人力资源管理绩效管理外文翻译文献

人力资源管理绩效管理外文翻译文献

人力资源管理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：

Performance Management: Reconciling Competing Priorities

Ian Ziskin

Four HR thought leaders from academia— John Boudreau of the USC Center for Effective Organizations, Chris Collins of the Cornell Center for Advanced HR Studies, Pat Wright of the Moore College of Business at the University of South Carolina, and Dave Ulrich of University of Michigan and the RBL Group — engaged in discussions on Performance Management with Ian Ziskin, President, EXec EXcel Group LLC and Board member, HR People & Strategy. Ian asked John, Chris,Pat, and Dave to share their perspectives on topics including:

• What Performance Management is?

• What makes the biggest difference to effective vs. ineffective Performance Management?

• What the biggest sources of debate and disagreement have been regarding Performance Management over the years, and whether we have made any progress in resolving these issues？

• If they were going to fix or kill anything about Performance Management, w hat it would be and why？

• What big implications there are for future required changes to Performance Management in light of future work, workforce and workplace trends？

Ziskin: There is a lot of talk in organizations about whether Performance Management is working effectively or ever has. What do you think Performance Management is?

Collins: This may be the question of the year. Performance Management has become everything and therefore nothing. It serves so many purposes —compensation, feedback, talent development, succession, etc. — that it may not serve any purpose very well.

Boudreau: It's an ongoing relationship to balance the need to evaluate people with the need to develop them. It's not about bromides, forms, scores, tools or

systems.

Wright: Performance Management is about aligning behavior in a way that increases organizational effectiveness.

Ulrich: I think we need to look at Performance Management from three levels: cultural, systems and personal. At the cultural level, it's about whether the organization judges people based on meritocracy (results), hierarchy (power) or relationships (connections). At the systems level, it's about determining whether people meet or miss objectives. At the personal level, it's about assessing the individual's dedication to deliver both financial and social results.

Ziskin: Given your point of view about Performance Management, what makes the biggest difference to whether it is effective vs. ineffective?

Collins: It starts with having a culture of openness, honesty and real feedback —and then holding people accountable. This process begins and ends with good leaders, and all of our money should be invested in developing leaders to lead, rather than spending money on new Performance Management systems and tools.

Boudreau: Effectiveness rests in the skills and motivations of the people involved, not in the Performance Management system itself. It is particularly important to create a shared framework and priorities between managers and their employees.

Ulrich: The four generic steps of Performance Management have remained relatively stable over time: set standards, assess against those standards, allocate consequences and provide feedback. Improvements in the effectiveness of Performance Management have come from enabling external stakeholders to provide input on standards and performance, making the performance discussion more about the future than the past, using technology to simplify the process, tailoring the consequences to better reflect individual employee contributions and value, and accommodating both team as well as individual feedback.

Wright: Bad tools, bad evaluations, bad feedback and bad links to reward systems lead to bad Performance Management.

Ziskin: If you look back over the years of debate about Performance Management, what one or two things stand out in your mind as the biggest sources of