancing or developing perceived strengths。 The findings reported here are based on a 1981 monitoring of the performance appraisal system used by the State of Iowa。

As civil service reform has been instituted in one jurisdiction after another in order to further assure objective， performance based personnel practices, performance appraisal has emerged as one of the key issues in the personnel management of the 1980s。 This heightened sense of importance and seriousness has， in turn, led to a renewed interest in the study of the actual workings of performance appraisal systems。 The uses to which performance appraisal can be put are myriad。 The recent Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 serves as a model in this respect。 Here we find enunciated what may be taken as the typical orientation toward the uses of performance appraisal， recommending that personnel managers and supervisors \"use the results of performance appraisal as. a basis for training， rewarding， reassigning， promoting， reducing in grade， retaining， and removing employees。” Performance appraisal systems can also serve to validate personnel testing and selection procedures, although such systems are themselves also subject to affirmative action validation requirements.

The economic recessions of the 1970s and 1980s have placed significant restraints on these uses， however。 The imposition of hiring freezes， the diminishment of promotional opportunities, the advent of reductions—in—force, and the near abandonment of merit pay provisions by financially strapped governmental entities have contributed to the loss of enthusiasm for performance appraisal in many quarters。 Under such circumstances， performance appraisal一limited in its use to the more negative functions of employee evaluation—takes on the dreaded image ascribed to them by Douglas McGregor （1957）.

In their search to salvage something positive from amidst these circumstances personnel specialists have alighted upon the use of performance appraisal as a guide for employee training and development。 This offers them the opportunity of providing public employees with a service that employees view as beneficial. Although public employees have shown little confidence in specific performance appraisal systems or in the managerial abilities of those responsible for their implementation （McGregor, 1957; Levinson, 1976； Nalbandian,1981）, they have tended to demonstrate a more favorable attitude when the purpose of performance appraisal has been perceived to be employee development （Decotiis and Petit， 1978；Cascio， 1982).

This， of course, still poses a significant problem to a multipurpose system such as that found in the State of Iowa. Disenchantment or distrust with one aspect of the performance appraisal system may significantly contribute to the weakening of the entire evaluation system。

THE IOWA PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM

In all public service systems employees are evaluated periodically； most often this is done informally。 The introduction of formal systems of performance appraisal， usually in addition to continued informal assessment, is a relatively recent event。 Formal systems of performance appraisal are designed to provide a systematic and objective measure of individual job performance and/or potential for development.

Although the use of formal performance appraisal in Iowa can be traced back at least to the early 1950s （limited, for the most part， to such rudimentary methods as the essay or graphic rating scale）， these occurred within a fragmented setting. Individual departments and agencies retained descretion over the choice of such personnel practices until well into the 1960s。

Under Governor Harold Hughes （1963一1969） a number of efforts were undertaken to

strengthen the executive。 Among these reforms was the creation of the State Merit System of Personnel Administration， administered by the Iowa Merit Employment Department， in 1967。 Even so， there were numerous exemptions limiting the extent of its coverage, both in terms of separate merit systems outside its jurisdiction and of patronage appointments. The executive reform movement was continued throughout the lengthy service of Governor Robert Ray （1969—1983）。 Strong executive support was placed behind the development of the personnel system. Governor Ray unsuccessfully advocated expanding the IMED jurisdiction through the elimination of the existing coverage exemptions and by integrating the separate merit systems into an executive personnel department。 Notwithstanding the somewhat 1imited success of recent Iowa governors,

the basis for a professionalized public service was established during those years。

One reflection of this basis is the fact that the use of a statewide appraisal—by-objectives system was inaugurated in 1977。 The implementation of this system followed the introduction of the management-by—objectives concept among a number of the larger state agencies.Since appraisal—by-objectives is a specific application or extension of the MBO approach, it was felt that by this means executive support for performance appraisal could be more readily obtained。 It is known， of course， that the lack of managerial support is a significant contributing factor in the failure of many performance appraisal systems。 The Iowa performance evaluation system is an ideal-typical descriptive example of the appraisal—by—objectives technique. The introduction of this approach in 1977 was accompained by a series of training sessions （Burke， 1977) and supported with supervisory and employee handbooks。 However， training for new supervisors and periodic \"refresher courses” appear to have been given a low priority in Iowa, as is generally the case in public sector personnel systems。 Iowa’s use of appraisal—by-objectives is designed as a participatory system. Employee participation is a hallmark found among most modern management approaches and has been linked to successful public sector performance appraisal systems (Lovrich, et al，1981).

The Iowa performance evaluation process is initiated with joint completion of ”Section A:Responsibilities and Standards/Results Expected\" （also referred to as the ”job description”）by the supervisor and employee. This is the first of three sections included in the performante appraisal form/process。 Section A is completed at the beginning of the annual appraisal period while sections B and C are written up at its conclusion。 The employee is to be given prior notice of the conference and supplied copies of previous evaluation for use as guides。 Eight to ten major responsibilities (four to five is the norm) are to be selected and， written down in a results-oriented format with specific standards by which the achievement of these results are to be measured。 These individual responsibilities are weighted through the use of an additive formula which factors in the time spent on each task and the evaluation of its importance or the consequence of error （a five point Likert—type scale is used for both）. The overall employee rating is the weighted average of these individual responsibility ratings(also based on a five point scale）。

In the event that these responsibilities need to be subject to modification due to changing circumstances， a new Section A would be prepared by the supervisor and employee。 During the course of the evaluation period the supervisor is also encouraged to use a ”critical incident” approach。 Both formal (with written copy inserted into the

employee’s file） and informal communications between employees and supervisors are encouraged. For negative incidents it is important that a record of corrective action be documented； employees must be notified if they are doing something wrong and the supervision must indicate how they can correct their behavior。

At the end of the evaluation period, again following advanced notice， the employee and supervisor meet to discuss the employee's job performance in light of the responsibilities outlined in the employee’s Section A。 Worksheets are used at this meeting with a formal evaluation prepared only afterward. At this appraisal interview the supervisor discusses ”SectionB: Performance Review/Rating\" with the employee。 Employees are also given the opportunity to formally comment on the final evaluation form。 Historically only five percent do so，of which under two percent can be classified as negative comments.

”Section C： Summary of Total Job Performance and Future Performance Plans” is also completed at this time。 Basically, this is an essay evaluation。 The supervisor is provided the opportunity to list the employee’s \"areas of strength- and those ”areas needing improvement。\" In the latter instances \"training and developmental plans” for correcting these are supposed to be filed。

DATA COLLECTION

In conjunction with its implementation efforts the Iowa Merit Employment Department engaged in a two—year monitoring of its appraisal-by—objectives evaluation system。 The results of this monitoring project， involving the sampling of performance appraisals submitted in between July 1978 and December 1979， were reported to state officials in January 1980.The first monitoring project led to a number of minor changes in the performance evaluation system. For most part these modifications represented \"word changes;” e.g。， instead of listing\"employee weaknesses，\" ”areas needing improvement” were prescribed.

This study is based on the results of a second monitoring project conducted by the IMED.The questions addressed in this study were， in part, raised by the first monitoring project.While the first monitoring focused primarily on the basic or general implementation of the performance evaluation system （i。e。， was there compliance with the mandated requirements?）， the second is more concerned with how well it is working. The format used here is that of \"action research” or ”troubleshooting” （Starling， 1979， pp。 495一514； Rossi and Freeman， 1982)。 IMED staff served as judges who assessed the qualitative aspects of performance appraisals. A stratified approach to sampling was employed in order to assure that sufficient supervisory， professional and managerial appraisals were included。 The resultant data base consisted of 535

performance appraisals submitted between July and December of 1981.

DATA ANALYSIS

The primary results assessing how well Iowa's performance appraisal system is working are reported elsewhere (Daley， 1983）. This paper focuses only on those aspects related to the specification of training and development plans.

Because Iowa employs a multipurpose approach in the use of performance appraisals it is hardly surprising that there are many instances， 43 percent of those monitored， in which no training and development are specified。 This， however， poses the task of somehow separating the cases in which training plans should most definitely be present. A supervisor may choose to list training and development plans for three reasons。 First,unrelated to any individual strengths or weaknesses, he may choose to use this performance appraisal section as a memo or reminder of a training activity which all employees are routinely given。 The inclusion of such activities in an \"official” performance appraisal may serve to provide added political weight in order to insure their being performed； it is all to easy amidst the pressing， day-to-day concerns of administrative firefighting to let training and development activities slide off the edge.

Second, supervisors may choose to promote employee development。 They may either pickup on some strength an individual already possesses or for which he may have an aptitude and attempt to polish， refine, or enhance those skills。 While this is not an automatic relationship, not all ”strengths” would require additional or follow-up training， it is important for both organizational and individual well—being. Obviously， such activities benefit the organization by increasing its administrative or technical capacity。 One can also expect that the individual employee benefits through material rewards and/or enhanced self—esteem。 As such， this represents one of the positive uses to which performance appraisal can be put.Hence， it has an added importance。 Finally， training plans should be specified in those instances in which a supervisor notes that an employee \"needs improvement。” As such remarks may become the basis for an adverse personnel action (reassignment, reduction in grade, removal， etc.) it is legally incumbent that the state demonstrate that it has made a good faith effort to correct such deficienties。 Due process demands that public employees not be dealt with a \"star chamber\" fashion.An employee cannot be expected to correct inadequate work behaviors if he is neither told that they are inadequate nor, it told， not instructed or assisted in how to correct them. In monitoring Iowa’s performance appraisals room was allowed to record up to three \"strengths” and ”areas needing improvement” for each employee。 Supervisors tended to list employee strengths twice as often as they detailed areas needing improvement （1223 to 506),and as one would

expect there is a pronounced tendency to note both strengths and areas needing improvement vis—a—vis individual employees (58 percent of the monitored appraisals combine both strengths and areas needing improvement）。

A count of the number of listed strengths and areas needing improvement was made use of （zero to three for each variable) in analyzing this data。 While this fails to measure the importance or significance of each strength or area needing improvement, it was felt that in some way the number of such instances would be related to or a rough indicator of the overall seriousness underlying the specification or training plans (i。e.， as the number of instances increased so would the need for a training plan to be specified）。

Furthermore, training plans were judged not only as to their existence but also as to whether they were deemed to represent a ”poor\" or ”good\" relationship between the plan and the listed strengths and areas needing improvement。 The nature of this relationship may also be interpreted in terms of partial or full compliance。 ”Good” plans would be seen as following—up on the listed strengths and/or areas needing improvement and, hence， as complying with the personnel system's intention to use performance appraisals as a guide for training and development.

In addition to the above analysis the count of strengths and areas needing improvement were also compared to the rounded performance ratings given to each individual. It was felt that there should be evidence here， too， albeit tangential in nature， of a relationship； those employees garnering more mentions of strengths and/or of fewer areas needing improvement should possess higher ratings.

文献翻译(4000字以上):

绩效考核为导向的培训和发展：

在爱荷华州的一份关于绩效评估系统的研究报告

丹尼斯·戴利 爱荷华州立大学

本文探讨的是一个方面的性能评估的使用作为一个指南起草员工培训和发展计划。范围是有限的，它不包括任何考虑关于这些计划是否得到有效执行.我们的兴趣只集中在何种程度上尽力协助员工纠正或克服的弱点和加强或发展感知优势。本篇报告是根据1981年监测的由爱荷华州使用的绩效考核制度。

作为公务员制度改革而设立的一个司法辖区，以进一步保证客观,基于性能的人事惯例，绩效考核已成为20世纪80年代的人事管理中的关键问题之一.这个高度的重要性和严肃感，进而导致在实际工作绩效考核系统研究的新兴趣。

绩效考核的用途可以是无数的.最近的1978年的公务员改革法案作为在这方面的模型。在这里,我们发现阐明什么可被视为典型的面向绩效考核的用途，建议人事经理和主管“绩效考核结果作为使用的基础培训,奖励，重新分配，促进，减少级，保留，除去员工。\"绩效考核系统也可以用来验证人员的测试和选拔程序，虽然这样的系统本身也受到扶持行动验证要求。

经济衰退的1970年代和1980年代有放置重要限制这些用途，然而，实行冻结招聘，晋升机会的减少,裁员的出现, 不久的放弃绩效工资由财政拮据的政府实体规定造成了损失，绩效考核的热情为许多方面的损失作出了贡献。在这种情况下，绩效考核一员工评估更多的负面功能需要赋予他们可怕的形象，由道格拉斯·麦格雷戈（1957年）在其使用的限制。

在他们的搜索中打捞一些积极的东西，从这些情况之中人员下车后，使用绩效考核作为员工培训和发展的指导专家。这为他们提供了机会，提供公共雇员是有益的服务。虽然具体的绩效考核系统或那些负责执行（麦格雷戈，1957年,莱文森，1976年,纳尔班迪安，1981年)中的管理能力缺乏信心，他们倾向于展示一个更有利的态度当绩效考核的目的被认为是员工发展（Decotiis和珀蒂，1978年；卡西欧， 1982年）。

当然，这仍然是一个重要的问题，一个多用途系统如发现爱荷华州的。觉醒的一个方面或不信任与绩效考核制度可能会极大的影响了整个评价体系的弱化。

爱荷华州的绩效评价体系

在所有的公共服务系统员工定期进行评估,最通常的做法就是非正式的.正式的绩效考核制度,平时除了继续非正式的评估，引进是一个相对较新的事件。正式系统的绩效考核的目的是提供一个系统的和客观的衡量个人的工作表现和/或发展潜力。

虽然使用正式的绩效考核在爱荷华州至少可以追溯到20世纪50年代初(数量有限，在大多数情况下，这种基本方法为论文或图形评定量表)，这些发生在一个支离破碎的设置。个别部门和机构保留裁量权在选择这类人员的做法一直延

续到20世纪60年代。

在州长哈罗德·休斯（1963一1969）进行了一些努力，加强行政机关.在这些改革是建立国家绩效系统的人员管理，由爱荷华州，在1967年的就业部门绩效。即便如此，有许多限制豁免其覆盖的程度，无论是在其管辖范围之外的独立的考绩制度方面光顾任命。

行政改革运动是贯穿在整个漫长的州长罗伯特·雷(1969 — 1983）的服务期间。人事制度的发展有强大的行政在背后支持。州长雷不主张扩大IMED通过消除的覆盖现有豁免和执行人事部门通过整合独立的考绩制度管辖失。尽管近期爱荷华州州长比较有限的成功，专业化的公共服务的基础建立在那些年。

此基础上的一个反映的事实是，目标系统的一次评估使用于1977年.该系统的实现遵循目标概念的一些较大的国家机构之间的管理导论。从评价的目标是管理层收购的方法，一个特定的应用程序或扩展，它认为这对绩效考评工具的支持会更容易得到执行。据了解，当然,缺乏管理的支持是一个重要的促进因素在许多绩效考核系统失败的例子当中。

爱荷华的绩效评估体系是一个理想的典型的描述实例的评价目标技术。1977年采用这种方法是伴随着一系列的培训课程（Burke，1977年)和监督员工手册的支持。然而，新的监事和周期性的“进修\"似乎已经在爱荷华的一个低优先级的训练,通常是在公共部门人事系统的情况下。目标评价爱荷华的使用作为一个参与系统设计。员工参与是一个标志性的现代管理方法中,大多数已与成功的公共部门绩效评估系统(罗夫李奇，等人，1981年）.

在爱荷华州启动“A部分：岗位职责和标准/预期的结果”（也被称为“工作描述”）的主管和员工共同完成绩效评估过程.这是第一个包括三个部分在绩效考核的形式/过程。A节开始在年度考核期内完成，部分B和C是在其结论开始完成。员工要事先通知会议，并提供先前的评估副本作为指导使用.

八到十个主要职责（4到5是常态）进行选择，并在实现这些结果来衡量的具体标准以业绩为导向的格式写下来的。这些个人的责任是加权通过添加剂配方因素在花在每个任务和它的重要性或错误的后果评价使用时间（五点李克特式量表是用于两个).员工的整体评级是这些个人责任评级(也可根据五点量表上）的加权平均。

如果在这些责任需要根据不断变化的情况下修改，一个新的部分将由主管和员工的准备。评估期过程中，主管也鼓励使用“关键事件”的做法。正式（书面副本插入到员工的档案）和员工与管理者之间的非正式沟通鼓励。对于负面事件，重要的是纠正行动记录,记录必须通知员工，如果他们做错了，监督必须表明他们如何能够纠正他们的行为.

评估期结束，再先进的通知后,员工和主管见面讨论员工的工作表现在雇员的第A.工作表中概述的责任与准备之后只有一个正式的评估,本次会议被使用。在这个评估面试主管讨论“B部分：绩效评估/评价\"的员工。雇员有机会正式发表评论的最后评价表。历史上只有百分之五这样做，其中在百分之二可以分为消极的评论。

“C部分:总的工作业绩和未来的绩效计划”的总结，也是在这个时期完成的。基本上，这是一篇论文的评价.主管人提供了机会,列出员工\"领域的实力和那些“需要改进的方面。\"在后者的情况下“培训与发展计划”，这些都应该是

校正.

数据收集

在其执行工作的爱荷华价值的就业部门从事为期两年的监测评价的目标评价体系的结合。这个监测项目的结果，涉及1978年7月至1979年12月提交的绩效考核中的采样,据报道，国家官员在1980年1月。第一个监测项目导致一些在业绩评价体系中的微小变化.大部分这些修改为“词的变化；”例如，而上市的“员工的弱点，“需要改进的方面\"的规定。

这项研究是基于IMED进行的第二次监测项目的结果。在这项研究中要解决的问题是，一部分,所提出的第1监测项目.虽然第一次监测主要集中在基本或一般的绩效考核体系的实施（即有符合规定？）,第二个是更关心的是如何工作的。这里使用的格式是“行动研究”或“故障排除\"（椋鸟，1979年，第495页一514页；罗西和Freeman，1982年）。IMED人员作为评估员工的绩效评估的定性方面的法官。采用分层抽样的方法，以保证足够的监管,包括专业和管理评估。由此产生的数据基础，包括1981年7月和12月之间提交的535个绩效考核.

数据分析

主要结果评估爱荷华州的绩效评价体系是在其他地方工作报告(戴利,1983年)。本文只侧重于规范的培训和发展计划有关的方面。

因为爱荷华州采用一种多用途的使用绩效考核的方法,它是不足为奇的，有很多的情况下，43％的监控，没有指定培训和发展。然而，这构成莫名其妙地分离培训计划应在何种情况下肯定是存在的任务。

管理员可以选择列出培训和发展计划,原因有三.首先，无关任何个人的优点和缺点，他可能会选择使用此作为备忘录或提醒的培训活动，所有员工都常规给予绩效考核部分.为了保证他们正在执行一个“官方\"的绩效考核等活动列入可能有助于提供额外的政治份量，这都是紧迫的，行政的消防日常问题让培训和发展活动滑下边缘。

其次，监管当局可以促进员工发展。他们可以拾取一些有实力的个人已经拥有或使他有能力并试图打磨，提炼，或提高这些技能。虽然这不是一个自动的关系，并不是所有的“优势”会需要额外的后续培训,这是非常重要的组织和个人的福祉。显然，这样的活动，有利于提高管理和技术能力的组织。你也可以认为，个别员工福利通过物质奖励和/或增强自尊。因此，这可以代表绩效考核的积极用途之一。因此，它有一个额外的重要性。

最后，培训计划应指定在这些实例中，一个主管指出，一个员工“需要改进。\"这样的言论可能会成为一个不良人员的基础动作(调动、降低等级，删除，等等） 它在法律上是现任国家证明，它已经作出了真诚的努力去纠正这种缺陷。由于工艺要求公共部门雇员不予处理“星腔”的时尚。一名雇员不能指望纠正工作不足的行为，如果他既不他们是不够的，也不告诉他们没有指示或协助如何纠正这些问题。

在监测爱荷华的绩效评估的房间可以记录多达三个“优势”和“需要改进”为每个员工区域。监事往往列出员工的长处的两倍他们具体需要改进的方面（1223到506）,作为一个希望有一个明显的倾向，要注意面对面的人需要改进

个别员工的长处和地区(58％的监测考核相结合优势和需要改进的地方)。 一种计数上市的优势和需要改进的方面是利用（0到三的每个变量）分析这个数据.虽然这不能测量每个强度或地区需要改进的重要性或意义，它被认为在一些这样的实例数量将有关的或潜在的技术规格或培训计划的整体严重程度（即,一个粗略的实例数量增加,所以就需要一个能指定的培训计划）。

此外，培训计划被认为不仅是对他们的存在也为他们是否被认为代表了一个“差\"或“很好”关系计划和上市的优势和需要改进的方面。这种关系的性质，也可部分或完全遵守的条款解释。“好\"的计划将被视为上市的优势和/或需要改进的地方，因此,符合人事系统打算利用绩效评估作为培训与发展指南.

除了上述分析计数的长处和需要改进的地方也进行了比较给每一个人圆角性能的评分.有人认为应该有证据证明在这里，尽管切线的性质,这些员工的关系，获得更多的提到的优点和/或更少的领域需要改进应具备更高的评级。