绩效考核管理外文翻译参考文献
外文翻译--企业绩效管理
外文文献翻译译文一、外文原文Corporate Performance ManagementAbstractTwo of the most important duties of a chief executive officer are (1) to formulate strategy and (2) to manage his company’s performance. In this article we examine the second of these tasks and discuss how corporate performance should be modeled and managed. We begin by considering the environment in which a company operates, which includes, besides outside stakeholders, the industry it belongs and the market it supplies, and then proceed to explain how the functioning of a company can be understood by an examination of its business, operational and performance management models. Next we describe the structure recommended by the authors for a corporate planning, control and evaluation system, the most important part of a corporate performance management system. The core component of the planning system is the corporate performance evaluation model, the structure of which is mapped into the planning system’s database, simulation models and budgeting tools’ structures, and also used to shape information contained in the system’s products, besides being the nucleus of the language used by the system’s agents to talk about corporate performance. The ontology of planning, the guiding principles of corporate planning and the history of ”MADE”, the corporate performance management system discussed in this article, are reviewed next, before we proceed to discuss in detail the structural components of the corporate planning and control system introduced before. We conclude the article by listing the main steps which should be followed when implementing a performance planning, control and evaluation system for a company.1.IntroductionTwo of the most important corporate tasks for which a chief executive officer is p rimarily responsible are (1) to formulate strategy and (2) to manage the company’s performance. In this article we examine the second of these tasks and discuss howcorporate performance should be modeled and managed.To perform is to accomplish, to achieve (desired) results or outcomes. So, when talking about corporate performance, we are referring to the degree by which desired results or outcomes are achieved by a company. Managing corporate performance involves planning, controlling, analyzing and evaluating, not only the results achieved by the company, but also the means by which these results are reached. Among the results, or goals, pursued by most companies we can mention growth, market share, profitability and value creation; and the means to achieve these results include productivity, effectiveness, innovation and competitiveness. Those are the type of things we should have in mind when specifying a corporate performance management system.Before discussing how to model corporate performance, it is convenient to consider the environment in which a company operates, which includes, besides outside stakeholders, the industry it belongs and the market it supplies. The main aspects of an industry to be looked at when considering its influence on corporate performance are structure and regulation, the main competitors, entry barriers, substitute products and supplier’s negotiating power. Associated questions are: How production is organized, vertically or horizontally? How much competitive is the industry and who are the main competitors, those that capture the largest part of the market share? Is it unregulated, self-regulated or regulated by a government agency? How strong are barriers to the entry of new competitors? Can products from other industries function as substitutes for the ones produced in the industry? What about the power industry suppliers have when negotiating prices and trade conditions?At the opposite side of the industry in the corporate environment we have the market where the company trades its products, its main attributes being size, growth rate, segmentation, exit barriers and consumers’ negotiating power. Typical questions that should be asked when assessing its effect on corporate performance are: What is the market size, in dol lars, for each of the company’s products? What are the short-term and long-term market growth rates? Is it a wholesale or a retail market? Are the sales cyclical? How can the market be segmented (by geography, purchasingpower, customer age, etc.)? Which barriers does a client run into when changing suppliers? Do clients have the power to impose prices and trade conditions?We call the people who have interest in or are affected by a company’s performance its “stakeholders”,and group them in the categories of “insiders” and “outsiders”. The insiders are the company’s entrepreneurs or controlling shareholders and its managers and employees. The outsiders include customers, suppliers, minority shareholders, debt holders, the government in its roles of public goods supplier, regulator and tax collector, and also the communities where the company does business. It is important to note that stakeholders, besides being affected by, also influence corporate performance and it is often necessary to search for the effects of this influence when appraising performance.That is meant to increase the depth of this brief analysis of corporate structure and external relations.Microeconomic theory considers the company as a social production unit that uses a certain technology to produce a set of outputs from a set of inputs. The function that maps input quantities into maximum output quantities obtainable from the inputs is called the “production function”or “production frontier”. Knowledge of this function is important for measuring the technical efficiency of a production unit, a very significant performance metric. Several techniques exist for the specification of production functions or frontiers, grouped under the names of “Data Envelopment Analysis” and “Stochastic Frontier Analysis”.Companies are created by entrepreneurs, the agents that organize and coordinate production with the help of professional managers. Entrepreneurs play a crucial role in shaping corporate performance. On one side, recognized entrepreneurial capacity ─and also large contact networks ─ are vital for raising the financial capital necessary to build structural or physical capital. On another side, the entrepreneurs’ reputation and contacts are essential to attract the intellectual capital that, together with the structural capital, is the foundation of innovation capacity .A business model is a conceptual representation of the way a company does business. Its main components, are: the company’s value proposition; the targeted market segments; the distribution, marketing communications, and customerrelationship channels; the core competencies needed; operating and management technologies; the partners’ network; and the revenue, cost and value creation models. Understanding the business model is the first step to implement a corporate performance management system. The model should indicate whether the company has a broad customer base or targets specific market segments, and in the second case, identify these segments. The goods and services provided by the company and the commercial conditions under which they are sold (including such things as guarantees, technical assistance, etc.), comprise the value proposition. The channel used for product distribution can be a direct-tocustomer sales channel through the Internet, or be comprised of bricks and mortar companyowned stores, wholesale agents, retail companies, etc. The company can use several marketing channels to get messages through to its customers, such as TV and printed media, and employ a call center to give support and receive complaints and suggestions from them. Core competencies are the ones the company needs to master in order to gain a competitive advantage in relation to other companies in the same marketplace. These competencies should rest on proper operational and management technologies, and be supplemented by a network of partners, if necessary. As a final point, a business model must include a revenue, a cost and a value creation model in order to be profitable to the company’s shareholders.We can think of the operational model of a company as encompassing an organizational model, a functional model and a corporate data model . The organizational model depicts, in an inverted hierarchical tree, the roles of the agents involved in the compa ny’s operation. The func tional model portrays all the activities that together form the whole to which we refer by the expression “company’s operations”, structured in logical, sequential steps forming operational processes. At last, the corporate data model is an entity-relationship diagram that shows the main entities about which the company collects data with its attributes and the relationships between them.The last model we need to examine in order to understand the functioning of a corporation is the performance management model it uses, which is, in general,composed of four building blocks. The corporate governance system, the corporate performance planning, control and evaluation system, the individual managers performance planning, control and evaluation system and the management variable compensation system (or bonus system). The corporate governance system comprises three well known actors, the chief executive officer, the directors and the shareholders, and is designed to mediate the relations between them. Under the governance system, we find two planning and control systems, having as its targets the performance of the company (as a whole and of its divisions) and the performance of its individual managers, respectively. Linking these two systems we find a compensation system that assigns fractions of a bonus pool, which is a function of the aggregate company performance, to its managers on the basis of their individual performances. An effective management model should be forward-looking, that is, centered on the improvement of future performance, and focused on value creation.A thorough understanding of all the models described above is a necessary prerequisite for one to be able to plan, monitor, analyze, evaluate and control corporate performance. In the next section we will examine in more detail a crucial component of the management model previously described: the corporate performance planning, control and evaluation system.2. The Corporate Performance Planning, Control and Evaluation System.That shows the structure recommended by the authors for a corporate planning, control and evaluation system, the most important part of a corporate performance management system. The core component of the planning system, as can be deduced from its central position in the mentioned figure, is the performance evaluation model. The structure of this model is mapped into the system’s database, simulation models and budgeting tools’ structures, and also used to shape information contained in the system’s p roducts, besides being the nucleus of the language used by the system’s agents to talk about corporate performance. The corporate planning and control process is formed by the coordinated actions of the planning and control agents, whose aim is the generat ion of the system’s outputs, which include assumptions, goals, forecasts, plans, budgets, investment projects, performance valuations, varianceanalysis, etc. These products take the form of paper and electronic documents and spreadsheets, and of PowerPoint presentations. The agents follow an agreed upon time schedule and rely on a business intelligence (BI) software to support their actions. The BI software implements the performance evaluation model for the purposes of representing and simulating corporate performance and provides the necessary tools for the system’s agents to produce the system’s outputs. Data used by the system comes from the accounting and other corporate databases. In the following sections of this article we will examine in detail each of the aforementioned planning system components.Before proceeding, however, we will make a pause to discuss the ontology of planning. One can readily identify in this figure three major structures: the strategic, the motivation and the action frameworks. In the strategic framework, which is chiefly related to the risk versus return dialectics, we can identify the external influences to corporate performance, comprising both opportunities and threats, and the internal ones, materialized by strengths and weaknesses. Suppliers and consumers negotiating power, entry and exit barriers, competitors and substitute products are the main determinants of external influences. Technological change has also a pervasive influence on corporate performance. Comparing the motivation (ends) and action (means) frameworks, we can associate various levels or layers in which corporate aims are defined to the corresponding action classes, that is, vision to mission, long term goals to strategy, short term goals to tactics and actual results to actual actions. Policy and business rules are restrictions under which strategy and tactics, respectively, must be formulated, and actual action carried out.It may be convenient, at this point, to give a general definition of the terms “planning” and “control”.Corporate planning is a process by which management define the desired future performance of a corporation, and identify and decide on the actions that need to be taken in order to achieve that performance. The main steps comprising a planning cycle are exposed . Corporate control, on the other hand, is an operational process which aims to check whether the actual performance is in accordance with the planned one, and, eventually, to modify the planned actions inorder to guarantee that the final desired performance will be met. The corporate budget is one of the most important outputs of the corporate planning and control process. It is the prime management tool used to improve corporate performance and to align management interests with those of the shareholders. We can conclude this section by stating the nine guiding principles of corporate planning and control:i. Planning is concerned in first place with results and in second place with the means to achieve these results.ii. Planning is concerned with the present value of costs and benefits to be incurred in the future as a consequence of decisions undertaken in the present.iii. The main objective of planning is to create value for the corporation’s shareholders.iv. For the ab ove goal to be met, it is necessary to fulfill customers’ expectations concerning quantity, price and quality of marketed products at the least possible cost, and to maintain a skilled and fully motivated workforce.v. Planning and control activities should be organized through a system whose components are the planning and control agents, process, time schedule, products, models & tools, and database.vi. The corporate budget should be the planning and control system’s product that consolidates the results which the company plans to achieve in the next period and the actions it should undertake in order to meet them.vii. The corporate budget must contain all the information necessary for the evaluation of the short term planned performance of the company, its marketing, operational, economic, patrimonial and financial aspects being dully considered.viii. The corporate budget should not be viewed exclusively as a means of cost reduction or control, but mainly as a tool to enhance performance and increase the company’s economic value.ix. The planning process in itself is as important as its outputs, and should contribute to leverage management’s knowledge about the company’s internal workings, and also to help focus its efforts on the critical areas of corporate performance.Source:Pedro Góes Monteiro de Oliveira STARPLAN Consultoria Empresarial Ltda. ,2009. “Corporate Performance Management” . Working Paper , vol.41, no.4, pp.1-7..二、翻译文章译文：企业绩效管理摘要行政总裁两个最重要的职责是：制定战略和处理他的公司表现。
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。
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。
毕业论文外文翻译--绩效考核的困境
外文翻译题目基于组织健康的XX企业绩效评估体系研究原文一：The Dilemma of Performance AppraisalBy Peter Prowse and Julie ProwseIt will outline the development of individual performance before linking to performance management in organizations.The outcomes of techniques to increase organizational commitment, increase job satisfaction will be critically evaluated. It will further examine the transatlantic debates between literature on efficiency and effectiveness in the North American and the United Kingdom) evidence to evaluate the HRM development and contribution of performance appraisal to individual and organizational performance.Appraisal potentially is a key tool in making the most of an organisation’s human resources. The use of appraisal is widespread estimated that 80–90%of organizations in the USA and UK were using appraisal and an increase from 69 to 87% of organisations between 1998 and 2004 reported a formal performance management system (Armstrong and Baron, 1998:200).There has been little evidence of the evaluation of the effectiveness of appraisal but more on the development in its use. Between 1998 and 2004 a sample from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD, 2007) of 562 firms found 506 were using performance appraisal in UK.What is also vital to emphasise is the rising use of performance appraisal feedback beyond performance for professionals and managers to nearly 95% of workplaces in the 2004 WERS survey (seeTable 13.1).Clearly the use of Appraisals has been the development and extension of appraisals to cover a large proportion ofthe UK workforce and the coverage of non managerial occupations and the extended use in private and public sectors.Critiques of appraisal have continued as appraisal shave increased in use and scope across sectors and occupations. The dominant critique is the management framework using appraisal as an orthodox technique that seeks to remedy the weakness and propose of appraisals as a system to develop performance.This ―orthodox‖ approach argu es there are conflicting purposes of appraisal (Strebler et al, 2001). Appraisal can motivate staff by clarifying objectives and setting clear future objectives with provision for training and development needs to establish the performance objective. These conflicts with assessing past performance and distribution of rewards based on past performance (Bach, 2005:301).Employees are reluctant to confide any limitations and concerns on their current performance as this could impact on their merit related reward or promotion opportunities(Newton and Findley, 1996:43).This conflicts with performance as a continuum as appraisers are challenged with differing roles as both monitors and judges of performance but an understanding counsell or which Randell(1994)argues few manager shave not received the raining to perform.Appraisal Manager’s reluctance to criticise also stems from classic evidence fromMcGregor that managers are reluctant to make an egative judgement on an individual’s performance a sit could be demotivating,leadto accusationsoftheirown supportand contributiontoindividual poor performance and to also avoid interpersonal conflict (McGregor, 1957).One consequence of this avoidance of conflict is to rate all criterion as central and avoid any conflict known as the central tendency.In a study of senior managers by Long neckeretal.(1987),they found organisational politics influenced ratings of 60 senior executives.The findings were that politics involved deliberate attempts by individuals to enhance or protect self-interests when conflicting courses of action are possible and that ratings and decisions were affected by potential sources of bias or inaccuracy in their appraisal ratings (Longeneckeret al., 1987).There are methods of further bias beyond Longe necker’s evidence. The political judgements and they have been distorted further by overrating some clearcompetencies in performance rather than being critical across all rated competencies known as the halo effect and if some competencies arelower they may prejudice the judgment acrossthe positive reviews known as the horns effect (ACAS, 1996).One consequence of this avoidance of conflict is to rate all criterion as centralThereare methods Some ratings may only cinclude recent events and these are known as the recency effects. In this case only recent events are noted compared to managers gathering and using data throughout the appraisal period .A particular concern is the equity of appraisal for ratings which may be distorted by gender ,ethnicity and the ratings of appraisers themselves .A range of studies in both the US and UK have highlighted subjectivity in terms of gender (Alimo-Metcalf, 1991;White, 1999) and ethnicity of the appraise and appraiser(Geddes and Konrad, 2003). Suggestions and solutions on resolving bias will be reviewed later.The second analysis is the radical critique of appraisal. This is the more critical management literature that argues that appraisal and performance management are about management control(Newton and Findley, 1996;Townley, 1993). It argues that tighter management control over employee behaviour can be achieved by the extension of appraisal to manual workers, professional as means to control. This develops the literature of Foucault using power and surveillance. This literature uses cases in examples of public service control on professionals such a teachers (Healy, 1997) and University professionals(Townley, 1990).This evidence argues the increased control of public services using appraisal as a method of control and that the outcome of managerial objectives ignores the developmental role of appraisal and ratings are awarded for people who accept and embrace the culture and organizational values . However, this literature ignores the employee resistance and the use of professional unions to challenge the attempts to exert control over professionals and staff in the appraisal process (Bach, 2005:306).Thisevidence argues One of the different issues of removing bias was the use of the test metaphor (Folgeretal.,1992).This was based on the assumption that appraisal ratings were a technical question of assessing ―true‖ performance and there needed to be increased reliability and validity of appraisal as an instrument to developmotivation and performance. The sources of rater bias and errors can be resolved by improved organisational justice and increasing reliability of appraiser’s judgement.However there were problems such as an assumption that you can state job requirements clearly and the organization is ―rational‖ with objectives that reflect values and that the judgment by appraisers’ are value free from political agendas and personal objectives. Secondly there is the second issue of subjectivity if appraisal ratings where decisions on appraisal are rated by a ―political metaphor‖(Hartle, 1995).This ―political view‖ argues that a appraisal is often done badly because there is a lack of training for appraisers and appraisers may see the appraisal as a waste of time. This becomes a process which managers have to perform and not as a potential to improve employee performance .Organisations in this context are ―political‖ and the appraisers seek to maintain performance from subordinates and view appraises as internal customers to satisfy. This means managers use appraisal to avoid interpersonal conflict and develop strategies for their own personal advancement and seek a quiet life by avoiding censure from higher managers.This perception means managers also see appraisee seeks good rating and genuine feedback and career development by seeking evidence of combining employee promotion and pay rise.This means appraisal ratings become political judgements and seek to avoid interpersonal conflicts. The approaches of the ―test‖ and ―political‖ metaphors of appraisal a re inaccurate and lack objectivity and judgement of employee performance is inaccurate and accuracy is avoided.The issue is how can organisations resolve this lack of objectivity?Grint(1993)argues that the solutions to objectivity lies in part with McGre gor’s (1957) classic critique by retraining and removal of ―top down‖ ratings by managers and replacement with multiple rater evaluation which removes bias and the objectivity by upward performance appraisal. The validity of upward appraisal means there moval of subjective appraisal ratings.This approach is also suggested to remove gender bias in appraisal ratings against women in appraisals (Fletcher, 1999). The solution of multiple reporting(internal colleagues, customers and recipients of services)will reduce subjectivity and inequity of appraisal ratings. This argument develops further by the rise in the need to evaluate project teams and increasing levels of teamwork to include peer assessment. The solutions also in theory mean increased closer contact with individual manager and appraises and increasing services linked to customer facing evaluations.However, negative feedback still demotivates and plenty of feedback and explanation by manager who collates feedback rather than judges performance andfail to summarise evaluations.There are however still problems with accuracy of appraisal objectivity asWalker and Smither (1999)5year studyof 252 managers over 5 year period still identified issues with subjective ratings in 360 degree appraisals.There are still issues on the subjectivity of appraisals beyond the areas of lack of training.The contribution of appraisal is strongly related to employee attitudes and strong relationships with job satisfaction(Fletcher and Williams, 1996). The evidence on appraisal still remains positive in terms of reinvigo rating social relationships at work (Townley,1993)and the widespread adoption in large public services in the UK such as the national health Service (NHS)is the valuable contribution to line managers discussion with staff on their past performance, discussing personal development plans and training and development as positive issues.One further concern is the openness of appraisal related to employee reward which we now discuss.Appraisal and performance management have been inextricably linked to employee reward since the development of strategic human resource management in the 1980s. The early literature on appraisal linked appraisal with employee control (Randell, 1994;Grint, 1993;Townley, 1993, 1999) and discussed the use of performance related reward to appraisals. However therecent literature has substituted the chapter titles employee ―appraisal‖ with ―performance management‖(Bach, 2005; Storey, 2007) and moved the focus on performance and performance pay and the limits of employee appraisal. The appraisal and performance pay link has developed into debates to three key issues:The first issue is has performance pay related to appraisal grown in use?The second issue is what type of performance do we reward?and the final issue is who judges management standards?The first discussion on influences of growth of performance pay schemes is the assumption that increasing linkage between individual effort and financial reward increases performance levels. This linkage between effort and financial reward increasing levels of performance has proved an increasing trend in the public and private sector (Bevan and Thompson, 1992;Armstrong and Baron, 1998). The drive to increase public sector performance effort and setting of targets may even be inconsistent in the experiences of some organizational settings aimed at achieving long-term targets(Kessler and Purcell, 1992;Marsden, 2007). The development of merit based pay based on performance assessed by a manager is rising in the UK Marsden (2007)reported that the: Use of performance appraisals as a basis for merit pay are used in65 percent of public sector and 69 percent of the private sector employees where appraisal covered all nonmanagerial staff(p.109).Merit pay has also grown in use as in 1998 20% of workplaces used performance related schemes compared to 32% in the same organizations 2004 (Kersley et al., 2006:191). The achievements of satisfactory ratings or above satisfactory performance averages were used as evidence to reward individual performance ratings in the UK Civil Service (Marsden, 2007).Table 13.2 outlines the extent of merit pay in 2004.The second issue is what forms of performance is rewarded. The use of past appraisal ratings as evidence of achieving merit-related payments linked to achieving higher performance was the predominant factor developed in the public services. The evidence on Setting performance targets have been as Kessler (2000:280) reported ―inconsistent within organizations and problematic for certain professional or less skilled occupations where goals have not been easily formulated‖. There has been inconclusive evidence from organizations on the impact of performance pay and its effectiveness in improving performance. Evidence from a number of individual performance pay schemes report organizations suspending or reviewing them on the grounds that individual performance reward has produced no effect in performance oreven demotivates staff(Kessler, 2000:281).More in-depth studies setting performance goals followed by appraisal on how well they were resulted in loss of motivation whilst maintaining productivity and achieved managers using imposing increased performance standards (Marsden and Richardson, 1994). As Randell(1994) had highlighted earlier, the potential objectivity and self-criticism in appraisal reviews become areas that appraisees refuse to acknowledge as weaknesses with appraisers if this leads to a reduction in their merit pay.Objectivity and self reflection for development becomes a weakness that appraises fail to acknowledge as a developmental issue if it reduces their chances of a reduced evaluation that will reduce their merit reward. The review of civil service merit pay (Makinson, 2000)reported from 4 major UK Civil Service Agencies and the National Health Service concluded that existing forms of performance pay and performance management had failed to motivate many staff.The conclusions were that employees found individual performance pay divisive and led to reduced willingness to co-operate with management ,citing managerial favorites and manipulation of appraisal scores to lower ratings to save paying rewards to staff (Marsden and French, 1998).This has clear implications on the relationship between line managers and appraises and the demotivational consequences and reduced commitment provide clear evidence of the danger to linking individual performance appraisal to reward in the public services. Employees focus on the issues that gain key performance focus by focusing on specific objectives related to key performance indicators rather than all personal objectives. A study of banking performance pay by Lewis(1998)highlighted imposed targets which were unattainable with a range of 20 performance targets with narrow short term financial orientatated goals. The narrow focus on key targets and neglect of other performance aspects leads to tasks not being delivered.This final issue of judging management standards has already highlighted issues of inequity and bias based on gender (Beyer, 1990; Chen and DiTomasio, 1996; Fletcher, 1999). The suggested solutions to resolved Iscrimination have been proposedas enhanced interpersonal skills training are increased equitable use of 360 degree appraisal as a method to evaluate feedback from colleagues as this reduces the use of the ―political metaphor‖(Randell, 1994;Fletcher, 1999).On measures linking performance to improvement require a wider approach to enhanced work design and motivation to develop and enhance employee job satisfaction and the design of linkages between effort and performance are significant in the private sector and feedback and awareness in the public sector (Fletcher and Williams, 1996:176). Where rises be in pay were determined by achieving critical rated appraisal objectives, employees are less self critical and open to any developmental needs in a performance review.There are key issues that require resolution and a great deal depends on the extent to which you have a good relationship with your line manager . Barlow(1989)argued `if you get off badly with your first two managers ,you may just as well forget it (p. 515).The evidence on the continued practice of appraisals is that they are still institutionally elaborated systems of management appraisal and development is significant rhetoric in the apparatus of bureaucratic control by managers (Barlow, 1989). In reality the companies create, review, change and even abolish appraisals if they fail to develop and enhance organisational performance(Kessler, 2000).Despite all the criticism and evidence the critics have failed to suggest an alternative for a process that can provide feedback, develop motivation, identify training and potential and evidence that can justify potential career development and justify reward(Hartle, 1997).Source: Journal of Accounting Research, Jun2009译文一：绩效考核的困境作者：彼得·布朗斯，茱莉亚·布朗斯绩效管理发展中的个人业绩与企业组织相联系，以提高组织承诺的成果的实现性，审慎评估以增加工作满意度。
企业绩效管理【外文翻译】
外文文献翻译译文一、外文原文Corporate Performance ManagementAbstractTwo of the most important duties of a chief executive officer are （1）to formulate strategy and (2) to manage his company's performance。
In this article we examine the second of these tasks and discuss how corporate performance should be modeled and managed. We begin by considering the environment in which a company operates, which includes, besides outside stakeholders, the industry it belongs and the market it supplies，and then proceed to explain how the functioning of a company can be understood by an examination of its business, operational and performance management models. Next we describe the structure recommended by the authors for a corporate planning, control and evaluation system, the most important part of a corporate performance management system. The core component of the planning system is the corporate performance evaluation model，the structure of which is mapped into the planning system’s database, simulation models and budgeting too ls’ structures，and also used to shape information contained in the system’s products, besides being the nucleus of the language used by the system's agents to talk about corporate performance. The ontology of planning, the guiding principles of corporate planning and the history of "MADE”，the corporate performance management system discussed in this article，are reviewed next, before we proceed to discuss in detail the structural components of the corporate planning and control system introduced before. We conclude the article by listing the main steps which should be followed when implementing a performance planning, control and evaluation system for a company.1.IntroductionTwo of the most important corporate tasks for which a chief executive officer is primarily responsible are （1）to formulate strategy and （2）to manage thecompany’s performance. In this article we examine the second of these tasks and discuss how corporate performance should be modeled and managed。
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。
绩效考核的困境外文翻译及原文
原文一：The Dilemma of Performance AppraisalBy Peter Prowse and Julie ProwseIt will outline the development of individual performance before linking to performance management in organizations.The outcomes of techniques to increase organizational commitment, increase job satisfaction will be critically evaluated. It will further examine the transatlantic debates between literature on efficiency and effectiveness in the North American and the United Kingdom) evidence to evaluate the HRM development and contribution of performance appraisal to individual and organizational performance.Appraisal potentially is a key tool in making the most of an organisation’s human resources. The use of appraisal is widespread estimated that 80–90%of organizations in the USA and UK were using appraisal and an increase from 69 to 87% of organisations between 1998 and 2004 reported a formal performance management system (Armstrong and Baron, 1998:200).There has been little evidence of the evaluation of the effectiveness of appraisal but more on the development in its use. Between 1998 and 2004 a sample from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD, 2007) of 562 firms found 506 were using performance appraisal in UK.What is also vital to emphasise is the rising use of performance appraisal feedback beyond performance for professionals and managers to nearly 95% of workplaces in the 2004 WERS survey (seeTable 13.1).Clearly the use of Appraisals has been the development and extension of appraisals to cover a large proportion of the UK workforce and the coverage of non managerial occupations and the extended use in private and public sectors.Critiques of appraisal have continued as appraisal shave increased in use and scope across sectors and occupations. The dominant critique is the management framework using appraisal as an orthodox technique that seeks to remedy theweakness and propose of appraisals as a system to develop performance.This “orthodox” approach argues there are conflicting purposes of appraisal (Strebler et al, 2001). Appraisal can motivate staff by clarifying objectives and setting clear future objectives with provision for training and development needs to establish the performance objective. These conflicts with assessing past performance and distribution of rewards based on past performance (Bach, 2005:301).Employees are reluctant to confide any limitations and concerns on their current performance as this could impact on their merit related reward or promotion opportunities(Newton and Findley, 1996:43).This conflicts with performance as a continuum as appraisers are challenged with differing roles as both monitors and judges of performance but an understanding counsell or which Randell(1994)argues few manager shave not received the raining to perform.Appraisal Manager’s reluctance to criticise also stems from classic evidence fromMcGregor that managers are reluctant to make an egative judgement on an individual’s performance a sit could be demotivating,leadto accusationsoftheirown supportand contributiontoindividual poor performance and to also avoid interpersonal conflict (McGregor, 1957).One consequence of this avoidance of conflict is to rate all criterion as central and avoid any conflict known as the central tendency.In a study of senior managers by Long neckeretal.(1987),they found organisational politics influenced ratings of 60 senior executives.The findings were that politics involved deliberate attempts by individuals to enhance or protect self-interests when conflicting courses of action are possible and that ratings and decisions were affected by potential sources of bias or inaccuracy in their appraisal ratings (Longeneckeret al., 1987).There are methods of further bias beyond Longenecker’s evidence. The political judgements and they have been distorted further by overrating some clear competencies in performance rather than being critical across all rated competencies known as the halo effect and if some competencies arelower they may prejudice the judgment acrossthe positive reviews known as the horns effect (ACAS, 1996).One consequence of this avoidance of conflict is to rate all criterion as centralThereare methods Some ratings may only cinclude recent events and theseare known as the recency effects. In this case only recent events are noted compared to managers gathering and using data throughout the appraisal period .A particular concern is the equity of appraisal for ratings which may be distorted by gender ,ethnicity and the ratings of appraisers themselves .A range of studies in both the US and UK have highlighted subjectivity in terms of gender (Alimo-Metcalf, 1991;White, 1999) and ethnicity of the appraise and appraiser(Geddes and Konrad, 2003). Suggestions and solutions on resolving bias will be reviewed later.The second analysis is the radical critique of appraisal. This is the more critical management literature that argues that appraisal and performance management are about management control(Newton and Findley, 1996;Townley, 1993). It argues that tighter management control over employee behaviour can be achieved by the extension of appraisal to manual workers, professional as means to control. This develops the literature of Foucault using power and surveillance. This literature uses cases in examples of public service control on professionals such a teachers (Healy, 1997) and University professionals(Townley, 1990).This evidence argues the increased control of public services using appraisal as a method of control and that the outcome of managerial objectives ignores the developmental role of appraisal and ratings are awarded for people who accept and embrace the culture and organizational values . However, this literature ignores the employee resistance and the use of professional unions to challenge the attempts to exert control over professionals and staff in the appraisal process (Bach, 2005:306).Thisevidence argues One of the different issues of removing bias was the use of the test metaphor (Folgeretal.,1992).This was based on the assumption that appraisal ratings were a technical question of assessing “true” performance and there needed to be increased reliability and validity of appraisal as an instrument to develop motivation and performance. The sources of rater bias and errors can be resolved by improved organisational justice and increasing reliability of appraiser’s judgement.However there were problems such as an assumption that you can state job requirements clearly and the organization is “rational” with objectives that reflectvalues and that the judgment by appraisers’ are value free from political agendas and personal objectives. Secondly there is the second issue of subjectivity if appraisal ratings where decisions on appraisal are rated by a “political metaphor”(Hartle, 1995).This “political view” argues that a appraisal is often done badly because there is a lack of training for appraisers and appraisers may see the appraisal as a waste of time. This becomes a process which managers have to perform and not as a potential to improve employee performance .Organisations in this context are “political” and the appraisers seek to maintain performance from subordinates and view appraises as internal customers to satisfy. This means managers use appraisal to avoid interpersonal conflict and develop strategies for their own personal advancement and seek a quiet life by avoiding censure from higher managers.This perception means managers also see appraisee seeks good rating and genuine feedback and career development by seeking evidence of combining employee promotion and pay rise.This means appraisal ratings become political judgements and seek to avoid interpersonal conflicts. The approaches of the “test” and “political” metaphors of appraisal are inaccurate and lack objectivity and judgeme nt of employee performance is inaccurate and accuracy is avoided.The issue is how can organisations resolve this lack of objectivity?Grint(1993)argues that the solutions to objectivity lies in part with McGregor’s (1957) classic critique by retraining an d removal of “top down” ratings by managers and replacement with multiple rater evaluation which removes bias and the objectivity by upward performance appraisal. The validity of upward appraisal means there moval of subjective appraisal ratings.This approach is also suggested to remove gender bias in appraisal ratings against women in appraisals (Fletcher, 1999). The solution of multiple reporting(internal colleagues, customers and recipients of services) will reduce subjectivity and inequity of appraisal ratings. This argument develops further by the rise in the need to evaluate project teams and increasing levels of teamwork to include peer assessment. The solutions also in theory mean increased closer contact with individual manager and appraises and increasing services linked to customer facing evaluations.However, negative feedback still demotivates and plenty of feedback and explanation by manager who collates feedback rather than judges performance andfail to summarise evaluations.There are however still problems with accuracy of appraisal objectivity asWalker and Smither (1999)5year studyof 252 managers over 5 year period still identified issues with subjective ratings in 360 degree appraisals.There are still issues on the subjectivity of appraisals beyond the areas of lack of training.The contribution of appraisal is strongly related to employee attitudes and strong relationships with job satisfaction(Fletcher and Williams, 1996). The evidence on appraisal still remains positive in terms of reinvigo rating social relationships at work (Townley,1993)and the widespread adoption in large public services in the UK such as the national health Service (NHS)is the valuable contribution to line managers discussion with staff on their past performance, discussing personal development plans and training and development as positive issues.One further concern is the openness of appraisal related to employee reward which we now discuss.Appraisal and performance management have been inextricably linked to employee reward since the development of strategic human resource management in the 1980s. The early literature on appraisal linked appraisal with employee control (Randell, 1994;Grint, 1993;Townley, 1993, 1999) and discussed the use of performance related reward to appraisals. However therecent literature has substituted the chapter titles employee “appraisal” with “performance management”(Bach, 2005; Storey, 2007) and moved the focus on performance and performance pay and the limits of employee appraisal. The appraisal and performance pay link has developed into debates to three key issues:The first issue is has performance pay related to appraisal grown in use?The second issue is what type of performance do we reward?and the final issue is who judges management standards?The first discussion on influences of growth of performance pay schemes is the assumption that increasing linkage between individual effort and financial reward increases performance levels. This linkage between effort and financial rewardincreasing levels of performance has proved an increasing trend in the public and private sector (Bevan and Thompson, 1992;Armstrong and Baron, 1998). The drive to increase public sector performance effort and setting of targets may even be inconsistent in the experiences of some organizational settings aimed at achieving long-term targets(Kessler and Purcell, 1992;Marsden, 2007). The development of merit based pay based on performance assessed by a manager is rising in the UK Marsden (2007)reported that the: Use of performance appraisals as a basis for merit pay are used in65 percent of public sector and 69 percent of the private sector employees where appraisal covered all nonmanagerial staff(p.109).Merit pay has also grown in use as in 1998 20% of workplaces used performance related schemes compared to 32% in the same organizations 2004 (Kersley et al., 2006:191). The achievements of satisfactory ratings or above satisfactory performance averages were used as evidence to reward individual performance ratings in the UK Civil Service (Marsden, 2007).Table 13.2 outlines the extent of merit pay in 2004.The second issue is what forms of performance is rewarded. The use of past appraisal ratings as evidence of achieving merit-related payments linked to achieving higher performance was the predominant factor developed in the public services. The evidence on Setting performance targets have been as Kessler (2000:280) reported “inconsistent within organizations and problematic for certain professional or le ss skilled occupations where goals have not been easily formulated”. There has been inconclusive evidence from organizations on the impact of performance pay and its effectiveness in improving performance. Evidence from a number of individual performance pay schemes report organizations suspending or reviewing them on the grounds that individual performance reward has produced no effect in performance or even demotivates staff(Kessler, 2000:281).More in-depth studies setting performance goals followed by appraisal on how well they were resulted in loss of motivation whilst maintaining productivity and achieved managers using imposing increased performance standards (Marsden and Richardson, 1994). As Randell(1994) had highlighted earlier, the potential objectivityand self-criticism in appraisal reviews become areas that appraisees refuse to acknowledge as weaknesses with appraisers if this leads to a reduction in their merit pay.Objectivity and self reflection for development becomes a weakness that appraises fail to acknowledge as a developmental issue if it reduces their chances of a reduced evaluation that will reduce their merit reward. The review of civil service merit pay (Makinson, 2000)reported from 4 major UK Civil Service Agencies and the National Health Service concluded that existing forms of performance pay and performance management had failed to motivate many staff.The conclusions were that employees found individual performance pay divisive and led to reduced willingness to co-operate with management ,citing managerial favorites and manipulation of appraisal scores to lower ratings to save paying rewards to staff (Marsden and French, 1998).This has clear implications on the relationship between line managers and appraises and the demotivational consequences and reduced commitment provide clear evidence of the danger to linking individual performance appraisal to reward in the public services. Employees focus on the issues that gain key performance focus by focusing on specific objectives related to key performance indicators rather than all personal objectives. A study of banking performance pay by Lewis(1998)highlighted imposed targets which were unattainable with a range of 20 performance targets with narrow short term financial orientatated goals. The narrow focus on key targets and neglect of other performance aspects leads to tasks not being delivered.This final issue of judging management standards has already highlighted issues of inequity and bias based on gender (Beyer, 1990; Chen and DiTomasio, 1996; Fletcher, 1999). The suggested solutions to resolved Iscrimination have been proposed as enhanced interpersonal skills training are increased equitable use of 360 degree appraisal as a method to evaluate feedback from colleagues as this reduces the use of the “political metaphor”(Randell, 1994;Fletcher, 1999).On measures linking performance to improvement require a wider approach to enhanced work design and motivation to develop and enhance employee jobsatisfaction and the design of linkages between effort and performance are significant in the private sector and feedback and awareness in the public sector (Fletcher and Williams, 1996:176). Where rises be in pay were determined by achieving critical rated appraisal objectives, employees are less self critical and open to any developmental needs in a performance review.There are key issues that require resolution and a great deal depends on the extent to which you have a good relationship with your line manager . Barlow(1989)argued `if you get off badly with your first two managers ,you may just as well forget it (p. 515).The evidence on the continued practice of appraisals is that they are still institutionally elaborated systems of management appraisal and development is significant rhetoric in the apparatus of bureaucratic control by managers (Barlow, 1989). In reality the companies create, review, change and even abolish appraisals if they fail to develop and enhance organisational performance(Kessler, 2000).Despite all the criticism and evidence the critics have failed to suggest an alternative for a process that can provide feedback, develop motivation, identify training and potential and evidence that can justify potential career development and justify reward(Hartle, 1997).Source: Journal of Accounting Research, Jun2009译文一：绩效考核的困境作者：彼得·布朗斯，茱莉亚·布朗斯绩效管理发展中的个人业绩与企业组织相联系，以提高组织承诺的成果的实现性，审慎评估以增加工作满意度。
- 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)。
绩效考核管理外文翻译参考文献 绩效考核管理外文翻译参考文献
(文档含中英文对照即英文原文和中文翻译) 绩效考核管理外文翻译参考文献 Performance assessment inquiry Abstract In 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 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 绩效考核管理外文翻译参考文献 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