外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯績效評價的困境畢業(yè)論文(編輯修改稿)

　

【文章內(nèi)容簡介】 ce. What is Performance Management?The first is sue to discuss is the difficulty of definition of Performance Management. Armstrong and Barron(1998:8) define performance management as: A strategic and integrated approach to delivering sustained success to organisations by Improving performance of people who work in them by developing the capabilities of teams And individual performance. Performance AppraisalAppraisal potentially is a key tool in making the most of an organisation’s human resources. The use of appraisal is widespread estimated that 80–90%of organizations in the USA and UK were using appraisal and an increase from 69 to 87% of organisations between 1998 and 2004 reported a formal performance management system (Armstrong and Baron, 1998:200).There has been little evidence of the evaluation of the effectiveness of appraisal but more on the development in its use. Between 1998 and 2004 a sample from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD, 2007) of 562 firms found 506 were using performance appraisal in UK. What is also vital to emphasise is the rising use of performance appraisal feedback beyond performance for professionals and managers to nearly 95% of workplaces in the 2004 WERS survey (seeTable ).Clearly the use of Appraisals has been the development and extension of appraisals to cover a large proportion of the UK workforce and the coverage of non managerial occupations and the extended use in private and public sectors. The Purpose of Appraisals The critical issue is what is the purpose of appraisals and how effective is it ？Researched and used in practice throughout organizations? The purpose of appraisals needs to be clearly identified. Firstly their purpose. Randell (1994) states they are a systematic evaluation of individual performance linked to workplace behaviour and/or specific criteria. Appraisals often take the form of an appraisal interview,usually annual,supported by standardised forms/ key objective of appraisal is to provide feedback for performance is provided by the three key questions for quality of feedback: 1. What and how are observations on performance made? 2. Why and how are they discussed? 3. What determines the level of performance in the job? 1 It has been argued by one school of thought that these process cannot be performed effectively unless the line manager of person providing feedback has the interpersonal interviewing skills to providethat feedback to people being appraised. This has been defined as the “Bradford Approach” which places a high priority on appraisal skills development (Randell, 1994). This approach is outlined in Fig. whichidentifies the linkages betweeninvolving,developing, rewarding and valuing people at work.. Historical Development of Appraisal The historical development of performance feedback has developed from a range of observation of individual work performance was reported in Robert Owens’s Scottish factory inNew Lanarkin the early 1800s (Cole, 1925). Owen hung over machines a piece of coloured wood over machines to indicate the Super intendent’s assessment of the previous day’s conduct (white forexcellent, yellow, blue and then black for poor performance).The twentieth centuryled to . Taylor and his measured performance and the scientific management movement (Taylor, 1964). The 1930sTraits Approaches identified personality and performance and used feedback using graphic rating scales, a mixed standard of performance scales noting behaviour in likert scale was used to recruit and identify management potential in the field of selection. Later developments to prevent a middle scale from 5 scales then developed into a forcedchoice scale which forced the judgement to avoid central evaluation also included narrative statements and ments to support the ratings (Mair, 1958). In the 1940s Behavioural Methods were developed. These included Behavioural Anchored Rating Scales (BARS)。 Behavioural Observation Scales (BOS)。 Behavioural Evaluation Scales (BES)。 critical incident。job simulation. All these judgements were used to determine the specific levels of performance criteria to specific issues such as customer service and rated in factors such asexcellent,average or needs to improve or ratings are assigned numerical values and added to a statement or narrative ment by the assessor. It would also lead to identify any potential need for training and more importantly to identify talent for careers in linemanagement supervision and future managerial potential. Post1945 developed into the Resultsoriented approaches and led to the development of management by objectives (MBO). This provided aims and specific targets to be achievedand with in time frames such as pecific sales, profitability,and deadlines with feedback on previous performance (Wherry, 1957). The deadlines may have required alteration and led to specific performance rankings of staff. It also provided a forced distributionof rankingsof parative performance and paired parison ranking of performance and setting and achieving objectives. In the 1960s the developmentof Selfappraisal by discussion led to specific time and opportunity for the appraisee to reflectively evaluate their performance in the discussion and the interview developed into a conversation on a range of topics that the appraise needed to discuss in the interview. Until this period the success of the appraisal was dependent on skill of interviewer. In the 1990s the development of 360degree appraisal developed where information was sought from a wider range of sources and the feedback was no longer dependent on the managersubordinate power relationship but included groups appraising the performance of line managers and peer feedback from peer groups on individual performance (Redman and Snape, 1992). The final development of appraisal interviews developed in the 1990s with the emphasis on the linking performance with financia