人力資源管理績效管理外文翻譯文獻(xiàn)

人力資源管理績效管理外文翻譯文獻(xiàn)人力資源管理績效管理外文翻譯文獻(xiàn)(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(xié)調(diào)競爭的優(yōu)先事項(xiàng)IanZiskin來自學(xué)術(shù)界的四位HR思想領(lǐng)袖：在南加州大學(xué)中心所研究有效組織的JohnBoudreau、在康奈爾大學(xué)高級人力資源研究中心工作的ChrisCollins、在南卡羅來納大學(xué)摩爾商學(xué)院的PatWright以及在密歇根大學(xué)和RBL集團(tuán)工作的DaveUlrich，與Ian總裁（掌管Excel集團(tuán)有限責(zé)任公司、董事會成員、HR人員和策略）從事績效管理事務(wù)。Ian就以下幾個問題向他們提問，并讓他們互相分享觀點(diǎn)：績效管理是什么？如何最大的區(qū)別有效的和無效的績效管理？在過去的幾年里，關(guān)于產(chǎn)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(jìn)展？如果就績效管理的事務(wù)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(guān)于績效管理的工作有效性或曾經(jīng)的工作的討論。你們認(rèn)為績效管理是什么?”Collins：“這可能是當(dāng)前所面臨的問題。績效管理似乎成為關(guān)乎一切的工作又像是一個獨(dú)立的工作。它與很多的目標(biāo)有聯(lián)系—如補(bǔ)償、反饋、人才發(fā)展、繼承等，然而卻不能周全?！盉oudreau：“它是一種持續(xù)的平衡評估人員需求和開發(fā)人員需求的聯(lián)系，它不是簡單的固定架構(gòu)、形式、數(shù)據(jù)、工具或系統(tǒng)?！盬right：“績效管理是關(guān)于提高組織績效的調(diào)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(tǒng)和個人。在文化層面,關(guān)于是否基于組織的精英（成果）、層次結(jié)構(gòu)(權(quán)力)或指導(dǎo)人員(關(guān)系)；在系統(tǒng)層面,關(guān)于是否確定人員達(dá)到或沒有到達(dá)目標(biāo)。在個人層面,它是關(guān)于為了創(chuàng)造金融和社會結(jié)果而評估個人的奉獻(xiàn)。”Ziskin：“鑒于你們關(guān)于績效管理的觀點(diǎn)，如何最大的區(qū)別有效與無效的績效管理？”Collin：“它開始于廣闊的文化、誠實(shí)和真實(shí)的反饋，即人們要對自己的行為負(fù)責(zé)。這個過程開始和結(jié)束于優(yōu)秀的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人，即我們應(yīng)該把所有的錢投資于開發(fā)中的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者,而不是把錢花在新的績效管理系統(tǒng)和工具上?！盉oudreau:“效益取決于人的技能和動機(jī)，而不是在于績效管理系統(tǒng)本身。創(chuàng)建一個在經(jīng)理和員工之間的共享框架和優(yōu)先項(xiàng)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(wěn)定狀態(tài)：設(shè)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，對這些標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行評估，并提供反饋的結(jié)果。有效績效管理的改進(jìn)通過利益相關(guān)者提供的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和績效的設(shè)定，使得關(guān)于未來績效商討比過去更多，并利用技術(shù)來簡化流程，更好地反映員工個人的貢獻(xiàn)和價值的成果，以及容納團(tuán)隊(duì)、個人的反饋?！盬right：“差的評估、鏈接、反饋和獎勵系統(tǒng)工具會導(dǎo)致糟糕的績效管理?！盳iskin:“如果你們回顧近幾年來關(guān)于績效管理的熱議，你們認(rèn)為最大的爭論和分歧的來源的一個或兩個觀點(diǎn)是什么?”Boudreau:“‘我們希望達(dá)到的目標(biāo)是什么?’一直是最大的爭論。它是關(guān)于人員開發(fā)和人員績效的評估這兩個不同的優(yōu)先事項(xiàng)是否能協(xié)調(diào)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(xué)會用未來（即未來的角色和未來的績效需求）視角來看待現(xiàn)在的績效工作?！盬right:“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(dú)一無二兩方面進(jìn)行。”Ulrich:“有許多舊的論點(diǎn)和一些新的論點(diǎn)。舊的論點(diǎn),包括績效管理是否被用于財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績或發(fā)展?jié)摿?都是肯定的)；我們是否應(yīng)該對行為結(jié)果采取措施（都是肯定的）；管理者是否應(yīng)該承擔(dān)績效評估責(zé)任（是的）；誰將負(fù)責(zé)整個績效管理（是直線經(jīng)理還是HR專員）?！盳iskin:“我們對這些問題的商討有什么進(jìn)展？”Boudreau:“我們在某些事情上取得了進(jìn)展，如人們?nèi)找嬲J(rèn)識到，有效的績效管理是不太關(guān)心的形式