绩效考核外文文献及其译文

The Dilemma of Performance Appraisal

Peter Prowse and Julie Prowse

Measuring Business Excellence,V ol.13 Iss:4,pp.69 - 77

Abstract

This 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.

13.1Introduction

This 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 Appraisal

Appraisal 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 Appraisals

The 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 Appraisal

The 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 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 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 Performance

The 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 Appraisals

Critiques 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 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 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 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 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 Appraisal

Grint(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 Management

Appraisal 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 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 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 Conclusion

As 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。作者们将评估考核的发展历史，通过评价考核文献的关键领域的有效性，讨论被考核对象和生产管理的发展中已被忽略的成功的关键因素。

本文旨在探讨绩效考核的目的和方法，以及在考核过程中遇到的种种困难。它还重新评估绩效考核领域理论发展的不足，在重新评估之前脱离心理分析以寻找更重要的方法，来消除认识的主观性和考核判断的偏见。

一前言

本文将定义并概述绩效管理和考核，它将通过评估以何种形式考核绩效，发展不同绩效模型之间的联系（心理传统，目标管理，动机和发展等）。它将列举绩效管理的发展历史，然后使用绩效考核来评估高绩效策略。它将评估关于测量和评估引起主观性和绩效评估的伦理困境等持续问题。

本文将在研究绩效考核最近的一些趋势之前，探讨企业如何衡量业绩。本章将从目标管理（MBO）角度估绩效考核的历史发展，讨论绩效管理和评估之间的联系。

绩效管理发展中的个人业绩与企业组织相联系，以提高组织承诺的成果的实现性，审慎评估以增加工作满意度。它将进一步研究文献的跨领域的效率和有效性议题在北美和英国的证据，以评估个人和组织绩效的人力资源开发和考核贡献。

二什么是绩效管理？

第一个问题要讨论的是对绩效管理定义的困难。Armstrong and Barron(1998:8)定义绩效管理为：一种以开发团队的能力表现及个人表现来提高组织成功持续性的战略和综合的办法。

2.1绩效考核

评估是充分利用企业组织人力资源的一个关键工具。绩效考核的使用分布广泛，根据1998年至2004年一个正式的绩效管理系统的报告(Armstrong and Baron, 1998:200)，估计80-90％的美国组织正在使用，而英国使用比例从69%增加至87％。有很少关于在发展考核的证据，而有更多的使用效益。 1998年至2004

年从英国特许人事样本562，发现在英国506人使用表现评估，这是还必须强调的是越来越多地使用的表现。

在2004年WERS调查中，在几乎95％的工作场所强调的关键是基于专业人

员和管理人员的绩效的绩效考核反馈。显然，考核已经是不断发展和拓展，已经覆盖很大比例的英国劳动人口和非职业管理以及在私营和公共部门推广使用。

2.2考核目的

关键的问题是考核的目的是什么以及在企业实务中怎样才能有效研究和实践？考核的目的需要被清晰的界定。首先是他们的目的，Randell (1994)强调他们是一个个人业绩与工作行为或具体标准的系统考核。评议往往采取一种面谈的形式，通常每年，按固定格式标准进行。这样的考核在未决的主要目标，为绩效提供反馈给直接领导。质量反馈的三个关键问题：

1.做出的绩效考核意见是什么以及如何做出？

2.为什么和如何讨论？

3.什么决定工作绩效的水平？

据某种思想认为，这些过程不能有效的执行除非直接领导提供的反馈是有人际访谈技巧的，来把绩效反馈给被考核人。这已被定义为“布拉德福德法”的一个高度优先的地方考核技能发展(Randell, 1994)。这个方法定义了包含、发展、激励和评估的联系。

2.3考核的历史发展

绩效反馈的历史发展由一系列的方法发展而成。正式的个人工作表现观察报告起源于19世纪初Robert Owens’s在苏格兰新拉纳克工厂（科尔，1925年）。欧文挂着着色木头的机器设备，以指示每个院长的评估前一天的行为（白色为优，黄，蓝色和黑色则表现欠佳）。

20世纪由泰罗和他的测量表现和科学管理运动所引导（泰勒，1964）。20世纪30年代发现的使用图形和使用反馈考核尺度表现个性特征和表现的途径，以及混合标准的表现，这个常被用来招募和识别员工。在选择领域的管理潜力，后来的发展来防止再成为强制选择规模，迫使发达国家一个中等规模的5级判断，以避免关键的增长.考核还包括叙事声明和支持评级的评论（迈尔，1958）。

在20世纪40年代,行为方法产生。这些行为包括锚量表（BARS），行为观察量表（BOS），行为考核量表（BES），关键事件，工作模拟。所有这些判别用来确定绩效具体问题的具体标准，如客户服务和考核因素，等级分类如优良，平均或需要改善或差。这些等级被评估人员分配数值并添加到一个声明或评论的叙事评论中。它还将引导确定任何潜在的训练需要，更重要的是要确定在未来上级管理的监督和管理潜力的职业人才。1945年报发展成注重成果的办法，领导了目标管理发展（MBO）。这提供了具体的目标和要达到具体框架，比如特定的销售，盈利能力，并与以前的表现反馈截止日期(Wherry, 1957)。申请的截止日期可能需要改变，并形成员工的具体绩效排名。它还提供了比较业绩排名分布和成对比较的绩效排名和设置以及要实现目标。

在20世纪60年代，对自我考核发展的讨论对于被评估人引起了具体的时间与机会，以评估他们的绩效通过讨论和访问发展为在面谈中讨论的一系列主题的交流。直到这个时期考核的成功是依赖于面试者的技巧。

20世纪90年代，360度考核发展了更广泛的范围的信息来源，反馈不再依赖于管理者与下属权力关系，而是要包括各级群体对各级管理人员的表现的绩效考核与反馈(Redman and Snape, 1992)。考核访谈最终发展于20世纪90年代，伴随着对于绩效与财务上的奖励挂钩的强调，将在下文进行讨论。

2.4 绩效衡量

在考核困境的持续发展中，绩效衡量和使用考核是这一过程的关键组成部分。定量测量绩效将企业和行业的标准水平译为个人表现，引进的技术如平衡记分卡由卡普兰和诺顿（1992）开发的。

绩效衡量和考核，包括财务，客户考核，内部流程及学习与成长的反馈。绩效标准还包括质的措施，认为有一对以上量化指标的重点是上述优质的服务和全面质量管理的定义。在绩效方面措施，20世纪90年代出现了表面转换和迁移将物质奖励与绩效水平相联系。这个议题在后面讨论的文件。

三考核关键

考核评比继续作为绩效波动被更多的部门和行业使用。占主导地位的批判是作为一个正统的技术的管理框架，旨在纠正弱点及评估作为一个发展绩效的系统。

这种“正统”的做法认为有考核冲突目的(Strebler et al, 2001）。考核可以通过明确的目标激励工作人员，制定明确的培训和发展的需要，提供未来的目标来确定绩效目标。这些与过去的绩效考考核和奖励与分配的冲突是基于过去的表现(Bach, 2005:301)。

员工不愿意吐露任何限制和关注他们目前绩效因为这可能对绩效的影响，与相关奖励或晋升机会（Newton and Findley, 1996:43）。这些绩效冲突对于考核人来说是连续作为管理者和判定者的业绩不同角色的挑战，而是理解辅导员的兰德尔1994）认为少数管理人员没有得到执行。McGregor认为绩效考核经理不愿意考核是有典型的证据的，管理者不愿意就个人的表现和培训服务进行判断可能使士气低落，导致自己的支持和贡献个人表现欠佳，并同时避免人际冲突（McGregor, 1957)。

避免冲突一个后果是，以速度为中心的所有标准并避免为中心的高级管理人员倾向的冲突。由longneckeretal（1987年）对于高级管理者的研究，他们发现组织政策的影响比率60名高级管理人员，调查结果显示，通过加强个人或保护自身利益来刻意的参与政策行动时，当可能的冲突情况，在他们的评估等级比

率和是由偏见或受影响的潜在来源决定的（Longeneckeret，1987）。

这有Longenecker’s的证据进一步证明偏见的方法。他们的政治判断和已扭曲不自量力，一些表现能力进一步明确而不是在关键的环节和已知的额定能力，如果一些较低的判决他们可能影响作为角色整个正面影响（ACAS，1996年）。

有些评级可能只包括最近发生的事件，这些都是近期的已知影响。在这种情况下，经理搜集和使用的只有在整个考核期间最近的比较事件。特别关注对绩效数据的公平性的考核，这可能通过性别，种族和考核者的阶层自身而扭曲。一些对于美国和英国的研究凸显了对于性别（Alimo-Metcalf, 1991;White, 1999）考核和考核者的级别的主观性（Geddes andKonrad, 2003）。建议和解决偏见的方案稍后将检讨。

第二个分析是对考核激进的批判。这是更多重要管理文献中认为，评估和表现管理都是关于管理控制(Newton and Findley, 1996;Townley, 1993). 它认为加强对员工行为的管理控制，可实现的对人工考核的拓展，是控制的专业手段。这发展了Foucault利用职权和监视的文献。这些文献使用像教师这样的专业人员的公共服务控制的例子(Healy, 1997)和大学专业人员的(Townley, 1990)。

这方面的证据认为使用考核来加强对公共服务的控制，作为一种控制方法并认为，管理客观性结果忽视了考核和等级评定的发展作用，均获得人们接受和支持的文化和组织价值。然而，这种文献忽略员工阻力与利用工会来挑战试图对专业人员和工作人员在评估过程施加控制。(Bach, 2005:306).

消除偏见的不同议题之一是使用隐喻的测试（Folgeretal，1992年）。这是基于假设考核比率一个评估“真实”绩效的技术性问题，这需要增加考核的可靠性和有效性作为一种发展动力和绩效的工具。评价者偏见和错误的来源可以通过改进组织公平，增加考核者鉴定可靠性解决的。

但有一个假设的问题，如你可以清晰描述工作要求，该组织是通过考核人从价值和政治议程自由裁量权的价值观和判定反映“理性”的目标。其次存在第二

个问题是主观性，如果由考核决定的的绩效比率是由一个“政治隐喻”决定的(Hartle, 1995)。

这种“政治观点”认为，考核做不好是因为绩效评估者缺少训练，他们把绩效考核看成是一种浪费时间。这成为管理者必须执行，而不是作为一个潜在的改进员工绩效的一个过程。本文中的组织是“政治”的，评估师设法维持下属的绩效并视考核为内部顾客满意。这意味着管理人员使用考核，以避免人际冲突和发展战略的个人地位，并寻求一个安静的生活，避免较高的管理人员的谴责。

这种看法是指管理者也看到考核者寻找好考核比率和反馈以及职业发展，通过寻求员工促进和支付手段相结合的证据.这意味着考核比率成为政治上的判断并设法避免人际冲突。在绩效的“测试”和“政治”的比喻是不准确的考核，缺乏判断雇员绩效客观性，精度偏差。这问题是组织如何能解决这种缺乏客观性？

四考核缺乏客观性的解决办法

格林特（1993）认为，在对客观的解决方案的一部分，是麦格雷戈的（1957年）由再培训的经典批判和清除“向下”的管理人员评分封顶和更换多个考核者考核以消除偏见和由绩效评估的客观性基础上。向上有效性的考核意味着主观性的考核比率，这种方法还消除建议考核评分，以消除对妇女的考核(Fletcher, 1999) 多元化报表解决方案（内部同事，客户和收件人服务）将减少评分的主观性和考核比率的不公平。这争论的进一步发展所需要评估的项目团队和越来越多的增加团队合作水平，包括同事评估。在该解决方案的理论上，平均增加经理和加强与个别考核和联系以增加与客户服务所面临的考核。

但是，负反馈仍然是伤害性很大的。通过整理反馈意见，而不是考核绩效表现的经理大量工作。然而，我们总结反馈和解释考核。这与考核的准确性仍然存在客观问题，沃克和史密瑟（1999）用360考评法五年研究了252位经理五年期间，这主观考核问题仍然在评估主体的问题超出缺乏培训等领域。

在考核的贡献是密切相关员工的态度和强烈与工作满意度(Fletcher andWilliams, 1996)。该证据正面考核仍然在振兴工作中的社会关系方面（汤利，

1993年）和大型公共服务的广泛采用，英国等作为国家卫生服务体系（NHS）是各级管理人员的宝贵贡献讨论有关其员工过去的表现，讨论个人发展计划和培训，并积极议题，进一步关注发展是开放性与员工的报酬，我们现在讨论的考核。

4.2 将考核与激励管理相联系

20世纪80年代，由于战略人力资源管理的发展，考核和绩效管理已与雇员奖励密不可分。关于考核的早期文献中就将考核与员工控制 (Randell,

1994;Grint, 1993;Townley, 1993, 1999)相联系，并讨论了有关考核奖励绩效的使用问题.然而有一部分文献已经取代了章节标题雇员“考核”与“绩效管理”(Bach, 2005; Storey, 2007)，焦点转移到绩效和绩效激励与员工考核的限制上来。绩效与绩效工资的联系已发展为对三个关键问题的讨论：

第一问题讨论绩效工资是否已经与考核发展在使用中同步进行？

第二个问题是什么类型的绩效，我们应该奖励？

最后的问题是谁来判断工作标准？

关于绩效工资方案不断增长的影响是第一个讨论的问题，它是在增加个人的努力和物质回报之间的联系以提高绩效水平。这种个人努力和物质回报联动以提高绩效水平，证明了在公共和私营部门的发展趋势(Bevan and Thompson, 1992;Armstrong and Baron, 1998)。这样促使增加公共部门的绩效努力和目标设置可能甚至在实现旨在实现长期目标的某些组织设置中会不一致 (Kessler and Purcell, 1992;Marsden, 2007），通过经理的基于绩效评估的工资的优点的发展是由英国的马斯登（2007）报告中提出：考绩用作绩效工资的基础是在覆盖了非管理层员工的公共部门中的使用比率为65%，私营部门的使用比率为69%（109页）。绩效工资的使用也在增加，在1998年组织使用绩效工资的比率为20％，而在相同的组织2004年这一比率达到32% (Kersley et al., 2006:191)。令人满意的比率或以上的绩效超过令人满意的成果平均数的将作为证据，以奖励英国公务员中个人业绩评级(Marsden, 2007)。

第二个问题是什么样的绩效形式应该获得奖励。对于过去绩效比率的使用是为实现与实现更高的奖赏支付的证据在公共服务中式鉴定评级绩效的主要因素。关于设置业绩目标已被证明凯斯勒（2000:280）的报告“不一致的内部组织和目标模糊的组织中的某些专业问题或技术水平较低的地方”。这里有从组织对绩效工资的影响和提高表现的效率的不确定的证据。从大量的个人绩效薪酬计划报告的证据中，机构暂停或审查他们对个别表现却没有获得任何报酬的影响，甚至伤害工作人员（Kessler, 2000:281)。

建立绩效目标更深入的研究,紧随其后的是取决于他们的评估,是如何导致失去动力,同时保持生产率和实现管理者使用性能提高的绩效标准(Marsden and Richardson, 1994)。正如兰德尔（1994）早前曾强调，潜在的客观性和自我批评在考核区域中，成为评核者拒绝承认评估师的弱点如果从而导致了他们的绩效工资的减少。

客观性和自我反思的发展成为一个弱点，那就是考核失败作为一个发展问题，如果它减少了降低评估的机会，这将减少他们的绩效奖励。审视公务员的绩效工资(Makinson, 2000) 来自于英国4大公务员服务机构和公务员国家卫生服务的结论，绩效工资和存在形式绩效管理没能激励许多工作人员

得出的结论是，雇员发现个人绩效工资分裂并且导致降低管理合作的意愿，管理偏好的引用，对于绩效分数降低比率以减少员工的绩效工资的问题的修复(Marsden and French, 1998)。

这有明确含义关于一线管理人员和考核之间的关系，被动的结果并减少承诺提供明确的证据将个人绩效考核与在公共部门的奖励联系起来。雇员注重这样的问题，以获取关键绩效以集中与关键因素有关的而不是所有的个人性格相联系的具体目标为重点相关的关键绩效指标。 Lewis（1998）的一个银行业绩效工资的研究强调，实施目标是一个在20个绩效目标范围内遥不可及的狭隘的短期业绩目标。这种狭隘的对重点对象关注而忽略其他绩效方面将导致工作无法实现。

最后一个问题是这种判断管理标准已经突出基于性别的不公平和偏见的问题(Beyer, 1990; Chen and DiTomasio, 1996; Fletcher, 1999)。建议的解决

歧视的方案为加强人际技巧训练来增加运用360度考核的公平性并作为考核评估的方法从同事的反馈，因为这可以减少在“政治隐喻”使用(Randell, 1994;Fletcher, 1999)。

连接绩效与工作改进的措施需要更广泛的方法，加强工作设计和发展动力以及提高员工工作满意度和努力和绩效之间的联系的设计，是重要的私营部门和反馈和在公共部门的宣传(Fletcher and Williams, 1996:176)。凡在工资上升由实现的关键考核目标决定的，员工缺乏自我批判和开放在任何绩效考核的发展需要中。

五结论

随着绩效考核提供了对于员工反馈的主要潜力可以强烈连接以增加动机，并明确目标和机会实现长期个人业绩和职业发展，为何仍患有兰德尔描述的仍然围绕着介绍理论和实践的糊涂和混乱？

需要讨论和解决的关键问题是取决于你与您的顶头上司是否有良好的关系。Barlow(1989)如果你说你跟的两位经理不好，你可能只是把这事给忘它（第515页）。关于考核继续实践的证据，他们还阐述了管理体制和发展的系统考核在战略决策控制上的应用 (Barlow, 1989)。在现实中，如果他们没有评估发展和提高组织绩效(Kessler, 2000)，公司将会创建，审查，变更，甚至取消考核。尽管所有的批评和批评者的证据都没有显示一个过程，可以提供反馈，发展动力，确定培训和潜在的理由和证据，可以潜在的职业发展并断定奖励（Hartle, 1997)。

(绩效考核)绩效管理基本方法

绩效管理基本方法 国内许多企业实行的绩效考核，其实只是绩效管理中的壹个环节。完整的绩效管理应当是壹个循环流程，包括绩效目标制订、绩效辅导、绩效考核和绩效激励等内容。美世咨询上海公司的人力资本咨询总监林光明指出，俩者最大的不同于于，绩效考核是于年底对过去绩效情况的回顾，甚至有些公司是到了年底才匆忙制订了考核的标准、条款和权重，“针对的是点”；而绩效管理则是向前见，侧重过程，通常需要壹年时间完成整个流程。 年初，每位员工均需要制订绩效目标，然后由直接主管对他进行不定期的辅导、调整，考察目标完成的情况和存于的问题，于年中六、七月时作回顾和反馈，最后才是年底的评估考核，且把绩效结果和激励机制相挂钩。“如果辅导和反馈做得到位，于绩效年度过程中不断地监督和开发绩效，那么年终的绩效评估就只是壹个正式的讨论形式，压力就会大大减少了。”翰威特资深顾问Lucy.Zhou这样说。 分则壹：目标分解和制订 这是绩效管理过程中最初始的壹个环节，指标设计是否合理，决定了企业上下是否能够纵向壹致地达成战略目标。包括美世、翰威特、博意门和思滕思特-远卓于内的绝大多数咨询公司于介绍成功的绩效管理案例时，均不约而同地提出，整个企业首先要就愿景目标和长期战略达成共识。“把公司的战略目标从上向下进行沟通，是绩效管理很重要的增加值。”Lucy.Zhou强调。

根据调查，战略目标制订之后，只有10%的企业能够按计划实施，而90%则是最终不了了之。对个人来说，传统的绩效目标设定是根据岗位职责制订的，有可能每个人岗位职责均完成得很好，可是和公司目标没有什么关系，整体战略没有完成。“这就造成了脱节，正确的做法不是从下到上累加，而应当是个人绩效目标从公司战略纵向分解下来。”博意门咨询的孙永玲博士指出，从战略分解的高度来见，人力资源部门显然力量不足，壹定要有公司高层的介入，才能够实现跨部门的推动。 企业提出的下壹年目标，如要提高客户满意度、要提高管理能力等等，给员工的感觉多数比较抽象，没有为他们的工作提供明确界定，导致了实施上的困难。联想集团于这方面的做法值得借鉴。联想每年均举行公司战略制订会议和分解会议，这个会议不是壹般的纸上谈兵了事，而是从高层到事业部，从事业部到具体的运营部门，从部门主管到员工的沟通和教育会议。会议的结果，就是公司的战略目标深入到每位员工，使他们明白要做什么，做到什么程度。 通过逐层分解，每位员工就会得到量身定做的几项关键绩效指标，也就是KPI。林光明分析，不同的KPI驱动着不同的行为方式，权重的设定也决定着员工的工作是否能和公司战略方向保持壹致。他以理发店为例解释说，如果战略目标是提高客户满意度，吸引更多客源，而把理发师的会员卡推销数量指标建的权重太强，就会引起客户反感，损害整个店的形象；为了调整偏差，这时应适当提高常客数量指标，促使理发师提升客户满意度。

KR公司绩效考核体系分析与设计(初稿)

2013届人力资源管理专业毕业生论文 (设计) 课题名称：KR公司绩效考核体系分析与设计学生姓名：丁月霞 指导教师：沈伟晔 江南大学网络教育学院 2012 年 8 月 江南大学网络教育学院 毕业论文 (设计)

摘要 企业之间的竞争，归根结底是人力资源之间的竞争，人力资源是企业实现生产经营的决定性因素之一。而绩效考核是对员工在某一特定时期内工作情况进行评价的过程，是人力资源开发与管理中的重要内容。实施绩效考核，关注绩效改进是企业不断自我提升和达成战略目标的重要保证。 本文以KR公司为研究对象，先是分析了KR公司先行的绩效考核体系，介绍了公司概况﹑组织架构与人员情况，详细阐述了公司先行的绩效考核体系，并通过一些典型事例的描述，揭示了KR公司现行的绩效考核体系存在的一些问题。并进行调整﹑改进。将公司的目标和价值观融合在绩效考核过程中，并促使公司文化不管更新和发展。通过考核不断提升公司管理水平，使公司保持灵活适应能力和竞争优势。 关键词：绩效考核体系；人力资源；调整﹑改进

目录 一、引言 (1) 1、绩效考核体系分析与设计的意义 (1) 2、国内外绩效考核研究现状 (1) 二、KR公司简介 (2) 1、公司简介 (2) 2、公司的人力资源状况 (3) 3、公司的组织架构设置 (3) 4﹑公司发展策略对绩效考核管理提出的要求 (4) 三、目前KR公司绩效考核存在的问题 (5) 1、公司内部状况动态报告 (5) 2、绩效考核能力调查问卷及分析 (7) 3、公司绩效考核存在的问题 (8) 四、KR公司绩效考核体系设计 (9) 1﹑组织架构调整，人事改革 (9) 2﹑进行工作分析，明确岗位职责 (9) 3﹑公司目标及目标的分解 (10) 4﹑关键岗位绩效指标的设计 (11) 5﹑绩效考核制度的设计 (12) 五﹑结论 (15) 致谢 (16) 参考文献 (17)

外文文献-绩效考核管理系统

英文文献及翻译 文献题目An Overview of Servlet and JSP Technology 文献作者Nagle ,Wiegley 题目翻译Servlet和JSP技术简述 参考人 院 (系) 专业班级 学号

1 A Servlet's Job Servlets are Java programs that run on Web or application servers, acting as a middle layer between requests coming from Web browsers or other HTTP clients and databases or applications on the HTTP server. Their job is to perform the following tasks, as illustrated in Figure 1-1. Figure 1-1Web middleware role 1.1 Read the explicit data sent by the client. The end user normally enters this data in an HTML form on a Web page. However, the data could also come from an applet or a custom HTTP client program. 1.2 Read the implicit HTTP request data sent by the browser. Figure 1-1 shows a single arrow going from the client to the Web server (the layer where servlets and JSP execute), but there are really two varieties of data: the explicit data that the end user enters in a form and the behind-the-scenes HTTP information. Both varieties are critical. The HTTP information includes cookies, information about media types and compression schemes the browser understands, and so on. 1.3 Generate the results. This process may require talking to a database, executing an RMI or EJB call, invoking a Web service, or computing the response directly. Your real data may be in a relational database. Fine. But your database probably doesn't speak HTTP or return results in HTML, so the Web browser can't talk directly to the database. Even if it could, for security reasons, you probably would not want it to. The same argument applies to most other applications.You need the Web middle layer to extract the results inside a document.

酒店服务质量管理外文文献翻译

文献出处：Borkar S, Koranne S. Study of Service Quality Management in Hotel Industry [J]. Pacific Business Review International, 2014, 6(9): 21-25. 原文 Study of Service Quality Management in Hotel Industry Borkar; Sameer Abstract It is an attempt to understand the role of quality improvement process in hospitality industry and effectiveness in making it sustainable business enterprise. It is a survey of the presently adopted quality management tools which are making the hotels operations better focused and reliable and meet the customer expectations. Descriptive research design is used to know the parameters of service quality management in hospitality industry. Exploratory research design is undertaken to dig out the service quality management practices and its effectiveness. Data analysis is done and presented; hypothesis is tested against the collected data. Since the industry continuously tries to improve upon their services to meet the levels of customer satisfaction; Study presents tools for continuous improvement process and how it benefits all the stake holders. It can be inferred from the study that the hotel implement continuous improvement process and quality management tools to remain competitive in the market. The study involves hotels of highly competitive market with limited number of respondents. This limits the study to hotel industry and has scope of including other hospitality service providers as well. Keywords:Customer Satisfaction, Perception, Performance Measurement, Continuous, Improvement Process. Introduction It has brought paradigm shifts in the operations of hospitality industry. The overall perspective of the industry is changed due to introduction of new techniques

xx公司绩效考核体系论文

本页为著作的封面，下载以后可以删除本页！ 【最新资料Word版可自由编辑！！】 XX公司管理人员绩效考核体系研究

摘要：管理人员是企业核心的人力资源,本文根据各种管理人员的岗位职责与要求,寻求建立一套综合立体、分层分类的管理人员绩效考评体系,无疑对企业提升业绩有积极的作用。 关键词：管理人员绩效体系研究 XX汽车销售服务有限公司是从事丰田汽车的销售、售后维修、零件供应，信息反馈于一体的4S店。随着中国汽车行业的蓬勃发展，在不到5年时间，该公司业绩迅速增长现已发展为拥有3家子公司的汽车车销售服务集团，目前注册资金3.6亿元，该公司现有人员368人，其中管理人员58人。 一、现状分析 由于该公司是典型的销售型企业，故公司对销售部门与售后部门采用以结果为导向的绩效考核指标，而对管理人员则采用月考核与年终问卷调查的方式进行，在月度考核中，主要考评每个部门的管理人员以署名方式评出一位公司合作之星，得票高者取胜，公司在月度总结改善会上对优秀员工人予以表扬，并颁发200元以内的物质奖励。 年终考核主要是对其德育品行、能力及工作表现来对其进行考核，考核结果由人力资源部采集整理保密存档，并不反馈给被考核人，考核结果作为放年终奖金高低的主要依据。 二、公司现行绩效考核体系中存在的问题及原因分析 由于该企业为销售型行业，故公司一贯将销售部门视为主要地位，其他部门视为次要配合部门。随着汽车行业高速发展，企业在短时间迅速扩张，公司的管理水平严重滞后，且公司决策过于看重业绩，对管理理念定位不清，仅把绩效考核定位为一种确定利益分配的依据

和工具，没有认识到绩效考核的真正目的是通过对员工及组织实际绩效的考核，在动态的沟通中实现员工绩效的提升和公司管理的改善，促进员工职业生涯的发展，组织绩效的改善，并为公司提供人事决策的有效依据。 1、考核定位不准确 绩效考核的定位直接影响绩效考核的方方面面，是绩效考核的灵魂，绩效考核的主要目的是是通过改善员工的工作绩效水平从而提高组织整体效率和效益，但在实际运作中，XX公司对管理人员考核主要作用是作为年终奖金发放忽略了考核的真正目的和作用。 2、管理制度不完善，考核指标不清晰 由于管理人员的工作成果不像销售员与维修工的工作成果可完全量化，故公司对其管理只停留在员工手册上的规定的品行与公司制度管理上面，没有清晰完善的绩效管理制度和明确的考核指标，对员工的行为是无法起到引导作用。 3、考核流程方法有待改进 由于考评无明确指标完全由同事互评印象分，考核结果也主要只作为年终奖发放的依据，员工只能按照自己的印象对被考评者实行考评，缺乏必要的客观事实支撑，由于考评者人为因素及容易受到考评者个人偏好不同所带来的评价误差不可避免，故考评结果不能真正体现被考评者的能力与成绩以致考核信度与效度都缺乏科学性和公平性。 4、缺乏对考评细节的把握

绩效考核标准(中英文)

绩效考核标准Performance assessment standard 序号S/N 项目 ITEM 内容 CONTENT 权重 weight 1 工作态度 Working attitude 1，品德端正，遵纪守法，每月无违反公司的各项管理规定和制度（3）； Possess virtue, following regulations, no violation of company regulations within one month（3）. 2，工作认真负责，积极主动，能吃苦耐劳，服从安排（3）；Reliable and active to work, capable of doing hard job, obedience to work arrangement(3) 3，为公司利益不计个人得失，扎根本职工作，锐意进取，为公司员工树立 良好形象并起到带头作用（3）Take company interest as first priority, make more progress based on your win duty to set an good example to other staff in company(3). 4，热爱公司，维护公司形象，认同公司企业文化，爱岗敬业，乐于助人， 与同事相处融洽，有团队精神和集体荣誉感（3）；Trust company from inside your heart, protect company culture and image, be loyal to company, possess sense of team spirit and collective honor(3). 5，良好的个人形象和素养（3）suitable personnel appearance and cadibre(3)，个人（工序）岗位7S工作做得好（10）do well at implementation of 7S working standard(10)； 6，每月内无任何被投诉记录（经查实的）；受到领导、员工或雇主普遍好 评的（3）No compliance received within one month, get high praise from boss, master and other working staff(3). 28% 2 工作能力 Working capability 8，生产的重点就是平衡产量和质量，不能要求产量忽视了质量，也不能 因质量忽视了产量，达到并超过专业技能或业务水平优秀，完全胜任本职 工作，把质量放到首位；The most important point of production is to keep balance between product quality and quantity. （考核办法：按返工、修复频次和数量核算，找不到责任人，班组长承担 所有罚款，每个罚款?10，再每个扣1分，扣完为止，如果已外发客户因质 量问题退回返工，每个罚款?20 Assessment rules: for each unqualified product, the person who is responsible will be fined 10 NAIRAS and lose 1 point, until all available points are gone. For each unqualified product which is detected by customer, the fine would be 20 NAIRAS. Squad leader will be responsible for the fine if the direct responsible cannot be found ） 20% DISCOVERY INTERNATIONAL FZE 拓展国际自贸区公司

供应商质量管理文献翻译(外文翻译-中英对照)

互利共赢的供应商质量控制 前言 近年来，随着对供应链的重视，供应商管理正逐渐成为企业和学术界的关注对象，IS0９000族标准以及QS 9０00标准都对供应商的管理提出了相应的要求，与供应商管理有关的研究成果正逐渐增多，一些软件巨头也推出了供应商关系管理的软件，但是在这些研究成果和应用软件中，涉及到的供应商质量控制的内容只是一些最基本的要求，而供应商质量控制恰恰是供应商管理的最基本、最重要的内容。另一方而，质量管理界对质量控制的研究取得了大量的成果，遗憾的是这些成果大多依然局限于企业的内部控制，仅仅研究从企业内部各环节如何改善产品的质量，而基于供应链的角度来研究质量控制的成果尚不多见。因此，系统地研究经济全球化形势下供应商质量控制的理论与方法，将有助于推动我国企业产品质量的快速提高和供应链竞争优势的形成与巩固。 1、质量与企业共存 质量一直是一个随着时代的变化而不断变化的概念,人们对质量的认识也往往因关注点不同而有所不同。如，早在1908年，通用汽车公司的工程师们在皇家汽车俱乐部会员们的面前拆解了3辆凯迪拉克轿车，并把这些零件混在一起,而后从中选择零件重新组装成车，然后驾车绝尘而去。这令在场的会员极为震惊，认为凯迪拉克车质量之高令人惊叹。显然在当时，汽车零件具有互换性是一种了不起的质量特性,这也是福特公司的Ｎ型车和T型车取得辉煌成功的重要原因.时至今日，即使农用三轮车的零部件也具有极高的互换性，零部件的标准化和互换性已经是理所当然的事情，不再是吸引顾客的重要质量特性.可见质量的内涵是不断变化的.那么究竟什么是质量呢？ （１)市场竟争就是企业间对“顾客”的争夺，在日益激烈的“顾客"争夺战中，质量、价格、交付（交付日期、方式和手段）和服务是企业常用的四个法宝，其中质量是根本，离开质量其他三项将变得毫无意义，因此可以说质量己成为市场竞争的焦点.它反映了产品是否能够反映顾客需求、能否满足顾客需求，从面决定了产品的市场前途。有鉴于此，质量己成为一项全球性运动,世界上所有优秀企业无一不把质量作为企业战略的关键内容，从战略的角度来规划质量。 （2）对于企业经营者来说,认识到质量对企业的重要意义只是经营企业的第一步,重要的是如何利用科学的方法来保证产品和服务的质量，使顾客满意，来保证过程和工作的质量来获互利共炭的供应商质量控制得良好的业绩。 众所周知,企业管理是社会生产力发展到一定程度的历史产物,质量管理作为企业管理的组成部分,同样也是社会发展的客观要求，特别是顾客处于主导地位的今天,要使顾客满意，就必须有过硬的产品质量和服务质量，这就要求企业积极推行先进的质量管理理论与方法，不断进行质量管理创新. ２、企业与供应商质量控制 随着生产社会化的不断发展，企业的生产活动分工越来越细,专业化程度越来越强，促使生产技术水平越来越高,产品质量得到大幅度改善。通常，某一产品不可能由一个企业从最初的原材料开始加工直至形成顾客最终使用的产品，往往是通过多个企业分工协作来完成.另外，先进生产方式的广泛应用,如准时生产、敏捷制造、零库存等，使企业与供应商的关系愈加紧密，企业与供应商的关系也由单纯的买卖关系向互利共底的合作关系演变。 ISO 900０族标准自1987年诞生以来受到了世界各国的一致追捧,全球约５0多万家企业通过ISO90０1质量管理体系认证足以说明这套管理标准在引领国际管理潮流方面的巨大成功。在备受企业欢迎的新版标准ＩSO9000：2０00中，互利的供应商关系被作为八项质量管理原则之一，充分体现了供应商关系管理在企业经营实践中的作用和价值。企业要贯彻这一原则,就必须

绩效考核与绩效管理方案

绩效考核与绩效管理方案 目录 第一章：总则 第二章：绩效管理与绩效考核的程序 第三章：绩效管理作业流程 第四章：员工考核类别及考核内容 第五章：考核监督及反馈路径 第六章：考核结果的应用 附件： 附件1：部门考核表 附件2：行为观察量表 附件3：目标设定表 附件4：指标汇总表 附件5：任务书 第一章总则

第一条：为加强公司对员工的绩效管理和绩效考核工作，特制定本制度。 绩效考核的宗旨在于： 1、考察员工的工作绩效； 2、作为员工奖惩、调迁、薪酬、晋升、退职管理的依据； 3、了解、评估员工工作态度与能力； 4、作为员工培训与发展的参考； 5、有效促进员工不断提高和改进工作绩效。 第二条：绩效管理是指上级为了不断提高和改善下属员工职业能力与工作业绩所做的一系列管理活动。 第三条：绩效考核是指上级对直接下级的工作结果进行定期的评估，是绩效管理的一个重要环节。 第四条：绩效管理和绩效考核是各级直线管理者不可推卸的责任，人力资源部负责指导、监督和提供技术方面支持。 第五条：员工绩效管理与绩效考核的档案，是公司重要的人力资源管理基础性 材料，必须妥善保管。 第六条：本制度规定的绩效管理与绩效考核对象包括公司内所有员工，除实习生、退休和岗下人员外的本公司全体员工均适用；管理培训生的考核，不属于本制度范围，由股份公司具体规定。 第七条：本制度规定的绩效管理与绩效考核的责任主体是各职位的直接管理者，不采取全方位考核的方式，但上级管理者拥有员工考核结果调整的权力。 第八条：各级管理者必须强化对绩效管理与绩效考核的观念，牢固树立绩效管理与绩效考核的责任意识，包括： 1、员工的业绩就是管理者的业绩； 2、各级管理者是员工责任的最终承担者，对被评估人的工 作业绩进行公正地评估，确定被评估人的绩效评估等级；为被评估 人的业绩达成提供必要的支持； 3、不断提高和改善下属的职业能力和工作业绩，是管理者 不可推卸的责任； 4、在绩效管理与绩效考核过程中，下属必须始终保持高度 的参与性，有如实填写个人业绩之义务，并有权对不公正、不合理 的绩效评估提出申诉.各级管理者必须随时与下属进行沟通。

产品部门绩效考核表

产品部门绩效考核表 考核项目考核标准自我 评价 主管 评价 备注 各类文档质量出色完成，内容充实完善，有新意有亮点10 按要求完成，符合撰写要求，基本不需修改8 基本完成，内容框架大致完成，需润色 6 部分完成，内容需要经过多次的补充与完善 4 未完成，不能按时按量完成所需文档的撰写工作0 市场调查研究充实、合理、针对性强，为产品规划决策具有强有力的支持10 有针对性，为产品规划决策提供应有的支持8 提出分析，为产品规划决策提供部分支持 6 提出分析，但内容偏离，不能为产品规划决策提供支持 4 没有进行市场调查研究，不能为产品规划决策提供支持0 针对用户需求所做的产品优 化能够全方位地感受用户需求，对产品的功能和内容提出切实可行的 优化意见，且事后被证实合理 10 基本能够感受用户需求，对产品的功能和内容提出较为可行优化意 见，且事后被证实合理 8 大致能够感受用户需求，对产品的功能和内容提出较为可行优化意 见，且事后被证实部分合理 6 能够部分感受用户需求，对产品的功能和内容提出的优化意见有待 商榷 4 对用户需求感受不深，对产品的功能和内容所提出优化意见有待商 榷，且事后被证实不合理 项目间规划与 协调不同产品线的发展战略、具体策略和实施步骤能及时有效地兼顾市 场变化和公司战略，有一定的前瞻性 10 不同产品线的发展战略、具体策略和实施步骤基本能兼顾市场变化 和公司战略 8 不同产品线的发展战略、具体策略和实施步骤勉强兼顾市场变化和 公司战略，反应略微滞后 6 不同产品线的发展战略、具体策略和实施步骤不能有效兼顾市场变 化和公司战略 4 不同产品线的发展战略、具体策略和实施步骤存在严重冲突、有重 大缺陷 单个产品周期内工作的规划与协调准确及时地平衡市场、运营、产品的策略关系，产品的滚动计划和 年度规划合理有效，明显减少研发相关费用，对公司获得利润方面 贡献显著（相对往年同期） 10 能及时平衡市场、运营、产品的策略关系，产品的滚动计划和年度 规划合理，能够减少研发相关费用（相对往年同期） 8 能及时平衡市场、运营、产品的策略关系，产品的滚动计划和年度 规划合理 6 能及时平衡市场、运营、产品的策略关系，产品的滚动计划和年度 规划欠佳 4 不能平衡市场、运营、产品的策略关系，产品的滚动计划和年度规 划很差

企业管理人员绩效考核体系研究

企业管理人员绩效考核体系研究 摘要：企业管理工作人员作为企业组成的一部分，维持着企业的运转。生产人员、销售人员等，其工作基本以脑力为主，工作量的伸缩性很大，很难用指标衡量，这样就很容易造成工作量、工作积极性问题。虽然很多企业已经加入绩效考核来管理企业人员，但是其中仍然存在一些问题。 关键词：绩效考核；管理办法；考核目的 1 绩效考核的含义与基本流程 绩效考核是为了实现生产经营的目的，采用特定的标准和指标，运用科学的方法，对承担生产运营任务和结果的管理人员、各级员工完成具体任务的工作实绩，由此带来的效果做出判断的过程。 1.1 考核的真正目的 改善工作业绩和提升员工能力，自下而上地达成公司的生产经营目标，就是根据每个岗位的具体要求、工作内容、工作职责，对于具体从事这个岗位的人员，从工作完成情况上进行评估，比方说：销售人员的绩效主要是考核他们的销售业绩。 1.2 为什么要进行绩效考核 有这样四点理由：①没有考核就没有管理，任何事没有考核、检查和监督就没有管理，就是会形成做好做坏一个样，做和

不做一个样，因为我们不是大锅饭的时代了，因为公司的发展要规范，大家想想，我们的每一项工作如是没有检查，没有考核，或是说安排了没有人过问是不是就会流于形式，经常说的一句话是员工原意做领导检查的事，②为了对过去的工作业绩作出客观、全面的评价，发现问题并且改进，通过了考核，看到问题的所在，提高水平，提高工作人员的工作热情，提供工作人员的晋升依据；③为了对员工有一个公平的评价，员工或是管理人员、工程师工作一段时间后，对其工作任务的完成和工作表现有一个客观的评价，对人员技术有一个公平的评价，口说无凭，是不是用这样的评价来做出一个公平的结论，通过事实来说明能力和你的业绩是不是更有说服力。通过以上几点说明一定要要进行绩效考核。 2 管理人员绩效考核存在的问题 管理人员的绩效考核是一项重要综合工作，一般由企业的办公室、人事、纪检等部门共同对考核进行监督和检查，日常工作由人力资源部门承担，负责考核的具体实施。 2.1 没有具体的指标 对管理人员没有进行具体的考核指标，多是一些无用的内容，只是进行语言上的描述，没有进行考核量化，导致部门对其考核时只是对其音响进行打分，走过场。 2.2 绩效考核怎么做好 要想做好考核绩效，必须将考核放在完整的管理过程里。一

员工激励外文文献Word版

1. 原则之一：激励要因人而异 由于不同员工的需求不同，所以，相同的激励政策起到的激励效果也会不尽相同。即便是同一位员工，在不同的时间或环境下，也会有不同的需求。由于激 励取决于内因，是员工的主观感受，所以，激励要因人而异。 在制定和实施激励政策时，首先要调查清楚每个员工真正需要的是什么。将这 些需要整理、归类，然后来制定相应的激励政策帮助员工满足这些需求。 2. 原则之二：奖励适度 奖励和惩罚不适度都会影响激励效果，同时增加激励成本。奖励过重会使员工 产生骄傲和满足的情绪，失去进一步提高自己的欲望；奖励过轻会起不到激励 效果，或者使员工产生不被重视的感觉。惩罚过重会让员工感到不公，或者失 去对公司的认同，甚至产生怠工或破坏的情绪；惩罚过轻会让员工轻视错误的 严重性，从而可能还会犯同样的错误。 3. 原则之三：公平性 公平性是员工管理中一个很重要的原则，员工感到的任何不公的待遇都会影响 他的工作效率和工作情绪，并且影响激励效果。取得同等成绩的员工，一定要 获得同等层次的奖励；同理，犯同等错误的员工，也应受到同等层次的处罚。 如果做不到这一点，管理者宁可不奖励或者不处罚。 管理者在处理员工问题时，一定要有一种公平的心态，不应有任何的偏见和喜好。虽然某些员工可能让你喜欢，有些你不太喜欢，但在工作中，一定要一视 同仁，不能有任何不公的言语和行为。 1. 激励员工从结果均等转移到机会均等，并努力创造公平竞争环境。 举例来说，吴士宏在IBM从一个打扫卫生的人做起，一步一步到销售业务员， 到地区负责人，到中国区总经理，是什么原因呢？除了个人努力，还应该说 IBM良好的企业文化给了一个发展的舞台，那就是每一个人都有无限的发展机会，只要有能力就会有发展的空间，实现自我，这在很多企业是做不到的，这 种体制无疑会给员工莫大的激励作用。 2. 激励要把握最佳时机。 ——需在目标任务下达前激励的，要提前激励。 ——员工遇到困难，有强烈要求愿望时，给予关怀，及时激励。 3. 激励要公平准确、奖罚分明 ——健全、完善绩效考核制度，做到考核尺度相宜、公平合理。 ——克服有亲有疏的人情风。 ——在提薪、晋级、评奖、评优等涉及员工切身利益热点问题上务求做到公平。 4. 推行职工持股计划。

质量管理文献综述

关于企业质量管理文献综述 摘要：随着新世纪的到来，特别是我国加入WTO后，中国将进一步融入世界经济的主流，质量将成为我国广大企业抓住机遇、迎接严峻挑战的关键。要拓展海外市场，必须靠有竞争力的质量；要保护国内的市场，不再有高关税和政府的过渡保护，也要靠质量的较量。随着科学技术的进步，质量管理的理论和方法有了更大发展。本文综合了质量管理的发展历程，并简要评价，提出看法，以便为企业的质量管理和理论研究提供参考。 关键词：质量管理、管理改进 21世纪是质量的世纪”。随着经济全球化和信息革命的迅猛发展，竞争日益加剧。在“数量”问题已解决的今天，人们将越来越追求和依赖于高质量的产品和服务，而且质量的领域不断拓宽，生活的质量、环境的质量、文化的质量、经济增长的质量更加受到全社会的关注。质量已成为竞争的焦点，不仅关系到企业的生存发展，而且影响到国家经济实力的增强和民族的形象。质量已成为全球经济发展战略的核心问题。 一、质量管理理论的回顾 （一）、质量管理的发展阶段 （1）质量检验阶段（20世纪20-30年代） 生产力迅猛发展，生产过程分工细化、日益复杂，许多美国企业按照泰勒的管理模式，纷纷设立检验部门，使检验与生产分离开来，其最大特点为“事后把关”。（2）统计质量阶段（20世纪40-50年代） 早在20世纪20年代，美国贝尔实验室工程师休哈特就提出“控制与预防缺陷”的概念。主要是利用数理统计原理，预防产生废品并检验产品质量，在方式上由专业质量控制工程师和技术人员承担。但这种方法只是保证生产过程中的产品质量，而不能提高产品本身的质量。 （3）全面质量管理阶段（20世纪60年代至今） 美国的费根堡姆提出，“全面质量是为了能够在最经济的水平上，并考虑到充分满足顾客要求的条件下进行生产和提供服务，将企业各部门研制质量、维持质量和提高质量的活动构成为一体的一种有效体系”。 （二）、质量管理的理论流派 1、事后检验 20世纪，美国工程师泰勒提出“科学管理理论”，1911 年泰勒出版了专

【精品】绩效管理与绩效考核制度

绩效管理与绩效考核制度 第一章总则 第一条：为加强公司对员工的绩效管理和绩效考核工作，特制定本制度。 绩效管理与绩效考核的宗旨在于： 1、考察员工的工作绩效； 2、作为员工奖惩、调迁、薪酬、晋升、退职管理的依据； 3、了解、评估员工工作态度与能力； 4、作为员工培训与发展的参考； 5、有效促进员工不断提高和改进工作绩效。 第二条：绩效管理是指上级为了不断提高和改善下属员工职业能力与工作业绩所做的一系列管理活动。 第三条：绩效考核是指上级对直接下级的工作结果进行定期的评估，是绩效管理的一个重要环节。 第四条：绩效管理和绩效考核是各级直线管理者不可推卸的责任，人力资源部负责指导、监督和提供技术方面支持。 第五条：员工绩效管理与绩效考核的档案，是公司重要的人力资源管理基础性材料，必须妥善保管。 第六条：本制度规定的绩效管理与绩效考核对象包括公司内所有正式签约的员工；试用期（见习期）人员的考核，不属于本制度范围，由公司招聘与 录用制度做出具体规定。 第七条：本制度规定的绩效管理与绩效考核的责任主体是各职位的直接管理者，不采取全方位考核的方式，但上级管理者拥有员工考核结果调整的权 力。 第八条：各级管理者必须强化对绩效管理与绩效考核的观念，牢固树立绩效管理与绩效考核的责任意识，包括： 1、员工的业绩就是管理者的业绩； 2、各级管理者是员工责任的最终承担者； 3、不断提高和改善下属的职业能力和工作业绩，是管理者不可推卸的 责任； 4、在绩效管理与绩效考核过程中，下属必须始终保持高度的参与性， 各级管理者必须随时与下属进行沟通。 第二章绩效管理与绩效考核的程序

第一条：绩效管理与绩效考核是一个不断循环往复的过程，其基本程序为： 第二条：制定绩效目标： 1、各级主管根据本年度（或考核周期）公司对员工要求和期望，在与 员工协商的基础上确定年度（或考核周期）工作目标； 2、部门负责人的考核内容包括：部门量化指标：针对部门可以量化的 关键业绩指标； 2）部门非量化指标：针对部门不能量化但对公司和部门业绩形成非常重要的指标； 3）追加目标和任务考核：主要是对工作中的追加目标和任务的考核； （以上部分权重为70%，参考值，具体分配由考核责任人确定） 4）工作行为与态度考核； （此项权重为20%，参考值）； 5）管理行为考核。 （此项权重为10%，参考值） 6）不良事故考核。 3、其他具有管理职能职位的考核内容包括： 1）指标性目标：可以定量衡量的考核目标；

XX公司管理人员绩效考核体系研究

XX公司管理人员绩效考核体系研究 【内容摘要】：企业生存发展的关键是要有良好的效益,员工发展的关键是要有突出的业绩,人力资源管理的核心问题是绩效管理。XX公司实施新的管理人员绩效考核以来,取得了一定的成效但也存在不足。本文通过对该公司绩效考核实施情况的调查,在分析了其问题以及原因的基础上,对改进该公司的绩效考核提出若干建议：提高对绩效考核的认识；加大绩效工资比重,健全考核奖惩制度；完善考核指标,提高指标可操作性；完善管理机制,加强沟通、监督与反馈；营造支持考核的组织文化氛围。 【关键词】公司管理人员绩效考核改进 【Abstract】Good benefit is the key to enterprise development, outstanding performance to employee development, and performance management is the core issue to human resources management. Zhejiang Wanma Group Special Electron Cable Co., Ltd has made certain achievements since it implemented new performance assessment for managers, as well as some drawbacks. Based on the survey related to implementation situation of the company and the analysis of its problems and reasons, the paper puts forward several suggestions to improve the performance assessment of the company, including enhancing the cognition of performance assessment, increasing the proportion of merit pay and perfecting institutions of examination, rewards and punishment, improving appraisal indicators and raising the operability of indicators, perfecting management mechanism and reinforcing communication, supervision and feedback, constructing organization culture atmosphere of supporting assessment, etc. 【Key words】Company Managers Performance Assessment Improving 一、XX公司及其生产管理人员绩效考核概况 （一）X X公司的基本情况

绩效考核外文文献及翻译

绩效考核外文文献及翻译 外文文献 1.Performance appraisals - purpose and how to make it easier Performance appraisals are essential for the effective management and evaluation of staff. Appraisals help develop individuals, improve organizational performance, and feed into business planning. Formal performance appraisals are generally conducted annually for all staff in the organization. His or her line manager appraises each staff member. Directors are appraised by the CEO, who is appraised by the chairman or company owners, depending on the size and structure of the organization. Annual performance appraisals enable management and monitoring of standards, agreeing expectations and objectives, and delegation of responsibilities and tasks. Staff performance appraisals also establish individual training needs and enable organizational training needs analysis and planning. Performance appraisals also typically feed into organizational annual pay and grading reviews, which commonly also coincide with the business planning for the next trading year. Performance appraisals generally review each individual's performance against objectives and standards for the trading year, agreed at the previous appraisal meeting. Performance appraisals are also essential for career and succession planning - for individuals, crucial jobs, and for the organization as a whole. Performance appraisals are important for staff motivation, attitude and behavior development, communicating and aligning individual and organizational aims, and fostering positive relationships between management and staff. Performance appraisals provide a formal, recorded, regular review of an individual's performance, and a plan for future development. Job performance appraisals - in whatever form they take - are therefore vital for managing the performance of people and organizations. Managers and appraises commonly dislike appraisals and try to avoid them. To these people the appraisal is daunting and time-consuming. The process is seen as a difficult administrative chore and emotionally challenging. The annual appraisal is maybe the only time since last year that the two people have sat down together for a meaningful one-to-one discussion. No wonder then that appraisals are stressful - which then defeats the whole purpose. Appraisals are much easier, and especially more relaxed, if the boss meets each of the team members individually and regularly for one-to-one discussion throughout the year. Meaningful regular discussion about work, career, aims, progress, development, hopes and dreams, life, the universe, the TV, common interests, etc., whatever, makes appraisals so much easier because people then know and trust each other - which reduces all the stress and the uncertainty. Put off discussions and of course they loom very large. So don't wait for the annual appraisal to sit down and talk. The boss or the appraises can instigate this. If you are an employee with a shy boss, then take the lead. If you are a boss who rarely sits down and talks with people - or whose people are not used to talking with their boss - then set about relaxing the atmosphere and improving relationships. Appraisals (and work) all tend to be easier when people communicate well and know each other. So sit down together and talk as often as you can, and then when the actual formal appraisals are due everyone will find the whole process to be far more natural, quick, and easy - and a lot more productive too. 2.Appraisals, social responsibility and whole-person development There is increasingly a need for performance appraisals of staff and especially managers, directors and CEO's, to include accountabilities relating to corporate responsibility, represented by various converging corporate responsibility concepts including: the “Triple Bottom Line”; c orporate social responsibility (CSR); Sustainability; corporate integrity and ethics; Fair Trade, etc. The organization must decide the extent to which these accountabilities are reflected in job responsibilities, which would then