-
人力资源管理外文翻译
英文文献原文：
Performance Appraisal as a Guide for
Training and Development:
A Research
Note on the Iowa Performance Evaluation System
By Dennis Daley owa State University
This paper
examines one facet of performance appraisal-its
use as a
guide
for
the
drafting
of
employee
training
and
development
plans.
The
scope
is
limited
in
that
it
excludes
any
consideration
as
to
whether
these
plans are actually
implemented. Our interest focuses only on the
extent to
which supervisors endeavor to
assist employees in correcting or overcoming
weaknesses
and
in
enhancing
or
developing
perceived
strengths.
The
findings reported here are based on a
1981 monitoring of the performance
appraisal system used by the State of
Iowa.
As
civil
service
reform
has
been
instituted
in
one
jurisdiction
after
another in order to further assure
objective, performance based personnel
practices, performance appraisal has
emerged as one of the key issues in the
personnel
management
of
the
1980s.
This
heightened sense
of
importance
and
seriousness
has,
in
turn, led to a renewed
interest in
the
study of
the
actual workings of performance
appraisal systems.
The
uses
to
which
performance
appraisal
can
be
put
are
myriad.
The
recent Civil Service
Reform Act of 1978 serves as a model in this
respect.
Here
we
find
enunciated
what
may
be
taken
as
the
typical
orientation
toward
the
uses
of
performance
appraisal,
recommending
that
personnel
managers and supervisors
basis
for
training,
rewarding,
reassigning,
promoting,
reducing
in
grade,
retaining,
and
removing
employees.
Performance
appraisal
systems
can
also serve to validate
personnel testing and selection procedures,
although
such
systems
are
themselves
also
subject
to
affirmative
action
validation
requirements.
The economic
recessions of the 1970s and 1980s have placed
significant
restraints
on
these
uses,
however.
The
imposition
of
hiring
freezes,
the
diminishment
of
promotional
opportunities,
the
advent
of
reductions-in-force, and the near
abandonment of merit pay provisions by
financially
strapped
governmental
entities
have
contributed
to
the
loss
of
enthusiasm
for
performance
appraisal
in
many
quarters.
Under
such
circumstances,
performance
appraisal
一
limited
in
its
use
to
the
more
negative
functions
of
employee
evaluation-takes
on
the
dreaded
image
ascribed to them by Douglas McGregor
(1957).
In
their
search
to
salvage
something
positive
from
amidst
these
circumstances
personnel
specialists
have
alighted
upon
the
use
of
performance appraisal as a guide for
employee training and development.
This
offers
them
the
opportunity
of
providing
public
employees
with
a
service that employees view as
beneficial. Although public employees have
shown little confidence in specific
performance appraisal systems or in the
managerial
abilities
of
those
responsible
for
their
implementation
(McGregor,
1957;
Levinson,
1976;
Nalbandian,1981),
they
have
tended
to
demonstrate
a
more
favorable
attitude
when
the
purpose
of
performance
appraisal
has
been
perceived
to
be
employee
development
(Decotiis
and
Petit, 1978;Cascio, 1982).
This, of course, still
poses a significant problem to a multipurpose
system
such as that found in the State
of Iowa. Disenchantment or distrust with one
aspect of the performance appraisal
system may significantly contribute to
the weakening of the entire evaluation
system.
THE IOWA
PERFORMANCE EV
ALUATION SYSTEM
In
all public service systems employees are evaluated
periodically; most
often
this
is
done
informally.
The
introduction
of
formal
systems
of
performance
appraisal,
usually
in
addition
to
continued
informal
assessment,
is
a
relatively
recent
event.
Formal
systems
of
performance
appraisal
are
designed
to
provide
a
systematic
and
objective
measure
of
individual job
performance and/or potential for development.
Although the
use of formal performance appraisal in Iowa can be
traced
back
at
least
to
the
early
1950s
(limited,
for
the
most
part,
to
such
rudimentary methods as
the essay or graphic rating scale), these occurred
within a fragmented setting. Individual
departments and agencies retained
descretion
over
the
choice
of
such
personnel
practices
until
well
into
the
1960s.
Under Governor Harold
Hughes (1963
一
1969) a number
of efforts were
undertaken to
strengthen the executive. Among these
reforms was the creation of the State
Merit System of Personnel
Administration, administered by the Iowa Merit
Employment
Department,
in
1967.
Even
so,
there
were
numerous
exemptions
limiting
the
extent
of
its
coverage,
both
in
terms
of
separate
merit systems outside its jurisdiction
and of patronage appointments.
The
executive
reform
movement
was
continued
throughout
the
lengthy
service of Governor
Robert Ray (1969-1983). Strong executive support
was
placed
behind
the
development
of
the
personnel
system.
Governor
Ray
unsuccessfully
advocated
expanding
the
IMED
jurisdiction
through
the
elimination
of
the
existing
coverage
exemptions
and
by
integrating
the
separate
merit
systems
into
an
executive
personnel
department.
Notwithstanding
the
somewhat
1imited
success
of
recent
Iowa
governors,
the basis for a
professionalized public service was established
during those
years.
One
reflection
of
this
basis
is
the
fact
that
the
use
of
a
statewide
appraisal-by-objectives
system
was
inaugurated
in
1977.
The
implementation
of
this
system
followed
the
introduction
of
the
management-by-objectives
concept
among
a
number
of
the
larger
state
appraisal-by-objectives is a specific application
or extension
of the MBO
approach, it was felt that by this means executive
support for
performance
appraisal
could
be
more
readily
obtained.
It
is
known,
of
course,
that
the
lack
of
managerial
support
is
a
significant
contributing
factor in the failure of many
performance appraisal systems.
The
Iowa
performance
evaluation
system
is
an
ideal-typical
descriptive
example of the appraisal-by-objectives
technique. The introduction of this
approach in 1977 was accompained by a
series of training sessions (Burke,
1977) and supported with supervisory
and employee handbooks. However,
training
for
new
supervisors
and
periodic
courses
appear
to
have
been
given
a
low
priority
in
Iowa,
as
is
generally
the
case
in
public
sector personnel
systems. Iowa's use of appraisal-by-objectives is
designed
as
a
participatory
system.
Employee
participation
is
a
hallmark
found
among
most
modern
management
approaches
and
has
been
linked
to
successful
public
sector
performance
appraisal
systems
(Lovrich,
et
al
，
1981).
The
Iowa
performance
evaluation
process
is
initiated
with
joint
completion of
(also referred to as the
This
is
the
first
of
three
sections
included
in
the
performante
appraisal
form/process.
Section
A
is
completed
at
the
beginning
of
the
annual
appraisal
period
while
sections
B
and
C
are
written
up
at
its
conclusion.
The
employee
is
to
be
given
prior
notice
of
the
conference
and
supplied
copies of previous evaluation for use
as guides.
Eight
to
ten
major
responsibilities
(four
to
five
is
the
norm)
are
to
be
selected
and
，
written
down
in
a
results-oriented
format
with
specific
standards
by
which
the
achievement
of
these
results
are
to
be
measured.
These
individual
responsibilities
are
weighted
through
the
use
of
an
additive
formula
which
factors
in
the
time
spent
on
each
task
and
the
evaluation
of
its
importance
or
the
consequence
of
error
(a
five
point
Likert-type
scale
is
used
for
both).
The
overall
employee
rating
is
the
weighted average of these individual
responsibility ratings(also based on
a
five point scale).
In the event
that these responsibilities need to be subject to
modification
due to changing
circumstances, a new Section A would be prepared
by the
supervisor
and
employee.
During
the
course
of
the
evaluation
period
the
supervisor
is
also
encouraged
to
use
a
incident
approach.
Both
formal
(with
written
copy
inserted
into
the
employee's
file)
and
informal
communications
between
employees
and
supervisors
are
encouraged.
For
negative
incidents
it
is
important
that
a
record
of
corrective
action
be
documented; employees must be notified
if they are doing something wrong
and
the supervision must indicate how they can correct
their behavior.
At the end of the evaluation period,
again following advanced notice, the
employee and supervisor meet to discuss
the employee's job performance in
light
of the responsibilities outlined in the employee's
Section A. Worksheets
are
used at this meeting with a formal evaluation
prepared only afterward.
At
this
appraisal
interview
the
supervisor
discusses
Performance
Review/Rating
the
opportunity
to
formally
comment
on
the
final
evaluation
form.
Historically
only
five
percent
do
so,of
which
under
two
percent
can
be
classified
as negative comments.
C:
Summary
of
Total
Job
Performance
and
Future
Performance
Plans
evaluation. The supervisor is
provided the opportunity to list the employee's
of strength- and
those
needing
improvement.
In
the
latter
instances
and
developmental
plans
for
correcting
these
are
supposed to be filed.
DATA COLLECTION
In
conjunction
with
its
implementation
efforts
the
Iowa
Merit
Employment
Department
engaged
in
a
two-year
monitoring
of
its
appraisal-
by-objectives
evaluation
system.
The
results
of
this
monitoring
project,
involving
the
sampling
of
performance
appraisals
submitted
in
between
July
1978
and
December
1979, were
reported
to state officials in
January
first
monitoring
project
led
to
a
number
of
minor
changes
in
the
performance
evaluation
system.
For
most
part
these
modifications represented
weaknesses,
This
study
is
based
on
the
results
of
a
second
monitoring
project
conducted by the
questions addressed in this study were, in part,
raised
by
the
first
monitoring
the
first
monitoring
focused
primarily
on
the
basic
or
general
implementation
of
the
performance
evaluation
system
(i.e.,
was
there
compliance
with
the
mandated
requirements?), the second is more
concerned with how well it is working.
The
format
used
here
is
that
of
research
or
(Starling,
1979,
pp.
495
一
514;
Rossi
and
Freeman,
1982).
IMED
staff
served
as
judges
who
assessed
the
qualitative
aspects
of
performance
appraisals.
A
stratified
approach
to
sampling
was
employed
in
order
to
assure
that
sufficient
supervisory,
professional
and
managerial
appraisals
were
included.
The
resultant
data
base
consisted
of
535
performance
appraisals
submitted between July and December of 1981.
DATA ANALYSIS
The
primary
results
assessing
how
well
Iowa's
performance
appraisal
system is working are reported
elsewhere (Daley, 1983). This paper focuses
only
on
those
aspects
related
to
the
specification
of
training
and
development plans.
Because
Iowa
employs
a
multipurpose
approach
in
the
use
of
performance
appraisals
it
is
hardly
surprising
that
there
are
many
instances,
43
percent
of
those
monitored,
in
which
no
training
and
development
are
specified.
This,
however,
poses
the
task
of
somehow
separating
the
cases
in
which
training
plans
should
most
definitely
be
present.
A supervisor may choose to list
training and development plans for three
reasons. First,unrelated to any
individual strengths or weaknesses, he may
choose to use this performance
appraisal section as a memo or reminder of
a training activity which all employees
are routinely given. The inclusion of
such activities in an
added
political weight in order to insure their being
performed; it is all to
easy amidst the
pressing, day-to-day concerns of administrative
firefighting
to let training and
development activities slide off the edge.
Second,
supervisors may choose to promote employee
development. They
may either pickup on
some strength an individual already possesses or
for
which
he
may
have
an
aptitude
and
attempt
to
polish,
refine,
or
enhance
those
skills. While this is not an automatic
relationship, not all
would
require
additional
or
follow-up
training,
it
is
important
for
both
organizational and
individual well-being. Obviously, such activities
benefit
the organization by increasing
its administrative or technical capacity. One
can
also
expect
that
the
individual
employee
benefits
through
material
rewards
and/or
enhanced
self-esteem.
As
such,
this
represents
one
of
the
positive
uses
to
which
performance
appraisal
can
be
,
it
has
an
added importance.
Finally,
training plans should be specified in those
instances in which a
supervisor notes
that an employee
may
become
the
basis
for
an
adverse
personnel
action
(reassignment,
reduction
in
grade,
removal,
etc.)
it
is
legally
incumbent
that
the
state
demonstrate that it has made a good
faith effort to correct such deficienties.
Due
process
demands
that
public
employees
not
be
dealt
with
a
chamber
employee
cannot
be
expected
to
correct
inadequate
work behaviors if he is neither told
that they are inadequate nor, it told, not
instructed or assisted in how to
correct them.
In
monitoring
Iowa's
performance
appraisals
room
was
allowed
to
record up to three
employee.
Supervisors
tended
to
list
employee
strengths
twice
as
often
as
they
detailed
areas
needing
improvement
(1223
to
506),and
as
one
would
expect
there
is
a
pronounced
tendency
to
note
both
strengths
and
areas
needing
improvement
vis-a-vis
individual
employees
(58
percent
of
the
monitored
appraisals
combine
both
strengths
and
areas
needing
improvement).
A count of the number of listed
strengths and areas needing improvement
was
made
use
of
(zero
to
three
for
each
variable)
in
analyzing
this
data.
While this fails to
measure the importance or significance of each
strength
or area needing improvement,
it was felt that in some way the number of
such
instances
would
be
related
to
or
a
rough
indicator
of
the
overall
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
上一篇：小企业的招聘与培训人力资源外文文献及翻译大学论文
下一篇：英语学习小组(初稿)