1、 外文翻译 原文 Impact of performance management reviews Evidence form an energy supplier Mate rial Source: Mangement Services Author: Dr Veronica Martinez and Dr Mike Kennerley Abstract Organisational researchers and managers alike have long held the view that performance reviews, based on performance mea
2、surement systems, have a positive impact on business performance. Nevertheless, here is relatively little research to support this hypothesis. This study sets out to tackle this gap by testing the effect of performance reviews on business performance in a UK energy supplier, using agency theories. O
3、ur evidence shows 33 positive effects of performance reviews； 12 of them are identified as the most cited by our interviewees. Seven factors that moderate the firms results are identified； the local leadership on performance reviews, which is a contribution to knowledge from this research, stood out
4、 as one of the most powerful factors that moderate performance reviews. Two negative effects of performance reviews are highlighted by this research. Finally, this research discusses the implications to the body of knowledge and practice. Introduction Competitive pressures in the global business env
5、ironment are forcing organisations to re-engineer In order to become more competitive in the marketplace. Toward that end, organisations are placing strong emphasis on performance management systems (Frigo and Krumwiede,1999). Evidence suggests that 44% of organisations worldwide use performance mea
6、surement systems as a mechanism to review organisational performance (Marretai,2004； Rigby, 2001； Silk,1998； Franco et al,2004； Kaplan and Norton, 1992). While interesting, little research suggests that performance reviews benefit organisational performance. Our research examines two research questi
7、ons. Firstly, what are the effects of performance reviews on business performance? Secondly, what factors moderate the effect of performance reviews? The rest of the article is organised as follows： It starts discussing the body of literature on the agency theory and performance reviews； thus, it in
8、troduces the research methods used in this research. it continues with a discussion of the research findings and conclusions. Finally, the paper concludes with some implications for practice and knowledge. This exploratory research sheds some light on the explanation of the effects and factors that
9、moderate performance reviews； however as a part of this research project, more case studies will be carried out to increase the generalisation of these findings. the agency theory and performance reviews The agency model of the firm suggests that the principal invests in a production process under t
10、he control of an agent. The agent is privately informed as to the firms capital productivity. The agent can report to the principal on the productivity realisation and can divert some of the principals investment from production to personal (non-pecuniary) consumption (Baiman,1990). Firms invest in
11、performance reviews to monitor and control the gents opportunism and behaviour(Eisenhardt, 1989). Performance reviews put in action and bring he firms performance measurement systems to life,such as balanced scorecards,performance prisms, budgeting systems and accounting systems .A critical decision
12、 for the principal is to design the firms performance management review. The principal has two basic options to control the firms outcomes. The first option, and most widely used is the principal invests in performance reviews, including a performance measurement system. Such investments reveal the
13、agents behaviour to the principal. The second option is to contract on the outcome-based contract which motivates behaviour by co-alignment of the agents preferences with those of the principals, eg, link performance measurement systems to agents compensations. The problem with this second option is
14、 that outcomes would be subject to factors such as government policies,economic climate, competitors actions,etc, (Eisenhardt,1989). Baiman (1990) reports that by increasing the performance reviews and agents rents, the principal is able to reduce the production distortions by a greater amount than
15、just using performance reviews. although in practice, the benefits of this correlation are in discussion. Research by Kumar (1989) and Suh and Kim(1989)shows a correlation between a firms productivity and performance reviews(Baiman,1990),ie, the principal will invest more in performance reviews when
16、 the agent communicates low productivity and outcomes. The more money is spent on reviewing the agents action,the more accurate the performance reviews are. On the contrary, when the agent reports high productivity, the principal will invest less in the firms performance reviews, therefore the revie
17、ws are less accurate. Some practitioners add that principals increase the investment on performance reviews when the firms capital investments are limited and/or when the firms objectives become more ambitious. Performance measurement systems and quality management literature show some effects of pe
18、rformance review on the way business operates. Ismail and Trotmans experimental research (Ismail and Trotman,1995) shows a positive correlation between the number of performance reviews, the number of plausible hypotheses and generation of ideas. Their quasi-experimental analysis on Singaporean firm
19、s shows that when firms increase the number of performance reviews, the firms performance increases. They found that during the performance review, the quality of discussions and the employees participation are two factors that moderate the effects of the performance reviews. The study of Trotman (1
20、985) on Australian firms shows that performance reviews increase the accuracy of judgements and decrease the variance of individual judgements； as a result, the firms level of systematic bias is minimised. Mariens research (1992) suggests that the main benefits of a performance review happen during
21、the discussion time, when the strengths, goals, improvements and actions are identified and negotiated. His research highlights that performance reviews make agents feel in control of their own performance. Different theories suggest that performance reviews improve the firms management control and
22、firms performance, although more research should address the nature of the benefits on the way firms operate. Methods The social constructionism approach, based on an in-depth case study, is regarded as appropriate for our research inquiry (Voss et al,2002； Burrel and Morgan, 1979； Yin,1994).In part
23、icular, we argue that a better understanding of the effects of performance reviews on the way organisations operate should be developed. This approach, based on case studies, drives us to the fundamental point where the phenomenon takes place in real time (Easterby-5mith et al,1999).It provides acce
24、ss to different types of performance reviews at different organisational levels, firms reports and action plans. methodological process Our methodological process consisted of five steps： (1)Point of departure-We selected relevant lines of enquiries and developed our research question based on liter
25、ature and empirical exploratory research. (2)Research protocol-We established key decisions to drive our research, ie, definition of interviewees and performance reviews at different organisational levels. (3)Data collection-We developed a structure questionnaire consisting of two broad areas, ie. u
26、nderstanding of (a) review processes and associated performance measurement tools, and(b)effect of performance reviews on managerial and operational levels. We interviewed the energy suppliers chief operating officer (COO),12 executive managers, eight business units managers and 15 employees. Interv
27、iews lasted from two to four hours and were conducted over the period of eight months during 2004 and 2005. We used multiple data collection tools to increase the reliability, construct and internal validity of our research(Voss et al,2002； Easterby-Smith,1999). (4)Data analysis We developed standar
28、d data collection tables to compare the data gathered from different informants and sources of information (Miles and Huberman, 1984).We analysed a total of： (a) At the executive level, 12 strategy maps, 12 scorecards, three quarterly reports, firms ambitions, corporate objectives, regulators object
29、ives, survey employee satisfactions, (b) At the operational objective, eight strategy maps,16 scorecards,15 coaching for performance reports. (5)Data interpretation-Using different techniques such as cognitive maps, high level of the analytic hierarchy process, decomposition and categorisation techn
30、iques arrived at the findings and conclusions discussed in the following sections (Saaty,1983； Pidd,2001； Miles and Huberman,1984) Energy and performance management systems Currently, Energy uses the balanced scorecard at the executive level, business unit level, team and individual level. Each leve
31、l has standardised processes, tools and practices to design, implement and review their scorecards. The strategy map at the executive level captures the firms ambitions, corporate objectives, and government (regulators)objectives； it is the reference point for the development of strategy maps at low
32、er levels. Energy has five main performance reviews based on the scorecard(Table 1),which are used to manage the firms performance. Findings Our research question asks： what are the effects of performance reviews on business performance? Our evidence shows 33 positive effects of performance reviews
33、on business performance (Table 2).Based on those,12 effects were identified as the most cited by our interviewees (Table 3)and two main negative effects. Effects of performance management reviews on Energy Energy has five performance reviews, ie, strategy meeting, quarterly meeting, regional meeting
34、, team briefings and coaching for performance. Each performance review has specific objectives, a different frequency of the review and a different review panel(Table 1).Our analysis shows that each performance review creates different effects on the way Energy performs, and each effect affects diff
35、erent areas of the business(Table 2). strategy meeting The strategy meeting is a key component of Energys performance reviews； it provides formality to the overall performance review process. It reflects the commitment of the top leadership of the company. It affects the management leadership by foc
36、using directors and managers attention on the firms strategic objectives set by the corporation, government (through regulators)and shareholders. This review is the engine which empowers a culture of continuous improvement. It creates and diffuses a new set of organisational behaviours and it streng
37、thens positive values of the firm. Quarterly meeting The quarterly meeting aims to review the performance of the regional(business)units. This review increases the competition between regional units. Our evidence suggests that regional managers are driven by this friendly competition to perform bett
38、er than other regions, generate innovative practices and become a reference unit within the firm. Quarterly meetings have become a negotiation place where managers and directors discuss resources for new projects. Discussions on a business units performance increases senior managers support for impl
39、ementing new projects and action plans. The quarterly meetings enhance the achievement targets and objectives of each business unit. A senior manager said what gets measured, gets managed and what gets continuously managed, gets achieved. coaching for performance Coaching for performance is a face-t
40、o-face review between a direct manager and an employee. It traduces the business strategy to employees operations； It clarifies the contribution of individual employees to the business. This review increases the accountability of employees and better aligns the current employees skills with their op
41、erations. It improves the definition of new training. Thus, it ensures that employees have the right skills to perform their operations. 译文 影响的绩效管理的评论：以一个能源供应公司为依据 资料来源 : 管理服务 作者： Veronica Martinez 博士和 Mike Kennerley 博士 文摘 组织研究人员和经理们都长期持有一个观念，认为基于绩效评估系统的绩效考核会对经营业绩产生积极的影响。虽然如此，我们只有有相对少的研究结果来支持这个假设。本研
42、究使用代理理论，通过测试一个英国的能源供应商的经营绩效考评，从此出发去解决这些差距的影响。我们的证据显示 33 人有绩效考核的积极效应；其中的 12 人通过成为我们的访问者从而被确认为被引用者。7 个因素适 量公司的结果被确定：“当地的领导人才”业绩评估，这是从这项研究中一种对知识的贡献，突出其中最重要的因素：适量业绩评估。在研究中，两个绩效考核的消极影响是突出的。最后，本研究探讨了知识和实践的本身的含义。 介绍 全球业务环境的竞争压力也迫使组织重新整合，目的是在市场交易上更具有竞争力。为此，组织把重点放在绩效管理系统（ Frifo 和 Krumwiede， 1999）。有证据表明，世界上有
43、44%的组织使用绩效管理系统作为一种机制来审查组织的绩效（ Marretai2004； Rigby， 2001； Silk， 1998； Franco et al， 2004；Kaplan and Norton， 1992）。而有趣的是，一些研究结果表明， 绩效考核使组织的绩效受益。我们的研究将调查两个研究课题。首先， 是什么影响了经营业绩的绩效考核 ?其次， 是什么因素造成了绩效考核的效果的减退 ? 这篇文章的其余部分组织如下： 它开始讨论 关于代理理论和绩效评估的文献本身 ，因此，它介绍应用于该研究的研究方法。它还将继续对研究结果和结论的讨论。最后，本文推断出一些实践和知识的启示。这种探索
44、性研究揭示了一些关于适度绩效考核的影响和因素的解释。 然而，作为这个 研究项目的一部分，更多的案例研究将被实行，以增加这些理论的推广。 代理理论的研究和绩效评估 该公司的代理模型建议委托人，在 代理人的控制下， 投资于生产方法。 代理人被私下告知公司主要的生产力 代理人可以向委托人报告生产能力的实现，也可以从生产转移委托人的投资到个人（非金钱）的消费（ Baiman， 1990）。 绩效考核公司的投资是为了监督和控制人们的机会主义和行为（ Eisenhardt， 1989）。绩效考核只有 实用工具 ，例如平衡记分卡、 绩效棱镜 、预算制度和会计系统，才能使公司的绩效衡量系统起效。对委托人来说，
45、关键的 决定是设计公司的绩效管理评估。 委托人有两个基本选择来控制公司的结果。第一个选择，也是最广泛使用的，是委托人投资绩效考核，包括绩效管理体系。这样的投资向委托人展现了代理人的行为。 第二种选择是以成果为基础的激励合同，通过代理人和委托人的协商，例如， 把 绩效衡量系统 和 代理人的报酬 联系起来 。 第二种选择的问题是 结果会受到诸如政府政策，经济环境，竞争对手的行动等因素的管制（ Eisenhardt， 1989）。 Baiman（ 1990）报告说通过增加的绩效管理和代理人的薪资，委托人可以比只使用绩效考核降低了大量的生产扭曲。 纵使有实践，但是这种关联的好处还只在理论上。 Kuma
46、r（ 1989）和 Suh 和 Kim（ 1989）的研究显示了公司的生产力和绩效考核之间的关联（ Baiman， 1990），即：当代理人显露低的生产率和成果时，委托人将在绩效考核投入更多的资金。花在回顾代理人行动上的钱越多，绩效考核越准确。相反，当代理人报告高生产率时，所有者将在对公司的绩效考核降低投入，因此评估不准确。一些从业者补充说，当企业的资本投资是有限时，并且 /或者 当公司的目标更加雄心勃勃， 委托人对企业的绩效考核增加了投入。 绩效测量系统和质量管理文献在商 业运作上显示了一些绩效评估的影响。Ismail 和 Trotman 的 实验研究表明在绩效评价的数量，和合理的假设和思想
47、生成数目两者之间呈正相关。 他们对 新加坡企业的 分析显示，当公司增加了绩效评估的数量时，公司的绩效也会增加。他们发现，在绩效评估中，对质量的讨论和员工的参与是影响适度绩效评估的两个因素。 Troman（ 1985）对澳大利亚公司的研究表明，绩效考核提高了判断的准确性和减少个人的判断差异；这样一来，该公司的系统偏差程度减至最低。 Marien（ 1992）的研究表明，绩效考核的主要优点产生在当优势，目标，改进和行动都确定和协商的讨论过程中。他的研究着重指出，绩效考核使代理人感觉他们能控制自己的绩效。 不同的理论认为，绩效考核提高公司管理的控制和公司的绩效，尽管更多的研究应注重在公司操作上的利益
48、性质。 方法 建立在一个深入的案例研究的基础上的社会建构论方法，被我们的研究调查认为是适当的 （ Voss et al， 2002； Burrel and Morgan， 1979； Yin， 1994）。特别是，我们认为，对一个组织运作方式上的绩效评价的影响，更好地理解应该得到发展。 基于案例研究的这个方法，推动我们去发现现象发生在 实时的（ Easterby-5mith 等人， 1999）。 它提供了在不同的组织层次，企业的报告和行动计划中访问绩效评估的不同类型。 方法过程 我们的方法的过程包括五个步骤： （ 1）起点 -我们选了查询和发展建立在文献上的我们的研究问题和实证探索性研究的相关
49、线路。 （ 2）研究协议 -我们建立了关键的决定，来推动研究，即在不同组织层次的受访者的定义和绩效评估。 （ 3）数据采集 -我们开发了一个两大领域的结构问卷，也就是说了解（ a）审查过程和 相关的绩效 测量工具；和（ b） 在管理和运作水平上绩效评估的影响 。我们采访了能 源供应公司的首席运营官（ COO）， 12 执行经理， 8 个业务部门管理人员和 15 名员工。面谈历时从 2 4 小时，并且我们在 2004 年到 2005 年中的 8 个月中执行了。我们用多个数据采集工具来为我们的研究增强可靠性，概念和内部效度（ Voss 等人， 2002； Easterby-Smith， 1999）。 （ 4）数据分析 -我们开发了标准数据采集表以比较从不同检举人和信息来源收集来的数据（ Miles and Huberman,， 1984）。 我们分析总 共有：（ a）在行政层级、 12 个战略地图， 12 个记分卡，三个季度报告，公 司的企图，企业的发展目标，管理者的目标，员工的满意度调查，（ b） 在业务目标一级，八个
