老外的一份绩效管理讲义
老外的一份绩效管理英文版
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
绩效管理讲义(英文)PPT课件
4
Overview
What reflects or represents the term performance?
Kaplan and Norton (1992): Financial, customer, internal business, and innovation/ learning
Sink and Tuttle (1989): Profitability, productivity, quality, quality of work life, innovation, effectiveness, and efficiency
Kasetsart University
8
Introduction
System View of an Organization Upstream Inputs Processes Outputs Downstream
Kasetsart University
9
Introduction
Purposes of performance measurement:
Workforces
Knowledge and white-collar
Kasetsart University
Blue-collar
6
Introduction
(1) Measuring productivity/ performance requires a system view of an organization or a unit of analysis.
audit to improve KPI by linking with policies, objectives, database, etc., ratio networking, and target setting
老外的一份绩效管理讲义英文
Sink and Tuttle (1989): Profitability, productivity, quality, quality of work life, innovation, effectiveness, and efficiency
Harper (1984): Productivity, unit cost, price, factor proportion, cost proportion, product mix, and input allocation
老外的一份绩效管理讲义英文
Overview
Management
Functions: planning, coordinating, and controlling
Processes: measurement, analysis/ evaluation, and
improvement
Emphasis on the organizational and functional level
To identify whether we are meeting customer requirements
To help use understand our processes
To ensure decisions are based on facts, not on emotion
To show where improvements need to be made
(2) Combination of various input factors (consideration into weight of each input, data collected such as intangible assets, unit dimensions, reporting and information format on tabular and/or graphical forms, etc.) as well as output factors
老外的一份绩效管理讲义,200多页幻灯片,希望对大家有用215页PPT
文 家 。汉 族 ，东 晋 浔阳 柴桑 人 （今 江西 九江 ） 。曾 做过 几 年小 官， 后辞 官 回家 ，从 此 隐居 ，田 园生 活 是陶 渊明 诗 的主 要题 材， 相 关作 品有 《饮 酒 》 、 《 归 园 田 居 》 、 《 桃花 源 记 》 、 《 五 柳先 生 传 》 、 《 归 去来 兮 辞 》 等 。
1
0
、
倚
南
窗
以
寄
傲
，
审Leabharlann 容膝之易
安
。
1、最灵繁的人也看不见自己的背脊。——非洲 2、最困难的事情就是认识自己。——希腊 3、有勇气承担命运这才是英雄好汉。——黑塞 4、与肝胆人共事，无字句处读书。——周恩来 5、阅读使人充实，会谈使人敏捷，写作使人精确。——培根
老外的一份绩效管理讲义，200多页 幻灯片，希望对大家有用
6
、
露
凝
无
游
氛
，
天
高
风
景
澈
。
7、翩翩新 来燕，双双入我庐 ，先巢故尚在，相 将还旧居。
8
、
吁
嗟
身
后
名
，
于
我
若
浮
烟
。
9、 陶渊 明（ 约 365年 —427年 ），字 元亮， （又 一说名 潜，字 渊明 ）号五 柳先生 ，私 谥“靖 节”， 东晋 末期南 朝宋初 期诗 人、文 学家、 辞赋 家、散
【课件】海氏-绩效管理
0109-9271-HAYG Lemaire
2
The Promise of Performance Management
Imagine a system that could—
Increase the likelihood that your strategy is effectively executed
Thirty-five percent of an institutional investor’s valuation of a company is attributable to nonfinancial information that gauges the ability of the management team to deliver results:
7
Human Capital Systems Increase Shareholder Value
Market Value per Employee (000)
“Human Capital” Enhancements 390
370
350
330
310
290 0
20
40
60
80
100
Quintile Improvements in Strategic Alignment and Integration of HR System
86%
30%
Clear Employee Goals
80%
26%
Participative Style
70%
4%
Attention to Development
67%
27%
Encourage Creativity
企业绩效管理讲座(英文版)
Steve SherrettaJuly 21, 2020Performance Management:Enhancing Execution Through a Culture of DialoguePeter is Chief Executive Officer for a medical supply multinational thatrecently crafted a new strategy to counter competitive threats. The planstressed the need to cut cycle time, concentrate sales on higher-marginproducts and develop new markets.Four months after circulating the plan, Peter did a “walkaround” to see howthings 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 howmanufacturing would be affected. It turned out the new design would takemuch more time to make. Total cycle time actually increased. “Our strategic plan message is not really 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 themost profitable prospects. Sales is doing just what it’s always done, Peterthought.Worst surprise: Even his top team, the people who’d helped him craft thestrategy, 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 ofdeveloping new markets?”“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 planand communicated it very clearl y. 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 bad execution.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 h itting 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 s imple? 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 successfully 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 tha n a fluid tennis stroke does. It takes practice, persistence and hard work. So how exactly can leaders ensure1“Why CEOs Fail,” by Ram Charan and Geoffrey Colvin, Fortune magazine, June 21, 1999.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 subordinatebroad strategic goals to operational goals within their silos. That’s what happened with Pe ter’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 mixedsignals and blurred focus. Strategy decode requires winnowing priorities down toa manageable 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 messagescascade down the organization. These include: strategy-centered budget andplanning sessions; staff and team meetings to discuss goals; performancemanagement meetings; and talent review sessions. Dialogue drives all theseprocesses. Each represents a “transmitter opportunity,” where strategic messages are conveyed and behavior is aligned with goals.3.Aligning and differentiating rewards.Leaders must make sure rewardsencourage behaviors 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 lessevenly. 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 bynon-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 Inch.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 study3 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 1.2 Based on a study conducted by Sarah Mavrinac and Tony Siesfeld for the Ernst & Young Center for Business Innovation.3 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.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 is that they feel their companies lack direction. Even among employees planning to stay more than two years at their companies, only 57% felt their organizations had a clear sense of direction.Figure 2: Key reasons why employees leave their companies Total % Satisfied 4 Satisfaction with: Employees planning to stay more than two years (%) Employees planningto leave in less than two years (%)GAP (%) 1. Use of my skills and abilities 83% 49%34% 2. Ability of top management 74% 41%33%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.5818F igure 1: Measuresorganizational climatedimensions for outstandingtop teams vs. typical ones.For each dimension of climatewe asked how the team wasperforming in reality and howit should be performing.Then we measured thedifference or “gap” i n theiranswers. Gaps over 20% hurtperformance. The “clarity”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.Unfortunately, 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 reduc ing 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 w ould suffer unless we identified 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 clarity 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 was broken 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 w as to push labor costs 5 percent 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 director 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 ” tha t 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 presidentheld monthly “pizza meetings” with everyone whose birthday fell that month. At these “transmitter opportunities,” he would ask attendees people to list 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 “dozens of tiny screws, lock washers and nuts.” Skinn er 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 moment um. Soon, people were coming 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 th e 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 unfulfilled customer needs. “It was only after 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 leaderCreating 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 reviewaltogether. 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 stra tegy 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.。
最新整理绩效管理全英文讲义.ppt
Improving Performance Management Improves Business Results
Highly Successful Less Successful
Companies
Companies
Performance-Based Rewards
86%
30%
Clear Employee Goals
40%
30%
HRM
19%
18%
20%Байду номын сангаас
Strategy Quality
Technology
10% 0%
6% 2%
1% 1%
Profitability
8% 3%
1% 1%
Productivity
R&D
Source: Sheffield Effectiveness Programme
Percentage of variation in change in company performance accounted for by managerial practices
Strategy Execution: Can management make tough decisions and seize opportunities quickly?
Management Credibility: Does the company keep its commitments?
The Current Challenge of Performance Management
The HR process—
Is completely unrelated to other key business processes
绩效管理知识讲义[英文版]
![绩效管理知识讲义[英文版]](https://img.taocdn.com/s3/m/bad1158a866fb84ae55c8d47.png)
Overview
Management
Functions: planning, coordinating, and controlling
Processes: measurement, analysis/ evaluation, and improvement
Emphasis on the organizational and functional level
Introduction
System View of an Organization
Upstrea m
Inputs
Processes
Outputs
Downstrea m
Introduction
Purposes of performance measurement: To identify whether we are meeting customer requirements To help use understand our processes To ensure decisions are based on facts, not on emotion To show where improvements need to be made To show if improvements actually happened To identify whether our contractors or suppliers are meeting our requirements
(2) Measuring productivity/ performance is common. (3) Understanding of impacts from low productivity is
老外的一份绩效管理讲义共215页文档
66、节制使快乐增加并使享受加强。 ——德 谟克利 特 67、今天应做的事没有做，明天再早也 是耽误 了。——裴斯 泰洛齐 68、决定一个人的一生，以及整个命运 的，只 是一瞬 之间。 ——歌 德 69、懒人无法享受休息之乐。——拉布 克 70、浪费时间是一桩大罪过。——卢梭
绩效管理PPT课件讲义
事先的沟通与承诺
只出现在特定的时期
伴随管理活动全过程
侧重于判断和评估
侧重于沟通与绩效提高
管理过程的局部环节和手段
一个完整的管理过程
绩效考核
绩效管理
绩效考核重点在于考核,管理者的角色是裁判，而绩效管理却着眼于员工绩效的改善,在绩效管理中,管理者的角色是教练,它的主要目的是通过管理人员和员工持续的沟通,指导、帮助或支持员工完成工作任务,这样的结果必然是实现员工个人绩效和组织整体绩效共同提高的双赢，
学习与成长
短期绩效指标 多为财务指标,缺少非财务指标 关注过去 较多关注结果性指标
传统绩效管理方法
平衡短期绩效指标和长期绩效指标 平衡财务目标和非财务目标 平衡过去和未来 平衡过程性指标和结果性指标 实施公司战略的有效工具
平衡记分卡方法
基于平衡计分卡的绩效管理体系的优点
目 录
一、绩效管理简介 二、工具介绍 三、管理人员如何实施绩效管理
为了扭转这种状况,我们就有必要将目光更多地从考核转向绩效,重视绩效管理,从绩效考核走向绩效管理，
绩效管理简介
什么是绩效 什么是绩效管理 绩效管理的意义 绩效管理的核心
实施绩效管理的意义
促进公司的战略落地,保障公司战略的有效实施
管理人员进行日常管理的有效工具
促进员工绩效提升和自我发展的手段
绩 效 管 理
Add the author and the accompanying title
绩效管理2
目 录
一、绩效管理简介 二、工具介绍 三、管理人员如何实施绩效管理
绩效管理简介
什么是绩效 什么是绩效管理 绩效管理的意义 绩效管理的核心
什么是绩效
员工工作成果所代表的价值
老外的一份绩效管理讲义(英文)
Management
Workforces
Knowledge and white-collar
Blue-collar
Introduction
(1) Measuring productivity/ performance requires a system view of an organization or a unit of analysis.
(2) Measuring productivity/ performance is common. (3) Understanding of impacts from low productivity is
critical for management (competitiveness). (4) Understanding of unit dimensions and definitions
are essential for measurement.
Introduction
Ongoing Issues for “Productivity” Management
(1) Total-, multi-, and single-factor productivity consideration
and target setting Analysis: trend/ variation understanding with MCPMT, benchmarking process, and scorecard and root-cause
analysis
Improvement: outsourcing, development of manufacturing strategies, integration of knowledge learned on logistics and supplier partnertem View of an Organization
- 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)。
பைடு நூலகம்
Overview
Management
Functions: planning, coordinating, and controlling
Processes: measurement, analysis/ evaluation, and improvement
Emphasis on the organizational and functional level
Kasetsart University
3
Overview
What reflects or represents the term performance?
Kaplan and Norton (1992): Financial, customer, internal business, and innovation/ learning
as output factors
Kasetsart University
7
Introduction
System View of an Organization
Upstrea m
Inputs
Processes
Outputs
Downstrea m
Kasetsart University
8
Introduction
Kasetsart University
6
Introduction
Ongoing Issues for “Productivity” Management
(1) Total-, multi-, and single-factor productivity consideration
(2) Combination of various input factors
To show where improvements need to be made
To show if improvements actually happened
To identify whether our contractors or suppliers are
(2) Measuring productivity/ performance is common.
(3) Understanding of impacts from low productivity is critical for management (competitiveness).
(4) Understanding of unit dimensions and definitions are essential for measurement.
Purposes of performance measurement:
To identify whether we are meeting customer requirements
To help use understand our processes
To ensure decisions are based on facts, not on emotion
and target setting Analysis: trend/ variation understanding with MCPMT, benchmarking process, and scorecard and root-cause
analysis
Improvement: outsourcing, development of manufacturing strategies, integration of knowledge learned on logistics and supplier partnership
(consideration into weight of each input, data
collected such as intangible assets, unit
dimensions, reporting and information format
on tabular and/or graphical forms, etc.) as well
Kasetsart University
2
Overview
Measurement: understanding of the term KPI or performance measures, identification of the KPI, application of MFPMM, audit to improve KPI by linking with policies, objectives, database, etc., ratio networking,
Kasetsart University
4
Introduction
Multi-national, national, and industrial levels Organizational, functional, program, and project levels
Team and individual levels Individual level
Sink and Tuttle (1989): Profitability, productivity, quality, quality of work life, innovation, effectiveness, and efficiency
Harper (1984): Productivity, unit cost, price, factor proportion, cost proportion, product mix, and input allocation
Management
Workforces
Knowledge and white-collar
Kasetsart University
Blue-collar
5
Introduction
(1) Measuring productivity/ performance requires a system view of an organization or a unit of analysis.