1、英文文献原文： Performance Appraisal as a Guide for Training and Development: A Research Note on the Iowa Performance Evaluation System By Dennis Daley owa State University This paper examines one facet of performance appraisal-its use as a guide for the drafting of employee training and development plans.
2、 The scope is limited in that it excludes any consideration as to whether these plans are actually implemented. Our interest focuses only on the extent to which supervisors endeavor to assist employees in correcting or overcoming weaknesses and in enhancing or developing perceived strengths. The fin
3、dings reported here are based on a 1981 monitoring of the performance appraisal system used by the State of Iowa. As civil service reform has been instituted in one jurisdiction after another in order to further assure objective, performance based personnel practices, performance appraisal has emerg
4、ed as one of the key issues in the personnel management of the 1980s. This heightened sense of importance and seriousness has, in turn, led to a renewed interest in the study of the actual workings of performance appraisal systems. The uses to which performance appraisal can be put are myriad. The r
5、ecent Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 serves as a model in this respect. Here we find enunciated what may be taken as the typical orientation toward the uses of performance appraisal, recommending that personnel managers and supervisors use the results of performance appraisal as. a basis for train
6、ing, rewarding, reassigning, promoting, reducing in grade, retaining, and removing employees. Performance appraisal systems can also serve to validate personnel testing and selection procedures, although such systems are themselves also subject to affirmative action validation requirements. The econ
7、omic recessions of the 1970s and 1980s have placed significant restraints on these uses, however. The imposition of hiring freezes, the diminishment of promotional opportunities, the advent of reductions-in-force, and the near abandonment of merit pay provisions by financially strapped governmental
8、entities have contributed to the loss of enthusiasm for performance appraisal in many quarters. Under such circumstances, performance appraisal 一 limited in its use to the more negative functions of employee evaluation-takes on the dreaded image ascribed to them by Douglas McGregor (1957). In their
9、search to salvage something positive from amidst these circumstances personnel specialists have alighted upon the use of performance appraisal as a guide for employee training and development. This offers them the opportunity of providing public employees with a service that employees view as benefi
10、cial. Although public employees have shown little confidence in specific performance appraisal systems or in the managerial abilities of those responsible for their implementation (McGregor, 1957； Levinson, 1976； Nalbandian,1981), they have tended to demonstrate a more favorable attitude when the pu
11、rpose of performance appraisal has been perceived to be employee development (Decotiis and Petit, 1978；Cascio, 1982). This, of course, still poses a significant problem to a multipurpose system such as that found in the State of Iowa. Disenchantment or distrust with one aspect of the performance app
12、raisal system may significantly contribute to the weakening of the entire evaluation system. THE IOWA PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM In all public service systems employees are evaluated periodically； most often this is done informally. The introduction of formal systems of performance appraisal, usu
13、ally in addition to continued informal assessment, is a relatively recent event. Formal systems of performance appraisal are designed to provide a systematic and objective measure of individual job performance and/or potential for development. Although the use of formal performance appraisal in Iowa
14、 can be traced back at least to the early 1950s (limited, for the most part, to such rudimentary methods as the essay or graphic rating scale), these occurred within a fragmented setting. Individual departments and agencies retained descretion over the choice of such personnel practices until well into the 1960s. Under Governor Harold Hughes (1963 一 1969) a number of efforts were undertaken to
