人力资源管理绩效管理外文翻译文献人力资源管理绩效管理外文翻译文献(文档含中英文对照即英文原文和中文翻译)原文：Performance Management: Reconciling Competing PrioritiesIan ZiskinFour HR thought leaders from academia— John Boudreau of the USC Center for Effective Organizations, Chris Collins of the Cornell Center for Advanced HR Studies, Pat Wright of the Moore College of Business at the University of South Carolina, and Dave Ulrich of University of Michigan and the RBL Group — engaged in discussions on Performance Management with Ian Ziskin, President, EXec EXcel Group LLC and Board member, HR People & Strategy. Ian asked John, Chris,Pat, and Dave to share their perspectives on topics including:• What Performance Management is?• What makes the biggest difference to effective vs. ineffective Performance Management?• What the biggest sources of debate and disagreement have been regarding Performance Management over the years, and whether we have made any progress in resolving these issues？• If they were going to fix or kill anything about Performance Management, w hat it would be and why？• What big implications there are for future required changes to Performance Management in light of future work, workforce and workplace trends？Ziskin: There is a lot of talk in organizations about whether Performance Management is working effectively or ever has. What do you think Performance Management is?Collins: This may be the question of the year. Performance Management has become everything and therefore nothing. It serves so many purposes —compensation, feedback, talent development, succession, etc. — that it may not serve any purpose very well.Boudreau: It's an ongoing relationship to balance the need to evaluate people with the need to develop them. It's not about bromides, forms, scores, tools orsystems.Wright: Performance Management is about aligning behavior in a way that increases organizational effectiveness.Ulrich: I think we need to look at Performance Management from three levels: cultural, systems and personal. At the cultural level, it's about whether the organization judges people based on meritocracy (results), hierarchy (power) or relationships (connections). At the systems level, it's about determining whether people meet or miss objectives. At the personal level, it's about assessing the individual's dedication to deliver both financial and social results.Ziskin: Given your point of view about Performance Management, what makes the biggest difference to whether it is effective vs. ineffective?Collins: It starts with having a culture of openness, honesty and real feedback —and then holding people accountable. This process begins and ends with good leaders, and all of our money should be invested in developing leaders to lead, rather than spending money on new Performance Management systems and tools.Boudreau: Effectiveness rests in the skills and motivations of the people involved, not in the Performance Management system itself. It is particularly important to create a shared framework and priorities between managers and their employees.Ulrich: The four generic steps of Performance Management have remained relatively stable over time: set standards, assess against those standards, allocate consequences and provide feedback. Improvements in the effectiveness of Performance Management have come from enabling external stakeholders to provide input on standards and performance, making the performance discussion more about the future than the past, using technology to simplify the process, tailoring the consequences to better reflect individual employee contributions and value, and accommodating both team as well as individual feedback.Wright: Bad tools, bad evaluations, bad feedback and bad links to reward systems lead to bad Performance Management.Ziskin: If you look back over the years of debate about Performance Management, what one or two things stand out in your mind as the biggest sources ofdebate and disagreement?Boudreau: The biggest debate has been about what are we trying to achieve? It's always been about development of people vs. evaluation of their performance, and whether these two different priorities can be reconciled.Collins: Do you separate performance feedback from compensation, and how do you do both? We also need to learn to separate the discussion about current performance from the future — future roles and future performance requirements.Wright: The debate continues over simplifying tools vs. customizing unique tools to specific jobs, roles, situations and individuals.Ulrich: There are a number of old debates and some new debates. The old debates include Performance Management should be used for discussing financial results or development potential (yes to both), whether we should measure results as well as behavior (yes to both), whether managers should be accountable to do performance reviews (yes), and who should own Performance Management— the line or HR (the line owns it, HR is the architect).Ziskin: Have we made any progress in resolving the debate over these issues?Boudreau: We have made progress in something, such as the growing recognition that effective Performance Management is much less about forms and much more about relationships.Collins: I am gravely disappointed in the progress we've made in the past 20 years, especially in accommodating new ways of working such as more distributed, virtual work. We also have not made enough progress in accounting for team performance instead of just individual performance.Wright: We are making progress in linking results, behaviors and rewards. I'd say we are beginning to achieve best principles in Performance Management, but we have not yet achieved best practices.Ulrich: The following new debates are more interesting to me than the old debates I mentioned above, and even though we are beginning to make some progress, we need much more: how we simplify the process, how we have meaningful personal conversations between leaders and employees and how we build a performanceculture where meritocracy is expected.Ziskin: In light of the Performance Management debates and related mixed progress we have discussed, if you were going to fix or kill one thing related to Performance Management, what it would it by and why?Collins: I would fix Performance Management by investing in better leaders giving better feedback, rather than trying to fix Performance Management by investing in better tools.Boudreau: I would kill the debate about Performance Management forms, tools and technology enhancements, and instead put more than 80 percent of our resources into teaching and developing leaders and employees to get the most out of the performance feedback discussion.Ulrich: I would kill Performance Management complexity, and simplify the process. Sometimes, the process becomes the end itself, and there is means/end inversion.Wright: I would kill the parochialism that comes from my way, my tool and my process. There is a lot to be learned from how others are doing Performance Management.Ziskin: When you consider the future of work, the workplace and the workforce —and how all these things are changing and affecting business performance — what one or two big implications are there for required changes to Performance Management in the future?Ulrich: The biggest implications for the future I see are simplification of the Performance Management process and more outside/in perspective whereby Performance Management is more connected to input from external stakeholders.Wright: We will see a greater emphasis on evaluating results, the end product, rather than behavior, because global dispersion of work will make it much more difficult to directly observe behavior.Boudreau: As a result of increasingly virtual, remote, temporary and independent work, performance assessment can no longer only be done by leaders — it will also be done by others including peers and employees themselves. PerformanceManagement will no longer be the province of leaders.Collins: Performance Management is going in the direction of more frequent, more transparent, more virtual, more raters and more team-based.Ziskin: Based on insights from our academic experts, as well as from my own experience, if you are working to reconcile the competing priorities associated with Performance Management, think about the following guidelines:• Simplify and de-emphasize forms and process in favor of improving the quality of relationships and conversation between leaders and employees• Accommodate trends toward more virtual and flexible work and changing demographics thorough Performance Management approaches that emphasize transparency, frequency and input from a broader range of internal and external constituents• Move from a relatively narrow focus on Performance Management to a broader emphasis on Performance CulturePeople & Strategy. 2013, Vol. 36 Issue 2, p24-25. 2p.译文：绩效管理：协调竞争的优先事项Ian Ziskin来自学术界的四位HR思想领袖：在南加州大学中心所研究有效组织的John Boudreau、在康奈尔大学高级人力资源研究中心工作的Chris Collins、在南卡罗来纳大学摩尔商学院的Pat Wright以及在密歇根大学和RBL集团工作的Dave Ulrich，与Ian总裁（掌管Excel集团有限责任公司、董事会成员、HR人员和策略）从事绩效管理事务。