員工對(duì)績(jī)效考核系統(tǒng)的感知（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　1800單詞，1萬英文字符，2800漢字</p><p>　　文獻(xiàn)出處：Boachiemensah F, Seidu P A. Employees’ Perception of Performance Appraisal System: A Case Study[J]. International Journal of Business & Management, 2012, 7(2

2、):93-98.</p><p><b>　　原文</b></p><p>　　Employees' Perception of Performance Appraisal System: A Case Study</p><p>　　Boachie-Mensah, Francis O; Seidu, Peter Awini</p

3、><p>　　1. Introduction</p><p>　　In today's competitive business world, it is understood that organizations can only compete with their rivals by innovating, and organizations can be innovative

4、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

5、, 2004). Unfortunately, the number of organizations using an effective performance appraisal system (PAS) is limited (Henne</p><p>　　Perceptions of employees about the targets, outcomes and uses of performan

6、ce 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 sourc

7、e 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, </p>&l

8、t;p>　　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 a

9、re 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, 2

10、001). The existence of such problems suggests that PAS may be fraught with bi</p><p>　　2. Literature Review</p><p>　　2.1 The process and purpose of performance appraisal</p><p>　　St

11、udies 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 st

12、ate 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

13、 the concept and purpose of PA, in spite of their concerns abo</p><p>　　Timing of appraisal; Selection of appraisers and Providing feedback (Scullen et al., 2003). Early PA processes were fairly simple, and

14、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 perfor

15、mance assessments continues to occur. Thus, PA is being modified from being person-focused to behaviour-oriented, with emphasis on those tasks or beh</p><p>　　Regarding the purpose of PA, Cleveland et al. (1

16、989) 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

17、 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 Objective

18、s (MBO), such as</p><p>　　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

19、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

20、for administrative purposes are more lenient than ratings for research or developmental purposes. Although </p><p>　　2.2 Rater issues</p><p>　　Researchers have shown considerable interest in var

21、iables 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 de

22、finition 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 particula

23、r, affect or mood plays a lar</p><p>　　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 tha

24、t 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 othe

25、r elements of raters' motivation and how such motivation affects the appraisal process. The issues involved include </p><p>　　The role of attribution in the PA process has also attracted recent research

26、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 wh

27、en 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, i</p>

28、;<p>　　2.3 Ratee issues</p><p>　　A 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

29、 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; Gos

30、s, 2001; Campbell et al., 1998). One theme of some recent work is that although merit pay systems sound like a good idea,</p><p>　　員工對(duì)績(jī)效考核系統(tǒng)的感知:一個(gè)案例研究</p><p>　　門薩；弗朗西斯；彼得</p><p><

31、;b>　　1 引言</b></p><p>　　在如今競(jìng)爭(zhēng)日益激烈的商業(yè)世界，據(jù)悉，組織只有通過創(chuàng)新才能與競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，尤其是組織人力資源方面的創(chuàng)新。通過一個(gè)有效和準(zhǔn)確的評(píng)價(jià)體系，人力資源系統(tǒng)可以更有效的對(duì)員工的績(jī)效進(jìn)行評(píng)價(jià)(阿姆斯特朗2003; 柏蘭德2004)。不幸的是，許多組織對(duì)績(jī)效考核系統(tǒng)的使用是有限的(亨利和&柏蘭德2003)。</p><p>　　目標(biāo)

32、的員工對(duì)績(jī)效考核結(jié)果的認(rèn)知，取決于很多因素。例如，員工更容易接受和支持給定的績(jī)效考核計(jì)劃，他們的感知過程可以作為一個(gè)有用的反饋，幫助改善他們的績(jī)效(馬林斯2007)。員工可能會(huì)接受并向給定的績(jī)效考核方案提供支持，如果他們認(rèn)為績(jī)效考核可以作為一個(gè)晉升的機(jī)會(huì)和作為個(gè)人發(fā)展機(jī)會(huì)的路徑之一，這是一個(gè)很好的機(jī)會(huì)來展示他們的技能和能力。另一方面，如果員工認(rèn)為績(jī)效考核計(jì)劃不合理，組織只是想以此來試圖監(jiān)督和控制他們(員工)，那么就可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致不好的后果。

33、，如果績(jī)效考核過程是清晰透明的，并同意由員工參與，那么績(jī)效考核將是有效的(安東尼1999)。沒有足夠的透明度，績(jī)效考核計(jì)劃可能會(huì)適得其反。此外，對(duì)于成功的績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)來說，員工的動(dòng)機(jī)、態(tài)度和行發(fā)展、個(gè)人與組織的目標(biāo)調(diào)整、培養(yǎng)管理和員工之間的積極關(guān)系都是必不可少的。(阿姆斯特朗,2003)。</p><p>　　為了獲得準(zhǔn)確的績(jī)效考核信息，必須提供客觀、公正的員工信用評(píng)級(jí)體系。由于制定一個(gè)精確的績(jī)效指標(biāo)是困難的，因此經(jīng)

34、常需要管理者的主觀意見。許多組織使用主觀和客觀評(píng)估法的組合，然而，在實(shí)際的員工績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)中存在許多問題(科貝特和肯尼,2001)。這些問題表明，績(jī)效考核系統(tǒng)可能充滿了偏差或錯(cuò)誤，導(dǎo)致?lián)p害了員工的成就和能力。它必須是不存在偏見的，績(jī)效考核系統(tǒng)才會(huì)被認(rèn)為是公平的。眾所周知，錯(cuò)誤的績(jī)效考核體系可能會(huì)對(duì)薪酬制度的公平性產(chǎn)生很大的影響（米塞麗等,1991)。在組織中，再怎么情調(diào)有效的績(jī)效考核體系的重要性都不算過分，因?yàn)橛行У目?jī)效評(píng)估有助于個(gè)人發(fā)展、

35、提高組織績(jī)效以及企業(yè)規(guī)劃。理解了這一現(xiàn)象，因此，在人類活動(dòng)的各個(gè)領(lǐng)域都要推行有效的績(jī)效考核方法。這一認(rèn)識(shí)引起了人們對(duì)組織(包括教育機(jī)構(gòu))內(nèi)員工的績(jī)效考核方面的研究興趣。</p><p>　　然而，在加納的教育部門，績(jī)效考核方面似乎缺乏一個(gè)可靠的數(shù)據(jù)。加納的情況在相關(guān)的學(xué)術(shù)文獻(xiàn)中是未曾核實(shí)的，這使得很難用適當(dāng)?shù)墓芾砀深A(yù)措施來解決現(xiàn)有問題，因?yàn)樗媾R的挑戰(zhàn)和原因都不清楚。正是在這種背景下，本研究試圖通過分析全國(guó)十個(gè)理

36、工學(xué)院之一的塔科臘迪理工學(xué)院的員工績(jī)效考核情況，來</p><p>　　評(píng)估加納教育部門的員工績(jī)效考核方面的偏差。這項(xiàng)研究試圖從員工的角度檢查績(jī)效考核方面的錯(cuò)誤看法，并且試圖收集和分析信息，協(xié)助為個(gè)人和企業(yè)發(fā)展創(chuàng)新的績(jī)效考核方法。這項(xiàng)研究的發(fā)現(xiàn)將有助于填補(bǔ)現(xiàn)存的文獻(xiàn)的空缺，研究結(jié)果還將為提高組織的績(jī)效考核水平提供有用的見解和指導(dǎo)。</p><p><b>　　2文獻(xiàn)綜述</

37、b></p><p>　　2.1 績(jī)效考核的過程和目的</p><p>　　研究表明，有很多方法可以用來評(píng)估員工的行為和績(jī)效。然而，考評(píng)的結(jié)果，許多管理者都比較困惑和員工對(duì)評(píng)估過程也不滿(葛碧思和迪克曼妮2007)。在許多組織評(píng)估系統(tǒng)中，這種情況似乎廣泛流行，并且產(chǎn)生了很多負(fù)面影響。大多數(shù)人支持績(jī)效考核的觀點(diǎn)和目的，盡管他們擔(dān)憂的過程和評(píng)價(jià)結(jié)果受到經(jīng)理主觀上的影響(格羅特,1996)

38、。而經(jīng)理最大的抱怨是，他們并沒有被給予足夠的指導(dǎo)方法來對(duì)員工進(jìn)行績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)。員工的最大的抱怨是，這個(gè)過程是不公平的。績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)主要集中在評(píng)估員工過去的行為 (貝森2008)。</p><p>　　早期的績(jī)效考核過程是相當(dāng)簡(jiǎn)單的。然而，這些早期的基于評(píng)價(jià)系統(tǒng)是問題重重的。因此，過渡到工作績(jī)效方面的評(píng)估也是如此。因此，之前主要集中于員工行為方面的績(jī)效考核方案被修改為現(xiàn)在強(qiáng)調(diào)這些任務(wù)或行為與特定的工作績(jī)效。(威爾伯里等19

39、98)。</p><p>　　關(guān)于績(jī)效考核的目的，克利夫蘭等人（1989)描述了績(jī)效考核四種類型的用途:人與人之，內(nèi)部人,系統(tǒng)維護(hù)和文檔。人之間的用途是指在組織的行政目的，根據(jù)個(gè)人的績(jī)效，作出薪酬管理、晉升、保留、終止、裁員等決定。在組織內(nèi)部的用途則是指確定目標(biāo)管理(MBO)，如績(jī)效優(yōu)勢(shì)和識(shí)別培訓(xùn)需求?？?jī)效考核也有助于組織目標(biāo)，被稱為系統(tǒng)維護(hù)用途。</p><p>　　最后，文檔的目的是通

40、過記錄人力資源決策來研究績(jī)效考核。一些組織正在試圖同時(shí)實(shí)現(xiàn)所有這些目標(biāo) (威斯·巴克利1998)。瓦哈爾和威廉姆斯(1997)的研究結(jié)果表明，在行政背景下，績(jī)效考核的質(zhì)量受到很大的影響 (墨菲克利夫蘭,1995)。有見識(shí)的管理者認(rèn)識(shí)到績(jī)效考核體系是管理的一種工具，而不是用來上測(cè)試下屬等工具。這樣的經(jīng)理會(huì)使用績(jī)效考來激勵(lì)和發(fā)展下屬，最大化獲取組織中的重要資源來提高生產(chǎn)力。</p><p>　　2.2 評(píng)定

41、等級(jí)的問題</p><p>　　研究者們對(duì)個(gè)人評(píng)價(jià)相關(guān)的變量表現(xiàn)出了相當(dāng)大的興趣(萊夫科維茨,2000;萊維和威廉姆斯,2000;羅賓斯和尼西1998)。對(duì)評(píng)定等級(jí)研究最多的一個(gè)是評(píng)定等級(jí)的影響變量(萊維和威廉姆斯,2004)。一般定義為對(duì)一個(gè)下屬的喜歡或積極的關(guān)注(萊夫科維茨,2000)。福加斯和喬治(2001)的研究表明，情感狀態(tài)會(huì)影響判斷和行為，特別是影響或情緒在績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)過程中扮演著重要的角色。在賓夕法尼亞

42、州，評(píng)級(jí)機(jī)構(gòu)更傾向于積極正面的績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)(辛克萊,1988)。對(duì)員工情感方面比較認(rèn)同，會(huì)傾向于更少地懲罰下屬，關(guān)系更好、更大的光環(huán)和更少的準(zhǔn)確性(萊夫科維茨,2000)。安東尼奧尼和帕克(2001年)發(fā)現(xiàn)，相比于在傳統(tǒng)的自上而下的評(píng)級(jí)，這一影響更強(qiáng)烈。</p><p>　　評(píng)價(jià)者相關(guān)的第二個(gè)大的領(lǐng)域就是評(píng)級(jí)的動(dòng)機(jī)。傳統(tǒng)上，研究者們似乎認(rèn)為評(píng)價(jià)者把的評(píng)級(jí)精確率作為動(dòng)機(jī) (萊維和威廉姆斯,2004)。然而，這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)被質(zhì)

43、疑。所涉及的問題包括個(gè)體差異和評(píng)級(jí)的目的。大多數(shù)從業(yè)者希望考核是寬大的，公平的 (墨菲克利夫蘭,1995;維拉諾瓦等1993;伯納德等 2000)。</p><p>　　績(jī)效考核過程中的歸因角色也吸引了近年來學(xué)者們的研究，包括評(píng)級(jí)者的動(dòng)機(jī)如何影響他們的實(shí)際評(píng)級(jí)工作(斯特拉瑟等 1998)。評(píng)級(jí)時(shí)考慮評(píng)級(jí)者的行為</p><p>　　和他們的聲譽(yù)，這些都是很重要的 (約翰遜等2002)。這意

44、味著歸因評(píng)級(jí)過程的處理是一個(gè)重要的元素，這些屬性也一定的程度上反應(yīng)了評(píng)級(jí)者的評(píng)價(jià)工作?？颇够鸵蚩怂?1990)認(rèn)為評(píng)級(jí)機(jī)構(gòu)會(huì)扭曲評(píng)級(jí)鑒定，當(dāng)他們被追究受評(píng)者的評(píng)級(jí)責(zé)任時(shí)。他們強(qiáng)調(diào)問責(zé)制會(huì)導(dǎo)致績(jī)效評(píng)級(jí)的扭曲。這種觀點(diǎn)也證實(shí)了其他的研究成果(梅羅等2003;肖爾和塔斯亞2002)。也有學(xué)者使用問責(zé)制作為一種提高評(píng)級(jí)鑒定準(zhǔn)確性的工具，可以增加評(píng)估體系的接受程度，以及使人力資源系統(tǒng)更有效率(蒂格1998)。</p><p

45、>　　2.3 接受績(jī)效考核者的問題</p><p>　　績(jī)效考核的第二個(gè)重點(diǎn)就是要研究受評(píng)者對(duì)績(jī)效考核的反應(yīng)。研究關(guān)注動(dòng)機(jī)，主要原因是績(jī)效和獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)之間是聯(lián)系在一起的，此外，績(jī)效考核過程中的這些元素也增加了被考評(píng)者的動(dòng)機(jī)，增加了他們的參與度。（利維和威廉姆斯,2004;戈斯,2004;坎貝爾等1998)。最近的一些研究表明，雖然績(jī)效工資系統(tǒng)聽起來一個(gè)好主意，但很少有證據(jù)表明它是成功的(戈斯,2001)。盡管其有