【導(dǎo)讀】隨著我國(guó)市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)體制的逐步健全，競(jìng)爭(zhēng)和優(yōu)勝劣汰已成為我國(guó)大多數(shù)民營(yíng)企業(yè)的生存狀態(tài)，如何優(yōu)化企業(yè)管理進(jìn)而提升核心競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力成為每個(gè)企業(yè)必須面對(duì)和解決的嚴(yán)峻課題。管理大師彼得·德魯克說(shuō)：“企業(yè)管理無(wú)非是人力資源管理”，而摩托羅拉更是直白地將人力資源管理歸結(jié)為績(jī)效管理?？?jī)效管理作為現(xiàn)代企業(yè)人力資源管理的一種重要工具和手段，在戰(zhàn)略實(shí)現(xiàn)、人才開(kāi)發(fā)以及員工管理等方面發(fā)揮著重要的作用，這一點(diǎn)已經(jīng)逐漸成為我國(guó)民營(yíng)企業(yè)的共識(shí)。為此，許多民營(yíng)企業(yè)都正在執(zhí)行或者準(zhǔn)備實(shí)施績(jī)效管理辦法，以力圖解決其長(zhǎng)期存在的員工工作積極性不高、人浮于事以及競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力弱等問(wèn)題。然而，在管理實(shí)踐中我們卻發(fā)現(xiàn)，大多數(shù)民營(yíng)企業(yè)在績(jī)效管理方面所做出的努力并未取得預(yù)期的效果：有些淺嘗輒止，有些流于形式，有些則不了了之。對(duì)此，本文立足于民營(yíng)企業(yè)績(jī)效管理實(shí)踐，在分析現(xiàn)狀的基礎(chǔ)上，對(duì)其規(guī)范和優(yōu)化績(jī)效管理的途徑進(jìn)行了粗淺的探索。

　　

【正文】 in performance appraisal. This chapter will evaluate the historical development of performance appraisal from management by objectives (MBO) literature before evaluating the debates between linkages between performance management and appraisal. It will outline the development of individual performance before linking to performance management in organizations. The outes of techniques to increase organizational mitment, increase job satisfaction will be critically evaluated. It will further examine the transatlantic debates between literature on efficiency and effectiveness in the North American and the United Kingdom) evidence to evaluate the HRM development and contribution of performance appraisal to individual and organizational performance. 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