【導(dǎo)讀】本文旨在用績效考核方法來解決績效管理的困境。作者們將評估考核的。管理的發(fā)展中已被忽略的成功的關(guān)鍵因素。它還重新評估績效考核領(lǐng)域理論發(fā)展的不足，在重新評估之前脫離心理。分析以尋找更重要的方法，來消除認(rèn)識的主觀性和考核判斷的偏見。效，發(fā)展不同績效模型之間的聯(lián)系。評估關(guān)于測量和評估引起主觀性和績效評估的倫理困境等持續(xù)問題。本文將在研究績效考核最近的一些趨勢之前，探討企業(yè)如何衡量業(yè)績。的實現(xiàn)性，審慎評估以增加工作滿意度。它將進(jìn)一步研究文獻(xiàn)的跨領(lǐng)域的效。提高組織成功持續(xù)性的戰(zhàn)略和綜合的辦法。例從69%增加至87％。首先是他們的目的，Randell. 強(qiáng)調(diào)他們是一個個人業(yè)績與工作行為或具體標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的系統(tǒng)考核。一種面談的形式，通常每年，按固定格式標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行。法”的一個高度優(yōu)先的地方考核技能發(fā)展?？己嗽L談最終發(fā)展于20. 考核評比繼續(xù)作為績效波動被更多的部門和行業(yè)使用。理解輔導(dǎo)員的蘭德爾1994）認(rèn)為少數(shù)管理人員沒有得到執(zhí)行。

　　

【正文】 isations in this context are “political” and the appraisers seek to maintain performance from subordinates and view appraises as internal customers to satisfy. This means managers use appraisal to avoid interpersonal conflict and develop strategies for their own personal advancement and seek a quiet life by avoiding censure from higher managers. This perception means managers also see appraisee seeks good rating and genuine feedback and career development by seeking evidence of bining employee promotion and pay means appraisal ratings bee political judgements and seek to avoid interpersonal conflicts. The approaches of the “test” and “political” metaphors of appraisal are inaccurate and lack objectivity and judgement of employee performance is inaccurate and accuracy is issue is how can anisations resolve this lack of objectivity? Solutions to Lack of Objectivity of Appraisal Grint(1993)argues that the solutions to objectivity lies in part with McGregor’s (1957) classic critique by retraining and removal of “top down” ratings by managers and replacement with multiple rater evaluation which removes bias and the objectivity by upward performance appraisal. The validity of upward appraisal means there moval of subjective appraisal approach is also suggested to remove gender bias in appraisal ratings against women in appraisals (Fletcher, 1999). The solution of multiple reporting(internal colleagues, customers and recipients of services) will reduce subjectivity and inequity of appraisal ratings. This argument develops further by the rise in the need to evaluate project teams and increasing levels of teamwork to include peer assessment. The solutions also in theory mean increased closer contact with individual manager and appraises and increasing services linked to customer facing evaluations. However, negative feedback still demotivates and plenty of feedback and explanation 17 by manager who collates feedback rather than judges performance andfail to summarise are however still problems with accuracy of appraisal objectivity asWalker and Smither (1999)5year studyof 252 managers over 5 year period still identified issues with subjective ratings in 360 degree are still issues on the subjectivity of appraisals beyond the areas of lack of training. The contribution of appraisal is strongly related to employee attitudes and strong relationships with job satisfaction(Fletcher and Williams, 1996). The evidence on appraisal still remains positive in terms of reinvigo rating social relationships at work (Townley,1993)and the widespread adoption in large public services in the UK such as the national health Service (NHS)is the valuable contribution to line managers discussion with staff on their past performance, discussing personal development plans and training and development as positive further concern is the openness of appraisal related to employee reward which we now discuss. Linking Appraisals with Reward Management Appraisal and performance management have been inextricably linked to employee reward since the development of strategic human resource management in the 1980s. The early literature on appraisal linked appraisal with employee control (Randell, 1994。Grint, 1993。Townley, 1993, 1999) and discussed the use of performance related reward to appraisals. However therecent literature has substituted the chapter titles employee “appraisal” with “performance management”(Bach, 2021。 Storey, 2021) and moved the focus on performance and performance pay and the limits of employee appraisal. The appraisal and performance pay link has developed into debates to three key issues: The first issue is has performance pay related to appraisal grown in use? The second issue is what type of performance do we reward? and the final issue is who judges management standards? The first discussion on influences of growth of performance pay schemes is the assumption that increasing linkage between individual effort and financial reward increases performance levels. This linkage between effort and financial reward increasing levels of performance has proved an increasing trend in the public and private sector (Bevan and Thompson, 1992。Armstrong and Baron, 1998). The drive to increase public sector performance effort and setting of targets may even be inconsistent in the experiences of some anizational settings aimed at achieving longterm targets(Kessler and Purcell, 1992。Marsden, 2021). The development of merit based pay based on performance assessed by a manager is rising in the UK Marsden (2021)reported that the: Use of performance appraisals as a basis for merit pay are used in65 percent of public sector and 69 percent of the private sector employees where appraisal covered all nonmanagerial staff(). Merit pay has also grown in use as in 1998 20% of workplaces used performance 18 related schemes pared to 32% in the same anizations 2021 (Kersley et al., 2021:191). The achievements of satisfactory ratings or above satisfactory performance averages were used as evidence to reward individual performance ratings in the UK Civil Service (Marsden, 2021).Table outlines the extent of merit pay in 2021. The second issue is what forms of performance is rewarded. The use of past appraisal ratings as evidence of achieving meritrelated payments linked to achieving higher performance was the predominant factor developed in the public services. The evidence on Setting performance targets have been as Kessler (2021:280) reported “inconsistent within anizations and problematic for certain professional or less skilled occupations where goals have not been easily formulated”. There has been inconclusive evidence from anizations on the impact of performance pay and its effectiveness in improving performance. Evidence from a number of individual performance p