某企業(yè)績效管理問題研究外文翻譯

1、<p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文（設(shè)計）</p><p><b>　　外文翻譯</b></p><p>　　題 目 某企業(yè)績效管理問題研究 </p><p>　　學(xué) 院 商學(xué)院 </p><

2、p>　　專 業(yè) 人力資源管理 </p><p>　　班 級 </p><p>　　外文題目 Can Performance Management Foster Intelligent Behavior? </p&g

3、t;<p>　　外文出處 People & Strategy </p><p>　　外文作者 Nagpal, Gyan </p><p><b>　　原文一：</b></p><p>　

4、　Can Performance Management Foster Intelligent Behavior?</p><p>　　Bjarte Bogsnes</p><p>　　The world has changed, not just in increasingly fast-changing and unpredictable ways, but also the compe

5、tence and expectations of people in our organizations. Unfortunately, too few seem to understand or accept that these developments call for radically new and different ways of leading and managing. Traditional management

6、 practices do not make us the agile organizations we need to be.</p><p>　　The problem starts with the label, "Performance Management" implying, "If I don't manage you, there will be no per

7、formance."We need a new mindset, one that is less about managing performance and more about creating conditions for great performance to occur. We need self-regulating models, requiring less management, but more lea

8、dership from everyone.</p><p>　　Think about traffic, where we want good performance and a safe good flow. Traffic authorities have different ways of making this happen. The traffic light is a popular choice,

9、 but those managing the process (programmers) are not in the situation; information used in their process is not fresh, which is clear as you wait in front of that red light.</p><p>　　The roundabout is a ver

10、y different alternative. Those managing are the drivers themselves. The information used is real time, coming from own observations. While that information is also available in front of the traffic light, drivers do not

11、have the authority to act on it. By the way, the "zipper" or "every second car through" is not a rule, but a guiding principle.</p><p>　　The roundabout normally is more efficient than the

12、 traffic light, because of two significant differences in the decision-making process, information and authority. A third element is also required for the roundabout to be more efficient: while the traffic light is a sim

13、ple-rules based system, the roundabout is values-based. A value-set based on, "Me first, I don't care about the rest," is not a big a problem in front of the red light, but is a serious problem in a roundab

14、out. Here, a positive co</p><p>　　What would the implications be for the loathed performance review? The principles and practices described at Return Path are sensible and interesting. I like the concept of

15、horizontal commitments toward peers, instead of vertical commitments to higher management. At the same time, we need to broaden our definition of performance. In traditional performance, a commitment is too often about &

16、quot;hitting the number." This is too narrow. We need to ask questions such as, how are we doing compared to pee</p><p>　　At Statoil our integrated performance management approach links ambitions to act

17、ions. Our targets reflect a broad set of ambitions, including people, health, safety, environment, operations and financial performance. Read more about our management model and how we apply a holistic and values-based a

18、pproach to this broader performance agenda.</p><p>　　The words of Dee Hock, former GEO of Visa, should guide the design of our management processes, including our performance reviews: "Simple, clear pur

19、pose and principles give rise to complex, intelligent behavior. Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple, stupid behavior."</p><p>　　While researching my book. Talent Economics, I interviewed e

20、mployees about what really motivates today's workforce. I discovered a disconnect between the performance support my interviewees wanted versus how managers recounted their contribution to these conversations.</p&

21、gt;<p>　　Over the last 20 years, the employee mindset has evolved faster than has the art and science of management. Nowhere is this starker than in the area of performance management practices, particularly the a

22、nnual review. In both the developed and developing world, employees report that this end-of-year activity breeds stress, anxiety and mistrust. How ironic that a process aimed at improving organizational performance, is i

23、tself underperforming!</p><p>　　It's time to "reboot" our performance management operating system, installing two specific system updates:</p><p>　　l. The "Democracy" upd

24、ate. As much as we try to make the performance appraisal a two way dialogue, we cannot run away from the fact that at its core, the conversation today is often a top-down review. My research shows that many 21st century

25、employees are rejecting conversations that are one-way: in hot job markets today, managers must realize "who is appraising whom." With other offers readily available, many employees enter a performance dialogue

26、 privately considering if their manager is worth</p><p>　　The Democracy update means that managers only gain the right to give feedback when they first genuinely seek the same on their own performance as lea

27、ders. Not just through 360-degree reviews, but also through authentic conversations asking, "How am I performing as your manager? " and "How can I help you succeed?" Only then can the conversation shi

28、ft to, "How you can improve?" and "This is what you should focus on."</p><p>　　2. The Success module. Greater employee autonomy and empowerment also changes the meaning of management. We

29、have gone from a "supervisor of task and outcomes" to an "enabler of performance, innovative thinking and collective success." To make this shift, we must give up the judge's robes for the coach&#

30、39;s uniform. If employees don't succeed, managers are on the hook, too.</p><p>　　This is particularly relevant when coaching a team to success. People bring different skills to a team and how well they

31、work together really matters. If team reviews work better to achieve a goal, so be it. The Return Path story illustrates how review processes can be designed and executed around what matters most, and where everyone dons

32、 the uniforms of player and coach.</p><p>　　What if, instead of making the heart of a performance conversation the evaluation, it became a vehicle to improve success of the individual, the team and the busin

33、ess? What if performance feedback was paired with dialogue about transforming the business, the product or customer experience? This genuinely reboots and upgrades performance management to focus on individual and organi

34、zational success.</p><p>　　It is indeed time to upgrade performance management practices: we can no longer manage a 21st century employee using 20th century mindsets.</p><p>　　People & Strat

35、egy. 2013, Vol. 36 Issue 2, p12-13. 2p.</p><p><b>　　譯文一： </b></p><p>　　績效管理能促進自我管理行為嗎?</p><p>　　Bjarte Bogsnes</p><p>　　世界隨著時間的推移而變化莫測，連那些與時變化而不可預(yù)測的通道也隨之改變，

36、與此同時組織人員的能力和期望也順應(yīng)時代潮流。不可想象的是，那些關(guān)于基于新的與眾不同的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)和管理的方式的開發(fā)，似乎很少被人們理解或接受。傳統(tǒng)的管理方法已經(jīng)無法滿足當前所要求的靈活管理的組織。</p><p>　　就像如“績效管理”的一些標語所揭示的“如果我不進行管理,就不會有績效的存在?！?我們需要一個新的理念, 來表述那種創(chuàng)造更多優(yōu)秀績效的產(chǎn)生卻很少涉及績效管理的新思路。同時需要一種自我調(diào)節(jié)的模型, 即每一個人員

37、在被管理的時候，要求盡量少的管理行為和盡量多的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)關(guān)系。</p><p>　　思考下那些我們經(jīng)常關(guān)注的良好安全的交通流通問題。引起交通事故發(fā)生的原因有很多。雖然交通指示燈很管用，但卻不被列入交通事故管理程序（即程序管理）中。就像當你在十字路口等待紅綠燈時，看到它作為交通管理，會覺得沒有什么好在意的。</p><p>　　車行繞道是一個與眾不同的駕駛選擇。這由司機自己通常駕駛方式所決定，也就

38、是說使用實時的信息,來自于自己日常觀察所累積的經(jīng)驗。當過十字路口的時候，有些行駛的方式是被禁止的。順便說一下,“三叉路口”或“每秒鐘汽車通行量”所表示的并不是一個規(guī)則,而是一種通行指導(dǎo)。</p><p>　　一般車行繞道通常都比常規(guī)過紅綠燈更有效率，這是因為兩種行使方式的差別在于決策、信息和權(quán)威的行使過程。必要而有效的車行繞道的第三個影響因素：當交通燈是基于一個簡單的規(guī)則的系統(tǒng),則車行繞道通行是一種基于價值選擇的

39、方式。一個基于設(shè)置“第一，我不在乎休息” 的價值觀，盡管過紅燈前不是大的問題，但相對于繞道通行就是一個嚴肅的問題。在這里，對于想要有一個安全良好的車輛流通，有一個積極共同的目標是至關(guān)重要的。當試圖了解同行的規(guī)則時候，司機必須發(fā)散思想并考慮更多。車行流通的例子為自我管理的績效方式進行了深入解說，貶低了管理績效的實用性能。</p><p>　　影響績效考核結(jié)果很差的因素是什么？返回上面的思考可以知道，熟悉規(guī)則和進行實

40、踐是非常重要的。</p><p>　　我喜歡向同級人員進行平行工作上的交流，而不喜歡向高級管理進行垂直工作上的交流。與此同時,我們需要深入理解績效的定義。在傳統(tǒng)的績效中，承諾就像一個固定形式，如“設(shè)定這個數(shù)字”，那是一種狹隘的思維想法設(shè)定。值得考慮的是，例如我們?nèi)绾卧谕壢藛T之間進行比較？我們?nèi)绾问褂藐P(guān)鍵業(yè)績指標（KPI）去反映績效，或者先預(yù)測和管理評估去驗證績效結(jié)果？我們正走向我們長期追求的目標嗎？如何維持良好

41、績效結(jié)果？最后值得一提，績效系統(tǒng)能促進自我管理空間價值的行為。我們需自問,從哪里獲得此成果？</p><p>　　挪威國家石油公司采取綜合績效管理方法與追求的目標相聯(lián)系。我們當前的目標與未來目標相聯(lián)系,包括人、健康、安全、環(huán)境、運營和財務(wù)表現(xiàn)。通過開放的績效議程了解更多關(guān)于我們的管理模式，以及我們?nèi)绾握w應(yīng)用以價值為基礎(chǔ)的方法。</p><p>　　前任簽證局的CEO，Dee Hock曾說

42、過這句話“言簡意賅的目標和原則產(chǎn)生復(fù)雜的自我管理行為。而復(fù)雜規(guī)則和法規(guī)則產(chǎn)生簡單而愚蠢的行為”，這告訴我們?nèi)绾胃迷O(shè)計管理和績效考核。</p><p>　　當探討我所著的書――《人才經(jīng)濟學(xué)》。我采訪了當時正受正激勵的員工。我發(fā)現(xiàn)那些支持我的觀點的受訪者，他們希望從我采訪他們的對話中講訴他們的貢獻，而我卻與之相背離。</p><p>　　在過去的20年里,員工的心態(tài)變化速度超過過去管理方法的

43、范圍。尤其是年度審查，這明顯不是績效管理實踐領(lǐng)域。在發(fā)達國家和發(fā)展中國家的員工報告中,這種年終活動充滿壓力、焦慮和不信任。有諷刺意味的是,這一過程旨在改善組織績效,其本身實行效果并不佳！</p><p>　　是時候“重啟””我們的績效管理操作系統(tǒng),安裝更新兩個特定系統(tǒng):</p><p>　　1. “民主”的更新。當今對話方式通常是一個自上而下的評估方式，但我們不可能逃避績效考核的核心事實，

44、應(yīng)該盡量使績效考核保持雙向評估狀態(tài)。在我的研究表明中,21世紀的員工大多數(shù)拒絕單向的對話: 在火熱的就業(yè)市場中，管理者們必須意識到“評價者是誰”。此外，應(yīng)與其他可提供的事實相比較，如員工認為他們的管理者是直接關(guān)系到他們下一年的職業(yè)生涯，那么他們更愿意進入私人績效對話交談中。目前績效管理的溝通對話方式從某方面也反映了一個公司的員工價值主張,就像我們以領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的視角去學(xué)習(xí)一樣。</p><p>　　民主的更新意味著，當員

45、工們第一次真誠尋求與同自己的表現(xiàn)一樣領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者交流的時候，此時管理者才能獲得正確的反饋信息。不僅只是通過360度去評價, 同時也要通過真實的對話進行詢問:“作為你們的管理者，我該怎么做？”，此外可以把話題意思轉(zhuǎn)換為“你怎么改進？”和“這就是你應(yīng)該所注重的?！?lt;/p><p>　　2. 成就模型。更多給予員工自主管理范圍和權(quán)力下方的管理方式也改變了管理原來意義。我們從“任務(wù)和成果的監(jiān)控”到一個“動力績效、創(chuàng)新思維和集體

46、的成就?！钡霓D(zhuǎn)變，可以認識到其意義。通過這種認識，我們必須放棄一般上級管理者的架勢。如果員工不能做成功，那么管理者的價值也將受貶低。</p><p>　　引導(dǎo)一個團隊績效工作成功，將帶來一個特別重大的意義。一個團隊人員帶來各自不同的技能，他們將相互學(xué)習(xí)，把好的工作行為滲透到工作中。如果團隊評估工作的成果能達到任務(wù)的目標，那就隨他去吧。返回上面的故事再說明下，評估過程根據(jù)最佳績效成果和同等角色做同等事物的比較，來進

47、行設(shè)計和執(zhí)行。</p><p>　　假設(shè)認為績效評價的核心理念是一個提高個人、團隊和業(yè)務(wù)成功的工具，它將是怎么樣的？如果績效反饋與有關(guān)業(yè)務(wù)的轉(zhuǎn)變、產(chǎn)品或客戶體驗相關(guān)聯(lián)，它又是怎樣的？專注于個人和組織的成功就是真正的重新啟動和升級績效管理。</p><p>　　績效管理實踐需及時更新：我們不應(yīng)該以20世紀管理思想去管理21世紀員工。</p><p>　　People

48、& Strategy. 2013, Vol. 36 Issue 2, p12-13. 2p.</p><p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文（設(shè)計）</p><p><b>　　外文翻譯</b></p><p>　　題 目 某企業(yè)績效管理問題研究 </p><p>　　學(xué)

49、 院 </p><p>　　專 業(yè) 人力資源管理 </p><p>　　班 級 </p><p>　　外文題目

50、Performance Management: Reconciling Competing Priorities</p><p>　　外文出處 People & Strategy </p><p>　　外文作者 Ziskin, Ian

51、</p><p><b>　　原文二 ：</b></p><p>　　Performance Management: Reconciling Competing Priorities</p><p>　　Ian Ziskin </p><p>　　Four HR thought leaders from academia

52、— John Boudreau of the USC Center for Effective Organizations, Chris Collins of the Cornell Center for Advanced HR Studies, Pat Wright of the Moore College of Business at the University of South Carolina, and Dave Ulrich

53、 of University of Michigan and the RBL Group — engaged in discussions on Performance Management with Ian Ziskin, President, EXec EXcel Group LLC and Board member, HR People & Strategy. Ian asked John, Chris,Pat, and

54、Dave to share their perspec</p><p>　　? What Performance Management is?</p><p>　　? What makes the biggest difference to effective vs. ineffective Performance Management?</p><p>　　? W

55、hat the biggest sources of debate and disagreement have been regarding Performance Management over the years, and whether we have made any progress in resolving these issues？</p><p>　　? If they were going to

56、 fix or kill anything about Performance Management, what it would be and why？</p><p>　　? What big implications there are for future required changes to Performance Management in light of future work, workfor

57、ce and workplace trends？</p><p>　　Ziskin: There is a lot of talk in organizations about whether Performance Management is working effectively or ever has. What do you think Performance Management is? </p&

58、gt;<p>　　Collins: This may be the question of the year. Performance Management has become everything and therefore nothing. It serves so many purposes — compensation, feedback, talent development, succession, etc.

59、 — that it may not serve any purpose very well. </p><p>　　Boudreau: It's an ongoing relationship to balance the need to evaluate people with the need to develop them. It's not about bromides, forms,

60、scores, tools or systems. </p><p>　　Wright: Performance Management is about aligning behavior in a way that increases organizational effectiveness. </p><p>　　Ulrich: I think we need to look at P

61、erformance Management from three levels: cultural, systems and personal. At the cultural level, it's about whether the organization judges people based on meritocracy (results), hierarchy (power) or relationships (co

62、nnections). At the systems level, it's about determining whether people meet or miss objectives. At the personal level, it's about assessing the individual's dedication to deliver both financial and social re

63、sults. </p><p>　　Ziskin: Given your point of view about Performance Management, what makes the biggest difference to whether it is effective vs. ineffective? </p><p>　　Collins: It starts with ha

64、ving a culture of openness, honesty and real feedback — and then holding people accountable. This process begins and ends with good leaders, and all of our money should be invested in developing leaders to lead, rather t

65、han spending money on new Performance Management systems and tools.</p><p>　　Boudreau: Effectiveness rests in the skills and motivations of the people involved, not in the Performance Management system itsel

66、f. It is particularly important to create a shared framework and priorities between managers and their employees. </p><p>　　Ulrich: The four generic steps of Performance Management have remained relatively s

67、table over time: set standards, assess against those standards, allocate consequences and provide feedback. Improvements in the effectiveness of Performance Management have come from enabling external stakeholders to pro

68、vide input on standards and performance, making the performance discussion more about the future than the past, using technology to simplify the process, tailoring the consequences to better reflec</p><p>　　

69、Wright: Bad tools, bad evaluations, bad feedback and bad links to reward systems lead to bad Performance Management. </p><p>　　Ziskin: If you look back over the years of debate about Performance Management,

70、what one or two things stand out in your mind as the biggest sources of debate and disagreement?</p><p>　　Boudreau: The biggest debate has been about what are we trying to achieve? It's always been about

71、 development of people vs. evaluation of their performance, and whether these two different priorities can be reconciled. </p><p>　　Collins: Do you separate performance feedback from compensation, and how do

72、 you do both? We also need to learn to separate the discussion about current performance from the future — future roles and future performance requirements. </p><p>　　Wright: The debate continues over simpli

73、fying tools vs. customizing unique tools to specific jobs, roles, situations and individuals. </p><p>　　Ulrich: There are a number of old debates and some new debates. The old debates include Performance Man

74、agement should be used for discussing financial results or development potential (yes to both), whether we should measure results as well as behavior (yes to both), whether managers should be accountable to do performanc

75、e reviews (yes), and who should own Performance Management— the line or HR (the line owns it, HR is the architect). </p><p>　　Ziskin: Have we made any progress in resolving the debate over these issues? <

76、/p><p>　　Boudreau: We have made progress in something, such as the growing recognition that effective Performance Management is much less about forms and much more about relationships. </p><p>　　Co

77、llins: I am gravely disappointed in the progress we've made in the past 20 years, especially in accommodating new ways of working such as more distributed, virtual work. We also have not made enough progress in accou

78、nting for team performance instead of just individual performance. </p><p>　　Wright: We are making progress in linking results, behaviors and rewards. I'd say we are beginning to achieve best principles

79、in Performance Management, but we have not yet achieved best practices. </p><p>　　Ulrich: The following new debates are more interesting to me than the old debates I mentioned above, and even though we are b

80、eginning to make some progress, we need much more: how we simplify the process, how we have meaningful personal conversations between leaders and employees and how we build a performance culture where meritocracy is expe

81、cted. </p><p>　　Ziskin: In light of the Performance Management debates and related mixed progress we have discussed, if you were going to fix or kill one thing related to Performance Management, what it woul

82、d it by and why? </p><p>　　Collins: I would fix Performance Management by investing in better leaders giving better feedback, rather than trying to fix Performance Management by investing in better tools. &l

83、t;/p><p>　　Boudreau: I would kill the debate about Performance Management forms, tools and technology enhancements, and instead put more than 80 percent of our resources into teaching and developing leaders and

84、 employees to get the most out of the performance feedback discussion. </p><p>　　Ulrich: I would kill Performance Management complexity, and simplify the process. Sometimes, the process becomes the end itsel

85、f, and there is means/end inversion. </p><p>　　Wright: I would kill the parochialism that comes from my way, my tool and my process. There is a lot to be learned from how others are doing Performance Managem

86、ent. </p><p>　　Ziskin: When you consider the future of work, the workplace and the workforce —and how all these things are changing and affecting business performance — what one or two big implications are t

87、here for required changes to Performance Management in the future? </p><p>　　Ulrich: The biggest implications for the future I see are simplification of the Performance Management process and more outside/in

88、 perspective whereby Performance Management is more connected to input from external stakeholders. </p><p>　　Wright: We will see a greater emphasis on evaluating results, the end product, rather than behavio

89、r, because global dispersion of work will make it much more difficult to directly observe behavior. </p><p>　　Boudreau: As a result of increasingly virtual, remote, temporary and independent work, performanc

90、e assessment can no longer only be done by leaders — it will also be done by others including peers and employees themselves. Performance Management will no longer be the province of leaders. </p><p>　　Colli

91、ns: Performance Management is going in the direction of more frequent, more transparent, more virtual, more raters and more team-based. </p><p>　　Ziskin: Based on insights from our academic experts, as well

92、as from my own experience, if you are working to reconcile the competing priorities associated with Performance Management, think about the following guidelines: </p><p>　　? Simplify and de-emphasize forms a

93、nd process in favor of improving the quality of relationships and conversation between leaders and employees</p><p>　　? Accommodate trends toward more virtual and flexible work and changing demographics thor

94、ough Performance Management approaches that emphasize transparency, frequency and input from a broader range of internal and external constituents</p><p>　　? Move from a relatively narrow focus on Performanc

95、e Management to a broader emphasis on Performance Culture </p><p>　　People & Strategy. 2013, Vol. 36 Issue 2, p24-25. 2p.</p><p><b>　　譯文二 ： </b></p><p>　　績效管理：協(xié)調(diào)競爭的優(yōu)

96、先事項</p><p>　　Ian Ziskin </p><p>　　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John Boudreau、在康奈爾大學(xué)高級人力資源研究中心工作的Chris Collins、在南卡羅來納大學(xué)摩爾商學(xué)院的Pat Wright以及在密歇根大學(xué)和RBL集團工作的Dave Ulrich，與Ian總裁（掌管Excel集團有限責(zé)任公司、董事會成員、

97、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：</p><p><b>　　績效管理是什么？</b></p><p>　　如何最大的區(qū)別有效的和無效的績效管理？</p><p>　　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展？</p>&

98、lt;p>　　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？</p><p>　　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？</p><p>　　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。你們認為績效管理是什么?”</p><p>　　Collins：“這可能是當前所面臨的問題?？冃Ч芾硭坪醭?/p>

99、為關(guān)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(lián)系—如補償、反饋、人才發(fā)展、繼承等，然而卻不能周全。”</p><p>　　Boudreau：“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)。”</p><p>　　Wright：“績效管理是關(guān)于提高組織績效的調(diào)整行為?！?lt;/p><p>　　Ulrich：“

100、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)于是否確定人員達到或沒有到達目標。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?！?lt;/p><p>　　Ziskin：“鑒于你們關(guān)于績效管理的觀點，如何最大的區(qū)別有效與無效的績效管理？”</p><p>　　Collin：“它開

101、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(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。”</p><p>　　Boudreau: “效益取決于人的技能和動機，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)先項目是特別重要的?！?lt;/p><p>　　Ulrich:“ 績效管理的四個通