绩效管理咨询方法论(英文版)

合集下载

老外的一份绩效管理英文版

Language Barriers: When dealing with foreign employees, language can be a significant barrier to effective communication If managers and employees do not share a common language, it can be difficult to clearly communicate expectations, goals, and feedback This can lead to misunderstandings and a lake of claim in performance evaluations
It involves setting clear performance standards, assessБайду номын сангаасng employee performance against these standards, providing feedback, and creating development plans to improve performance
Link rewards to performance
01
Ensure that rewards and incentives are closely linked to individual performance and organizational goals
Recognition programs
Feedback and Recognition
Provide feedback on performance and recognize outstanding achievements

绩效管理幻灯片演示(英文)

High-performance companies define Performance Management in its broadest sense: it is critical to executing and implementing strategy
Performance Management is now widely recognized as delivering more returns and delivering more competitive advantages than other HR investments
A process for ensuring that decisive and constructive dialogue occurs
A process of managing self and others so that people do achieve
A process for ensuring that people are doing the right things in the most effective ways, to the best of their
Highly Successful Companies are defined as having—
5-year sales growth = 17.5% per year 5-year profit growth = 10.8% per year Annual equity growth = 16.7% per year 5-year dividend growth = 13.4% per year
A process that ensures that people execute the strategy of the organization

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weight1 工作态度Workingattitude1，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 companyregulations 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 andactive to work, capable of doing hard job, obedience to workarrangement(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 toother 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 frominside your heart, protect company culture and image, be loyal tocompany, possess sense of team spirit and collective honor(3).5，良好的个人形象和素养（3）suitable personnel appearance andcadibre(3)，个人（工序）岗位7S工作做得好（10）do well atimplementation 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 praisefrom boss, master and other working staff(3).28%2工作能力Workingcapability8，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 tokeep 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 unqualifiedproduct, the person who is responsible will be fined 10 NAIRAS andlose 1 point, until all available points are gone. For eachunqualified product which is detected by customer, the fine wouldbe 20 NAIRAS. Squad leader will be responsible for the fine if thedirect responsible cannot be found ）20%DISCOVERY INTERNATIONAL FZE拓展国际自贸区公司1，每月统计在案，并适时张榜公布，做到公平公正；Assessment statics record will be made and published every month in order to keep open and fair.2，作为每月绩效评估依据，确定每月绩效津贴（100分，NGN3000元）发放金额；The allowance base for monthly assessment is 100 points and 3000 NAIRAS.3，试行期间只考核工序组长及以上职位的员工。

绩效管理咨询方法论英文版

Tie PM to the Business Cycle
YearEnd Review
New Year Planning
Review and
Planning Planning
Feedback &
Coaching
Feedback & Coaching
MidYear Review
Bad timing
I don’t want to ruin your day Herman, but tomorrow morning you’re scheduled to be in my office for your annual performance review
Latin America
(Europe)
Industry
Objectives of the business unit
Objectives of departments and individuals
Bottom-up-approach: Derivation of segment and corporate strategic plans and operating objectives from business unit goals.
Cascading and Alignment Stakeholder Metrics
2 Employee Review Process
Engagement and Accountability Growth and Achievements
Performance Consulting
Total Organization Performance
Share Best Practices research

绩效考核英文

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

本文主要论述人力资源中的绩效管理中需要注意的问题。

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

《绩效管理》课程简介

《绩效管理》课程简介
中文名称：绩效管理
英文名称：Performance Management
课程代码：3.172.0351
学时学分：2/周，24，2.0
内容简介：企业绩效管理是企业人力资源管理的核心。

一个管理者能否有效管理员工绩效，将直接影响员工积极性的发挥和潜能的开发，影响员工的生产率和人才的保留率。

绩效管理是综合管理组织和员工绩效的系统。

《绩效管理》是一门系统地阐述企业绩效管理的理论和方法的学科，主要介绍绩效管理的基础理论、绩效计划、绩效沟通、绩效评价、绩效评价主体的选择与评价者培训、绩效评价指标的选择、绩效评价方法的选择、绩效评价结果的运用以及绩效薪酬等方面的知识。

《绩效管理》是人力资源管理专业的一门主要专业课程，也是一门理论性和实践性都很强学科。

通过本课程的学习，使学生对绩效管理有比较系统和全面的认识，了解和掌握绩效管理的有关概念、方法及原理；掌握绩效评价指标体系及其设计的方法；熟悉绩效考评的程序；能够利用所学知识分析绩效问题，了解如何通过绩效管理制度引导企业行为，掌握解决现实中企业有关绩效管理方面问题的方法；学生毕业后具备组织和从事企业人力资源管理中绩效管理工作职能的能力。

参考教材：
布茂勇主编：《绩效管理》，南京大学出版社2010年版。

方振邦主编：《绩效管理（第三版）》，中国人民大学出版社2010年版。

顾琴轩主编：《绩效管理》，上海交通大学出版社2006年版。

赵曙明主编：《绩效管理与评估》，高等教育出版社2004年版。

绩效考核外文文献及其译文

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 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。

人力资源管理之绩效管理专业术语英语翻译

人力资源管理之绩效管理专业术语英语翻译集团标准化工作小组 #Q8QGGQT-GX8G08Q8-GNQGJ8-MHHGN#人力资源管理之绩效管理专业术语英语翻译1绩效管理，2绩效评价3绩效计划4绩效目标5绩效辅导6绩效沟通7绩效分析8绩效评价面谈9绩效反馈10排序法11强制分布法12关键事件法13图尺度评价法14配对比较法，行为锚定等15级评价法16目标管理法17绩效评价标准不清，趋紧，趋松，居中趋势，18晕轮效应19效度、信度20关键绩效指标21 360反馈过程22平衡记分卡23绩效改进24高绩效工作系统1, performance management,2 Performance Evaluation3 Performance Plan4 performance targets5 Performance counseling6 the performance of communication7 Performance Analysis8 Performance Evaluation interviews9 Performance Feedback10 Sort11 mandatory distribution12 critical incident method13 map-scale evaluation14 pairs of comparative law, and other acts of anchoringEvaluation 15Management Act, 16 goals17 Performance evaluation criteria clear, tight, more loose, center trend18 halo effect19 validity, reliability20 Key Performance IndicatorsFeedback processes 21,36022 Balanced Scorecard23 performance improvement24 high-performance work systems。

企业绩效管理外文翻译文献综述

企业绩效管理外文翻译文献综述企业绩效管理外文翻译文献(文档含中英文对照即英文原文和中文翻译)原文：Can Performance Management Foster Intelligent Behavior?Bjarte BogsnesThe world has changed, not just in increasingly fast-changing and unpredictable ways, but also the competence and expectations of people in our organizations. Unfortunately, too few seem to understand or accept that these developments call for radically new and different ways of leading and managing. Traditional management practices do not make usthe agile organizations we need to be.The problem starts with the label, "Performance Management" implying, "If I don't manage you, there will be no performance."We need a new mindset, one that is less about managing performance and more about creating conditions for great performance to occur. We need self-regulating models, requiring less management, but more leadership from everyone.Think about traffic, where we want good performance and a safe good flow. Traffic authorities have different ways of making this happen. The traffic light is a popular choice, but those managing the process (programmers) are not in the situation; information used in their process is not fresh, which is clear as you wait in front of that red light.The roundabout is a very different alternative. Those managing are the drivers themselves. The information used isreal time, coming from own observations. While that information is also available in front of the traffic light, drivers do not have the authority to act on it. By the way, the "zipper" or "every second car through" is not a rule, but a guiding principle.The roundabout normally is more efficient than the traffic light, because of two significant differences in the decision-making process, information and authority. A third element is also required for the roundabout to be more efficient: while the traffic light is a simple-rulesbased system, the roundabout is values-based. A value-set based on, "Me first, I don't care about the rest," is not a big a problem in front of the red light, but is a serious problem in a roundabout. Here, a positive common purpose of wanting a safe and good flow is critical. Drivers must be more considerate, open about own intentions while trying to understand the intentions of peers. Instead of managing performance, traffic authorities have created conditions for self-managed performance to occur.What would the implications be for the loathed performance review? The principles and practices described at Return Path are sensible and interesting. I like the concept of horizontal commitments toward peers, instead of vertical commitments to higher management. At the same time, we need to broaden our definition of performance. In traditional performance, a commitment is too often about "hitting the number." This is too narrow. We need to ask questions such as, how are we doing compared to peers? How are we using KPIs to reflect on performance, or using hindsight and management assessment to verify results? Did we really move toward our longer-term ambitions? How sustainable are the results? Last but not least, there has to be room for values if performance systems are tofoster intelligent behavior; we need to ask, how where those results achieved?At Statoil our integrated performance management approach links ambitions to actions. Our targets reflect a broad set of ambitions,including people, health, safety, environment, operations and financial performance. Read more about our management model and how we apply a holistic and values-based approach to this broader performance agenda.The words of Dee Hock, former GEO of Visa, should guide the design of our management processes, including our performance reviews: "Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex, intelligent behavior. Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple, stupid behavior."While researching my book. Talent Economics, I interviewed employees about what really motivates today's workforce. I discovered a disconnect between the performance support my interviewees wanted versus how managers recounted their contribution to these conversations.Over the last 20 years, the employee mindset has evolved faster than has the art and science of management. Nowhere is this starker than in the area of performance management practices, particularly the annual review. In both the developed and developing world, employees report that this end-of-year activity breeds stress, anxiety and mistrust. How ironic that a process aimed at improving organizational performance, is itself underperforming!It's time to "reboot" our performance management operating system, installing two specific system updates: l. The "Democracy" update. As much as we try to make theperformance appraisal a two way dialogue, we cannot run away from the fact that at its core, the conversation today is often a top-down review. My research shows that many 21st century employees are rejecting conversations that are one-way: in hot job markets today, managers must realize "who is appraising whom." With other offers readily available, many employees enter a performance dialogue privately considering if their manager is worth another year of their career. The performance management conversation now reflects a company's Employee Value Proposition, much as we learn in the lead Perspective.The Democracy update means that managers only gain the right to give feedback when they first genuinely seek the same on their own performance as leaders. Not just through 360-degree reviews, but also through authentic conversations asking, "How am I performing as your manager? " and "How can I help you succeed?" Only then can the conversation shift to, "How you can improve?"and "This is what you should focus on."2. The Success module. Greater employee autonomy and empowerment also changes the meaning of management. We have gone from a "supervisor of task and outcomes" to an "enabler of performance, innovative thinking and collective success." To make this shift, we must give up the judge's robes for the coach's uniform. If employees don't succeed, managers are on the hook, too.This is particularly relevant when coaching a team to success. People bring different skills to a team and how well they work together really matters. If team reviews work better to achieve a goal, so be it. The Return Path story illustrates how review processes can be designed and executed around what matters most, and where everyone dons the uniforms of player and coach.What if, instead of making the heart of a performance conversation the evaluation, it became a vehicle to improve success of the individual, the team and the business? What if performance feedback was paired with dialogue about transforming the business, the product or customer experience? This genuinely reboots and upgrades performance management to focus on individual and organizational success.It is indeed time to upgrade performance management practices: we can no longer manage a 21st century employee using 20th century mindsets.People & Strategy. 2013, V ol. 36 Issue 2, p12-13. 2p.译文：绩效管理能促进自我管理行为吗?Bjarte Bogsnes世界随着时间的推移而变化莫测，连那些与时变化而不可预测的通道也随之改变，与此同时组织人员的能力和期望也顺应时代潮流。

(完整word版)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”; corporate so cial 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 thennaturally feature accordingly in performance appraisals. More about this aspect of responsibility is in the directors’ job descriptions section. Significantly also, while this appraisal outline is necessarily a formal structure this does not mean that the development discussed with the appraises must be formal and constrained. In fact the opposite applies. Appraisals must address “whole person” development - not just job skills or the skills required for the next promotion. Appraisals must not discriminate against anyone on the grounds of age, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, disability, etc. The UK Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, (consistent with Europe), effective from 1st October 2006, make it particularly important to avoid any comments, judgments, suggestions, questions or decisions which might be perceived by the appraises to be based on age. This means people who are young as well as old. Age, along with other characteristics stated above, is not a lawful basis for assessing and managing people, unless proper 'objective justification' can be proven. See the Age Diversity information. When designing or planning and conducting appraisals, seek to help the 'whole-person' to grow in whatever direction they want, not just to identify obviously relevant work skills training. Increasingly, the best employers recognize that growing the 'whole person' promotes positive attitudes, advancement, motivation, and also develops lots of new skills that can be surprisingly relevant to working productively and effectively in any sort of organization. Developing the whole-person is also an important aspect of modern corporate responsibility, and separately (if you needed a purely business-driven incentive for adopting these principles), whole-person development is a crucial advantage in the employment market, in which all employers compete to attract the best recruits, and to retain the best staff. Therefore in appraisals, be creative and imaginative in discussing, discovering and agreeing 'whole-person' development that people will respond to, beyond the usual job skill-set, and incorporate this sort of development into the appraisal process. Abraham Maslow recognized this over fifty years ago. If you are an employee and your employer has yet to embrace or even acknowledge these concepts, do them a favor at your own appraisal and suggest they look at these ideas, or maybe mention it at your exit interview prior to joining a better employer who cares about the people, not just the work. Incidentally the Multiple Intelligences test and V AK Learning Styles test are extremely useful tools for appraisals, before or after, to help people understand their natural potential and strengths and to help managers understand this about their people too. There are a lot of people out there who are in jobs which don't allow them to use and develop their greatest strengths; so the more we can help folk understand their own special potential, and find roles that really fit well, the happier we shall all be. 3 .Are performance appraisals still beneficial and appropriate It is sometimes fashionable in the 'modern age' to dismiss traditional processes such as performance appraisals as being irrelevant or unhelpful. Be very wary however if considering removing appraisals from your own organizational practices. It is likely that the critics of the appraisal process are the people who can't conduct them very well. It's a common human response to want to jettison something that one finds difficult. Appraisals - in whatever form, and there are various - have been a mainstay of management for decades, for good reasons. Think about everything that performance appraisals can achieve and contribute to when they are properly managed, for example: (1)performance measurement - transparent, short, medium and long term (2)clarifying, defining, redefining priorities and objectives (3)motivation through agreeing helpful aims and targets (4)motivation though achievement and feedback (5)training needs and learning desires - assessment and agreement (6)identification of personal strengths and direction - including unused hidden strengths (7)career and succession planning -personal and organizational (8)team roles clarification and team building (9)organizational training needs assessment and analysis (10)appraise and manager mutual awareness, understanding and relationship (11)resolving confusions and misunderstandings (12)reinforcing and cascading organizational philosophies, values, aims, strategies, priorities, etc (13)delegation, additional responsibilities, employee growth and development (14)counseling and feedback (15)manager development - all good managers should be able to conduct appraisals well - it's a fundamental process (16)the list goes on People have less and less face-to-face time together these days. Performance appraisals offer a way to protect and manage these valuable face-to-face opportunities. My advice is to hold on to and nurture these situations, and if you are under pressure to replace performance appraisals with some sort of (apparently) more efficient and cost effective methods, be very sure that you can safely cover all the aspects of performance and attitudinal development that a well-run performance appraisals system is naturally designed to achieve. There are various ways of conducting performance appraisals, and ideas change over time as to what are the most effective appraisals methods and systems. Some people advocate traditional appraisals and forms; others prefer 360-degree-type appraisals; others suggest using little more than a blank sheet of paper. In fact performance appraisals of all types are effective if they are conducted properly, and better still if the appraisal process is clearly explained to, agreed by, the people involved. Managers need guidance, training and encouragement in how to conduct appraisals properly. Especially the detractors and the critics. Help anxious managers (and directors) develop and adapt appraisals methods that work for them. Be flexible. There are lots of ways to conduct appraisals, and particularly lots of ways to diffuse apprehension and fear - for managers and appraises alike. Particularly - encourage people to sit down together and review informally and often - this removes much of the pressure for managers and appraises at formal appraisals times. Leaving everything to a single make-or-break discussion once a year is asking for trouble and trepidation. Look out especially for the warning signs of 'negative cascaded attitudes' towards appraisals. This is most often found where a senior manager or director hates conducting appraisals, usually because they are uncomfortable and inexperienced in conducting them. The senior manager/director typically will be heard to say that appraisals don't work and are a waste of time, which for them becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. All that said, performance appraisals that are administered without training (for those who need it), without explanation or consultation, and conducted poorly will be counter-productive and is a waste of everyone's time. Well-prepared and well-conducted performance appraisals provide unique opportunities to help appraise and managers improve and develop, and thereby also the organizations for whom they work. Just like any other process, if performance appraisals aren't working, don't blame the process, ask yourself whether it is being properly trained, explained, agreed and conducted. 4. Effective performance appraisals Aside from formal traditional (annual, six-monthly, quarterly, or monthly) performance appraisals, there are many different methods of performance evaluation. The use of any of these methods depends on the purpose of the evaluation, the individual, the assessor, and the environment. The formal annual performance appraisal is generally the over-riding instrument, which gathers together and reviews all other performance data for the previous year. Performance appraisals should be positive experiences. The appraisals process provides the platform for development and motivation, so organizations should foster a feeling that performance appraisals are positive opportunities, in order to get the best out of the people and the process. In certain organizations, performance appraisals are widely regarded as something rather less welcoming('blocking sessions' is not an unusual description), which provides a basis only on which to develop fear and resentment, so never, never, never use a staff performance appraisal to handle matters of discipline or admonishment, which should instead be handled via separately arranged meetings. 5. Types of performance and aptitude assessments (1)Formal annual performance appraisals (2)Probationary reviews (3)Informal one-to-one review discussions (4)Counseling meetings (5) Observation post (6) Skills or career-related tests (7) Assignment or task to follow the review, including the secondment (8)Assessment Centre, including the observation group exercises, presentations and other tests (9)Communicate with people who investigate the views of others (10) Acts of psychological tests and other assessment (11)Handwriting analysis 外文文献译文1、考绩考核的用途和如何使其易于实现绩效考核根本上是对职员有效的管理和评估。

管理咨询全套资料(英文版)(22个文档)8

Kellogg Consulting ClubHow to succeed to the Personal InterviewSo, here you are, reading this document and trying to figure out how to land your dream job. We’d like to help by telling you what we believe to be the key areas of preparation for a successful interview.First and foremost, remember that a standard consulting interview has four parts:1) A personal “fit” part for 15 to 20 minutes2) A Case part for 20 minutes3)Questions that you would like to ask your interviewer for 5 minutes.4)Wrap Up.Mo re often than not, people prepare themselves only for the case part, leaving the personal “fit” part unattended. Believe us, if you do not succeed in your personal interview, the case will not count! Therefore, this document will be focused on the personal side of the interview process, and how to succeed on that difficult part of the recruiting process.Introductory commentsAs you go through the process, you will receive tough questions that probe not only your intentions and intellect, but also your psyche and personality. Your delivery is as important as what you say. The only way to show poise and grace while answering these tough questions is practice and practice.a)Know yourself:You need to create a storyline for yourself. Describe how your life has developed such that a job with firm X is the next logical step in reaching your goals. Be able to walk through the details of your resume and fill in the details. For instance, why did you make the moves you have? What have been the most significan decisions you have made? Where were the challenges and where were the triumphs? This is also your chance to set yourself apart. Give the interviewer something to remember you by - tell an interesting story, talk about a unique skill or talent, etc. One way to do this is to incorporate words that will provoke curiosity in your resume.The CMC offers many sessions to help you polish your storyline. Take advantage of them.b)Know the firm:What does the firm pride itself on? What makes them unique? If a firm prides itself on being a thought leader, show you have been a thought leader or why being a part of a firms that leads the industry is important to you. You must also know the basics about a company such as where they have offices and how they are structured. If you are unclear about any of these areas, ask!! You do, however, want to show some initial understanding and then ask for clarification.Use Company presentations to ask the consultants smart questions. If you are interested in a firm, call the recruiting manager or a consultant you have spoken with and get more information about the work and culture.Don't be shy about asking questions, most people are honored when they are asked about their opinions and experiences.c)Listen well:This is VERY important. Insights and clues are all around you. Even before your interview begins, you should try to pick up any information you can. Go to presentations and take notes. What are the buzzwords they use to describe themselves and the people they hire? Remember a few highlights from the company presentation. During the interview, pay attention to your interviewer. What makes them look interested? What do they ask you to elaborate on? If you are weak in one area, listen for a chance to show your skills in another way.Preparation to the personal interviewIn order to prepare yourself for the personal interview, you need to answer the following questions:1)Who are the firms looking for?2)What should I do before the interviews?3)What should I be aware of during the interview?4)What questions will I be asked during the interview?1) Who are the firms looking for?There are fundamental skills that you need to demonstrate to get a consulting job. Do you think you have these qualities? What examples would you use to show what you do?Here is a list of the “critical skills” that consulting firms are looking for:1)Analytical skills: intelligent, able to find patterns and causal relationships in what appears to beunrelated data; creates hypothesis to drive research, uses clear and logic thinking, draws on pastexperience to solve problems, applies creativity to come up with solutions2)Business Sense: Entrepreneurial, stays on current business developments, intuitively understands basicbusiness dynamics, converses easily about business issues.3)Quick Learning: Solicits and is open to feedback, humble, wants to improve himself/herself, learnsfrom mistakes.4)Communications skills: Listens carefully to understand others, uses tactful phrases and timing whencommunicating, has a good sense for what people mean, understands how he/she is being perceived.5)Integrity: Does not waver on ethical issues, has basic respect for other individuals, is able to maintainconfidentiality, follows through on commitments.6)Interpersonal Skills: Mature, avoids turning business issues into personal issues, genuinely interestedin other people, can get along with people from a range of backgrounds, positive in attitude, keeps col under pressure, thinks before leaping, open-minded, able to put things in perspective.7)Leadership skills: Has influence, can make decisions quickly, provides leadership in situations wherethere is none, understands individuals positions on issues and how to influence them, able to take risks, takes action when necessary, sets clear goals, rallies people around a shared objective.8)Motivation and energy: Enthusiastic, has a can-do attitude, has high performance standards, motivatesothers, willing to work long hours, organizes work effectively, detail-oriented, willing to dounglamorous work9)Quantitative skills: Can apply quantitative thinking to analysis of issues, understands quantitativerelationships in business, comfortable performing simple math mentally, academic training in math.10)Team player: Likes to work in teams, sensitive and willing to help others, knows when to be a leaderand when to be a follower, puts group’s interests before own, shares credit for joint work.11)Intellectual curiosity: ability to be satisfied with the intellectual challenge of his work, comfortablewith the notion that client might not follow their advice.12)Comfort with ambiguity: can thrive in an environment in which things are fluid, non structured anduncertain, can bring structure and thought to what seems a confusing situation with maturity and poise.Don’t worry if it seems you don’t meet these criteria. Most successful candidates really don’t possess all of them. But being aware of these needs, and focusing your answers to demonstrate these skills, can be the difference between receiving and offer or not.Talk about these skills, find where you developed them and applied them.2)What should I do before the interviews?This section will cover how to prepare for the interview. This part is a very important one, since it will determine how confident you are when you walk into the interviewing room.a)Logistics:The company should notify you if you are being invited for an interview. Generally, you are given several interview times to choose from. Reecruiters remember early and late candidates the best. Although you may not be able to have the flexibility to decide this, try to avoid slots in the middle of the day, specially after lunch hour. In addition, many interviewers will be very critical on their very first interview of the date.b)Understand the industry stereotypes:Often, recruiters are looking for a "pattern" of people and backgrounds that have been successful in the past at their company. And unfortunately, often they are misled by surface impressions. Watch the consultants carefully on each occasion, see how they communicate, move and dress. Carry yourself with maturity. Imagine that you are in a situation in which you must lead a meeting with senior executives. How would you act in that situation? Walk into your interview with that scenario in mind. Of course, your natural personality and warmth will make the difference!c)Headlining:It is hard for recruiters to spend eight hours in a row interviewing one student after another, asking the same questions all day. It is hard even to remember candidates. Much of the interviewer's assessment is subjective, and you need to make an lasting impression on an interviewer so that all you stand out of the pack.Therefore, you need to have a very clear agenda for the interview. Come up with headlines - a few key points about yourself that will influence the interviewer. Prepare these headlines in advance, and back each headline backwith a will-chosen anecdote that is interesting enough to help the interviewer understand and remember the headline. The key is to slip in points about yourself during appropriate moments, not to force them on the interviewer obviously or awkwardly.Use the Interview Preparation Worksheet, as well as the CMC materials and presentations, to develop your headlines. The check these headlines against:•The skills that firms are looking for•The questions firms ask during the interview•The characteristics of the firm you are interviewing withd)Last minute details:If you haven't yet, make sure that you find out what the company does, how it is different from its competitors, and three reasons why you want to work there as opposed to other companies. Also, make sure you have chosen four or five questions to ask your interviewer.Make sure you get a lot of sleep the night before the interview, and a few nights before if possible. Get your preparation and clothes ready one or two days before so that you can relax. Do something fun with friends before the interview to take your mind off it, and you will be more relaxed and confident the next day.e)Before you walk into the interviewer room:Get early so you can take a deep breath, relax and work on last minute details (comb, restrooms, etc). Relax, and take this opportunity to exercise your skills and meet some interesting people. Remember to visualize yourself as an executive attending an important meeting. Last but not least, if you think that this is a life-or-death interview, chances are you will psych yourself out.What should I be aware of during the interview?a)Attitude:Don't complain or be too negative about something, focus on the positives of all your past experiences, be optimistic and be yourself.b)Communication Skills:"Delivery is as important as content". Your interviewer will be deeply influenced by your communications and interpersonal skills. Be aware of the way you communicate and the effect that this has on the interviewer. Interviewers like candidates with whom they feel some sort of rapport. Your attitude towards the interviewer will come across on your face and will make or break that rapport.Non-verbal communications:•Eye contact: Looking at the interviewer strengthens the point that you are making. Maintain fairly steady eye contact, especially when you are making a statement where your credibilitymight be questioned. If you are thinking, it is OK to look down or away for a few seconds.Shift your gaze from one eye to the other, this signals warmth and sincerity.•Facial expression: You want to come across as happy, well-balanced person, because firms like happy people. Smile occasionally, and don’t let the interviewer read nervousness on your faceand gestures.•Gestures: Subconscious movements, such as waving your arms to make a point, folding a piece of paper, or playing with your hair are distracting to the interviewer. In addition, they may come off as a sign of nervousness or dishonesty when you are answering difficult questions. Sit upstraight in your chair, slumping conveys a sloppy, laid-back attitude. Lean forward when youare excited or interested.Verbal communications:•Pace: many interviewees speed up when they are nervous, and their words become slurred.Pausing for effect will heighten the listener's interest in what you are saying.•Space Fillers: Don’t be afraid of silence. Space fillers like "umm", "you know" etc. are both distracting and unprofessional.•Logic: At all times, keep in mind the question you are supposed to answer. If you use a lenghty example, remember to tie the example back to the question. Doing so makes it seem that youhad an organized approach to your answer.•Amount: cut yourself when you have made a point. Don’t let yourself recite information in five different ways.c)Etiquette:•Don’t talk too much about money or perks.•Be careful with your language, you never know what might offend the other person.•Just in case, be politically correct.•Don’t sit down unt il the interviewer asks you or until he has done so.•Posing overly tough or critical questions is impolite.•Be nice to everybody.•Don’t delve yourself into extremely personal topics of preferences.•Thank the interviewer for his time at the end of the session.d)Spin control:Too many qualified people rule themselves out because they think that they lack raw material. Destroy that myth right now, you are not studying at one of the best business schools because Kellogg is a charity organization.Some suggestions to make the best impression include:•Emphasize the use of "I"•Explain your positions or activities, the skills demonstrated in that position, the challenges faced and the results accomplished•Think what things that you have done can make you shine during the interview.•Personality traits should be demonstrated, not directly stated.4) What questions will I be asked during the interview?a)The introduction:During the first tow or three minutes of the interview, interviewers introduce themselves and attempt to break the "ice" by making comments about the weather or other small talk. They also describe the structure of the interview. Remember that you are there because they chose you, and they will have a positive tendency towards you.Many recruiters say that their impressions are shaped in the first five minutes of the interview. To make a good impression,•Shake hands firmly with the recruiter.•Relax, the interviewer is looking forward to meeting you after seeing you resume.•Smile, show some warmth, but err on the formal side rather than on the informal until you have gotten a sense of the interviewer style.•If the interviewer attempts a small talk, make sure to engage in a conversation with him.b) Personality questions:Put yourself in the interviewer's shoes. They might have to work with you if you are hired, so they want to make sure they like you. This is the major purpose of this phase. If interviewers don’t like you as a person, or you don’t really fit in with the culture at the fi rm, they will find an excuse to reject you no matter how perfect your answers are, or if you say what you are supposed to say.Interviewers are also testing whether they can put you in front of a client without embarrassment. Will you handle a difficult situation with grace and tact? Are you aware of what is appropriate behavior?You have a big opportunity in this segment of the interview. Don't let the conversation ramble, focus on your agenda and direct it the way you want to.Critical skills being tested include integrity, interpersonal skills (maturity, judgement, tact, etc.), communications skills and the ability to listen and to learn.The most common questions that an interviewer will ask include:•Personality Questions:•Failure questions•Self-awareness questions•Ethics/Sensitivity questions•Fun Questions•Resume Questions:•Decision-making rationale•Teamwork•Leadership•Resume Case Question (eg. tell me the strategy of your prior company…)•Communications Questions•Teach me something in five minutes•Sell me the lamp of the desk…•Business Questions:•Interests•Business KnowledgeFor a complete set of questions, refer to the CMC Website:/career/notebook/intrview/faiq.htmc) Your questions:In the last few minutes of the interview, interviewers will ask you if you have any questions. You are still being evaluated. While the quality of your questions probably won't make or break the interview, it does make a difference when interviewers are uncertain about your interest in our understanding of the job. Poor questions are seen as a sign of little interest.Resist the temptation to succumb to fatigue when your interviewer is responding. Nothing is worse than when you ask a question and then stare at the interviewer blankly, repeating "uh-huh" and not listening. Develop questions specifically for each interview.For a set of questions, please refer the CMC Website:/career/notebook/intrview/qftr.htmYour questions for first round interviews should be more general and neutral, while your questions for second and third round should be detailed and more tailored to the firm that your first round questions, and don't repeat them! If you ask very basic questions, the interviewer will wonder why you did not ask them during the first round of interviews. Think about questions about the interviewer themselves, they like it!Final Word of Wisdom:PREPARE, PREPARE AND PREPARE!!Sources:•"The Fast Track: the Insiders Guide to Winning Jobs in Management Consulting, Investment Banking and Securities Trading"; Mariam Naficy, Broadway Books, 1997.•"PCS to Corporate America: From Military Tactics to Corporate Interviewing Strategy"; Roger Cameron.•"Power Interviews: Job Winning Tactics from Fortune 500 Recruiters"; Neil Yeager and Lee Hough.。

Performance Management(绩效管理英文论文)

Steve SherrettaApril 26, 2022Performance Management:Enhancing Execution Through a Culture of Dialogue Peter is Chief Executive Officer for a medical supply multinational that recentlycrafted a new strategy to counter competitive threats. The plan stressed the needto cut cycle time, concentrate sales on higher-margin products and develop newmarkets.Four months after circulating the plan, Peter did a “walkaround” to see how things were going. He was appalled. Everywhere Peter turned people, departments—whole business units—simply didn’t “get it.”First surprise: Engineering. The group had cut product design time 30%, meeting its goal to increase speed-to-market. Good. Then Peter asked how manufacturing would be affected. It turned out the new design would take much more time tomake. Total cycle time actually increased. “Our strategic plan message is notreally getting through,” Peter thought.Second surprise: Sales. The new strategy called for a shift—emphasize highmargin sales rather that pushing product down the pipeline as fast as possible.But just about every salesperson Peter spoke to was making transactional sales to high-volume customers; hardly anyone was building relationships with the mostprofitable prospects. Sales is doing just what it’s always done, Peter thought.Worst surprise: Even his top team, the people who’d helped him craft the strategy, was not sticking to plan. Peter asked a team member: “Why are you spending all your time making sure the new machinery is working instead of developing newmarkets?”“Because my unit’s chief goal was to improve on-time delivery,” he answered.“But what about company goals?” said Peter. “We came up with a good plan and communicated it very clearly. But nowhere it isn’t being carried out. Why?”Many organizations create good strategies, but only the best execute them effectively. Fortune magazine estimates that when CEOs fail, 70% of the time it’s because of badexecution.1 Weak execution is pervasive in the business world, but the reasons for it are largely misunderstood. Why is it that no one in Peter’s organization was acting in sync with the strategy? Unless we understand the reasons, we can’t hope to solve the problem. Imagine someone hi tting a tennis ball. When the brain says “hit the ball,” it doesn’t automatically happen. The message travels through nerve pathways down the arm and crosses gaps between the nerve cells. These gaps, or “synapses,” are potential breaks in the connection. If neurotransmitters don’t carry the message across the gap, the message never gets through, or it gets distorted. When that happens, either the arm doesn’t move at all, or it moves the wrong way.Creating a “culture of dialogue”Just like a nervous system, organizations also have gaps that block and distort messages. The secret to effective strategy execution lies in crossing hierarchical and functional gaps with clear, consistent messages that relay the strategy throughout the organization. Sound si mple? It’s not. The reason is that the “neurotransmitters” in organizations are human beings—executive team members, senior managers, middle managers and supervisors—whose job it is to make sure that people’s behavior is aligned with the overall strategy. Doing what it takes to achieve alignment is very difficult. It is what Ram Charan calls, the “heavy lifting” of management, and it’s the key to executing strategy.As we’ll see later, there is an important difference between companies that successfu lly align behavior with strategy and those that do not. Companies that effectively execute strategy create a “culture of dialogue.” A culture of dialogue encourages pervasive two-way communications where individuals and groups 1) question, challenge, interpret and ultimately clarify strategic objectives; and 2) engage in regular performance dialogue to monitor behavior and ensure it is aligned with strategy.Three keys to managing performanceA culture of dialogue doesn’t happen instantly, any more than a fluid tennis stroke does. It takes practice, persistence and hard work. So how exactly can leaders ensure that strategy messages go all the way down the line—that the tennis ball gets hit correctly? The three keys to managing performance effectively are:1.Achieving radical clarity by decoding strategy at the top. Many organizationsthink they send clear signals but don’t. In some cases, managers subordinate broad strategic goals to operational goals within their silos. That’s what happened with Pet er’s top team. Elsewhere, top team members often have too many “top”priorities—we’ve seen as many as 100 in one case—which results in mixed signals and blurred focus. Strategy decode requires winnowing priorities down to amanageable number—as little as five.2.Setting up systems and processes to ensure clarity. Once strategy is clear,organizations must create processes to ensure that the right strategy messages cascade 1“Why CEOs Fail,” by Ram Charan and Geoffrey Colvin, Fortune magazine, June 21, 1999.down the organization. These include: strategy-centered budget and planningsessions; staff and team meetings to discuss goals; performance managementmeetings; and talent review sessions. Dialogue drives all these processes. Eachrepresents a “transmitter opportunity,” where strategic messages are conveyed and behavior is aligned with goals.3.Aligning and differentiating rewards.Leaders must make sure rewards encouragebehaviors consistent with strategy, which sounds easy but isn’t. Differentiation is about making sure that stars get significantly more than poor performers. But almost everywhere managers distribute rewards more or less evenly. As we’ll see, lack of effective performance dialogue is a key contributor to dysfunctional reward schemes.We list these three items separately but they are, of course, interconnected. Systems and processes depend on clarity from the top. Differentiation and alignment of rewards depend on managers using performance systems effectively. Dialogue is the glue that holds it all together. But not just any dialogue will do. It must be dialogue with purpose, focused on performance.Link to company valuationCompanies that manage performance well—General Electric comes to mind—have higher market valuations. Why? Because, more and more, institutional investors view strategy execution as a vital factor influencing stock prices.Just a few years ago institutional investors relied almost exclusively on financial measures for company valuations. Now 35% of a market valuation is influenced by non-financial, intangible factors, according to a study by Ernst & Young.2 The study showed that “execution of corporate strategy” and “management credibility” ranked number one and number two in importance to institutional investors out of 22 non-financial measures. John Inch, a managing director and analyst at Bear Stearns notes that in some sectors, such as diversified industrial companies, intangibles account for even more—up to half a company’s value. “You can take even a mundane asset and inject good management and have something pretty strong,” says Inc h.2 Based on a study conducted by Sarah Mavrinac and Tony Siesfeld for the Ernst & Young Center for Business Innovation.1. Achieve Radical Clarity by decoding strategy at the topThe first step in successfully executing strategy is achieving clarity on the top team, which is frequently the source of garbled signals.Lack of Clarity at the TopA recent Hay Group study 3 shows a disturbing lack of clarity on top teams(organizational clarity measures the extent to which employees understand what is expected of them and how those expectations connect with the organization’s larger goals). The chart below shows dramatically higher levels of clarity on outstanding vs. average teams. In fact the biggest single difference between great and average top teams and typical ones was in the level of internal clarity. See Figure 1.Figure 1: Organizational Climate and Teams[Change Hay/McBer to “Source: Hay Group, Inc.” in final version]And a Lack of Clarity BelowWorkers at lower levels strongly feel this lack of clarity. Figure 2 looks at satisfaction levels for workers planning to leave their organizations within two years versus those planning to stay longer. This study showed that a key reason people leave their jobs ismore than two years at their companies,sense of direction.Figure 2: Key reasons why employees leave their companies3 Hay Group partnered with Richard Hackman of Harvard University and Ruth Wageman of Dartmouth College to identify the dynamics of top executive teams and their impact on performance. From an initial group of 48 teams, the researchers narrowed their study to 14 teams, many from large global organizations. Each team member represented the head of an organization, a major business division, or a major geography.4 Source: Hay Group, Inc. The results are from our Employee Attitude Survey, which sampled some 300 companies representing more than 1 million workers. Our survey queried management, professionals, salespeople, information technologists, and clerical and hourly workers. The “gap” referred to in the table is the “satisfaction gap” between workers planning to leave within two years and those planning to stay longer.[NOTE; HIGHLIGHT SECTION 3; MAKE IT POP GRAPHICALLY]Clarity mattersWhy do employees crave clarity? Think about it. What could be more demoralizing than the realization that your hard work is not contributing to overall company goals? Employees want to do the “right” thing, but they can only do so if they know what the right things are.Unfortun ately, as we saw in our opening vignette, companies often don’t communicate strategic goals effectively. An oil refinery client, for example, set a strategic goal to cut costs. To see how well the message had gotten through, an operations team leader held a strategy decode session where he quizzed his team members on what they felt was the chief priority. Ten team members produced four different “top” objectives, including cost-cutting, safety, environmental compliance and reducing sales processing time. The message hadn’t got through. The team leader called his team together and created a “transmitter opportunity.”“Don’t you guys realize that if we can’t cut our refining costs by three cents a gallon, they’re going to shut us down?” he said.“Is that all you need us to do?” replied the team members, taken aback. United by a clear direction and shared ownership of the cause, team members enthusiastically cut costs by five cents per gallon over the following year while continuing to maintain good safety and environmental records.Narrowing prioritiesHaving too many priorities can lead to lack of clarity. AeroMexico, for example, had worked with a strategy consulting firm that delivered a 249-page report listing key performance indicators (KPIs) for measuring progress by the enterprise. The good news was that the KPIs gave the top team metrics for measuring success. The bad news was that there were 100 of them, and they weren’t prioritized.“It was clear that execution would suffer unless we ident ified the most important ones, says AeroMexico CEO Arturo Barahona. “So we discussed which ones connected most directly with our strategic priorities and where we were in the business cycle, and each team member settled on five chief goals.” By gaining c larity on key objectives, the team greatly increased the odds that signals would transmit clearly down the line.Getting buy-in at the topHay research on teams has shown that it’s not uncommon for team members to nod their heads in agreement when new strategies are set in meetings, then go back to their division or department and carry on exactly as they had before. In effect, they end up sabotaging the plan. That’s why gaining buy-in is essential to effective execution, and dialogue is what makes it happen.IBM created an executive team consisting of six Ph.D-level technical leaders at an applied research unit. Their mission: build strong relationships with top research universities so that IBM could recruit innovative scientists capable of developing breakthrough products. The problem was that the Ph.Ds, all world-class scientists, were used to competing for research dollars and dismissing each other's ideas to advance their own. Getting them to work jointly and be held accountable for business results was going to be very difficult.In the first group meeting, the vice president simply assigned accountabilities to the various team members. "I could see the scientists digging in their heels, says Harris Ginsberg, an internal leadership consultant who attended the meeting. "No one was going to dictate to them what they should do." Even if they'd said yes to the VP's directives, adds Ginsberg, they would never have followed through.Ginsberg, who helps IBM business units clarify and execute strategy, knew the key was to get the scientists talking to each other. So he coached the vice president to change her behaviors. Rather than hand out directives, he suggested ways she could stimulate team dialogue about how to meet objectives. Ginsberg also counseled other team members about the need for a "consensus process" on an interdependent team.They all "got" it. At the next meeting the VP said, "Our mandate is to create breakthrough products. Without access to talent at the top universities, we won't succeed. How are we going to get it?" At first, Ginsberg recalls, she met silence. Finally one team member raised her hand. She was willing to "get out there to the universities, and be more visible, go out with the recruiter and the senior human resources people," said Ginsberg. She also agreed to help some up-and-coming scientists learn how to develop relationships with universities.A second team member said he would "help her make some calls." The ice wasbroken and all the team members eventually took on group responsibilities. "Itwas all about dialogue," says Ginsberg. "Until the individual leaders embraced the unifying elements of the strategy for the good of the enterprise, they only attended to their own mission. The dialogue helped them buy-in, agree to some shared activities, and begin to work more collaboratively."2. Set up systems and processes to create clarityWhy is executing strategy so difficult, even when the plan is clear? Because good execution only happens when employee behavior is aligned with strategy. And many managers can’t, won’t or don’t create the “transmitter opportunities” required to get people to do the right things. Managers: can’t because they don’t know how to talk with their subordinates about change and/or poor performance; won’t, because they find it uncomfortable to give candid feedback; or, simply don’t realize that successful strategy execution will never happen without ongoing performance dialogue.Part of the solution to this problem is creating systems and processes that force performance dialogue. General Dynamics Defense Systems (GDDS) in Pittsfield, MA, is one company where creating such systems has contributed to dramatic results. From 1999 to 2001, attrition among its valued software engineers dropped from 20 percent to 2.4 percent. Union grievances dropped from 57 to zero, saving hundreds of thousands of dollars. And, best of all, earnings and profit margins doubled.What GDDS didIn 1999 the $200 million plus defense contractor challenged its employees to improve the company’s negotiating leverage on bids, and thereby increase margins and profitability. To accomplish this goal, senior management directed all departments to chase out costs, and created numerous processes to transmit the cost-cutting strategy down the managerial ranks right to the shop floor, which is where they felt many of the best cost-cutting ideas would come fromCarmen Simonelli, director of facilities and security, says his department’s goal was to push labor costs 5 pe rcent below budget, with a “stretch” goal of 6 percent. That was ambitious given that direct applied labor costs had been running 10-15 percent over budget. But Simonelli’s team slashed applied labor hours to an unthinkable 20 percent below budget. Annual savings amounted to about $440,000 on a $2 million budget, or nearly $10,000 per worker.How did they do it? The key, Simonelli says, was the processes the company put in place to enhance dialogue and carry the message to the shop floor. For example:The Learning MapThe company made it easy for employees to understand its broad goals by creating a “learning map,” which graphically outlined how each department and team linked directly to core objectives. All employees saw at a glance how their jobs fit in. Supervisors and assemblers in Simonelli’s group, for example, could readily see that by reducing applied labor hours in a project, GDDS could increase margins, shorten delivery schedules and raise the chances for winning new contracts.The ScorecardManagers and direct reports at GDDS meet one on one to create Scorecards, which set out five to seven personal annual goals. For example, the goals for shipping and receiving supervisor Tom Molleurs included plans to capture all incentive payments for early delivery and to cut direct costs 5%. Once a manager and subordinate reach agreement goals, they both sign the Scorecard as if it were a contract. From the worker’s perspective, this was a dramatic shift, says Newell “Tom” Skinner, at the time dire ctor of product delivery. “In the past we just set the goals and beat up employees to try to make them, but they probably didn’t even know why we had that goal in the first place.” Scorecards are “transmitter opportunities ” that clarify expectations and link day-to-day activity to company goals. And they work. Molleur’s group ended up cutting direct costs by 50 percent—not just 5 percent. What was the key thing that made it happen?Molleurs points to his weekly progress meetings. When they were behind schedule, Molleurs used the meetings to make sure the workers understood, through the Learning Map and Scorecards and other processes, how meeting or beating delivery schedules could increase competitiveness and win more contracts.Top management did simple things to make sure strategy messages were getting through. For example the president held monthly “pizza meetings” with everyone whose birthday fell that month. At these “transmitter opportunities,” he would ask attendees people tolist their top three goals, and their boss’ top three goals. Within months, everyone could answer the questions.When effective dialogue pushes strategic imperatives downward in an organization, extraordinary things happen. Skinner extended an open invitation to any employee who wanted to attend his weekly budget meeting with his supervisors. One day an assembler showed up and said a part design was forcing assemblers to work by hand with “dozensof tiny screws, lock washers and nuts.” Skinner had the assembler meet with process control engineers for a redesign. The result: a job that had taken 12 hours was cut to four. “The best ideas come from the people doing the job,” says Skinner. Once the “conversation” got started, it took on momentum. Soon, people were co ming into Skinner’s office without waiting for the weekly to discuss misalignment of strategy and behavior. Workers themselves were creating transmitter opportunities!It’s about behavior changeThe processes GDDS installed forced performance dialogue and ultimately changed behaviors. The message got through. But, like a tennis stroke, it didn’t happen quickly or automatically. It took coaching and practice.Sometimes you have to get it wrong, then make corrections through feedback and dialogue, before you get it right. One North American insurance company embarked on a new strategy to expand sales with existing customers. The president created nine core value statements and broadcast the ideas repeatedly organization-wide. Soon, every manager could recite them by heart. Employees even had cards with the core-value statements right at their desks.The message, however, wasn’t sinking in. An outside consultant saw one of the value statements on an underwriter’s desk that read “Never knowingly undersell a customer.” But the consultant listened to several of her calls and realized that she consistently failed to explore customer needs or try to up-sell. “The company had told her what to do, but didn’t follow through with the necessary rationale and appeals that would result in behavior change,” says the consultant. “As a result, her behavior was out of sync with the company strategy.”So the insurer put together a training session and coached its underwriters on ways to explore customer needs and broaden the sale. When the consultant visited the same underwriter a few months later, he noted that she was sending birthday cards to customers and calling during the year—not just at renewal time—to identify unfulfilledcustomer needs. “It was only aft er repeated dialogue, including feedback and coaching, that the underwriter’s behavior aligned with company goals,” explains the consultant. Figure 3: The coaching style on top teams[EDITOR’S NOTE: Vertical or “Y” axis needs to be labeled as “Percent indicating”Cutline: Teams that rely on a “coaching” managerial style get better performance— percentage of team members who observed the team leader using aCreating opportunities to transmit strategy downOrganizations committed to executing strategy devise innovative ways to make connections and circulate key messages. Alberto-Culver North America, the $600 million division of a $2.5 billion company whose profits tripled in 1994-2000, chose 70 “growth development leaders” (GDLs) from all levels of the company to create clarity about strategy.One strategic goal was to recruit better talent. The GDLs moved through the organization to see what people were actually doing to meet the recruitment objectives. They found serious disalignment between goals and behaviors, says Jim Chickarello, group vice president of worldwide operations and one of the GDLs. For example, when job candidates came in for interviews, nobody gave them a basic overview of the business, Sometimes candidates would be left standing around because hand-offs between various interviewers were poorly coordinated. And no one had consolidated interviewer evaluations, so there was no central location where Alberto-Culver managers seeking new people could get a snapshot of all candidates the company had interviewed. The top team and the GDLs devised a plan and created simple systems to carry it out. For example they created forms outlining an “agenda” for candidates that specified where hand-offs took place. No more waiting around. The GDLs developed take-home materials so that every candidate now gets a thorough company overview. Finally, the group created interviewer-report forms that must be sent to the manager who might ultimately work with the candidate. As a result, Chickarello says the company slashed its open-job rate in half, from 10 percent to 5 percent.“Hand’s-off” management means not being “on-message”For years experts have emphasized the importance of dialogue in performance management. But too many managers avoid it. One veteran says annual performance appraisals “are like delivering a newspaper to a house with a growling dog. You throw the paper on the porch and get away as fast as possible.”“Managers don’t want to deal with confrontation,” says Charlotte Merrell, senior vice president for Boston-based Jack Morton Company, a leader in event marketing. “Even when employees are not doing the right things, they’re usually working hard. Managers are concerned they might demoralize the employee or cause them to leave.”In fact, the exact opposite is true. Employees get demoralized when they don’t get candid performance feedback. When it comes to annual performance reviews, the issue is not what goes unsaid on the day of the review, but what goes unsaid the other 259 working days of the year. Ironically, with the right kind of performance-based dialogue, managers could eliminate the onerous annual performance review altogether. In a true culture of dialogue, feedback is given candidly and consistently in small doses—like an IV—and the annual review becomes a non-event.Don’t overlook the people factorIn sum, strong execution occurs when top management creates performance management systems and process (“transmitter opportunities”) and ensures that line managers are trained to use them. Companies often do a good job with the former, but underestimate the importance of the latter. Many managers got where they are through intellectual and technical abilities—not through their people skills—and need help to become effective performance managers. In particular, they need the skills to help make those tough performance review sessions go more smoothly. But the good news, according to Linda Johnston, vice president for human resources at Berkshire Bank in Massachusetts, is that “performance coaching is not rocket science. With practice, most managers can become quite adept at it.” (See sidebar on page xx for advice on what managers need to do to deliver performance messages effectively.)3. Making rewards countStrategy and execution signals get distorted when top teams lack clarity and when managers lack—or don’t use correctly—systems and processes to force performance dialogue. Wrong-headed reward policies complete the triple-whammy that cripples strategy execution.Aligning Rewards With StrategyIt sounds obvious that rewards have to be aligned with strategy. In fact the idea that a company would reward behavior that’s “out of sync” with the company strategy seems ludicrous. But it happens all the time. The reason is that creating reward systems is complex, and the critical importance of reward, which is just one piece of the strategic equation, is often overlooked.A health care insurance company, for instance, wanted to improve customer service, so it invested heavily in a program to train customer service representatives. The reps learned better voice technique, interviewing skills to ferret out customer needs, and upselling skills. But the company kept the same reward system as before, basing incentive pay on the number of calls completed. When management got its first set of customer satisfaction surveys, they were bleak reading. Customer widely agreed that although the staff was courteous, it was remarkably unhelpful in resolving problems. Why? Because, as one reps put it, “If we spend more than four minutes on a call we would never get our bonus.” The strategy required that reps engage in longer, more in-depth conversations with customers. But, as the rep pointed out, the dysfunctional reward system punished reps for doing so.Before AeroMexico had clarified its strategy, it had a reward scheme that unintentionally rewarded the wrong behavior. Pilots got merit pay based on on-time arrival records. This incentive helped give AeroMexico the best on-time record of any airline in North America. But this good outcome came with unintended consequences. Pilots sometimes left the gate before scheduled departure times to ensure their bonuses, leaving passengers stranded and angry. AeroMexico later changed the key goal to overall customer satisfaction, with on-time arrival as just one component. Continual dialogue prevents such missteps.Differentiating rewardsStandard management theory says high-performing workers should get higher rewards than average or below-average workers. But at many companies it rarely works that way. Figure 4 shows the narrow difference separating the merit pay of high-performers—stars—from the average in a Hay survey of 75 U.S. companies.Figure 4: Average Merit Increases: 20015(Cutline: Despite all the talk about the importance of differentitation in recent years, organizations still do not differente salary increases very muchA Hay Employee Attitude survey shows the tragic consequences of failing to differentiate rewards. In surveys conducted at 335 companies worldwide, only 35% of employees said they believed they’d earn mo re if they improved their performance.5Source: Hay Compensation Report, involving some 75 companies in the U.S.。

麦肯锡运营绩效英文版

No systematic tracking of top customers and their satisfaction
Too much inventory (140 days vs. 35 for best-practice*)
* Automotive industry analysis
Flexible job design
Pay for performance/skill
Alcoa Business System
* Alcoa’s quarterly net income adjusted for special items Source: Platt’s Metal Week; Wall Street Journal; McKinsey Metals Practice
P/E 20+ points higher than other major players
Make-to-order supply chain Inventory level 60% lower Receivables turns 45% higher
Revenue growth 40% faster and ROIC 1.5 times industry average
Performance-based measurement system
Facilities modernization
Renegotiated labor contracts
Variable pensation salary and hourly
Quality assurance, SPC
Reduced set-up times
Alcoa adjusted net income

HAY的绩效体系方法论

7
1.4 绩效分类与考核对象
1. 绩效分类：绩效分类：部门绩效个人绩效
2. 考核所适用的对象：考核所适用的对象：公司各部门（各部、公司各部门（各部、处、车间及其他同级单位）车间及其他同级单位）公司所有正式员工（各级管理人员及一般员工）公司所有正式员工（各级管理人员及一般员工）下列人员除外：下列人员除外：公司总经理考核期休假、考核期休假、停职愈半数时间以上者严重违犯公司规章、严重违犯公司规章、制度或违犯国家法律的人员
12
1.7 考核评价
各指标评价等级所对应的分值如下：各指标评价等级所对应的分值如下：
指标评价等级 A（出色）（出色） B（优良）（优良） C（常态）（常态） D（需改进）（需改进） E（不良）（不良）等级对应分值 125% 112% 100% 75% 50%
各项指标评价分值最终汇总成被考核者的总体绩效分值
13
1.8 考核结果使用
人员评价
绩效资
薪资调整
管理沟通
工作指导
培训发展
职务升迁
人岗匹配
······
14
目录
1. 绩效管理体系总体介绍 2. 绩效考核实施部门考核实施个人考核实施 3. 部门关键绩效指标设计
15
2.1 部门考核实施——流程
绩效目标确认
评价信息收集
考核评价
被考核部门
评价信息收集
考核评价
分数整合确认
绩效面谈
考核申诉
提交指标及标填信息统计表准调整建议
确认考核结果、提交考核申诉
相关部门
信息统计表：信息统计表：指被考核部门及相关业务部门在各考核绩效改进计划期前就考核指标提交的相关评价信息或数据。期前就考核指标提交的相关评价信息或数据。针对量化指标，要提供相关的数据；对于不能量化的指标，填信息统计表、化指标，要提供相关的数据；对于不能量化的指标，提供考核期内完成的主要工作内容。提供考核期内完成的主要工作内容。

绩效管理(Performance Management and Appraisal)

绩效管理“匆匆过客”的绩效评估 T公司开始了一年一度的绩效评估工作，人力资源部顺其自然的充当了这项工作的组织者与协调员。

人力资源部会将一些固定的表格发给各个部门的经理，各个部门的经理则需要在规定的时间内填完这些表格，交回人力资源部。

于是各个部门的经理们忙的不亦乐乎的在这些表格中勾勾圈圈，再加上一些轻描淡写的评语，然后就表格中的内容同每位下属谈话十几分钟，最后在每张评估表中签上名。

这次评估工作就算是万事大吉了。

每个人又回到现实工作当中，至于那些表格去哪里发挥作用了，也就不了了之，也没有人关心它们了。

强迫分布的结果 F公司又到了年终绩效评估的时候，从主观到员工每个人都惴惴不安。

由于F公司采用的是强制分布法，即每个部门中A、B、C、D、E5个等级各自所占的比例是一定的，因此主管人员就需要按照给定的比例将部门的员工分配到各个档次上去。

这是令主管人员非常头疼的事情，特别是该把谁评定为E等确实很难办，需要煞费苦心斟酌许久。

结果往往还要向员工解释一番：“其实今年我们部门大家表现得都不错，只是上面规定每个部门必须要有15%的人要被评为E等，上一次开全体大会只有你一个人迟到了，所以这一次只有委屈你了，我也是没有办法。

”员工们更是在内心猜测者自己回被评为几等，甚至会对主管察言观色。

如果看到这段时间主管对自己总是笑容可掬的，心里就会猜想自己的评估结果应该不会差了；如果看到主管人员总是对自己的板着脸，那自己说不定就成了E等的牺牲品了。

人们为什么不喜欢绩效评估被评估者的焦虑由于被蒙在鼓里而带来的担心对批评或惩罚的焦虑害怕自己的弱点暴露出来主管人员的焦虑与回避认为这件事没有意义担心会因此与员工发生冲突绩效管理的观念与定位中存在的问题“绩效评估”“填表格”浪费时间，流于形式单方面强调对绩效的评估，缺少评估前的准备工作，导致评价全凭主观印象就评估而评估，缺少对评估结果的分析和使用……错误、孤立看待绩效评估，形成对绩效管理观念和定位上的误区什么是绩效管理绩效管理是为了达成组织的目标，通过持续开放的沟通过程，推动团队和个人做出有利于目标达成的行为，从而形成组织目标所预期的利益和产出的过程。

员工绩效考核方案-中英文对照

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PLAN员工绩效考核方案1. General Principles总则In order to standardize the performance appraisal policy of MFC, the Compan y constituted this plan. 为规范公司对员工的考察与评价，特制定本制度。

2. Objective考核目的2.1 To bring up a professional talent group with high agglomeration and tea m building spirit. The talent management system shall be guided by perform ance appraisal.在公司造就一支业务精干的具有高度凝聚力和团队精神的人才队伍，并形成以考核为核心导向的人才管理机制。

2.2 To evaluate the past performance promptly and equitably, affirming achie vements, finding out problems and preparing for the improvements on next phases. 及时、公正地对员工过去一段时间的工作绩效进行评估，肯定成绩，发现问题，为下一阶段工作绩效的改进做好准备。

2.3 An empowerment tool to involve employee in managing own performance especially in obtaining feedback.为员工自我管理提供相应手段，特别是能得到绩效反馈。

2.4 To support an employee’s efforts of successful development and supply t he personal information and decision gist on salary, welfare(including stock o ption )adjustment and training plans.支持员工职业发展，为员工薪酬待遇（含员工持股权调整）以及相关的教育培训提供人事信息与决策依据。

绩效管理英语参考文献

绩效管理英语参考文献绩效管理英语参考文献大全绩效管理，是指各级管理者和员工共同参与的.绩效计划制定、绩效辅导沟通、绩效考核评价、绩效结果应用、绩效目标提升的持续循环过程，绩效管理的目的是持续提升个人、部门和组织的绩效。

下面列出绩效管理英语参考文献，希望对你的论文写作有所帮助。

绩效管理英语参考文献一:[1]Mohammad Moshtari. Inter‐Organizational Fit, Relationship Management Capability, and Collaborative Performance within a Humanitarian Setting[J]. Prod Oper Manag,20XX,259:.[2]David B. Zoogah. Tribal diversity, human resources management practices, and firm performance[J]. Can J Adm Sci,20XX,333:.[3]Torsten Doering,Nallan C. Suresh. Forecasting and Performance: Conceptualizing Forecasting Management Competence as a Higher‐Order Construct[J]. J Supply Chain Manag,20XX,524:.[4]T. Danielle Samulski,Virginia A. LiVolsi,Lawrence Q.Wong,Zubair Baloch. Usage trends and performance characteristics of a “gene expression classifier” in the management of thyroid nodules: An institutional experience[J]. Diagn. Cytopathol.,20XX,4411:.[5]Arsalan Safari. A New Quantitative‐Based Performance Management Framework for Service Operations[J]. Know. ProcessMgmt.,20XX,234:.[6]Ali M. Shahzad,Matthew A. Rutherford,Mark P. Sharfman. In Good Times but Not in Bad: The Role of Managerial Discretion in Moderating the Stakeholder Management and Financial Performance Relationship[J]. Business and Society Review,20XX,12XX:.[7]Martin Zühlke,Daniel Riebe,Toralf Beitz,Hans‐GerdL?hmannsr?ben,Sandro Andreotti,Knut Reinert,Karl Zenichowski,Marc Diener. High‐performance liquid chromatography with electrospray ionization ion mobility spectrometry: Characterization, data management, andapplications[J]. J. Sep. Science,20XX,3924:.[8]Erin K. Melton,Kenneth J. Meier. For the Want of a Nail: The Interaction of Managerial Capacity and Human Resource Management on Organizational Performance[J]. Public Admin Rev,20XX,771:.[9]Mostafa Khanamani,Yaghoub Fathipour,Ali AsgharTalebi,Mohammad Mehrabadi. Linking pollen quality and performance of Neoseiulus californicus （Acari: Phytoseiidae）in two‐spotted spider mite management programmes[J]. Pest. Manag. Sci.,20XX,732:.[10]Adri enn Kocsis,Tibor Takács,Csaba Jeney,Zsuzsa Schaff,Róbert Koiss,Balázs Járay,Gábor Sobel,Károly Pap,István Székely,TamásFerenci,Hung‐Cheng Lai,Miklós Nyíri,Márta Benczik. Performance of a new HPV and biomarker assay in the management of hrHPV positive women: Subanalysis of the ongoing multicenter TRACE clinical trial （ n >6,000） to evaluate POU4F3 methylation as a potential biomarker of cervical precancer and cancer[J]. Int. J. Cancer,20XX,XX05:.[11]Liz Done,Mike Murphy,Mia Watt. Change management and the SENCo role: developing key performance indicators in the strategic development of inclusivity[J]. Support for Learning,20XX,3XX:.[12]Tae Hyung Kim,M. Jae Moon. Using Social Enterprises for Social Policy in South Korea: Do Funding and Management Affect Social and Economic Performance?[J]. Public Admin. Dev.,20XX,371:.[13]Prashant Kale,Harbir Singh. Management of Overseas Acquisitions by Developing Country Multinationals and Its Performance Implications: The Indian Example[J]. Thunderbird International Business Review,20XX,592:.[XX]Rafael Arantes,Rodrigo Schveitzer,Caio Magnotti,Katt Regina Lapa,Luis Vinatea. A comparison between water exchange and settling tank as a method for suspended solids management in intensive biofloc technology systems: effects on shrimp （ Litopenaeus vannamei ）performance, water quality and water use[J]. Aquac Res,20XX,484:.[XX]Simone Fanelli,Marco Ferretti,Antonello Zangrandi. The impact of regional policies on emergency department management and performance: the case of the regional government of Sicily[J]. Int J Health Plann Mgmt,20XX,321:.[XX]LIANG MA. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND CITIZEN SATISFACTION WITH THE GOVERNMENT: EVIDENCE FROM CHINESE MUNICIPALITIES[J]. Public Admin,20XX,951:.[XX]ALEXANDER KROLL. CAN PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOSTER SOCIAL EQUITY? STAKEHOLDER POWER, PROTECTIVE INSTITUTIONS, AND MINORITY REPRESENTATION[J]. Public Admin,20XX,951:.[18]Guan Fanglan,Zhang Luoyu,Li Yinghui. Color management for enhancing the performance of superfine nylon ink jet printing with reactive dyes inks[J]. Color Res. Appl.,20XX,423:.[19]Ying Yang,Dong‐Ling Xu. A methodology for assessing the effect of portfolio management on NPD performance based on Bayesian network scenarios[J]. Expert Systems,20XX,342:.[20]Gary Cokins. Enterprise Performance Management （EPM） and the Digital Revolution[J]. Perf. Improv.,20XX,564:.[21]Anirut Pipatprapa,Hsiang‐Hsi Huang,Ching‐Hsu Huang. The Role of Quality Management & Innovativeness on Green Performance[J]. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt.,20XX,243:.[22]C. Allen Gorman,John P. Meriac,Sylvia G. Roch,Joshua L. Ray,Jason S. Gamble. An exploratory study of current performance management practices: Human resource executives' perspectives[J]. Int J Select Assess,20XX,252:.绩效管理英语参考文献二:[23]John C. Adams,Takeshi Nishikawa,Ramesh P. Rao. Mutual Fund Performance, Management Teams, and Boards[J]. Journal of Banking and Finance,20XX,:.[24]C. Silva,J. Saldanha Matos,M.J. Rosa. Performance indicators and indices of sludge management in urban wastewater treatment plants[J]. Journal of Environmental Management,20XX,:.[25]Kais Brik,Faouzi ben Ammar. Improved performance and energy management strategy for proton exchange membrane fuel cell/backupbattery in power electronic systems[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy,20XX,:.[26]Patrik J.G. Henriksson,Malcolm Dickson,Ahmed Nasr Allah,Diaa Al-Kenawy,Michael Phillips. Benchmarking the environmental performance of best management practice and genetic improvements in Egyptian aquaculture using life cycle assessment[J]. Aquaculture,20XX,468:.[27]Ruoqi Geng,S. Afshin Mansouri,Emel Aktas. The relationship between green supply chain management and performance: A meta-analysis of empirical evidences in Asian emerging economies[J]. International Journal of Production Economics,20XX,:.[28]Chiara Masci,Kristof De Witte,Tommaso Agasisti. The influence of school size, principal characteristics and school management practices on educational performance: An efficiency analysis of Italian students attending middle schools[J]. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences,20XX,:.[29]J. Román-Padilla,A. Rodríguez-Rúa,M. Ponce,M. Manchado,I. Hachero-Cruzado. Effects of dietary lipid profile on larval performance and lipid management in Senegalese sole[J]. Aquaculture,20XX,468:.[30]Katri Kauppi,Annachiara Longoni,Federico Caniato,Markku Kuula. Managing country disruption risks and improving operational performance: risk management along integrated supply chains[J]. International Journal of Production Economics,20XX,:.[31]Cindy Yoonjoung Heo. New performance indicators for restaurant revenue management: ProPASH and ProPASM[J]. International Journal of Hospitality Management,20XX,:.[32]J. De Waele,K. D'Haene,J. Salomez,G. Hofman,S. De Neve. Simulating the environmental performance of post-harvest management measures to comply with the EU Nitrates Directive[J]. Journal of Environmental Management,20XX,:.[33]Dapeng Liang,Tiansen Liu. Does environmental management capability of Chinese industrial firms improve the contribution of corporate environmental performance to economic performance? Evidence from 2010 to 20XX[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production,20XX,:.[34]?. Bodin,D. Nohrstedt. Formation and performance of collaborative disaster management networks: Evidence from a Swedish wildfire response[J]. Global Environmental Change,20XX,41:.[35]Alessandro Sarra,Marialisa Mazzocchitti,Agnese Rapposelli. Evaluating Joint Environmental and Cost Performance in Municipal Waste Management Systems through Data Envelopment Analysis: Scale Effects and Policy Implications[J]. Ecological Indicators,20XX,:.[36]Gokce S. Avcioglu,Berker Ficicilar,Inci Eroglu. Influence of FEP nanoparticles in catalyst layer on water management and performance of PEM fuel cell with high Pt loading[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy,20XX,:.[37]. Digital management system controls, monitors and analyses seal performance[J]. Sealing Technology,20XX,20XX10:.[38]Jiateng Zhao,Peizhao Lv,Zhonghao Rao. Experimental study on the thermal management performance of phase change material coupled with heat pipe for cylindrical power battery pack[J]. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science,20XX,:.[39]Necmi Karagozoglu. Antecedents of team performance on case studies in a strategic management capstone course[J]. International Journal of Management Education,20XX,:.[40]Anuradha Pughat,Vidushi Sharma. Performance Analysis of an Improved Dynamic Power Management Model in Wireless Sensor Node[J]. Digital Communications and Networks,20XX,:.[41]Inma ?lvarez-Fernández,Nuria Fernández,Noela Sánchez-Carnero,Juan Freire. The management performance of marine protected areas in the North-east Atlantic Ocean[J]. Marine Policy,20XX,76:.[42]Chantel R. Wetzel,André Punt. The perform ance and trade-offs of alternative harvest control rules to meet management goals for U.S. west coast flatfish stocks[J]. Fisheries Research,20XX,187:.[43]?zer Uygun,Ay?e Dede. Performance evaluation of green supply chain management using integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making techniques[J]. Computers & Industrial Engineering,20XX,102:.[44]Ajay Raghavan,Peter Kiesel,Lars Wilko Sommer,Julian Schwartz,Alexander Lochbaum,Alex Hegyi,Andreas Schuh,KyleArakaki,Bhaskar Saha,Anurag Ganguli,Kyung Ho Kim,ChaeAh Kim,Hoe Jin Hah,SeokKoo Kim,Gyu-Ok Hwang,Geun-Chang Chung,Bokkyu Choi,Mohamed Alamgir. Embedded fiber-optic sensing for accurate internal monitoringof cell state in advanced battery management systems part 1: Cell embedding method and performance[J]. Journal of Power Sources,20XX,:.绩效管理英语参考文献三:[45]Ramit Debnath,Ronita Bardhan. Daylight Performance of a Naturally Ventilated Building as Parameter for Energy Management[J]. Energy Procedia,20XX,90:.[46]Graham Currie,Rico Merkert. Workshop 1 report: Innovationsin Service Delivery and Performance Management[J]. Research in Transportation Economics,20XX,:.[47]Piero Danti,Lorenzo Pezzola,Sandro Magnani. Performance Analysis of an Optimization Management Algorithm on a Multi-generation Small Size Power Plant[J]. Energy Procedia,20XX,101:.[48]Salih ?etiner,Alev ?etin duran,Filiz Kibar,Akgün Yaman. Performance comparison of new generation HCV core antigen test versus HCV RNA test in management of hepatitis C virus infection[J].Transfusion and Apheresis Science,20XX,:.[49]V.S. Machado,R.C. Neves,F.S. Lima,R.C. Bicalho. The effectof Presynch-Ovsynch protocol with or without estrus detection on reproductive performance by parity, and the long-term effect of these different management strategies on milk production, reproduction, health and survivability of dairy cows[J]. Theriogenology,20XX,93:.[50]Chiung-Lin Liu,Kuo-Chung Shang,Taih-Cherng Lirn,Kee-Hung Lai,Y.H. Venus Lun. Supply Chain Resilience, Firm Performance, and Management Policies in the Liner Shipping Industry[J]. Transportation Research Part A,20XX,:.[51]F. Cucchiella,M. Gastaldi,M. Miliacca. The management of greenhouse gas emissions and its effects on firm performance[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production,20XX,:.[52]Juneho Um,Andrew Lyons,Hugo K.S. Lam,T.C.E. Cheng,Carine Dominguez-Pery. Product variety management and supply chain performance: A capability perspective on their relationships and competitiveness implications[J]. International Journal of Production Economics,20XX,187:.[53]Weixiong Wu,Xiaoqing Yang,Guoqing Zhang,Kai Chen,Shuangfeng Wang. Experimental investigation on the thermal performance of heatpipe-assisted phase change material based battery thermal management system[J]. Energy Conversion and Management,20XX,138:.[54]Michael J. Turner,Sean A. Way,Demian Hodari,Wiarda Witteman. Hotel property performance: The role of strategic managementaccounting[J]. International Journal of Hospitality Management,20XX,63:.[55]Carolyn Callahan,Jared Soileau. Does Enterprise risk management enhance operating performance?[J]. Advances inAccounting,20XX,:.[56]Marc Colaco,Maxx K. Caveney,Ryan P. Terlecki. Performance of adult pyeloplasty relative to endourological management in the era of robotic surgery: Data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample[J]. Urology Practice,20XX,:.[57]J. Carmona-Murillo,I. Soto,F. J. Rodríguez-Pérez,D. Cortés-Polo,J. L. González-Sánchez,Juan C. Cano. Performance Evaluation of Distributed Mobility Management Protocols: Limitations and Solutions for Future Mobile Networks[J]. Mobile Information Systems,20XX,20XX:.[58]Aloysius Byaruhanga. Contractor Monitoring and Performance of Road Infrastructure Projects in Uganda: A Management Model[J]. Journal of Building Construction and Planning Research,20XX,0501:.[59]Sachin Modgil,Sanjay Sharma. Total productive maintenance, total quality management and operational performance[J]. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering,20XX,224:.[60]Peter Heisig,Olunifesi Adekunle Suraj,Aino Kianto,Cosmas Kemboi,Gregorio Perez Arrau,Nasser Fathi Easa. Knowledge management and business performance: global experts' views on future research needs[J]. Journal of Knowledge Management,20XX,206:.[61]. The influence of information, knowledge and technology management on the performance of manufacturing enterprises[J]. Strategic Direction,20XX,3211:.[62]Stephen Korutaro Nkundabanyanga,Brendah Akankunda,Irene Nalukenge,Immaculate Tusiime. The impact of financial managementpractices and competitive advantage on the loan performance of MFIs[J]. International Journal of Social Economics,20XX,441:.[63]Shradha Ashok Gawankar,Sachin Kamble,Rakesh Raut. An investigation of the relationship between supply chain management practices （SCMP） on supply chain performance measurement （SCPM） of Indian retail chain using SEM[J]. Benchmarking: An International Journal,20XX,241:.[64]Chieh-Peng Lin,Min-Ling Liu,Sheng-Wuu Joe,Yuan-Hui Tsai. Predicting top management approval and team performance in technology industry[J]. Personnel Review,20XX,461:.[65]Lisa Rogan,Ruth Boaden. Understanding performance management in primary care[J]. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance,20XX,301:.[66]Huy Quang Truong,Maria Sameiro,Ana Cristina Fernandes,Paulo Sampaio,Binh An Thi Duong,Hiep Hoang Duong,Estela Vilhenac. Supply chain management practices and firms' operational performance[J].International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,20XX,342:.绩效管理英语参考文献四:[67]Hadi Shirouyehzad,Farimah Mokhatab Rafiee,Negin Berjis. Performance evaluation and prioritization of organizations based on knowledge management and safety management approaches using DEA[J]. Journal of Modelling in Management,20XX,121:.[68]Vishal Singh Patyal,Maddulety Koilakuntla. The impact of quality management practices on performance: an empirical study[J]. Benchmarking: An International Journal,20XX,242:.[69]Ra'ed Masa'deh,Rifat Shannak,Mahmoud Maqableh,Ali Tarhini. The impact of knowledge management on job performance in higher education[J]. Journal of Enterprise Information Management,20XX,302:.[70]Mohsen Sadegh Amalnick,Mansour Zarrin. Performance assessment of human resource by integration of HSE and ergonomics and EFQM management system[J]. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance,20XX,302:.[71]Fan Yang,Xiongfei Zhang. The impact of sustainable supplier management practices on buyer-supplier performance[J]. Review of International Business and Strategy,20XX,271:.[72]Jens K. Roehrich,Stefan U. Hoejmose,Victoria Overland. Driving green supply chain management performance through supplier selection and value internalisation[J]. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,20XX,374:.[73]Aradhana Vikas Gandhi,Ateeque Shaikh,Pratima Amol Sheorey. Impact of supply chain management practices on firm performance[J]. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,20XX,454:.[74]Ahmad Fathi Al-Sa'di,Ayman Bahjat Abdallah,Samer Eid Dahiyat. The mediating role of product and process innovations on therelationship between knowledge management and operational performance in manufacturing companies in Jordan[J]. Business Process Management Journal,20XX,232:.[75]Alex Koohang,Joanna Paliszkiewicz,Jerzy Goluchowski. The impact of leadership on trust, knowledge management, and organizational performance[J]. Industrial Management & Data Systems,20XX,1XX3:.[76]Lokesh Vijayvargy,Jitesh Thakkar,Gopal Agarwal. Green supply chain management practices and performance[J]. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,20XX,283:.[77]Daniele Giampaoli,Massimo Ciambotti,Nick Bontis. Knowledge management, problem solving and performance in top Italian firms[J]. Journal of Knowledge Management,20XX,212:.[78]Anupam Kumar,David E. Cantor,Curtis M. Grimm,Christian Hofer. Environmental management rivalry and firm performance[J]. Journal of Strategy and Management,20XX,102:.[79]Laura Bini,Francesco Dainelli,Francesco Giunta. Is a loosely specified regulatory intervention effective in disciplining management commentary? The case of performance indicator disclosure[J]. Journal of Management & Governance,20XX,211:.[80]Simon Holmbacka,Erwan Nogues,Maxime Pelcat,SébastienLafond,Daniel Menard,Johan Lilius. Energy-Awareness and PerformanceManagement with Parallel Dataflow Applications[J]. Journal of Signal Processing Systems,20XX,871:.[81]Roop Kishore,Ashish Dwivedi,Raghuvir Singh,R. K.Naresh,Vineet Kumar,Priyanka Bankoti,Dinesh Kumar Sharma,Nishant Yadav. Integrated effect of population and weed management regimes on weed dynamics, performance, and productivity of basmati rice （ Oryza sativa L.）[J]. Paddy and Water Environment,20XX,XX1:.[82]Encarnación García-Sánchez,Víctor Jesús García-Morales,María Teresa Bolívar-Ramos. The influence of top management support for ICTs on organisational performance through knowledge acquisition, transfer, and utilisation[J]. Review of Managerial Science,20XX,111:.[83]Marek Vochozka,Anna Marou?ková。

卓越绩效模式评价体系的两个维度

2017年2月40言真Expert Forum专家论坛文／王丽在卓越绩效评价体系中，方法（approach）和展开（d e p l oy）是两个常见的评价维度，也是评价体系中最基础的维度。

在美国波多里奇国家质量奖的评价体系（Approach-Deploy-Learning-Integration，A D LI）和欧洲质量奖的评价体系（Result-Approach-Deploy-Assess-Refine，RADAR）中，“方法”和“展开”是二者仅有的交集，足见二者的重要性。

那么，这二者究竟蕴含着什么奥秘，以至于被两大国际权威标准所采纳呢？“方法”方法（a p p r o a c h）是卓越绩效模式评价体系中一个很重要的组成部分。

在波奖的评价体系（A-D-L-I）中，方法位于组织成熟度最基础的位置，是区别正规组织与草台班子的标准。

在欧洲质量奖的评价体系（R-A-D-A-R）中，“方法”被认为是实现组织结果（result）的首要因素，没有“方法”的组织只能靠守株待兔来收获成功。

可见，“方法”对组织管理的重要性。

然而，从笔者多年的从业经历看，很多质量奖评审员对“方法”的理解很不到位，不同的评卓越绩效模式评价体系的两个维度审员之间理解差别很大，比如：有的评审员认为“方法”是制度和流程；有的评审员认为“方法”是规划和职责；有的评审员认为“方法”是如S WOT 分析之类的管理工具。

总之，即使是评审员之间也很难就这一问题达成共识。

质量奖评审尚且如此，那么组织卓越绩效导入就更加凌乱。

有些卓越绩效咨询师，甚至是非常资深的咨询师，在给企业导入卓越绩效模式的时候都没办法把这个概念说明白。

他们在与培训学员交流的时候，只知道不断重复“方法”的定义，却没办法告诉学员什么是“方法”。

在处理一些问题的时候，甚至会陷入用“方法”来论证“方法”的循环证明中，让企业怀疑咨询师的水平。

笔者认为，出现这种状况的原因主要在于翻译的问题。

performance_management and Appraisal绩效管理实务与考评参考PPT

5
HR’s Role in Performance Management
• Participate in strategic planning. • Conduct job analysis. • Support performance management. • Design appraisal system. • Train and support managers. • Maintain documents. • Provide employee due process. • Ensure integrity of the system. • Ensure compliance with nondiscrimination laws.
Performance Management and Appraisal
Myrna Gusdorf, MBA, SPHR 2009
1
Learning Objectives
• At the end of this module, students will:
> Relate individual performance appraisal to the organizationwide performance management process.
> Identify a variety of appraisal methods. > Explain HR’s role in the performance management
process. > Revise performance appraisal statements. > Practice performance appraisal interviewing techniques. > Have the skills necessary to use the performance

1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。

Measures both what is done and how it is done
Aligns
Department goals with strategic business objectives
Aligns individuals with the broader organizational/ team context
Performance Consulting
Employee Review Process
Engagement and Accountability Clear Performance Expectations Growth and Achievements
Performance Management Is...
Objectives of departments and individuals
Bottom-up-approach: Derivation of segment and corporate strategic plans and operating objectives from business unit goals.
...the ongoing process of setting performance expectations, providing feedback and coaching to reach those
expectations, and reviewing and recognizing performance results.
Core Organizational Capabilities
Balanced Scorecard
= Why does the company exist?
= Where is it going?
Size
Sales
Markets
Locations
Products
Competitive Challenges
• AFYP • ROI/ROA • Surplus Growth
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
• New sales: new customers • Additional policies: current
customers • Market share
BUSINESS PROCESSES
Ensures the closest “line of sight” possible
Source: Watson Wyatt Best Practices in Performance Management
Performance Consulting
Two dimensions:
1. Total Organization
METRICS
BUSINESS UNIT
Finance
Customer
Business Process
Learning & Growth
DEPARTMENT
Finance
Customer
Business Learning Process & Growth
Balanced Scorecards can provide organization alignment and accountability
Total Organization Performance
Cascading and Alignment Stakeholder Metrics
The Key Questions of Business Planning
Mission Vision of Future
Strategic Organizational Goals
Finalize Target Recommendations
1 wk
1 Day
2 Days
1 Day
1 Day
Implementation 1 wk Formal
Training and
Advisory
Roll out begins
Team Review
Implementation 1 wk Plan Review
Share Best Practices research
Review some of the basic planning and project steps
Group Discussion
Answer the following questions:
1. What is performance management? Why do companies have this process?
LEARNING & GROWTH
• Competency growth • Additional countries • Core capabilities growth
Cascading Strategic & Operating Plan Goals
CORPORATE ORGANIZATION
Review Plan for Implementation
Review Transition Strategy
1 wk Implementation Planning Workshop
Formal 1 wk Advisory
Group Review Session &
Follow-up
* 8 weeks elapsed time from planning session
Project Planning, 1 wk
Orientation
and Kick-off
Clarify Company
Strategy and determine goals
2 wks Interview Findings + Develop Measure Recommendations
1 wk Workshop on Targets
TEAMS/INDIVIDUALS • 5 to 7 GOALS • “SMART” parameters • Directly aligned
Typical Project Timeline & Milestones*
2 Days
1 Day
1 Day
1 Day
Executive Planning Session(s)
Tie PM to the Business Cycle
Year-End Review
New Year Planning
Review and
Planning Planning
Feedback &
Coaching
& Coaching
Mid-Year Review
Bad timing...
2. Why doesn’t it work so well? What makes it so difficult?
Performance Management
Translates business vision and strategy in an actionable way by cascading goals throughout the organization
• Collecting premiums • Calculating selling price: new product • New licensing (Region & Corporate) • Establishing the Business Case for new
ventures, new locations • Product Development: # innovations
“I don’t want to ruin your day Herman, but tomorrow morning you’re scheduled to be in my office for your annual performance review...”
Remember The Key Questions ?
COMPANY MISSION
Strategic Objectives
Business Unit Scorecard
Department Scorecard
= What must the company be very good at doing?
= How will progress and success be measured?
Expectations of Stakeholders Company Performance
Organization Alignment leads to Employee Engagement
Expectations of Stakeholders Company Performance
Business Plans are Developed by the Business Units
Strategy of the Corporation
Objectives of the corporation
Cascading and Alignment Stakeholder Metrics
2. Employee Review Process
Engagement and Accountability Growth and Achievements
Performance Consulting
Performance Consulting
Total Organization Performance Clients: CEO, COO, sometimes the VPHR Fees: typical project is $180 - 250K Timeframe: +/- 4 months