人力资源管理绩效管理外文翻译文献
人力资源英文文献
人力资源英文文献以下是一些关于人力资源的英文文献： 1. "Human resource management: A contemporary perspective" by David A. DeCenzo and Stephen P. Robbins 2. "The practice of human resource management" by Gary Dessler 3. "Strategic human resource management" by John Bratton and Jeffrey Gold 4. "Human resource management in a global context" by International Labour Office 5. "Employee recruitment, selection, and assessment" by Michael A. Zeiss and Gary R. Lichtenstein 6. "Training and development for human resource management" by Gary Dessler 7. "Compensation management for human resource management" by Joseph J. Martocchio 8. "Performance management for human resource management" by Robert L. Mathis and John H. Jackson 9. "Employee relations: A practical guide" by Carole P. Beaton and Susan M. Keaton 10. "HR from the outside in: Six competitive strategies for attracting, developing, and retaining top talent" by John Boudreau and Peter M. Ramstad 这些文献涵盖了人力资源管理的各个方面，包括招聘、培训、绩效管理、薪酬管理、员工关系等。
人力资源管理论文中英文对照资料外文翻译文献
中英文对照资料外文翻译文献原文：New Competencies for HRWhat does it take to make it big in HR? What skills and expertise do you need? Since 1988, Dave Ulrich, professor of business administration at the University of Michigan, and his associates have been on a quest to provide the answers. This year, they’ve released an all-new 2007 Human Resource Competency Study (HRCS). The findings and interpretations lay out professional guidance for HR for at least the next few years.“People want to know what set of skills h igh-achieving HR people need to perform even better,” says Ulrich, co-director of the project along with Wayne Brockbank, also a professor of business at the University of Michigan.Conducted under the auspices of the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan and The RBL Group in Salt Lake City, with regional partners including the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) in North America and other institutions in Latin America, Europe, China and Australia, HRCS is the longest-running, most extensive global HR competency study in existence. “In reaching our conclusions, we’ve looked across more than 400 companies and are able to report with statistical accuracy what HR executives say and do,” Ulrich says.“The research continues to demonstr ate the dynamic nature of the human resource management profession,” says SHRM President and CEO Susan R.Meisinger, SPHR. “The findings also highlight what an exciting time it is to be in the profession. We continue to have the ability to really add value to an organization.”“HRCS is foundational work that is really important to HR as a profession,” says Cynthia McCague, senior vice president of the Coca-Cola Co., who participated in the study. “They have created and continue to enhance a framework for t hinking about how HR drives organizational performance.”What’s NewResearchers identified six core competencies that high-performing HR professionals embody. These supersede the five competencies outlined in the 2002 HRCS—the last study published—reflecting the continuing evolution of the HR profession. Each competency is broken out into performance elements.“This is the fifth round, so we can look at past models and compare where the profession is going,” says Evren Esen, survey program manager at SHR M, which provided the sample of HR professionals surveyed in North America. “We can actually see the profession changing. Some core areas remain the same, but others, based on how the raters assess and perceive HR, are new.” (For more information, see “The Competencies and Their Elements,” at right.)To some degree, the new competencies reflect a change in nomenclature or a shuffling of the competency deck. However, there are some key differences.Five years ago, HR’s role in managing culture was embedded within a broader competency. Now its importance merits a competency of its own. Knowledge of technology, a stand-alone competency in 2002, now appears within Business Ally. In other instances, the new competencies carry expectations that promise to change the way HR views its role. For example, the Credible Activist calls for HR to eschew neutrality and to take a stand—to practice the craft “with an attitude.”To put the competencies in perspective, it’s helpful to view them as a three-tier pyramid with Credible Activist at the pinnacle.Credible Activist.This competency is the top indicator in predicting overall outstanding performance, suggesting that mastering it should be a priority. “You’ve got to be good at all of them, but, no question, [this comp etency] is key,” Ulrich says. “But you can’t be a Credible Activist without having all the other competencies. In a sense, it’s the whole package.”“It’s a deal breaker,” agrees Dani Johnson, project manager of the Human Resource Competency Study at The R BL Group in Salt Lake City. “If you don’t come to the table with it, you’re done. It permeates everything you do.”The Credible Activist is at the heart of what it takes to be an effective HR leader. “The best HR people do not hold back; they step forward and advocate for their position,” says Susan Harmansky, SPHR, senior director of domestic restaurant operations for HR at Papa John’s International in Louisville, Ky., and former chair of the Human Resource Certification Institute. “CEOs are not waiting f or HR to come in with options—they want your recommendations; they want you to speak from your position as an expert, similar to what you see from legal or finance executives.”“You don’t want to be credible without being an activist, because essentially you’re worthless to the business,” Johnson says. “People like you, but you have no impact. On the other hand, you don’t want to be an activist without being credible. You can be dangerous in a situation like that.”Below Credible Activist on the pyramid is a cluster of three competencies: Cultural Steward, Talent Manager/Organizational Designer and Strategy Architect.Cultural Steward. HR has always owned culture. But with Sarbanes-Oxley and other regulatory pressures, and CEOs relying more on HR to manage culture, this is the first time it has emerged as an independent competency. Of the six competencies,Cultural Steward is the second highest predictor of performance of both HR professionals and HR departments.Talent Manager/Organizational Designer. Talent management focuses on how individuals enter, move up, across or out of the organization. Organizational design centers on the policies, practices and structure that shape how the organization works. Their linking reflects Ulrich’s belief that HR may be placing too much emphasis on talent acquisition at the expense of organizational design. Talent management will not succeed in the long run without an organizational structure that supports it.Strategy Architect. Strategy Architects are able to recognize business trends and their impact on the business, and to identify potential roadblocks and opportunities. Harmansky, who recently joined Papa John’s, demonstrates how the Strategy Architect competency helps HR contribute to the overall business strategy. “In my first months here, I’m spending a lot of time traveling, going to see stores all over the country. Every time I go to a store, while my counterparts of the management team are talking about [operational aspects], I’m talking to the people who work there. I’m trying to find out what the issues are surrounding people. How do I develop them? I’m looking for my business differentiator on the people side so I can contribute to the strategy.”When Charlease Deathridge, SPHR, HR manager of McKee Foods in Stuarts Draft, Va., identified a potential roadblock to implementing a new management philosophy, she used the Strategy Architect competency. “When we were rolling out ‘lean manufacturing’ principles at our location, we administered an employee satisfaction survey to assess how the workers viewed the new system. The satisfaction scores were lower than ideal. I showed [management] how a negative could become a positive, how we could use the data and follow-up surveys as a strategic tool to demonstrate progre ss.”Anchoring the pyramid at its base are two competencies that Ulrich describes as “table stakes—necessary but not sufficient.” Except in China, where HR is at an earlier stage in professional development and there is great emphasis on transactional activities, these competencies are looked upon as basic skills that everyone must have. There is some disappointing news here. In the United States, respondents rated significantly lower on these competencies than the respondents surveyed in other countries.Business Ally. HR contributes to the success of a business by knowing how it makes money, who the customers are, and why they buy the company’s products and services. For HR professionals to be Business Allies (and Credible Activists and Strategy Architec ts as well), they should be what Ulrich describes as “business literate.” The mantra about understanding the business—how it works, the financials and strategic issues—remains as important today as it did in every iteration of the survey the past 20 years. Yet progress in this area continues to lag.“Even these high performers don’t know the business as well as they should,” Ulrich says. In his travels, he gives HR audiences 10 questions to test their business literacy.Operational Executor. These skills tend to fall into the range of HR activities characterized as transactional or “legacy.” Policies need to be drafted, adapted and implemented. Employees need to be paid, relocated, hired, trained and more. Every function here is essential, but—as with the Business Ally competency—high-performing HR managers seem to view them as less important and score higher on the other competencies. Even some highly effective HR people may be running a risk in paying too little attention to these nuts-and-bolts activities, Ulrich observes.Practical ToolIn conducting debriefings for people who participated in the HRCS, Ulrich observes how delighted they are at the prescriptive nature of the exercise. The individual feedback reports they receive (see “How the Study Was Done”) offer them a road map, and they are highly motivated to follow it.Anyone who has been through a 360-degree appraisal knows that criticism can be jarring. It’s risky to open yourself up to others’ opinions when you don’t have to. Add the prospect of sharing the results with your boss and colleagues who will be rating you, and you may decide to pass. Still, it’s not surprising that highly motivated people like Deathridge jumped at the chance for the free feedback.“All of it is not good,” says Deathridge. “You have to be willing to face up to it. You go home, work it out and say, ‘Why am I getting this bad feedback?’ ”But for Deathridge, the result s mostly confirmed what she already knew. “I believe most people know where they’re weak or strong. For me, it was most helpful to look at how close others’ ratings of me matched with my own assessments. ... There’s so much to learn about what it takes to be a genuine leader, and this study helped a lot.”Deathridge says the individual feedback report she received helped her realize the importance of taking a stand and developing her Credible Activist competency. “There was a situation where I had a line m anager who wanted to discipline someone,” she recalls. “In the past, I wouldn’t have been able to stand up as strongly as I did. I was able to be very clear about how I felt. I told him that he had not done enough to document the performance issue, and that if he wanted to institute discipline it would have to be at the lowest level. In the past, I would have been more deferential and said, ‘Let’s compromise and do it at step two or three.’ But I didn’t do it; I spoke out strongly and held my ground.”This was the second study for Shane Smith, director of HR at Coca-Cola. “I did it for the first time in 2002. Now I’m seeing some traction in the things I’ve beenworking on. I’m pleased to see the consistency with my evaluations of my performance when compare d to my raters.”What It All MeansUlrich believes that HR professionals who would have succeeded 30, 20, even 10 years ago, are not as likely to succeed today. They are expected to play new roles. To do so, they will need the new competencies.Ulrich urges HR to reflect on the new competencies and what they reveal about the future of the HR profession. His message is direct and unforgiving. “Legacy HR work is going, and HR people who don’t change with it will be gone.” Still, he remains optimistic that many in HR are heeding his call. “Twenty percent of HR people will never get it; 20 percent are really top performing. The middle 60 percent are moving in the right direction,” says Ulrich.“Within that 60 percent there are HR professionals who may be at the table but are not contributing fully,” he adds. “That’s the group I want to talk to. ... I want to show them what they need to do to have an impact.”As a start, Ulrich recommends HR professionals consider initiating three conversations. “One is with your business leaders. Review the competencies with them and ask them if you’re doing them. Next, pose the same questions to your HR team. Then, ask yourself whether you really know the business or if you’re glossing on the surface.” Finally, set your priorities. “Our data say: ‘Get working on that Credible Activist!’ ”Robert J. Grossman, a contributing editor of HR Magazine, is a lawyer and a professor of management studies at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, N.Y.from：Robert J. Grossman , HR Magazine, 2007,06译文：人力资源管理的新型胜任力如何在人力资源管理领域取得更大成功？需要怎样的专业知识和技能？从1988年开始，密歇根大学的商业管理教授Dave Ulrich先生和他的助手们就开始研究这个课题。
关于人力资源管理的外文文献
关于人力资源管理的外文文献1. Human Resource Management Practices and Workforce Diversity: A ReviewThis article explores the relationship between human resource management (HRM) practices and workforce diversity. The authors review literature on HRM practices such as recruitment, selection, training and development, performance measurement, work design, and employee relations, to examine how these practices influence the success of workforce diversity. The article highlights the need for organizations to adopt effective HRM practices that support diversity and inclusion, in order to maximize the benefits of a diverse workforce.2. The Impact of Strategic Human Resource Management on Organizational PerformanceThis study analyzes the relationship between strategic human resource management (SHRM) practices and organizational performance. The authors examine the impact of SHRM practices such as recruitment and selection, training and development, performance management, and compensation and benefits, on key organizational outcomes such as employee retention, productivity, and profitability. The study concludesthat effective SHRM practices are positively associated with organizational performance, and that organizations need to prioritize HRM strategies that support their overall business objectives.3. Managing Human Resources in the Globalizing Economy: Challenges and OpportunitiesThis article explores the challenges and opportunities presented by the globalizing economy for human resource management. The authors examine how globalization has impacted HRM practices in areas such as recruitment and selection, training and development, compensation and benefits, and employee relations. The article also highlights the importance of cultural sensitivity in managing a diverse global workforce, and the need for HR professionals to adapt to changing business environments to effectively manage human resources.4. The Role of Human Resource Management in Corporate Social ResponsibilityThis study examines the role of HRM in promoting corporate social responsibility (CSR). The authors analyze the connection between CSR and HRM practices such as recruitment, selection, training anddevelopment, and employee relations, to determine how these practices can support and enhance CSR initiatives. The article emphasizes the need for HR professionals to align their practices with CSR goals in order to promote sustainable business practices and social responsibility.5. Employee Engagement and Retention: A Review of the LiteratureThis article reviews literature on the relationship between employee engagement and retention. The authors examine the factors that contribute to employee engagement, such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and leadership, and how these factors can impact employee retention. The article also highlights the importance of effective HRM practices in enhancing employee engagement and retention, and provides recommendations for organizations seeking to improve their retention rates through engagement-focused HRM strategies.。
绩效管理 外文翻译 外文文献 中英翻译
绩效管理外文翻译外文文献中英翻译____________________________________________________________________ ________________________ Performance management-how to appraise employee performance AbstractPerformance appraisal is an important content of human resource management in modern enterprises. According to the problems existing at the present stage Chinese enterprise performance evaluation, put forward the improvement measures to improve the performance appraisal. Performance management is the responsibility between managers and employees and improve the communication performance of the ongoing. The partners should understand why they become partners, thereby supporting the work. Performance evaluation is a part of performance management, do not confuse the twoIntroductionChallenges of performance managementReasons to avoid performance management: Manager: reports and program has no meaning; no time; afraid of conflict; feedback and observation. (performance management, prevent problems in investment in time, ensure the managers have the time to do the thing you should do staff: bad experience; what was about to happen no bottom; do not understand the significance of performance management; don't like received criticism. Criterion two, performance management,organizational success: 1 Factors: coordination among units means,towards a common goal; problem, find the problems, find problems or prevent problems; obey the law, be protected by the law; make major decisions, a way of getting information; improve the quality of staff,to make the organization more competitive., performance management of organization,must be useful to managers, the only reason of performance management is to help employees to success. to understand better how to design and what made him act. , the performance management challenge is how to find practical,meaningful ways to finish it, which need thought and wisdom.Performance management is a systemThe performance plan -- starting point of performancemanagement:employees and managers to work together, as employees do what, do what degree of problem identification, understanding.Continuous performance communication: both tracking____________________________________________________________________________________________ progress, find the obstacles that affect performance and process so that the two sides success required information. Communication methods: (1) around were observed;(2)employees; (3) allow employees to work review;Performance diagnosis: to identify individuals, departments and organizational performance by the real reason for the problem of communication and problem solving process.Performance management is a small system in the large system. If you want to get the maximum profit, must complete the performance management process,and not a part of.Performance management and strategic planning, budget,staff ,employee salary incentive system, improve the quality of plans are related. Do the performance management process to do the preparation of 1, there are two key points: with the staff to collect meaningful, to establish the information needed to measurable goals; to do some basic work, so that in the whole process of performance management and employee can fully cooperation. In part, access to information and data of performance management effect is it can help organizations, units and employees towards a direction some "target"information each employee's job description; (2) employee last performance review data and related documents.The performance plan three steps: preparation, meeting, finalize plans. your job, you should do what, how to measure your success, sets threat mosphere and seize the key; to review the relevant information, ask more,talk less; the job duties and specific goal; determine the success criteria; discuss what are the difficulties and need what help; discuss the importance level and authorized to ask problem; 4, note: in the performance management process, should pay attention to communication with staff thought is the action guide, to carry out effective performance communication, we must pay attention to in the thought. All aspects of the performance communication throughout theperformance cycle, plays an important role in any one link in the chain, leaving the performance communication, any unilateral decisions managers will affect the enthusiasm of the staff, performance management. No performance communication there is no performance management. In orderto make the performance management on the right track, truly play its role,enterprises must____________________________________________________________________________________________ put the supervisor and employee performance communication as a priority among priorities to research and development, through the system specification, performance management become competent habit, the habit of employees, to solve the performance problem employees work for dialogue and exchanges, the performance management into effect.Three methods of performance evaluation: Predicament 1, individual performance evaluation --: the best opera actor and amateur orchestra concert.The opera actors play the extreme, but the effect is very bad. No one is isolated,only focus on the individual, can not solve the problem. We call on an individual basis on employee performance evaluation, but if we emphasize individual performance but not the antecedents and consequences and conditions of performance, we do not progress, because we did not find the real reason -- may be because employees can not control things and punish employees, may also be because of the wrong reason 2, regardless of the what way to assess performance, avoid two traps are important: 1) don't do performanceproblems or"always the fault of employees" this hypothesis; 2) without any assessment can give the "why" and "what is happening in the picture". Evaluation is just the beginning, is a further discussion as well as the starting point of diagnosis. Three methods of performance evaluation: 3, 1) rating method:: features, to and behavior project; identify each project performance level gauge and other ways. Advantages: easy tofinish the work of assessment. Disadvantages:forget why do this work;too vague, in the performance plan, prevention,protection and development staff and so did not what role in improving methods:with employees regularly write brief conversation; evaluation; interpretation and evaluation project meaning; together with the staff rating 2)ranking method:forcing staff to compete with each other, havestimulation can be short term, long term may cause internal malicious competition. 3) target and standard evaluation method: Standard: according to the prior and employees a series of established criteria to measure the performance of employees. Advantages: the personal goals and work together to reduce the possibility of target; both sidesdisagree;defect: need more time; text work more; more energy.Communication method and communication technology____________________________________________________________________________________________Way of thinking: the process of performance management is theprocess of communication.Relationship with the staff is not onlyreflected in the behavior on performance management, but also shouldreflect the daily and how successful way of thinking: A, the process of performance management is a complete process together with the staff, not a for staff B, except for some unilateral disciplinary action, performance plan, communication and assessment should adopt a cooperative mode; C, most of the staff, once you understand what they are asked to do things, will try the method can meet the requirements D,performance management is not the purpose of staring past mistakes, clear posibility, but in the problem solving problems and possible e, performance deficit to be clear, the cause of the deficit, whether for personal reasons or the system reason; F, in most cases, if the manager will support staff as their work,so that each employee 2, must set some skills communication skills: Manager here guide employees to participate in the discussion process and understand the process of responsibility. Purpose: don't most probably it did not actually happen. Be prepared to establish a common responsibility and each stage all contribute to the relationship, the target. Clear the common responsibility: to improve the performance is not only the responsibility of the staff. Clear procedures: prevent conflict resolution skills: clear individual responsibility, invites employees to take advice. For the people of the criticism and comments: avoid if you don't listen, you don't know what you talking about,could you be quiet for a while, you read the report in the past did not remarks:avoid such as how many years, you always can't finish the job on time, we have ried that, there is no with the need need making guide guilty intent: to avoid if you really care about theteam, you should work harder; I guess you don't care about this project not appropriate advice and sure: avoid as I know the project is late,but I'm sure you'll catch up; you will do well. You will understand the need,need to unsolicited advice and sure: avoid you must do it; this is the only way; to finish this today, and put it on my desk. A provocative question: Why did you say those who avoid. What you think; is the needto need; what is you get this conclusion? Don't trust to avoid language: are you sure you can finish on time?I've heard you need to exaggerate these need: avoid you never finish the work on time; you always try to reject my proposal. The cooling technique of fierce debate.____________________________________________________________________________________________The performance of a, discuss the process of dispute, we should pay attention to two goals: must make suggestions on conflict; avoid damage relations, cause new problems in the future performance. B, give employees a vent frustration and anger for feeling, not very fastcounter attack. C, remember the people when they do appear conflict. D, the way of handling conflicts: conflicts through persuasion, won theright to try to understand the means; staff positions, find a solution. E, conflict is the most effective treatment technology is active listening.F, and be confused in mind or angry employees dealing, the basic principle is the first concern of his emotional. G, disputes arise, request the dispute settle ment measures, but never from the subject. H, too excited, communication should be suspended.The performance of communication is the core of performance management, is refers to between the employers and employees performance evaluation reflects the problems and evaluation mechanism itself to conduct substantive interviews,and tries to seek countermeasures, a management method for service in the later stage of enterprise and employee performance, improve and enhance the.A process of performance management is on the lower level on the performance target setting and implementation and ongoing two-way communication.____________________________________________________________________ ________________________绩效管理——如何考评员工表现摘要绩效考核是现代企业人力资源管理的重要内容。
浅谈人力资源管理中的绩效考核管理中英文翻译
浅谈人力资源管理中的绩效考核管理中英文翻译Introduction to human resource management in the performance appraisal management in both Chinese and English translation摘要：人力资源管理已经随着时代的发展在企事业单位所占的位置越来越重要，企事业单位的发展无处不需要员工的劳动和贡献，在以人为本的社会体制下，要对人力资源进行有效的管理就需要建立良好的绩效管理制度，通过绩效考核来促进企业内部人力资源的良性发展，从而最大限度上为企业的反正提供动力。
本文主要论述人力资源中的绩效管理中需要注意的问题。
Abstract: human resource management has along with the development of the era of more and more important in enterprises and institutions of the position, the development of the enterprises and institutions is not need to employees and the contribution of labor, under the social system of people-oriented, to carries on the effective management of human resources will need to set up a good performance management system, through the performance evaluation to promote the virtuous development of the enterprise internal human resources, so as to maximize the anyway, provide power for the enterprise. This paper mainly discusses problems need to pay attention to in the performance management of human resources.关键词：人力资源管理绩效考核管理策略Keywords: human resource management, performance appraisal management strategy 世界经济发展正朝着一体化方向迈进，我国的企业管理模式改革也应该紧紧跟上世界经济发展的部分，进行系统的改变，把人力资源当做发展的重中之重，通过加强人力资源管理中的绩效考核实施力度，将人力资源管理推上新的台阶，为企事业单位发展提供充足的动力保障。
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。
人力资源专业绩效考核管理方面英文文献及中文翻译
Performance assessment inquiryAbstractIn the aspect of human resource management, performance appraisal methods of diversity, in the end should adopt what kind of performance evaluation method is more reasonable, performance appraisal should be by what kind of way is easier to implement and achieve the better management results, is a question worth pondering。
This paper will focus on the types of performance assessment and its effect, analyze the types of performance assessment，and explore how to correctly and appropriately assess the performance，and do a good job in management.1。
Performance appraisals —purpose and how to make it easierPerformance appraisals are essential for the effective management and evaluation of staff。
Appraisals help develop individuals，improve organizational performance, and feed into business planning。
人力资源管理外文文献翻译
文献信息：文献标题：Challenges and opportunities affecting the future of human resource management（影响人力资源管理未来的挑战和机遇）国外作者：Dianna L. Stone，Diana L. Deadrick文献出处：《Human Resource Management Review》, 2015, 25(2):139-145 字数统计：英文3725单词，21193字符；中文6933汉字外文文献：Challenges and opportunities affecting the future of humanresource managementAbstract Today, the field of Human Resource Management (HR) is experiencing numerous pressures for change. Shifts in the economy, globalization, domestic diversity, and technology have created new demands for organizations, and propelled the field in some completely new directions. However, we believe that these challenges also create numerous opportunities for HR and organizations as a whole. Thus, the primary purposes of this article are to examine some of the challenges and opportunities that should influence the future of HR. We also consider implications for future research and practice in the field.Keywords: Future of human resource management, Globalization, Knowledge economy Diversity, Technology1.Change from a manufacturing to a service or knowledge economyOne of the major challenges influencing the future of HR processes is the change from a manufacturing to a service or knowledgebased economy. This new economy is characterized by a decline in manufacturing and a growth in service or knowledge as the core of the economic base. A service economy can be defined as a system based on buying and selling of services or providing something for others (OxfordDictionary, 2014a). A knowledge economy is referred to as the use of information or knowledge to generate tangible and intangible value (Business Dictionary, 2014a). Some economists argue that service activities are now dominating the economies of industrialized nations, and knowledge-intensive services or businesses are considered a subset of the overall service economy (Anderson & Corley, 2003).The rise of the knowledge economy has placed new demands on organizations and prompted changes in organizational goals and HR practices. Many of the traditional HR processes were designed during the industrial era, and thus focused largely on manufacturing organizations that were concerned with converting raw materials, components, and parts into finished goods that meet customers' expectations. However, many of the assumptions underlying those traditional HR processes may not be effective with the new service or knowledge organizations. For example, traditional HR practices assume that jobs should be narrowly defined, supervisors should control workers, and efficiency and short term results should be emphasized (Trice & Beyer, 1993). In contrast, knowledge organizations stress that employees' knowledge and skills have a major impact on organizational success, and employee retention is important because individuals' skills are not substitutable.Knowledge organizations also tend to design jobs broadly so as to encourage innovation, autonomy, continuous improvement, and participation in decision making. Given that individuals with unique skills and abilities are essential in knowledge organizations, the new job requirements have created a shortage and increased competition for talented workers in many fields (e.g., software engineering, nursing). Additionally, the change in the economy has resulted in the displacement and unemployment of people who do not have the skills needed for knowledge-oriented jobs (e.g., Bell, Berry, Marquardt, & Green, 2013; Karren & Sherman, 2012). These changes imply that nations need to alter their educational systems to meet job demands in new organizations (Gowan, 2012). The goals of knowledge organizations should continue to bring about changes in HR processes in the future (e.g., Schuler, Jackson, Jackofsky, & Slocum, 1996). For instance, it can be expected that HR practices will employ broad based recruiting to ensure that they uncover skilledapplicants, design jobs to emphasize autonomy and participation in decision-making, use team oriented structures to enhance collaboration and innovation, stress training and employee skill development, and provide incentives that foster employee identification, innovation, and retention. HR will need to shift its emphasis to employee retention, and meeting the varied needs of knowledge workers. Some of these new practices have already been implemented in organizations, but many organizations still use HR practices that do not support knowledge-oriented organizational goals. Future HR processes will need to be modified if knowledge organizations are to be successful. Research will also be needed to examine the effectiveness of these new practices.Although we considered the new knowledge economy as a challenge for HR in organizations, it can also be viewed as an opportunity for change. Given that the skills and abilities of knowledge workers are key to the success of new organizations, the transformation to a knowledge economy provides opportunities for the HR function to become a priority in organizations. As a result, we believe that HR will become more of a critical function in organizations, and the field should be viewed as more essential to the overall success of the organizations.2.Rise in globalizationA second factor calling for changes in HR processes is the rise in globalization. Globalization in this context refers to organizations that operate on a global or international scale (Oxford Dictionary, 2014b). Organizations operating in a global environment face a number of new challenges including differences in language and culture of employees, and variations in social, political and legal systems. Multinational corporations (MNCs) are large companies operating in several countries that are confronted with new questions, including how to create consistent HR practices in different locations, how to develop a coherent corporate culture, and how to prepare managers to work in a diverse cultural environment (Sparrow, 2007).Research on HR in the international context has focused on three approaches to understanding the issues that arise in global environments: international, comparative,and cross-cultural HR (Parry, Stavrou-Costea, & Morley, 2011). International approaches focus on HR strategies, systems, and practices in different socio-cultural contexts and different geographic territories (Parry et al., 2011). It also outlines the anatomy of MNCs, and considers the unique set of HR issues that occur in these contexts (Budhwar & Sparrow, 2002). Although researchers differ on the factors that affect HR practices in global environments, most agree that the following variables influence these systems: (a) contextual variables (such as the host country's legal system, cultural distance between host country and employees' country), (b) firm-specific variables (such as the stage of internationalization, type of industry, link between strategy and structure), and (c) situational variables (such as staff availability, need for control, locus of decision making) (e.g., Budhwar & Sparrow, 2002; Schuler, Dowling, & De Cieri, 1993; Welch,1994).Comparative HR explores the context, systems, and national patterns of HR in different countries, and discusses the idiosyncrasies of various institutions and economic environments (e.g., Aycan et al., 2000; Isenhour, Stone, & Lien, 2012a; Parry et al., 2011). Most of the research on comparative HR indicated that HR practices differ across nations, and are aligned with national cultures (Stone & Stone-Romero, 2008). Two examples of that research include a study by Schuler and Rogovsky (1998) that assessed the relations between Hofstede's national culture dimensions and the design of HR practices. These authors found that a national emphasis on individualism was positively correlated with a company's use of pay-for-performance pay systems. In addition, Gooderham, Nordhaug, and Ringdal (1999) explored cross-national differences in HR practices across European nations. Their results revealed that individualistic nations (e.g., UK, France, and Spain) were more likely to use calculative HR strategies (e.g., pay for performance) than collective nations (e.g., Scandinavian countries). Conversely, collective nations (Scandinavian countries) were more likely to use collaborative practices (e.g., employee participation) than individualistic countries (e.g., Germany, France and Spain).Finally, cross-cultural HR examines the degree to which individuals' cultural values influence the acceptance and effectiveness of HR practices (Aycan et al., 2000;Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007; Isenhour, Stone, & Lien, 2012b; Stone, Stone-Romero, & Lukaszewski, 2007). Most of the theories in HR and Organizational Behavior (OB) were developed in Western nations and assume that the cultural values of individuals in organizations are homogeneous (Gelfand et al., 2007). However, it is clear that employees' cultural values differ in U.S. and global contexts, and organizations need to align their HR processes with these cultural values (e.g., Gelfand et al., 2007; Stone & Stone-Romero, 2008). For example, cross-cultural research indicated that individuals' cultural values shape their reward preferences, and their reactions to negative feedback (e.g., Gelfand et al., 2007; Joshi & Martocchio, 2008; Stone, Johnson, Stone-Romero, & Hartman, 2006; Stone-Romero & Stone, 2002). In particular, individuals who valued individualism preferred reward allocation systems based on equity or proportionality, but those who valued collectivism preferred equality-based allocation systems (Sama & Papamarcos, 2000). As a result, pay-for-performance systems may motivate employees who are individualistic, but group-based or profit-sharing systems may be more effective with those who value collectivism (e.g., Joshi & Martocchio, 2008; Miller, Hom, & Gomez-Mejia, 2001). Furthermore, research by Stone-Romero and Stone (2002) revealed that individuals who endorse collectivism were more likely to accept negative feedback than those who stress individualism.Given that most organizations are operating in a global environment, we expect that the field will pay even more attention to these issues in the future. One reason is that the employment rates of U.S.-based MNCs have grown consistently over the past decades, and they now employ over 34.5 million workers in multiple countries (Bureau of Economic, 2013). It is anticipated that the numbers of MNCs will continue to expand over time, and HR practices will need to be congruent with these new multicultural and complex contexts. As a result, we expect that future research in HR will focus on the effectiveness and acceptance of HR practices in global environments.Even though we have considered globalization as a challenge for organizations, we believe that it also provides many new opportunities. For instance, globalizationshould expand markets for products and services, and may enhance creativity and innovation because organizations will become more culturally diverse. Research showed consistently that diversity increases innovation and creativity, and this should also apply to the field of HR (van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). In particular, HR in global contexts will have to use creative solutions for attracting, motivating, and retaining diverse employees. For example, they may have to use unique rewards systems (e.g., cafeteria or flexible reward systems) to ensure that they meet the needs of workers from different cultural backgrounds (e.g., Stone, Deadrick, Lukaszewski, & Johnson, 2015). Of course, research will be needed to examine the effectiveness of these new approaches.3.Growing domestic diversityApart from changes in the economy and globalization, organizations are also faced with major shifts in the composition of the U. S. population. In particular, it is expected that our population will be older and more ethnically diverse by 2060 (U.S. Bureau of Census, 2014). For instance, by 2060 one in five Americans will be 65 years of age or older, and the number of working age people in the population (ages 18 to 64) will decrease from 62.7% to 56.9%. Along with the age-related changes, the work values of younger generations are expected to be different than previous groups (e.g., Baby Boomers). As a result, organizations will need to develop HR practices that are aligned with the primary goals and the values of multiple generations of employees (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman, & Lance, 2010).3.1.Increased age and generational diversityAlong with the aging workforce come many new challenges for HR. For instance, given the shortage of skilled workers there is a growing concern about the retention of skilled baby boomers. One reason for this is that baby boomers often have unique skills and abilities that are critical to organizational success, and companies are justifiably worried about retaining them in their roles until qualified replacements can be found or trained. In order to retain these individuals, organizations will need toincrease flexible work arrangements, allow part-time work, provide a supportive environment, and employ recognition systems to motivate them to stay with the organization (Armstrong-Stassen, Schlosser, & Zinni, 2012; Cheung & Wu, 2013; Shacklock & Brunetto, 2011).Another challenge facing organizations is that they will be staffed by members of multiple generations, and members of generations differ in terms of work values, attitudes, and behaviors (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Twenge et al., 2010). As a result, organizations will have to modify their HR practices in order to attract and retain skilled members of all of these groups. For example, recent research indicated that baby boomers (born 1946 to 1964) placed a strong emphasis on hard work and achievement, valued intrinsic rewards, and stressed loyalty to the organization (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Twenge et al., 2010). In contrast, members of generation X (born 1965–1981) were more likely to value extrinsic rewards, leisure time, steady employment, work family balance, and promotion opportunities than baby boomers (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Twenge et al., 2010). Research also indicated that the values of generation Y were somewhat similar to those of generation X (born 1982–1999; i.e., they valued leisure time, work–family balance, extrinsic rewards, status), but they were more likely to emphasize freedom than either generation X or baby boomers. In addition, members of generation Y stressed extrinsic rewards less than generation X, but both generations X and Y reported greater intentions to leave organizations than baby boomers (Twenge et al., 2010).Given these differences in values, organizations are faced with the complex challenge of aligning reward and compensation systems with the values of multiple generations. For example, they may need to expand beyond merely static pay and benefits and incorporate more flexible reward systems. In particular, they might identify the reward preferences of individuals, and develop cafeteria reward systems that provide employees with a total sum for their overall compensation, thus allowing them to select different rewards and benefits (e.g., one person might select vacation time in lieu of pay, whereas others might select pay instead of time off from work; Stone‐Romero, Stone, & Salas, 2003).3.2.Expanded ethnic diversityThere will also be dramatic change in the racial and ethnic make-up of our society. Today, ethnic minorities make up about 37% of the population, but estimates indicate they will comprise 57% of the nation by 2060 (U.S. Bureau of Census, 2014). It has also been projected that the U.S. will become a majority–minority nation by 2043, and the numbers of Hispanic–Americans (Hispanic) will more than double in the coming years (U.S. Bureau of Census, 2014). By 2060, one in three people in the U.S. will be Hispanic.Even though there has been relatively little HR research on the cultural values of ethnic minorities in the U. S., some studies found that, on average, they have different values than Anglo-Americans (Bell, Marquardt, & Berry, 2014; Guerrero & Posthuma, 2014; Stone & Stone-Romero, 2008). For example, Hispanics, African–Americans, Asian–Americans, and Native Americans are, on average, more likely to endorse collective values than Anglo-Americans (Guerrero & Posthuma, 2014; Stone et al., 2006; Triandis, 1994). In contrast, Anglo-Americans are, on average, more likely to stress individualism than their counterparts, but it should be cautioned that there are within group differences in cultural values for all of these sub-groups (Betancourt & Lopez, 1993).Given the transformation in the composition of the U.S. population, current HR practices may be less effective with employees from diverse backgrounds than those from the dominant group. The primary reason for this is that traditional HR processes were designed for a homogeneous set of employees with individualistic cultural values, and the new workforce is likely to have value systems based on collectivism and familism (e.g., Gelfand et al., 2007; Stone & Stone-Romero, 2008). Thus, organizations will have to have their HR practices modified so that they are aligned with the values of new generations, and the cultural values of diverse employees. As noted above, members of different ethnic subgroups often have distinctive reward preferences, and unique work values, and should react differently than Anglo-Americans to traditional HR processes.Thus, in order to attract and retain subgroup members, organizations may have toalter their current reward and benefit systems to meet the needs of these employees. For example, many ethnic subgroup members are more familistic and collective than AngloAmericans (Phinney, 1996), so they may prefer that organizations offer opportunities for teamwork, work–family balance, time off from work, and group based reward systems. As a result, organizations that develop cafeteria compensation and benefits systems that provide flexibility in terms of reward and benefit allocations may be more attractive to the new workforce than traditional reward systems. For instance, those employees who value familism can choose an extra week of vacation time to spend with their families in lieu of pay or other benefits. Organizations will be able to use these flexible compensation plans to attract talented applicants from all ethnic groups.In view of the coming changes in generational and domestic diversity, organizations are likely to modify their future HR practices to meet the needs of employees with diverse values. To date, most of the research on domestic diversity has focused on unfair discrimination and relational demography (e.g., Stone‐Romero et al., 2003; van Knippenberg et al., 2004). We believe that future HR research will need to be expanded and dig deeper into the value differences, reward preferences, and unique work roles of the new diverse workforce.In our discussion above, we viewed changes in generational and ethnic diversity as a challenge for organizations. However, they can also be considered opportunities for organizations to utilize the many talents and skills that these individuals bring to the workforce, and should provide a wide array of individuals with the chance to display their skills and talents. Furthermore, the altered composition of the workforce should help organizations reach broader markets for their products and services, and increase the innovation and creativity in organizations (van Knippenberg et al., 2004). They should also prompt organizations to develop new HR practices that will meet the needs of all members of the workforce (e.g., cafeteria reward systems) (Stone et al., 2006).4.Emerging use of technologyOver the past 30 years, one of the major drivers of change in HR has been the increased use of information technology (hereinafter referred to as technology) to collect, store, and utilize data for decision-making (e.g., Gueutal & Stone, 2005; Strohmeier, 2007; Strohmeier & Kabst, 2009). Technology, especially, the World Wide Web, has transformed key HR processes in organizations (e.g., e-recruiting, e-selection, e-training), and modified the nature of jobs and the relationships between individuals and organizations (Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984). For example, it has enabled organizations to use the Internet to advertise jobs, and made it possible for applicants to apply for jobs online (e.g., Dineen & Allen, 2013). In addition, organizations are using various forms of technology to deliver training to employees (e.g., the Internet, intranet systems, video conferencing, online simulations; Salas, DeRouin, & Littrell, 2005). Research on the use of technology to facilitate HR processes indicated that it typically enhances efficiency, and decreases costs associated with HR transactions (e.g., Dulebohn & Johnson, 2013; Dulebohn & Marler, 2005; Strohmeier, 2007). However, some researchers argued that there is no clear evidence that it helps HR meets its primary goals of attracting, motivating, and retaining talented employees (see Stone et al., 2015, for a detailed discussion of influence of technology and the future of HR).Despite the increased efficiency and cost savings associated with the use of technology in the field of HR, researchers maintained that there are a number of limitations associated with using current technologies to manage HR processes (e.g., Stone et al., 2015;Stone‐Romero et al., 2003). For instance, information technologies are often static and use one-way communication systems that do not allow applicants or employees to ask questions or gain advice from HR professionals (e.g., benefits). As a result, the technologies can be impersonal, inflexible, and create an artificial distance between supervisors and employees. Likewise, the use of technology for training may be less engaging than traditional methods, and may not give trainees the opportunity to practice or gain feedback. Furthermore, technology may actually transfer the work of HR departments to line managers or employees, which may reduce overall productivity in organizations (Stone‐Romero et al., 2003).In spite of possible limitations associated with using technology to manage HR processes, it will continue to transform the field in the future. Furthermore, it can be argued that new technologies will emerge that should decrease some of the major drawbacks associated with current systems. For instance, a number of researchers argued that the use of new interactive technologies (e.g., Web 2.0, social media, virtual simulations or job fairs, chat rooms, cloud computing, mobile devices) should decrease some of the weaknesses associated with current systems (see Dineen & Allen, 2013; Stone et al., 2015; Sullivan, 2014). For example, the use of social media, chat rooms, and high definition cloud computing should enable applicants and employees to engage in an interactive dialogue with recruiters or managers. Similarly, the use of virtual reality should provide applicants with opportunities to attend virtual job fairs, give supervisors the ability to mentor subordinates, and offer trainees the chance to participate in virtual training simulations. All of these virtual environments should increase the degree to which technology-based HR processes are personal, flexible, interactive, engaging, and decrease the interpersonal distance between employees and supervisors. Although these arguments seem plausible, research will be needed to examine the effectiveness and acceptance of these new HR processes.Despite the fact that we viewed technology as a challenge in the sections above, it should be noted that it also provides new opportunities for the field of HR. For instance, research showed that technology often decreases the administrative burden in HR, increases efficiency, and allows the field to contribute to the strategic direction of organizations (Stone & Dulebohn, 2013). To date, there is no evidence that it helps organizations achieve its primary goals, but we believe that new interactive technologies will facilitate the attraction and retention of critical employees (Stone et al., 2015). One reason for this is that it will allow supervisors and HR professionals to engage in more frequent interaction and communication with employees. As a result, they will be able to identify and meet the needs of critical employees, and ensure that they remain with the organizations. It may also enable organizations to make better HR decisions based on objective information or decision support systems (Dulebohn & Johnson, 2013). Furthermore, it may facilitate interactions with stakeholders insideand outside the organization. For example, supervisors may be able to communicate with external customers in order to improve employees' performance, and HR professionals should be capable of staying abreast of innovative practices used by other organizations (see Ulrich & Dulebohn, 2015, for a detailed discussion of these issues).中文译文：影响人力资源管理未来的挑战和机遇摘要如今，人力资源（HR）管理领域正面临着巨大的变革压力。
- 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)。
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。