绩效考核外文文献及翻译
员工对绩效考核系统的感知外文文献翻译最新译文
文献出处：Boachie-Mensah F, Seidu P A. Employees’ perception of performance appraisal system: A case study[J]. International Journal of Business and Management, 2012, 7(2): p73. 原文Employees' Perception of Performance Appraisal System: A Case StudyBoachie-Mensah, Francis O; Seidu, Peter Awini1. IntroductionIn today's competitive business world, it is understood that organizations can only compete with their rivals by innovating, and organizations can be innovative by managing their human resources well. The human resource system can become more effective by having a valid and accurate appraisal system used for rating performances of employees (Armstrong, 2003; Bohlander &Snell, 2004). Unfortunately, the number of organizations using an effective performance appraisal system (PAS) is limited (Hennessey &Bernadin, 2003).Perceptions of employees about the targets, outcomes and uses of performance appraisal (PA) results would be beneficial depending on a number of factors. For example, employees are more likely to be receptive and supportive of a given PA programme if they perceive the process as a useful source of feedback which helps to improve their performance (Mullins, 2007). Employees are likely to embrace and contribute meaningfully to a given PA scheme if they perceive it as an opportunity for promotion, and as an avenue for personal development opportunities, a chance to be visible and demonstrate skills and abilities, and an opportunity to network with others in the organisation. On the other hand, if employees perceive PA as an unreasonable attempt by management to exercise closer supervision and control over tasks they(employees) perform, various reactions may result. PA will be effective if the appraisal process is clearly explained to, and agreed by the people involved (Anthony et al., 1999). Without adequate explanation or consultation, PA could turn counterproductive. In addition, staff motivation, attitude and behaviour development, communicating and aligning individual and organisational aims, and fostering positive relationships between management and staff are essential for successful appraisal (Armstrong, 2003).In order to obtain accurate PA information, raters must provide objective and unbiased ratings of employees. Due to difficulty in developing an accurate performance checklist, managers' subjective opinions are frequently called for. Many organizations use some combination of subjective and objective assessment for actual PA. Yet, there are numerous problems in actual assessment of employee performance (Corbett &Kenny, 2001). The existence of such problems suggests that PAS may be fraught with biases or errors, resulting in compromised evaluations of employees' accomplishments and capabilities. And the PAS of the institution of study might not be an exception. For a PAS to be perceived as fair, it must be free of bias. It is known that appraisal errors can harm perceptions of pay system fairness by confusing the relationship between true performance differences (Miceli et al., 1991). The importance of effective PA in organizations cannot be over emphasized as appraisals help develop individuals, improve organizational performance and feed into business planning. An understanding of the phenomenon, therefore, in every sector of human endeavor is imperative. This recognition has raised interest in studying people's perceptions of the quality of PA in organizations (educational institutions inclusive). There, however, seems to be a paucity of credible data on the quality of PA in Ghana's educational sector. The Ghanaian situation is relatively unexamined in genreacademic literature. This makes it difficult to fashion an appropriate management intervention to address any existing problem, because the exact dimensions of the challenge and its causes are not known. It is against this backdrop that this study was undertaken. It sought to assess the level of perceived PA biases in the educational sector in Ghana by analysing employees' perceptions of PA in one of the ten polytechnics in the country. The study sought to examine PA from the perspective of employees' perceptions of errors with the view to gathering and analysing information that could assist in development of innovative approaches to achieve both individual and corporate goals. Findings of the study would help fill the gap in extant literature. The findings would also provide useful insights and guidelines for enhancing the quality of PA in organizations.2. Literature Review2.1 The process and purpose of performance appraisalStudies show that there are many approaches for evaluating employee behaviour and performance with respect to job tasks and/or organisational culture. As a result, various applications of PA have left many managers in a state of confusion and frustration with the employee evaluation process (Gurbuz &Dikmenli, 2007). This situation seems to negatively impact the popularity of appraisal systems in many organizations. Most people support the concept and purpose of PA, in spite of their concerns about the process and application of appraisal outcomes by managers (Grote, 1996). The biggest complaint from managers is that they are not given sufficient guidelines to assess people; and the biggest complaint from employees is that the process is not equitable and fair. PA concentrates much in assessing past behaviours of employees, a situation some managers exploit to victimise unfavoured employees (Bersin, 2008). Timing of appraisal; Selection of appraisers and Providing feedback(Scullen et al., 2003). Early PA processes were fairly simple, and involved ranking and comparing individuals with other people (Milkovich &Boudreau 1997). However, these early person-based appraisal systems were fraught with problems. As a result, a transition to job-related performance assessments continues to occur. Thus, PA is being modified from being person-focused to behaviour-oriented, with emphasis on those tasks or behaviours associated with the performance of a particular job (Wellbourne etb al., 1998).Regarding the purpose of PA, Cleveland et al. (1989) describe four types of uses of performance appraisal: between person, within person, system maintenance and documentation. Between person uses are what have been referred to as administrative purposes, consisting of recognition of individuals' performance to make decisions regarding salary administration, promotions, retention, termination, layoffs and so forth. Within person uses are those identified in Management by Objectives (MBO), such as feedback on performance strengths and weaknesses to identify training needs and determine assignments and transfers. PA also helps in organisational goals, which are referred to as system maintenance uses. Finally, documentation purposes are to meet the legal requirements by documenting HR decisions and conducting validation research on the PA tools. Some organizations are attempting to meet all of these goals simultaneously while they continue to use tools that were designed for one type of purpose (Wiese &Buckley, 1998). Jawahar and Williams's (1997) findings suggest that ratings collected for administrative purposes are more lenient than ratings for research or developmental purposes. Although rating scale formats, training and other technical qualities of PA influence the quality of ratings, the quality of PA is also strongly affected by the administrative context in which they are used (Murphy &Cleveland, 1995). Effective managers recognise PAS as a tool for managing, ratherthan a tool for measuring subordinates. Such managers use PA to motivate, direct and develop subordinates, and to maximise access to important resources in the organisation to improve productivity.2.2 Rater issuesResearchers have shown considerable interest in variables related to the individual doing the appraisal (Lefkowitz, 2000; Levy &Williams, 2004; Robbins &DeNisi, 1998). One of the most studied rater variables is rater affect (Levy &Williams, 2004).A general definition of affect involves liking or positive regard for one's subordinate (Lefkowitz, 2000). Forgas and George's (2001) study suggests that affective states impact on judgements and behaviours and, in particular, affect or mood plays a large role when tasks require a degree of cognitive processing. In PA, raters in good mood tend to recall more positive information from memory and appraise performance positively (Sinclair, 1988). Affective regard is related to frequently higher appraisal ratings, less inclination to punish subordinates, better supervisor-subordinate relationships, greater halo, and less accuracy (.Lefkowitz, 2000). Antonioni and Park (2001) found that affect was more strongly related to rating leniency in upward and peer ratings than it was in traditional top-down ratings. This effect was stronger when raters had observational time with their subordinates.A second broad area related to raters is the motivation of the rater. Traditionally, researchers seemed to assume that raters were motivated to rate accurately, and that the problems with the appraisal process involved cognitive processing errors and complexities (Levy &Williams, 2004). This position has, however, been questioned, leading to attempts to identify and understand other elements of raters' motivation and how such motivation affects the appraisal process. The issues involved include individual differences and the rating purpose on rating leniency. Most practitionersreport overwhelming leniency on the part of their raters, and this rating elevation has been found in empirical papers as well as surveys of organizations (Murphy &Cleveland, 1995; Villanova et al., 1993; Bernadin et al., 2000). The role of attribution in the PA process has also attracted recent research attention on how the attribution that raters make of ratees' behaviours affect their motivation to rate or their actual rating (Struthers et al., 1998). Raters consider ratees' behaviours and their reputations when drawing attributional inferences and deciding on appropriate rewards (Johnson et al., 2002). This implies that attributional processing is an important element of the rating process, and these attributions, in part, determine raters' reactions and ratings. Another aspect of rater motivation has to do with rater accountability (Frink &Ferris, 1998). Klimoski and Inks (1990) posit that raters distort appraisal ratings more when they are to be held accountable to the ratee for those ratings. They emphasise that accountability can result in distortions of performance ratings. This view is confirmed by other research findings (Mero et al., 2003; Shore &Tashchian, 2002). There have also been calls from practitioners to use accountability as a means of improving the accuracy of appraisal ratings, increasing acceptance of the appraisal system, and making the HR system more efficient (Digh, 1998).2.3 Ratee issuesA second major focus of PA research relates to the role of PA in ratee motivation and ratee reactions to PA processes. The research focusing on motivation is generally categorised as being about either (1) the links between performance ratings and rewards or (2) those elements of the PA process which increase ratees' motivation, such as participation (Levy &Williams, 2004; Goss, 2001; Campbell et al., 1998). One theme of some recent work is that although merit pay systems sound like agood idea, there is very little evidence indicating that they are at all successful (Goss, 2001). In spite of its intuitive appeal and theoretical support, merit pay plans seldom reach their objectives (Campbell et al., 1998). Mani (2002) argues that while pay is an important motivator along with recognition, work enjoyment, and self-motivation, very few organizations actually link the PAS to pay or compensation in any clear, tangible way. Starcher (1996) contends that how well employees perform is much more a function of the situational constraints they experience than their own skills or motivation. But Levy and Williams (1998) argue that these situational constraints are not so important to exclude social or motivational factors that have been quite clearly linked to employee satisfaction and productivity over the years.译文员工对绩效考核系统的感知:一个案例研究门萨；弗朗西斯；彼得1 引言在如今竞争日益激烈的商业世界，据悉，组织只有通过创新才能与竞争对手竞争，尤其是组织人力资源方面的创新。
绩效评估中英文资料外文翻译文献
绩效评估中英文资料外文翻译文献绩效评估在组织管理中起着重要的作用，它帮助机构确定员工的工作绩效，以便提供具体的反馈和制定相应的奖励和激励措施。
为了进一步深入了解绩效评估的相关内容，本文提供了一些中英文资料的外文翻译文献。
1. 文献标题：《绩效评估：理论与实践》英文标题："Performance Evaluation: Theory and Practice"摘要：该文献探讨了绩效评估的理论基础和实际应用，介绍了不同的绩效评估方法和工具，并探讨了评估结果对员工激励和组织发展的影响。
2. 文献标题：《绩效评估的关键成功因素》英文标题："Key Success Factors in Performance Evaluation"摘要：该文献分析了绩效评估的关键成功因素，包括目标设定、反馈机制、评估标准和评估者的素质等。
研究结果可以帮助机构提高绩效评估的有效性和准确性。
3. 文献标题：《绩效评估的最佳实践》英文标题："Best Practices in Performance Evaluation"摘要：该文献介绍了绩效评估的最佳实践，包括定期评估、360度评估、绩效目标的设定和沟通等方面。
这些实践可以帮助机构建立有效的绩效评估制度，以实现组织发展的目标。
4. 文献标题：《绩效评估的技术支持》英文标题："Technological Support for Performance Evaluation"摘要：该文献介绍了利用技术手段支持绩效评估的方法和工具，包括绩效管理软件、在线评估平台和数据分析工具等。
这些技术支持可以提高绩效评估的效率和准确性。
这些外文文献提供了关于绩效评估的理论基础、实践经验和最佳实践，可以为机构设计和实施绩效评估方案提供有益的参考。
绩效评价绩效考核工具外文文献翻译(节选)
中文3100字，2000单词，1.1万英文字符出处：Kipchumba T B, Yano K L. Perceived Usefulness of the 360-Degrees Appraisal Tool and Its Usage in Performance in Nakuru, Kenya[J]. Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics & Management Sciences, 2014, 5.原文Perceived Usefulness of the 360-Degrees Appraisal Tool and Its Usage in Performance in Nakuru, KenyaKipchumba, Tarus Benjamin; Yano, Kuto LukaAbstractThe study examined the perceived usefulness of the 360 degrees appraisal tool and the extent of its usage in performance in Municipal Council of Nakuru, Kenya. A survey research design was applied because it was an intensive descriptive and holistic analysis of Municipal Council of Nakuru as a single entity. The study targeted employees from 8 departments with a total population of 1062 employees but it targeted 282 respondents which was 26.6% of the total population. Stratified sampling technique was used in arriving at strata on the basis of departments for employees. To arrive at specific respondents among employees, purposive sampling technique was used. The data obtained was coded and analysis was done using central tendency, bar graphs, percentages and Chi-square. It was revealed that 360 degrees as an appraisal tool is adopted by the Council and it has improved its performance. The Chi-square tests carried out revealed that there is a significant relationship between use of 360 degrees and organization performance and perceived usefulness. The study recommended the need to educate employees more on the importance of 360 degrees appraisal tool and encourage them to participate fully in development and implementation process. The findings and recommendations of the study are also important to the management when planning for performance appraisal sessions as well as in reviewing individual performance.Keywords: perceived usefulness, 360-degrees appraisal tool, usage, performance, nakuru, KenyaINTRODUCTIONThe 360°review, also referred to as 360°performance assessments or multi-rater feedback, is a method and a tool that provides employees feedback from their peers, co-workers, clients, those who are direct reports, and direct supervisors, thereby offering multiple perspectives of the employee's overall job performance. Most 360°feedback tools include the employee's self-review; hence the "full-circle" meaning behind the name. The results are tabulated and shared with the employee. Ideally, this type of assessment helps the employee gain a better understanding of her/his skills and behaviours as they relate to the organization's mission, values, goals and vision. Additionally, this feedback is geared towards assisting each employee understand her or his strengths and weaknesses, and can contribute insights into areas of work that may need professional development. The feedback is viewed as useful in defining the skills and behaviours needed to exceed client/customer expectations. The results from 360°review are often used by the person receiving the feedback to plan their training and development. The results are also used by some organizations when making promotional or pay decisions. The 360- degree feedback process offers a unique opportunity for employees at all levels to discover how their work colleagues perceive and are impacted by their behaviour. As one commentator describes the 360- degree feedback, "It is like having a full length portrait, a profile, a close up shot in the face and a view from the back all in one!" (Heather, 2012).IMPORTANCE OF 360-DEGREES PERFORMANCE TOOLWhereas there might be some negative feelings associated with traditional top-down performance appraisal, there can be numerous benefits stemming from a 360-degree performance appraisal system. "The 360-degree feedback serves as a key relationship building tool that organizations can use to enhance team processes and work interrelationships" (Tornow et al., 1998, p. 85). When co-workers are open with each other and hold each other accountable for performance and productivity then the working relationships improve and the productivity will thus improve. Not only will the relationships between the workers and managers improve but as they improve and get stronger, but the employees morale will also improve. "When implemented properly, subordinate appraisal systems enhance worker job satisfaction and morale" (Benardin, 1986, p. 421).The 360-degree appraisal also can help the employee or manager discovers their own strengths and weaknesses. Through feedback employees are able to see where a co-worker excels. They can also see where the person needs to improve. "The 360 degreefeedback can have enormous power perhaps more than any other technique to bring an individual's shortcomings to his attentions and confirm that areas of perceived strengths are actual and recognized strengths" (Grote, 1996, p. 292). The depth of the 360-degree process gives it greater validity and reliability. The objectivity and the anonymity of the raters will help to defend the organization. "Numerous advantages of using multiple raters have been cited ... improved defensibility of the performance appraisal program from a legal standpoint" (Harris &Schaubroek, 1988, p. 43).Another benefit of 360-degree appraisal is the relative low cost of implementation. Compared to bringing in an appraisal company from the outside or developing an assessment centre approach, the cost is really quite minimum. "The costs of installing, maintaining, and monitoring a subordinate appraisal system for managers is minimal relative to the costs incurred in with developing an in house assessment centre or contracting out for the service" (Bernardin, 1986, p. 433). So there are numerous reasons an organization should think about employing a 360-degree appraisal programme. In addition to having an effect on employee performance and productivity, the process can improve managerial performance as well.The 360-degree performance appraisal system has the potential to positively effect on the performance and productivity of managers and supervisors. Managers need sources of appraisal additional to their superiors. "The 360-degree approach recognizes that little change can be expected without feedback and that different constituencies are a source of rich and useful information to help managers guide behaviour" (London &Beatty, 1993, p. 354). With this type of appraisal, the managers will have better morale themselves and will develop better communication skills with their subordinates as well as with their superiors. Just like the development of the employees, managers can also take advantage of the differing sources of feedback about their productivity and make positive changes. The 360-degree appraisal can help assess the strengths and weakness of the manager. If a manger has been made aware of some of his own managerial shortcomings ... his ability to communicate should be improved and his faith in his own managerial abilities should be strengthened (Rowland, 1970, p. 303).The employees can also benefit when a manager has undergone a 360-degree appraisal. Organizational commitment and productivity may increase when the employees feel the 360-degree appraisal taken is seriously. Ideally, subordinates will start noticing the manager's behaviour more as a result of the 360- degree appraisal. "Upward feedback leads to subordinates perceiving positive changes in the boss's subsequentbehaviour" (Reilly et al., 1996, p. 600). A possible result of the manager's changed behaviour is a stronger working relationship between the manager and the subordinates. Just as the validity of 360- degree appraisals is higher than traditional top-down appraisal concerning subordinates, the validity is higher with managers as well. "Subordinate appraisals have shown a higher validity for predicting managerial success than assessment centre performance" (Schultz &Schultz, 1994, p. 170). Atwater et al. (1995, p.36) have found that "input from subordinates was effective in eliciting modest changes in managerial behaviour."London and Beatty (1993), while agreeing that mixing development and appraisal purposes is problematic, conclude "using feedback for development only can impede the effective use of the results unless there is a requirement for the manager to be responsible to the feedback" (p. 367). Despite the relatively simple technology in using the 360- degree, its costs for the company are potentially much higher than expected. First, there seems to be some agreement that 360s are not a one-shot deal, but must be used consistently over several years (DeNisi &Kluger,2000; Snader, 1997). Second, using the simpler structured instruments that Centre for Creative Leadership puts out ($195 per assessee) can defeat the developmental purposes because the feedback and interpretation is too difficult (i.e., comparative results are complicated by a variety of situation-specific factors (Ghorpade, 2000). On the other hand, constructing a custom instrument that is specific to the performance requirements for the company demands significantly more time and money to develop. Finally, the best way to overcome the interpretation of results problem is to invest in consultants or at least invest time from support people to deliver and consult with target managers.Purposes of 360-Degrees Performance ToolThe tool is expected to serve a number of purposes simultaneously. Noe et al. (1997, p. 198-199) and Swanepoel (2003, p. 372-373) and Schofield (1996) agree on the following purposes of the 360-degrees appraisal tool:Strategic PurposesNoe et al. (1997, p. 198) and De Cenzo et al. (1996, p. 322) concur that a performance appraisal system should link employee activities with the organization's goals. This calls for flexibility in the system in order for it to be adjusted to the changing goals and strategies of an organization. Many companies do not use performanceappraisal to communicate its objectives. This is supported by Noe et al. (1997, p. 198-199) regarding the purposes of performance appraisal where nothing was included about the extent to which it is tied to the company's strategic objectives. This is also in support of what Schofield (1996) lists establishing and monitoring objectives and targets, maintaining equity in treatment of staff, facilitating succession planning and monitoring the effectiveness of personnel policies as strategic.Administrative PurposesAdministrative purposes, according to Swanepoel (2003, p. 372), and supported by Noe et al. (1997, p. 199), concern the use of performance data to make reward decisions, placement decisions, promotion and retrenchment and for validating selection procedures. Schofield (1996) lists examples of this as providing feedback on individual performance, reviewing salary, conditions of service and other rewards, providing a basis for promotion, dismissal, probation, and avoiding trouble through meeting legal or political needs.Developmental PurposesThis third purpose is utilized to develop employees who are both effective and ineffective at their jobs. It provides individual employees feedback on their strengths and weaknesses and how to improve future performance (Noe et al., 1997, p. 199; Swanepoel, 2003, p. 373). Swanepoel (ibid.) adds that it can focus on the organizational level as well by: "facilitating organizational diagnosis and development by specifying performance levels and suggesting overall training needs; providing essential information for affirmative action programmes; promoting effective communication within the organization through ongoing interaction between superiors and subordinates." This is supported by Schofield (1996) who lists the purposes as: providing a basis for self-evaluation; diagnosing of training and career development needs, and discovering individual and department potential as some of the developmental purposes of performance appraisal.Documentary PurposesDe Cenzo et al. (1996, p. 322) suggest that the final purpose of performance appraisal is the issue of documentation. They also suggest that the evaluation system support the legal needs of the organization. It is important to have documentation to support that any personnel action taken was appropriate.Critical Issues on the Usefulness of the 360- Degrees AppraisalMany organizations are faced with various challenges as they endeavour to achieve their mission and vision. Human Resource provides the much needed skills and expertise to accomplish various tasks. It is important for management to ensure that they have motivated workforce who enjoy job satisfaction thus gain maximum quality productivity. The human inclination to judge the appraisal process can create serious motivational, ethical and legal problems in the workplace. Without a structured appraisal system, there is little chance of ensuring that the judgments made will be lawful, fair, defensible and accurate. There is a basic human tendency to make judgments about colleagues at work as well as about an appraisal, which seems, is inevitable and universal. In the absence of a carefully structured system of appraisal, people tend to judge the work performance of others, including subordinates, naturally, normally and arbitrarily. The Human Resource department designs a performance appraisal method in order to check what the competencies are and how they are displayed by the employee during his/her job. Then a comparison is made between the competencies that the direct boss of the employee was looking for and the competencies being displayed by the employee in his/her job. This provides the gaps and missing links which should be addressed by training. The degrees to which these competencies are required in performing a job also matter a lot.译文360度绩效评价工具的感知有用性，及其在肯尼亚的纳库鲁地区绩效考核方面的应用摘要这项研究调查了360度评价工具的感知有用性，及其在纳库鲁的市政委员会绩效考核方面的使用程度。
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 PrioritiesIan ZiskinFour 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 orsystems.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 ofdebate and disagreement?Boudreau: The biggest debate has been about what are we trying to achieve? It's always been about development of people vs. evaluation of their performance, and whether these two different priorities can be reconciled.Collins: Do you separate performance feedback from compensation, and how do you do both? We also need to learn to separate the discussion about current performance from the future — future roles and future performance requirements.Wright: The debate continues over simplifying tools vs. customizing unique tools to specific jobs, roles, situations and individuals.Ulrich: There are a number of old debates and some new debates. The old debates include Performance Management should be used for discussing financial results or development potential (yes to both), whether we should measure results as well as behavior (yes to both), whether managers should be accountable to do performance reviews (yes), and who should own Performance Management— the line or HR (the line owns it, HR is the architect).Ziskin: Have we made any progress in resolving the debate over these issues?Boudreau: We have made progress in something, such as the growing recognition that effective Performance Management is much less about forms and much more about relationships.Collins: I am gravely disappointed in the progress we've made in the past 20 years, especially in accommodating new ways of working such as more distributed, virtual work. We also have not made enough progress in accounting for team performance instead of just individual performance.Wright: We are making progress in linking results, behaviors and rewards. I'd say we are beginning to achieve best principles in Performance Management, but we have not yet achieved best practices.Ulrich: The following new debates are more interesting to me than the old debates I mentioned above, and even though we are beginning to make some progress, we need much more: how we simplify the process, how we have meaningful personal conversations between leaders and employees and how we build a performanceculture where meritocracy is expected.Ziskin: In light of the Performance Management debates and related mixed progress we have discussed, if you were going to fix or kill one thing related to Performance Management, what it would it by and why?Collins: I would fix Performance Management by investing in better leaders giving better feedback, rather than trying to fix Performance Management by investing in better tools.Boudreau: I would kill the debate about Performance Management forms, tools and technology enhancements, and instead put more than 80 percent of our resources into teaching and developing leaders and employees to get the most out of the performance feedback discussion.Ulrich: I would kill Performance Management complexity, and simplify the process. Sometimes, the process becomes the end itself, and there is means/end inversion.Wright: I would kill the parochialism that comes from my way, my tool and my process. There is a lot to be learned from how others are doing Performance Management.Ziskin: When you consider the future of work, the workplace and the workforce —and how all these things are changing and affecting business performance — what one or two big implications are there for required changes to Performance Management in the future?Ulrich: The biggest implications for the future I see are simplification of the Performance Management process and more outside/in perspective whereby Performance Management is more connected to input from external stakeholders.Wright: We will see a greater emphasis on evaluating results, the end product, rather than behavior, because global dispersion of work will make it much more difficult to directly observe behavior.Boudreau: As a result of increasingly virtual, remote, temporary and independent work, performance assessment can no longer only be done by leaders — it will also be done by others including peers and employees themselves. PerformanceManagement will no longer be the province of leaders.Collins: Performance Management is going in the direction of more frequent, more transparent, more virtual, more raters and more team-based.Ziskin: Based on insights from our academic experts, as well as from my own experience, if you are working to reconcile the competing priorities associated with Performance Management, think about the following guidelines:• Simplify and de-emphasize forms and process in favor of improving the quality of relationships and conversation between leaders and employees• Accommodate trends toward more virtual and flexible work and changing demographics thorough Performance Management approaches that emphasize transparency, frequency and input from a broader range of internal and external constituents• Move from a relatively narrow focus on Performance Management to a broader emphasis on Performance CulturePeople & Strategy. 2013, Vol. 36 Issue 2, p24-25. 2p.译文：绩效管理：协调竞争的优先事项Ian Ziskin来自学术界的四位HR思想领袖：在南加州大学中心所研究有效组织的John Boudreau、在康奈尔大学高级人力资源研究中心工作的Chris Collins、在南卡罗来纳大学摩尔商学院的Pat Wright以及在密歇根大学和RBL集团工作的Dave Ulrich，与Ian总裁（掌管Excel集团有限责任公司、董事会成员、HR人员和策略）从事绩效管理事务。
员工对绩效考核系统的感知外文文献翻译最新译文
员工对绩效考核系统的感知外文文献翻译最新译文The ___ can only stay ahead of their rivals by being innovative。
and a key aspect of this is having a valid and accurate performance appraisal system (PAS) in place to rate employee performance (Armstrong。
2003.Bohlander & Snell。
2004)。
However。
it is ___ (___。
2003).2.___Aperformanceappraisalsystem(PAS)___ Dessler (2005)。
___ and potential。
The PAS is a critical tool in the human resource management process that ___ weaknesses。
and to provide feedback on how employees can improve their performance。
It also helps to align employee performance with the overall goals of the n (Dessler。
2005.Armstrong。
2003).3.___This ___ research method that involves the n and analysis of data from a single case or a small number of cases (Yin。
2003)。
A purposive sampling technique was used to select participants for the study。
绩效考核中英文对照外文翻译文献
绩效考核中英文对照外文翻译文献(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)绩效考核与员工满意摘要：绩效考核通常也称为业绩考评或“考绩”，是针对企业中每个职工所承担的工作，应用各种科学的定性定量的方法，对职工行为的实际效果及其对企业的贡献或价值进行考评。
绩效考核作为一种有效的企业管理手段，在企业管理中发挥着非常重要的作用，是企业人力资源管理的核心。
本文对当前我国绩效考核中存在的问题做了详细的分析。
针对问题，文章提出从绩效考核的各个角度进行控制，从而确保绩效考核高效到位，最终发挥人力资源管理的作用。
关键词：绩效考核问题分析建议21世纪是知识经济时代，随着经济竞争的加剧，人们越来越认识到人力资源是当今时代经济发展的第一资源。
随着人力资源管理在中国企业的发展的日趋成熟,绩效管理作为人力资源管理的重要组成部分在企业内部的地位也越发重要。
绩效考核是人力资源管理的核心问题之一，是保障并促进企业内部管理机制有序运转，实现企业各项经营管理目标所必须进行的一种管理行为。
美国组织行为学家约翰·伊凡斯维其认为，绩效考核可以达到以下八个方面的目的：为员工的晋升、降职、调职和离职进行评估；组织对员工的绩效考评的反馈；对员工和团队对组织的贡献进行评估；为员工的薪酬决策提供依据；对招聘选择和工作分配的决策进行评估；了解员工和团队的培训和教育的需要；了解员工和团队的培训和教育的需要；对工作计划、预算评估和人力资源规划提供信息。
绩效考核是企业管理员工的有效手段,也是主要途径,在企业管理中具有不可替代的核心地位。
但是,现在有很多企业的绩效考核与企业的发展策略相脱节,企业绩效考核体系也只是一个空壳而已,根本达不到对员工进行考核的目的,甚至还适得其反,导致人才流失。
因此，对企业的绩效考核工作进行分析，找出存在的问题，并解决这些问题成为企业势在必行的工作。
1当前绩效考核中存在问题及原因分析1.1对绩效考核的认识不充分（1）认为绩效考核只是人力资源部的事。
企业绩效评估外文文献翻译2009年译文3000多字
文献出处：Sellers R, Nicolau J L. Assessing performance in services: the travel agency industry [J]. The Service Industries Journal, 2009, 29(5): 653-667.（声明：本译文归百度文库所有，完整译文请到百度文库。
）原文The Assessing performance of Enterprise: The Case of travel agencyindustrySellers；NicolauAbstractThe aim of this article is to compare different approaches to the evaluation of economic performance in tourism. For the first time in tourism, this article simultaneously applies traditional productivity measures as well as parametric and non-parametric techniques to estimate efficiency and compares the results obtained. The empirical application is carried out on a sample of 567 travel agencies operating in Spain in 2004. The results reveal important differences depending on the methodology employed. Overall, none of the methodologies can be said to be better than the rest. These results highlight the importance of considering different approaches when evaluating performance in tourism.Keywords: firm performance; profitability; productivity; efficiency; travel agenciesIntroductionThe assessment of performance is a critical component of the management process in any type of organisation. Business performance is recognised as a multi-dimensional construct, as it covers diverse purposes and types of organisations/levels (Lewin & Minton, 1986). The single output to input ratios, such as return on investment (ROI) andreturn on sales (ROS) may be used as indices to characterise financial performance. However, conventional referents of performance, whether they are measures of profitability, such as ROI, or productivity, are unsatisfactory discriminants of ‘excellence’(Chakravarthy,1986), as a company's performance is a complex phenomenon requiring more than a single criterion to characterise it (Zhu, 2000).Furthermore, growing competitiveness and the globalisation of markets in recent years have given rise to an economic environment where it is becoming increasingly difficult for companies to survive. In this context, efficiency and productivity have become important issues for managers, both in the manufacturing and service sectors, as the analyses of these can be useful to evaluate firm performance. However, although the service sector's size and importance has grown in the past 20 years, productivity have not grown as fast in the service sector as in the manufacturing sector (Van Biema & Greenwald, 1997).Particularly, this article analyses the tourism sector, given the importance that tourism has in the service industry. In the tourism sector, travel agencies are of course mindful of the need to manage the productivity and the efficiency of their business. However, the larger publicly quoted travel agencies tend to avoid aggregate economic approaches to the measurement of productivity in favor of firm level financial or operating measures that are meaningful to investors and stakeholders. While smaller and unquoted travel agencies have fewer stakeholders to convince, they similarly rely upon a relatively common set of operating and performance ratios (Reynolds, Howard, Dragun, Rosewell, & Ormerod,2005).This article reviews some of the methods proposed to estimate economic performance in tourism. The methodology applied is based on traditional profitability and productivity measures as well as parametricand non-parametric techniques to evaluate efficiency. The empirical application is carried out on a sample of 567 travel agencies operating in the Spanish tourist distribution sector in 2004.The remainder of the article is organised as follows. The second section reviews the previous literature in this field. The third describes the methodology and sample used. In the fourth section, the results obtained are shown. Finally, the conclusions of the study, the limitations of the paper and future research possibilities are presented in the fifth section.Literature reviewTo evaluate performance in tourism, several approaches have been proposed. Among these proposals, productivity and efficiency analyses have become very important in recent years. However, although the terms productivity and efficiency have been used interchangeably, this is unfortunate because they are not exactly the same thing. The most common interpretation in marketing and economics is expressed by Bucklin (1978) and Ingene (1982), who state that: ‘The ratio of total productivity is the quotient of all outputs to all inputs. The ratio of partial productivity is the quotient of all outputs to a single input’. In this sense, productivity indexes are calculated by inserting numbers into predetermined formulas or ratios and do not take into account the performance of other retail outlets. As an alternative, relative efficiency is a new approach to the measurement of retail productivity, which focuses on an outlet relative to the best performers rather than the average performers as with the traditional absolute measures.Studies of tourism efficiency analysis can be classified on the method employed. Most of them, use the data envelopment analysis (DEA) non-parametric method (Anderson, Fok, & Scott, 2000; Anderson, Lewis, & Parker, 1999a; Barros, 2005a, 2005b; Bell & Morey, 1995; Chiang, Tsai,& Wang,2004; Hwang & Chang, 2003; Morey & Dittman, 1995; Reynolds, 2003).A few of them are based on parametric techniques (Anderson et al., 1999a; Anderson, Fish, Xia, & Michello, 1999b; Barros, 2004; Barros & Matías, 2006; Coelli, Perelman, & Romano, 1999; Weng & Wang, 2006). Regarding the function utilised, studies rely on both Translog function (e.g. Anderson et al., 1999b; Weng & Wang, 2006) and Cobb–Douglas function (e.g. Barros, 2004; Barros & Matias, 2006).It is important to note that, in spite of the important role travel agencies play in marketing tourism products, most of efficiency analyses in tourism focus on the hotel industry (in particular, from the USA, Portugal and Taiwan). These studies use microeconomic data and consider lodging establishments of one hotel chain by employing multiple inputs and outputs. Also, they mostly apply a cross-section sample from 1 year, while studies that use samples from several years estimate productivity through Malmquist productivity index based on the non-parametric DEA technique (Barros, 2005a; Barros & Alves, 2004; Hwang & Chang, 2003), or through a parametric frontier that takes into account the possible technical change by introducing a time variable (Barros, 2004; Coelli et al., 1999). Finally, there exists a great variety of variables used in tourism efficiency analysis due to the availability of information on travelagents' inputs and outputs. MethodologyThe methodology employed to reach the goal of this article is divided into three stages.In the first stage, profitability and productivity indexes are estimated. To estimate profitability, traditional indexes such as returns on capital employed (ROCE), returns on assets (ROA) and returns on investment (ROI) are employed. Furthermore, two specific ratios employed to estimate the productivity in travelagencies are computed (i.e. salesper employee and sales per outlet).In the second stage of the methodology, both parametric and non-parametric models are employed to estimate efficiency. The basic difference between them is that the parametric models specify a functional relationship between the inputs employed and the outputs obtained, whereas in the non-parametric models no functional relationship is considered. Gong and Sickles (1992) show that neither technique uniformly dominates the other. First, a stochastic frontier production function is estimated. In this parametric model, a production function is specified, which defines output as a function of a given set of inputs. The stochastic element of this model allows some observations to lie above the production function, and accounts for measurement error and other random factors (Coelli, Prasada, & Battese,1998).ResultsIn this section, profitability and productivity indexes as well as efficiency estimates are computed.As can be seen, for the sample analysed, the mean profitability ratios are: ROA = 4.08%, ROCE = 18.722% and ROI = 11.567%. Regarding the productivity indexes, the results show that the average amount sold per employee in thousands of euros is 248.361; whereas the average amount sold per outlet is 486,827€.It also shows the mean efficiency estimates of the firms analysed using both parametric and non-parametric techniques. The estimated mean efficiency with the stochastic parametric frontier is 0.703, which indicates that there is considerable inefficiency in the Spanish tourist distribution sector. This result implies that, on average, the firms considered could have obtained 29.7% more output using the same resources. With the aim of examining the nature of the existing returns to scale. Additionally, the constant returns to scale (CRS) and VRS output-orientedDEA frontiers are estimated for the same number of retailers and the same output and input variables as for the stochastic production frontier. The mean technical efficiencies obtained for the VRS and CRS DEA frontiers are 0.548 and 0.633, respectively. Thus, the DEA analysis also reveals substantial productive inefficiency in the Spanish retail system. The mean SE for the sample analysed is 0.866. This result suggests that most of the deviation from the efficiency frontier is due to poor use of inputs and, to a lesser extent, to companies not operating at optimum size. Under the VRS model, 44 of the 567 firms analysed are fully efficient, while in terms of the CRS model 31 firms are fully efficient.Conclusions and implications for managementSeveral approaches can be found in the literature for measuring economic performance in the tourism industry. In this article, some of the most relevant approaches proposed are compared and employed to analyze the performance of the Spanish travel agency sector.While some of them allow the inclusion of multi-output performance measures, others are restricted to single outputs. Overall, none of the methodologies can be said to be better than the rest. The most appropriate methodology depends on the characteristics of the production process and the aim and scope of the analysis.In general, the application of these techniques has important implications in tourism. First of all, performance analysis is useful to the management of the retailers themselves (Sinigaglia et al., 1995). At a horizontal level, the measurement of productivity is important in the strategic management of companies in the sector, as it facilitates the realization of strategic benchmarking analysis. Basically, the process of benchmarking requires the measurement of the difference between the current performance level of an organization and the best practically possible level, in order to subsequently identify the underlying causesof each difference, the most important of which are management style, organizational structure and product quality, among others (Camp, 1989).Furthermore, the analysis of the efficiency of travel agencies also favors the management of service producers (Sinigaglia et al., 1995), as it allows them to identify intermediaries that efficiently use their resources to bring their products to the market. In this sense, efficiency becomes an orientation criterion for the choice of vertical relationships in the distribution channel (Holloway & Robinson, 1995). Traditionally, the criteria for the choice of distributors have been economic, in terms of the costs and incomes of each option; and strategic, considering market coverage, flexibility of adaptation to environmental changes or control over the actions of the intermediary. Along with these aspects, we should consider the efficiency with which intermediaries operate (Bultez & Parsons, 1998), given that it determines, to some extent, the capacity of the intermediary to comply with its primary function of serving the market.This article is not without limitations. Given the fact that we only analyze one of the players in the distribution channel, the generalization of the conclusions of the study to the whole sector should be made with caution. Therefore, the scope of the results obtained in this study should only be considered at the level of the retail format analyzed.Finally, future research lines should be directed towards considering other aspects such as the quality of the services provided, customer satisfaction or the interaction with the external environment, which are of great importance when evaluating firm performance.译文企业绩效评估：以旅行社为例塞勒斯；里卡多; 尼古拉摘要本文的研究目的是为了比较旅游社绩效的不同评估方法。
毕业论文外文翻译-效考核与员工激励
The performance inspection and drive mechanismHuman resources as the modern enterprise of a kind of strategic resources, has become the most important factor for enterprise development. In the human resources management of numerous content, incentive question is one important content of. Incentive scientific or not, relates directly to the stand or fall of human resource use. Many enterprises have a brain drain phenomenon, cannot keep talents restricts enterprise development has become one of the important factors. Effective incentive is the key to this question. Any enterprise is by the people to manage, and be in enterprise middleman's enthusiasm height, is crucial to the success of the enterprise decision factors. So, for companies to, its vigorous vitality from the employee's infinite vigor, how to motivate employees of energy? Must on employees effective incentive. Therefore, the enterprise human resources management core is to incentive mechanism as lever, arousing the enthusiasm of the employees, initiative.Managers deal with employees at issue, must have a fair mind, should not have any prejudices and preferences. Although some staff may allow you to enjoy, some you do not enjoy, but at work, must be treated equally and should not have any of the words and acts of injustice.1 Stimulate the transfer of staff from the results of equal to equal opportunities and strive to create a level playing field.For example, Wu Shihong at IBM from a clean start with the people, step by step to the sales clerk to the district person in charge, General Manager of China, what are the reasons for this? In addition to individual efforts, but also said that IBM should be a good corporate culture to a stage of development, that is, everyone has unlimited opportunities for development, as long as there is capacity there will be space for the development of self-implementation, which is to do a lot of companies are not, this system will undoubtedly inspire a great role of the staff.2 Inspire the best time to grasp.- Takes aim at pre-order incentive the mission to advance incentives.- Have Difficulties employees, desire to have strong demand, to give the care and timely encouragement.3 Want a fair and accurate incentive, reward- Sound, perfect performance appraisal system to ensure appropriate assessment scale, fair and reasonable.- Have to overcome there is thinning of the human pro-wind.- In reference salary, promotions, awards, etc.involve the vital interests of employees on hot issues in order to be fair.4 The implementation of Employee Stock Ownership Plan.Workers and employees in order to double the capacity of investors, more concerned about the outcome of business operations and improve the initiative.Modern human resources management experience and research shows that employees are involved in modern management requirements and aspirations, and create and provideopportunities for all employees is to mobilize them to participate in the management of an effective way to enthusiasm. There is no doubt that very few people participated in the discussions of the act and its own without incentives. Therefore, to allow trade unions to participate in the management of properly, can motivate workers, but also the success of the enterprise to obtain valuable knowledge. Through participation, the formation of trade unions on the enterprise a sense of belonging, identity, self-esteem and can further meet the needs of self-realization. Set up and improve employee participation in management, the rationalization of the proposed system and the Employee Stock Ownership and strengthening leadership at all levels and the exchange of communication and enhance the awareness of staff to participate in ownership.5 Honor incentiveStaff attitude and contribution of labor to honor rewards, such as recognition of the meeting, issued certificate, honor roll, in the company's internal and external publicity on the media reports, home visits condolences, visit sightseeing, convalescence, training out of training, access to recommend honor society, selected stars model, such as class.6 Concerned about the incentivesThe staff concerned about work and life, such as the staff set up the birthday table, birthday cards, general manager of the issue of staff, care staff or difficult and presented a small gift sympathy.7 CompetitiveThe promotion of enterprise among employees, departments compete on an equal footing between the orderly and the survival of the fittest.8 The material incentivesIncrease their wages, welfare, insurance, bonuses, incentive houses, daily necessities, wages promotion.9 Information incentivesEnterprises to communicate often, information among employees, the idea of communication, information such as conferences, field release, enterprises reported that the reporting system, the association manager to receive the system date.绩效考核与员工激励人力资源作为现代企业的一种战略性资源，已经成为企业发展的最关键因素。
- 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)。
绩效考核外文文献及翻译
外文文献 1.Performance appraisals - purpose and how to make it easier Performance appraisals are essential for the effective management and evaluation of staff. Appraisals help develop individuals, improve organizational performance, and feed into business planning. Formal performance appraisals are generally conducted annually for all staff in the organization. His or
her line manager appraises each staff member. Directors are appraised by the CEO, who is appraised by the chairman or company owners, depending on the size and structure of the organization. Annual performance appraisals enable management and monitoring of standards, agreeing expectations and objectives, and delegation of responsibilities and tasks. Staff performance appraisals also establish individual training needs and enable organizational training needs analysis and planning. Performance appraisals also typically feed into organizational annual pay and grading reviews, which commonly also coincide with the business planning for the next trading year. Performance appraisals generally review each individual's performance against objectives and standards for the trading year, agreed at the previous appraisal meeting. Performance appraisals are also essential for career and succession planning - for individuals, crucial jobs, and for the organization as a whole. Performance appraisals are important for staff motivation, attitude and behavior development, communicating and aligning individual and organizational aims, and fostering positive relationships between management and staff. Performance appraisals provide a formal, recorded, regular review of an individual's performance, and a plan for future development. Job performance appraisals - in whatever form they take - are therefore vital for managing the performance of people and organizations. Managers and appraises commonly dislike appraisals and try to avoid them. To these people the appraisal is daunting and time-consuming. The process is seen as a difficult administrative chore and emotionally challenging. The annual appraisal is maybe the only time since last year that the two people have sat down together for a meaningful one-to-one discussion. No wonder then that appraisals are stressful - which then defeats the whole purpose. Appraisals are much easier, and especially more relaxed, if the boss meets each of the team members individually and regularly for one-to-one discussion throughout the year. Meaningful regular discussion about work, career, aims, progress, development, hopes and dreams, life, the universe, the TV, common interests, etc., whatever, makes appraisals so much easier because people then know and trust each other - which reduces all the stress and the uncertainty. Put off discussions and of course they loom very large. So don't wait for the annual appraisal to sit down and talk. The boss or the appraises can instigate this. If
you are an employee with a shy boss, then take the lead. If you are a boss who rarely sits down
and talks with people - or whose people are not used to talking with their boss - then set about relaxing the atmosphere and improving relationships. Appraisals (and work) all tend to be easier when people communicate well and know each other. So sit down together and talk as often as
you can, and then when the actual formal appraisals are due everyone will find the whole process
to be far more natural, quick, and easy - and a lot more productive too. 2.Appraisals, social responsibility and whole-person development There is increasingly a need for performance appraisals of staff and especially managers, directors and CEO's, to include accountabilities relating to corporate responsibility, represented by various converging corporate responsibility concepts including: the “Triple Bottom Line”; c orporate social responsibility (CSR); Sustainability; corporate integrity and ethics; Fair Trade, etc. The organization must decide the extent to which these accountabilities are reflected in job responsibilities, which would then。