［Global Vision］HR七大误读：调查发现VS.固有信念（终）
2014/5/21 环球人力资源智库

     [Global Vision]老外HR是如何思考的

     栏目主编：Emma Lu

     栏目简介：为开阔国内HR的视角，我们新开了[GlobalVision]专栏。旨在通过GHR团队的翻译，分享国外HR主题的优秀作品，未经GHR授权，请勿转载。选材上，我们倾向于那些跳出常规、引人深思的观点；翻译上，尽可能保证内容的原汁原味，因非专业翻译如有偏差还请见谅。查看专栏全部内容请到官网或者微信自定义菜单处点击“环球视点”。也欢迎推荐好的国外作品或加入GHR翻译团队。感谢上海江三角(苏州)律师事务所毕振洲律师为本栏目提供法律支持。

    

     [导读]“不识庐山真面目，只缘身在此山中”，即便是HR从事者也会对其有着或多或少的误读。2012年，Academy of Management Executive上曾登出一篇文章，解读了人们对于HR的七大解读。本篇是登出的最后一部分。

     Misconception Four: Most errors in performance appraisals can be eliminated by providing training that describes the kinds of errors managers tend to make and suggesting ways to avoid them.

     误解四：绩效考核中的大多数失误都可以通过对管理者提供培训去解决，培训中包括对管理者易犯错误的描述以及解决的建议。

     by Sara L. Rynes. Kenneth G. Brown, and Amy E. Colbert

     翻译：Bingqi Liu

     修订：Emma Lu

     Although 70 percent of our HR respondents agreedwith the preceding sentence, research clearly shows it to be false. A long line of research shows that performance appraisal is one of the most problematic HRpractices, as well as one of the most difficult to improve. In particular,rater training of the type described above (simply describing errors and suggesting ways to eliminate them) has been found to be notoriously ineffectivefor improving appraisal accuracy. For one thing, many managers do not believe that they, personally, make the errors described by the trainer. In addition, research has shown that training to reduce certain kinds of errors can actually increase inaccuracy by introducing other types of errors.

     尽管我们调查的HR中的70%都表示对上述观点的认同，但是科学研究结果却清楚表示它是错误的。一个长期调查研究表明绩效考评是人力资源实践过程中问题最多、且最难改善的一项。特别是上述的评价者训练(如简单的描述易犯错误以及解提出解决方法)，研究表明这些方法对于绩效考评准确性的改善毫无效用。一方面，很多管理者并不认为自己犯了培训中所说的那些错误。另一方面，研究发现通过培训去减少某种错误的发生实际上却可能适得其反，往往因为增加了其它类型的错误而造成绩效考评准确度的降低。

     Rather, improvement of performance appraisal appears to require a fairly intensive set of activities. These include active participation in rating videotaped performers against performance specifications,providing written justifications of their ratings, (usually) making several errors in relation to "correct" appraisal ratings, having group discussions of ways to overcome the errors, and providing further practice sessions, spacedover time. Even so, it should be emphasized that studies that have shown rating improvements as a result of these methods have assessed rater accuracy by usingcarefully constructed videotape scenarios, where the correct rating can beknown and where raters are not personally involved with the"picture-people" they are rating. Thus, it is still unclear whether managers who are able to correctly evaluate videotaped performances by unknownactors actually transfer this learning to subsequent ratings of their ownemployees.

     其实，绩效考评的改进是需要很集中的训练活动的。其中包括提前录制考评人反面教材录像带并积极参与对考评人表现的打分，提供打分理由的书面文件，(通常)会针对“正确”的考评分数犯一些错误，通过小组讨论的形式克服这些错误，并随着时间的推移提供更多的实践。即便如此，我们需要强调的是研究表明，这些方式带来的考评结果的改善是通过精心创造的影像场景来达到提高考评者准确度的目的的，这些场景反映了什么样的评定是正确的评定，以及什么时候评定者并不是真正参与到评定当中。因此，对于那些在学习过程中能够正确评定的管理者，我们仍然不清楚他们是否将学到的这些用到了实际工作中。

     When dealing with "real employees," it is generally believed that getting rid of appraisal errors—particularly leniency—requiresvery substantial monitoring of appraisals and clear statements by topmanagement that leniency or other forms of inaccuracy are not acceptable. For example. General Electric found that they were unable to eliminate excessive leniency from performance appraisals until they began to insist that managers rank employees on a bell curve and attached substantial penalties to managers for failure to do so. Although this system appears to be working well at GE, it should be noted that this strong ratings differentiation is accompanied by manyother supportive actions, such as three thorough performance reviews of manager seach year, very aggressive career planning, highly differentiated monetary rewards linked to appraisal distributions, and refusal to promote managers who will not make the distinctions. Although one can certainly debate whether you can truly have accurate appraisals when every unit is required to rate on the same bell curve (this recently became a major issue at the Ford Motor Company), one positive feature is that measurement studies have shown that it is in fact easier to make accurate rankings than accurate ratings

     对待“真正的员工”意味着要避免考评错误——尤其是宽容评价误差——这要求对考评过程大量的监控，以及高层管理人员对于宽容评价误差和其它误差不能容忍的态度的声明。例如，通用电气发现他们不能避免大量的宽容评价误差直到他们开始坚持用贝尔曲线的打分方式来评价员工，对于没能运用贝尔曲线的方式的管理者，会有相应的惩罚机制。虽然这套系统在通用电气很受用，我们需要说明的是这套系统也伴随了很多其它的辅助机制，例如每年三次针对管理者的全面业绩考评，充满野心的职业规划，与绩效相关的金钱奖励上较大的差异，以及对于那些不肯做出优异工作的管理者取消其升职机会。虽然人们可以对每个环节都要求按照相同的贝尔曲线来评定是否就一定能够真的达到正确的考评目的这一论点产生异议(近期这在福特公司造成了一定的问题)，一个积极的发现是研究表明实际上精确的排名比精确的评分更加简单。

    

    

    

    

     点击“阅读原文”，查看环球视点专栏全部内容。

    http://weixin.100md.com
返回 环球人力资源智库 返回首页 返回百拇医药