绩效考核外文文献及其译文

The Dilemma of Performance Appraisal

Peter Prowse and Julie Prowse

Measuring Business Excellence,Vol.13 Iss:4,pp.69 - 77

Abstract

This paper deals with the dilemma of managing performance using performance appraisal. The authors will evaluate the historical development of appraisals and argue that the critical area of line management development that was been identified as a critical success factor in appraisals has been ignored in the later literature evaluating the effectiveness of performance through appraisals.

This paper willevaluatethe aims and methodsof appraisal, thedifficulties encountered in the appraisalprocess. It also re-evaluates the lack of theoretical development in appraisaland move from he psychological approachesof analysistoamorecritical realisation ofapproaches before re-evaluating the challenge to remove subjectivity and bias in judgement of appraisal.

13.1Introduction

This paper will define and outline performance management and appraisal. It will start by evaluating what form of performance is evaluated, then develop links to the development of different performance traditions (Psychological tradition, Management by Objectives, Motivation and Development).It will outline the historical development of performance management then evaluate high performance strategies using performance appraisal. It will evaluate the continuing issue of subjectivity and ethical dilemmas regarding measurement and assessment of performance. The paper will then examine how organisations measure performance before evaluation of research on some recent trends 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 outcomes of techniques to increase organizational commitment, 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.

13.2 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. 13.2.1 Performance Appraisal

Appraisal 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 13.1).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. 13.2.2 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/paperwork.The key objective of appraisal is to provide feedback for performance is provided by the linemanager.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?

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. 13.1 whichidentifies the linkages betweeninvolving,developing, rewarding and valuing people at work..

13.2.3 Historical Development of Appraisal

The historical development of performance feedback has developed from a range of approaches.Formal 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 F.W. 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 ratings.This 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 forced-choice scale which forced the judgement to avoid central ratings.The evaluation also included narrative statements and comments 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 poor.These ratings are assigned numerical values and added to a statement or narrative comment 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 Results-oriented 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 comparative performance and paired comparison ranking of performance and setting and achieving objectives.

In the 1960s the developmentof Self-appraisal 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 360-degree appraisal developed where information was sought from a wider range of sources and the feedback was no longer dependent on the manager-subordinate 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 financial reward which will be discussed later in the paper.

13.2.4 Measures of Performance

The dilemma of appraisal has always to develop performance measures and the use of appraisal is the key part of this process. Quantitative measure of performance communicated as standards in the business and industry level standards translated to individual performance. The introduction of techniques such as the balanced score card developed by Kaplan and Norton (1992).

Performance measures and evaluation included financial, customer evaluation, feedback on internal processes and Learning and Growth. Performance standards also included qualitative measures Which argue that there is an over emphasis on metrics of quantitative approach above the definitions of quality services and total quality management.In terms of performance measures there has been a transformation in literature and a move in the 1990s to the financial rewards linked to the level of performance.The debates will be discussed later in the paper.

13.3 Criticism of Appraisals

Critiques of appraisal have continued as appraisal shave increased in use and scope across sectors and occupations. The dominant critique is the management framework using appraisal as an orthodox technique that seeks to remedy the weakness and propose of appraisals as a system to develop performance.

This “orthodox” approach argues there are conflicting purposes of appraisal (Strebler et al, 2001). Appraisal can motivate staff by clarifying objectives and setting clear future objectives with provision for training and development needs to establish the performance objective. These conflicts with

assessing past performance and distribution of rewards based on past performance (Bach, 2005:301).

Employees are reluctant to confide any limitations and concerns on their current performance as this could impact on their merit related reward or promotion opportunities(Newton and Findley, 1996:43).This conflicts with performance as a continuum as appraisers are challenged with differing roles as both monitors and judges of performance but an understanding counsell or which Randell(1994)argues few manager shave not received the raining to perform.Appraisal Manager’s reluctance to criticise also stems from classic evidence fromMcGregor that managers are reluctant to make an egative judgement on an individual’s performance a sit could be demotivating,leadto accusationsoftheirown supportand contributiontoindividual poor performance and to also avoid interpersonal conflict (McGregor, 1957).

One consequence of this avoidance of conflict is to rate all criterion as central and avoid any conflict known as the central tendency.In a study of senior managers by Long neckeretal.(1987),they found organisational politics influenced ratings of 60 senior executives.The findings were that politics involved deliberate attempts by individuals to enhance or protect self-interests when conflicting courses of action are possible and that ratings and decisions were affected by potential sources of bias or inaccuracy in their appraisal ratings (Longeneckeret al., 1987).

There are methods of further bias beyond Longenecker’s evidence. The political judgements and they have been distorted further by overrating some clear competencies in performance rather than being critical across all rated competencies known as the halo effect and if some competencies arelower they may prejudice the judgment acrossthe positive reviews known as the horns effect (ACAS, 1996).

Some ratings may only cinclude recent events and these are known as the recency effects. In this

case only recent events are noted compared to managers gathering and using data throughout the appraisal period .A particular concern is the equity of appraisal for ratings which may be distorted by gender ,ethnicity and the ratings of appraisers themselves .A range of studies in both the US and UK have highlighted subjectivity in terms of gender (Alimo-Metcalf, 1991;White, 1999) and ethnicity of the appraise and appraiser(Geddes and Konrad, 2003). Suggestions and solutions on resolving bias will be reviewed later.

The second analysis is the radical critique of appraisal. This is the more critical management literature that argues that appraisal and performance management are about management control(Newton and Findley, 1996;Townley, 1993). It argues that tighter management control over employee behaviour can be achieved by the extension of appraisal to manual workers, professional as means to control. This develops the literature of Foucault using power and surveillance. This literature uses cases in examples of public service control on professionals such a teachers (Healy, 1997) and University professionals(Townley, 1990).

This evidence argues the increased control of public services using appraisal as a method of control and that the outcome of managerial objectives ignores the developmental role of appraisal and ratings are awarded for people who accept and embrace the culture and organizational values . However, this literature ignores the employee resistance and the use of professional unions to challenge the attempts to exert control over professionals and staff in the appraisal process (Bach, 2005:306).

One of the different issues of removing bias was the use of the test metaphor

(Folgeretal.,1992).This was based on the assumption that appraisal ratings were a technical question of assessing “true” performance and there needed to be increased reliability and validity of appraisal as an instrument to develop motivation and performance. The sources of rater bias and errors can be resolved

by improved organisational justice and increasing reliability of appraiser’s judgement.

However there were problems such as an assumption that you can state job requirements clearly and the organization is “rational” with objectives that reflect values and that the judgment by appraisers’ are value free from political agendas and personal objectives. Secondly there is the second issue of subjectivity if appraisal ratings where decisions on appraisal are rated by a “political metaphor”(Hartle, 1995).

This “political view” argues that a appraisal is often done badly because there is a lack of training for appraisers and appraisers may see the appraisal as a waste of time. This becomes a process which managers have to perform and not as a potential to improve employee performance .Organisations 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 combining employee promotion and pay rise.This means appraisal ratings become 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 avoided.The issue is how can organisations resolve this lack of objectivity?

13.3.1 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 ratings.This 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 by manager who collates feedback rather than judges performance andfail to summarise evaluations.There 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 appraisals.There 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 issues.One further concern is the openness of appraisal related to employee reward which we now discuss.

13.3.2 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, 2005; Storey, 2007) 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 organizational settings aimed at achieving long-term targets(Kessler and Purcell, 1992;Marsden, 2007). The development of merit based pay based on performance assessed by a manager is rising in the UK Marsden (2007)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(p.109).

Merit pay has also grown in use as in 1998 20% of workplaces used performance related schemes compared to 32% in the same organizations 2004 (Kersley et al., 2006:191). 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, 2007).Table 13.2 outlines the extent of merit pay in 2004.

The second issue is what forms of performance is rewarded. The use of past appraisal ratings as evidence of achieving merit-related 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 (2000:280) reported “inconsistent within organizations and problematic for certain professional or less skilled occupations where goals have not been easily formulated”. There has been inconclusive evidence from organizations on the impact of performance pay and its effectiveness in improving performance. Evidence from a number of individual performance pay schemes report organizations suspending or reviewing them on the grounds that individual performance reward has produced no effect in performance or even demotivates staff(Kessler, 2000:281).

More in-depth studies setting performance goals followed by appraisal on how well they were resulted in loss of motivation whilst maintaining productivity and achieved managers using imposing increased performance standards (Marsden and Richardson, 1994). As Randell(1994) had highlighted earlier, the potential objectivity and self-criticism in appraisal reviews become areas that appraisees refuse to acknowledge as weaknesses with appraisers if this leads to a reduction in their merit pay.

Objectivity and self reflection for development becomes a weakness that appraises fail to acknowledge as a developmental issue if it reduces their chances of a reduced evaluation that will reduce their merit reward. The review of civil service merit pay (Makinson, 2000)reported from 4

major UK Civil Service Agencies and the National Health Service concluded that existing forms of performance pay and performance management had failed to motivate many staff.

The conclusions were that employees found individual performance pay divisive and led to reduced willingness to co-operate with management ,citing managerial favorites and manipulation of appraisal scores to lower ratings to save paying rewards to staff (Marsden and French, 1998). This has clear implications on the relationship between line managers and appraises and the demotivational consequences and reduced commitment provide clear evidence of the danger to linking individual performance appraisal to reward in the public services. Employees focus on the issues that gain key performance focus by focusing on specific objectives related to key performance indicators rather than all personal objectives. A study of banking performance pay by Lewis(1998)highlighted imposed targets which were unattainable with a range of 20 performance targets with narrow short term financial orientatated goals. The narrow focus on key targets and neglect of other performance aspects leads to tasks not being delivered.

This final issue of judging management standards has already highlighted issues of inequity and bias based on gender (Beyer, 1990; Chen and DiTomasio, 1996; Fletcher, 1999). The suggested solutions to resolved Iscrimination have been proposed as enhanced interpersonal skills training are increased equitable use of 360 degree appraisal as a method to evaluate feedback from colleagues as this reduces the use of the “political metaphor”(Randell, 1994;Fletcher, 1999).

On measures linking performance to improvement require a wider approach to enhanced work design and motivation to develop and enhance employee job satisfaction and the design of linkages between effort and performance are significant in the private sector and feedback and awareness in the public sector (Fletcher and Williams, 1996:176). Where rises be in pay were determined by achieving critical rated appraisal objectives, employees are less self critical and open to any developmental needs in a performance review.

13.4 Conclusion

As performance appraisal provides a major potential for employee feedback that could link strongly to increasing motivation ,and a opportunity to clarify goals and achieve long term individual performance and career development why does it still suffers from what Randell describes as a muddle and confusion which still surrounds the theory and practice?

There are key issues that require resolution and a great deal depends on the extent to which you have a good relationship with your line manager . Barlow(1989)argued `if you get off badly with your first two managers ,you may just as well forget it (p. 515).

The evidence on the continued practice of appraisals is that they are still institutionally elaborated systems of management appraisal and development is significant rhetoric in the apparatus of bureaucratic control by managers (Barlow, 1989). In reality the companies create, review, change and even abolish appraisals if they fail to develop and enhance organisational performance(Kessler, 2000). Despite all the criticism and evidence the critics have failed to suggest an alternative for a process that can provide feedback, develop motivation, identify training and potential and evidence that can justify potential career development and justify reward(Hartle, 1997).

绩效考核的困境

Peter Prowse and Julie Prowse

摘要

本文旨在用绩效考核方法来解决绩效管理的困境。作者们将评估考核的发展历史，通过评价考核文献的关键领域的有效性，讨论被考核对象和生产管理的发展中已被忽略的成功的关键因素。

本文旨在探讨绩效考核的目的和方法，以及在考核过程中遇到的种种困难。它还重新评估绩效考核领域理论发展的不足，在重新评估之前脱离心理分析以寻找更重要的方法，来消除认识的主观性和考核判断的偏见。

一 前言

本文将定义并概述绩效管理和考核，它将通过评估以何种形式考核绩效，发展不同绩效模型之间的联系（心理传统，目标管理，动机和发展等）。它将列举绩效管理的发展历史，然后使用绩效考核来评估高绩效策略。它将评估关于测量和评估引起主观性和绩效评估的伦理困境等持续问题。

本文将在研究绩效考核最近的一些趋势之前，探讨企业如何衡量业绩。本章将从目标管理（MBO）角度估绩效考核的历史发展，讨论绩效管理和评估之间的联系。

绩效管理发展中的个人业绩与企业组织相联系，以提高组织承诺的成果的实现性，审慎评估以增加工作满意度。它将进一步研究文献的跨领域的效率和有效性议题在北美和英国的证据，以评估个人和组织绩效的人力资源开发和考核贡献。

二 什么是绩效管理？

第一个问题要讨论的是对绩效管理定义的困难。Armstrong and Barron(1998:8)定义绩效管理为：一种以开发团队的能力表现及个人表现来提高组织成功持续性的战略和综合的办法。

2.1绩效考核

评估是充分利用企业组织人力资源的一个关键工具。绩效考核的使用分布广泛，根据1998年至2004年一个正式的绩效管理系统的报告(Armstrong and Baron, 1998:200)，估计80-90％的美国组织正在使用，而英国使用比例从69%增加至87％。有很少关于在发展考核的证据，而有更多的使用效益。 1998年至2004年从英国特许人事样本562，发现在英国506人使用表现评估，这是还必须强调的是越来越多地使用的表现。

在2004年WERS调查中，在几乎95％的工作场所强调的关键是基于专业人员和管理人员的绩效的绩效考核反馈。显然，考核已经是不断发展和拓展，已经覆盖很大比例的英国劳动人口和非职业管理以及在私营和公共部门推广使用。 2.2考核目的

关键的问题是考核的目的是什么以及在企业实务中怎样才能有效研究和实践？考核的目的需要被清晰的界定。首先是他们的目的，Randell (1994)强调他们是一个个人业绩与工作行为或具体标准的系统考核。评议往往采取一种面谈的形式，通常每年，按固定格式标准进行。这样的考核在未决的主要目标，为绩效提供反馈给直接领导。质量反馈的三个关键问题： 1.做出的绩效考核意见是什么以及如何做出？ 2.为什么和如何讨论？ 3.什么决定工作绩效的水平？

据某种思想认为，这些过程不能有效的执行除非直接领导提供的反馈是有人际访谈技巧的，来把绩效反馈给被考核人。这已被定义为“布拉德福德法”的一个高度优先的地方考核技能发展(Randell, 1994)。这个方法定义了包含、发展、激励和评估的联系。 2.3考核的历史发展

绩效反馈的历史发展由一系列的方法发展而成。正式的个人工作表现观察报告起源于19世纪初 Robert Owens’s在苏格兰新拉纳克工厂（科尔，1925年）。 欧文挂着着色木头的机器设备，以指示每个院长的评估前一天的行为（白色为优，黄，蓝色和黑色则表现欠佳）。

20世纪由泰罗和他的测量表现和科学管理运动所引导（泰勒，1964）。20世纪30年代发现的使用图形和使用反馈考核尺度表现个性特征和表现的途径，以及混合标准的表现，这个常被用来招募和识别员工。在选择领域的管理潜力，后来的发展来防止再成为强制选择规模，迫使发达国家一个中等规模的5级判断，以避免关键的增长.考核还包括叙事声明和支持评级的评论（迈尔，1958）。

在20世纪40年代,行为方法产生。 这些行为包括锚量表（BARS），行为观察量表（BOS），行为考核量表（BES），关键事件，工作模拟。所有这些判别用来确定绩效具体问题的具体标准，如客户服务和考核因素，等级分类如优良，平均或需要改善或差。这些等级被评估人员分配数值并添加到一个声明或评论的叙事评论中。它还将引导确定任何潜在的训练需要，更重要的是要确定在未来上级管理的监督和管理潜力的职业人才。1945年报发展成注重成果的办法，领导了目标管理发展（MBO）。这提供了具体的目标和要达到具体框架，比如特定的销售，盈利能力，并与以前的表现反馈截止日期(Wherry, 1957)。申请的截止日期可能需要改变，并形成员工的具体绩效排名。它还提供了比较业绩排名分布和成对比较的绩效排名和设置以及要实现目标。

在20世纪60年代，对自我考核发展的讨论对于被评估人引起了具体的时间与机会，以评估他们的绩效通过讨论和访问发展为在面谈中讨论的一系列主题的交流。直到这个时期考核的成功是依赖于面试者的技巧。

20世纪90年代，360度考核发展了更广泛的范围的信息来源，反馈不再依赖于管理者与下属权力关系，而是要包括各级群体对各级管理人员的表现的绩效考核与反馈(Redman and Snape, 1992)。 考核访谈最终发展于20世纪90年代，伴随着对于绩效与财务上的奖励挂钩的强调，将在下文进行讨论。 2.4 绩效衡量

歧视的方案为加强人际技巧训练来增加运用360度考核的公平性并作为考核评估的方法从同事的反馈，因为这可以减少在“政治隐喻”使用(Randell, 1994;Fletcher, 1999)。

连接绩效与工作改进的措施需要更广泛的方法，加强工作设计和发展动力以及提高员工工作满意度和努力和绩效之间的联系的设计，是重要的私营部门和反馈和在公共部门的宣传(Fletcher and Williams, 1996:176)。凡在工资上升由实现的关键考核目标决定的，员工缺乏自我批判和开放在任何绩效考核的发展需要中。

五 结论

随着绩效考核提供了对于员工反馈的主要潜力可以强烈连接以增加动机，并明确目标和机会实现长期个人业绩和职业发展，为何仍患有兰德尔描述的仍然围绕着介绍理论和实践的糊涂和混乱？

需要讨论和解决的关键问题是取决于你与您的顶头上司是否有良好的关系。Barlow(1989)如果你说你跟的两位经理不好，你可能只是把这事给忘它（第515页）。关于考核继续实践的证据，他们还阐述了管理体制和发展的系统考核在战略决策控制上的应用 (Barlow, 1989)。在现实中，如果他们没有评估发展和提高组织绩效(Kessler, 2000)，公司将会创建，审查，变更，甚至取消考核。尽管所有的批评和批评者的证据都没有显示一个过程，可以提供反馈，发展动力，确定培训和潜在的理由和证据，可以潜在的职业发展并断定奖励（Hartle, 1997)。

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/985d.html