人力資源管理績效管理外文翻譯文獻人力資源管理績效管理外文翻譯文獻(文檔含中英文對照即英文原文和中文翻譯) 原文：PerformanceManagement:ReconcilingCompetingPrioritiesIanZiskinFourHRthoughtleadersfromacademia—JohnBoudreauoftheUSCCenterforEffectiveOrganizations,ChrisCollinsoftheCornellCenterforAdvancedHRStudies,PatWrightoftheMooreCollegeofBusinessattheUniversityofSouthCarolina,andDaveUlrichofUniversityofMichiganandtheRBLGroup—engagedindiscussionsonPerformanceManagementwithIanZiskin,President,EXecEXcelGroupLLCandBoardmember,HRPeople&Strategy.IanaskedJohn,Chris,Pat,andDavetosharetheirperspectivesontopicsincluding:?WhatPerformanceManagementis??Whatmakesthebiggestdifferencetoeffectivevs.ineffectivePerformanceManagement??WhatthebiggestsourcesofdebateanddisagreementhavebeenregardingPerformanceManagementovertheyears,andwhetherwehavemadeanyprogressinresolvingtheseissues？?IftheyweregoingtofixorkillanythingaboutPerformanceManagement,whatitwouldbeandwhy？?WhatbigimplicationsthereareforfuturerequiredchangestoPerformanceManagementinlightoffuturework,workforceandworkplacetrends？Ziskin:ThereisalotoftalkinorganizationsaboutwhetherPerformanceManagementisworkingeffectivelyoreverhas.WhatdoyouthinkPerformanceManagementis?Collins:Thismaybethequestionoftheyear.PerformanceManagementhasbecomeeverythingandthereforenothing.Itservessomanypurposes—compensation,feedback,talentdevelopment,succession,etc.—thatitmaynotserveanypurposeverywell.Boudreau:It'sanongoingrelationshiptobalancetheneedtoevaluatepeoplewiththeneedtodevelopthem.It'snotaboutbromides,forms,scores,toolsorsystems.Wright:PerformanceManagementisaboutaligningbehaviorinawaythatincreasesorganizationaleffectiveness.Ulrich:IthinkweneedtolookatPerformanceManagementfromthreelevels:cultural,systemsandpersonal.Attheculturallevel,it'saboutwhethertheorganizationjudgespeoplebasedonmeritocracy(results),hierarchy(power)orrelationships(connections).Atthesystemslevel,it'saboutdeterminingwhetherpeoplemeetormissobjectives.Atthepersonallevel,it'saboutassessingtheindividual'sdedicationtodeliverbothfinancialandsocialresults.Ziskin:GivenyourpointofviewaboutPerformanceManagement,whatmakesthebiggestdifferencetowhetheritiseffectivevs.ineffective?Collins:Itstartswithhavingacultureofopenness,honestyandrealfeedback—andthenholdingpeopleaccountable.Thisprocessbeginsandendswithgoodleaders,andallofourmoneyshouldbeinvestedindevelopingleaderstolead,ratherthanspendingmoneyonnewPerformanceManagementsystemsandtools.Boudreau:Effectivenessrestsintheskillsandmotivationsofthepeopleinvolved,notinthePerformanceManagementsystemitself.Itisparticularlyimportanttocreateasharedframeworkandprioritiesbetweenmanagersandtheiremployees.Ulrich:ThefourgenericstepsofPerformanceManagementhaveremainedrelativelystableovertime:setstandards,assessagainstthosestandards,allocateconsequencesandprovidefeedback.ImprovementsintheeffectivenessofPerformanceManagementhavecomefromenablingexternalstakeholderstoprovideinputonstandardsandperformance,makingtheperformancediscussionmoreaboutthefuturethanthepast,usingtechnologytosimplifytheprocess,tailoringtheconsequencestobetterreflectindividualemployeecontributionsandvalue,andaccommodatingbothteamaswellasindividualfeedback.Wright:Badtools,badevaluations,badfeedbackandbadlinkstorewardsystemsleadtobadPerformanceManagement.Ziskin:IfyoulookbackovertheyearsofdebateaboutPerformanceManagement,whatoneortwothingsstandoutinyourmindasthebiggestsourcesofdebateanddisagreement?Boudreau:Thebiggestdebatehasbeenaboutwhatarewetryingtoachieve?It'salwaysbeenaboutdevelopmentofpeoplevs.evaluationoftheirperformance,andwhetherthesetwodifferentprioritiescanbereconciled.Collins:Doyouseparateperformancefeedbackfromcompensation,andhowdoyoudoboth?Wealsoneedtolearntoseparatethediscussionaboutcurrentperformancefromthefuture—futurerolesandfutureperformancerequirements.Wright:Thedebatecontinuesoversimplifyingtoolsvs.customizinguniquetoolstospecificjobs,roles,situationsandindividuals.Ulrich:Thereareanumberofolddebatesandsomenewdebates.TheolddebatesincludePerformanceManagementshouldbeusedfordiscussingfinancialresultsordevelopmentpotential(yestoboth),whetherweshouldmeasureresultsaswellasbehavior(yestoboth),whethermanagersshouldbeaccountabletodoperformancereviews(yes),andwhoshouldownPerformanceManagement—thelineorHR(thelineownsit,HRisthearchitect).Ziskin:Havewemadeanyprogressinresolvingthedebateovertheseissues?Boudreau:Wehavemadeprogressinsomething,suchasthegrowingrecognitionthateffectivePerformanceManagementismuchlessaboutformsandmuchmoreaboutrelationships.Collins:Iamgravelydisappointedintheprogresswe'vemadeinthepast20years,especiallyinaccommodatingnewwaysofworkingsuchasmoredistributed,virtualwork.Wealsohavenotmadeenoughprogressinaccountingforteamperformanceinsteadofjustindividualperformance.Wright:Wearemakingprogressinlinkingresults,behaviorsandrewards.I'dsaywearebeginningtoachievebestprinciplesinPerformanceManagement,butwehavenotyetachievedbestpractices.Ulrich:ThefollowingnewdebatesaremoreinterestingtomethantheolddebatesImentionedabove,andeventhoughwearebeginningtomakesomeprogress,weneedmuchmore:howwesimplifytheprocess,howwehavemeaningfulpersonalconversationsbetweenleadersandemployeesandhowwebuildaperformanceculturewheremeritocracyisexpected.Ziskin:InlightofthePerformanceManagementdebatesandrelatedmixedprogresswehavediscussed,ifyouweregoingtofixorkillonethingrelatedtoPerformanceManagement,whatitwoulditbyandwhy?Collins:IwouldfixPerformanceManagementbyinvestinginbetterleadersgivingbetterfeedback,ratherthantryingtofixPerformanceManagementbyinvestinginbettertools.Boudreau:IwouldkillthedebateaboutPerformanceManagementforms,toolsandtechnologyenhancements,andinsteadputmorethan80percentofourresourcesintoteachinganddevelopingleadersandemployeestogetthemostoutoftheperformancefeedbackdiscussion.Ulrich:IwouldkillPerformanceManagementcomplexity,andsimplifytheprocess.Sometimes,theprocessbecomestheenditself,andthereismeans/endinversion.Wright:Iwouldkilltheparochialismthatcomesfrommyway,mytoolandmyprocess.ThereisalottobelearnedfromhowothersaredoingPerformanceManagement.Ziskin:Whenyouconsiderthefutureofwork,theworkplaceandtheworkforce—andhowallthesethingsarechangingandaffectingbusinessperformance—whatoneortwobigimplicationsarethereforrequiredchangestoPerformanceManagementinthefuture?Ulrich:ThebiggestimplicationsforthefutureIseearesimplificationofthePerformanceManagementprocessandmoreoutside/inperspectivewherebyPerformanceManagementismoreconnectedtoinputfromexternalstakeholders.Wright:Wewillseeagreateremphasisonevaluatingresults,theendproduct,ratherthanbehavior,becauseglobaldispersionofworkwillmakeitmuchmoredifficulttodirectlyobservebehavior.Boudreau:Asaresultofincreasinglyvirtual,remote,temporaryandindependentwork,performanceassessmentcannolongeronlybedonebyleaders—itwillalsobedonebyothersincludingpeersandemployeesthemselves.PerformanceManagementwillnolongerbetheprovinceofleaders.Collins:PerformanceManagementisgoinginthedirectionofmorefrequent,moretransparent,morevirtual,moreratersandmoreteam-based.Ziskin:Basedoninsightsfromouracademicexperts,aswellasfrommyownexperience,ifyouareworkingtoreconcilethecompetingprioritiesassociatedwithPerformanceManagement,thinkaboutthefollowingguidelines:?Simplifyandde-emphasizeformsandprocessinfavorofimprovingthequalityofrelationshipsandconversationbetweenleadersandemployees?AccommodatetrendstowardmorevirtualandflexibleworkandchangingdemographicsthoroughPerformanceManagementapproachesthatemphasizetransparency,frequencyandinputfromabroaderrangeofinternalandexternalconstituents?MovefromarelativelynarrowfocusonPerformanceManagementtoabroaderemphasisonPerformanceCulture\o"SearchforPeople&Strategy"People&Strategy.2013,Vol.36Issue2,p24-25.2p.

譯文：績效管理：協調競爭的優先事項IanZiskin來自學術界的四位HR思想領袖：在南加州大學中心所研究有效組織的JohnBoudreau、在康奈爾大學高級人力資源研究中心工作的ChrisCollins、在南卡羅來納大學摩爾商學院的PatWright以及在密歇根大學和RBL集團工作的DaveUlrich，與Ian總裁（掌管Excel集團有限責任公司、董事會成員、HR人員和策略）從事績效管理事務。Ian就以下幾個問題向他們提問，并讓他們互相分享觀點：績效管理是什么？如何最大的區別有效的和無效的績效管理？在過去的幾年里，關于產生績效管理的爭論和分歧的最大原因是什么，我們在解決這些問題上是否取得進展？如果就績效管理的事務來整頓或改變管理，那該怎么做，為什么？在未來的工作、勞動力和工作場所的情形中，什么是影響未來的績效管理需求變化？Ziskin：“有很多關于績效管理的工作有效性或曾經的工作的討論。你們認為績效管理是什么?”Collins：“這可能是當前所面臨的問題。績效管理似乎成為關乎一切的工作又像是一個獨立的工作。它與很多的目標有聯系—如補償、反饋、人才發展、繼承等，然而卻不能周全。”Boudreau：“它是一種持續的平衡評估人員需求和開發人員需求的聯系，它不是簡單的固定架構、形式、數據、工具或系統?！盬right：“績效管理是關于提高組織績效的調整行為?！盪lrich：“我覺得我們需要從三個層次看待績效管理：文化、系統和個人。在文化層面,關于是否基于組織的精英（成果）、層次結構(權力)或指導人員(關系)；在系統層面,關于是否確定人員達到或沒有到達目標。在個人層面,它是關于為了創造金融和社會結果而評估個人的奉獻。”Ziskin：“鑒于你們關于績效管理的觀點，如何最大的區別有效與無效的績效管理？”Collin：“它開始于廣闊的文化、誠實和真實的反饋，即人們要對自己的行為負責。這個過程開始和結束于優秀的領導人，即我們應該把所有的錢投資于開發中的領導者,而不是把錢花在新的績效管理系統和工具上。”Boudreau:“效益取決于人的技能和動機，而不是在于績效管理系統本身。創建一個在經理和員工之間的共享框架和優先項目是特別重要的?！盪lrich:“績效管理的四個通用步驟隨時保持相對穩定狀態：設定標準，對這些標準進行評估，并提供反饋的結果。有效績效管理的改進通過利益相關者提供的標準和績效的設定，使得關于未來績效商討比過去更多，并利用技術來簡化流程，更好地反映員工個人的貢獻和價值的成果，以及容納團隊、個人的反饋。”Wright：“差的評估、鏈接、反饋和獎勵系統工具會導致糟糕的績效管理?！盳iskin:“如果你們回顧近幾年來關于績效管理的熱議，你們認為最大的爭論和分歧的來源的一個或兩個觀點是什么?”Boudreau:“‘我們希望達到的目標是什么?’一直是最大的爭論。它是關于人員開發和人員績效的評估這兩個不同的優先事項是否能協調的問題?！盋ollins:“使績效反饋脫離薪酬，怎么兩全呢？我們也需要學會用未來（即未來的角色和未來的績效需求）視角來看待現在的績效工作。”Wright:“為了特殊工作、角色、情景和個人情況，爭議一直圍繞簡化工具和定制獨一無二兩方面進行?！盪lrich:“有許多舊的論點和一些新的論點。舊的論點,包括績效管理是否被用于財務業績或發展潛力(都是肯定的)；我們是否應該對行為結果采取措施（都是肯定的）；管理者是否應該承擔績效評估責任（是的）；誰將負責整個績效管理（是直線經理還是HR專員）?！盳iskin:“我們對這些問題的商討有什么進展？”Boudreau:“我們在某些事情上取得了進展，如人們日益認識到，有效的績效管理是不太關心的形式