Basic Search / Detailed Display

Author: 王凱諄
Kaichun - Wang
Thesis Title: 績效評核制度個案研究-強迫排名能否使管理奏效?
A Case Study of Performance Evaluation System-Does Forced Ranking Make Management Work?
Advisor: 鄭仁偉
Jen-wei Cheng
Committee: 欒斌
Pin Luarn
林孟彥
Tom M. Y. Lin
Degree: 碩士
Master
Department: 管理學院 - 管理研究所
Graduate Institute of Management
Thesis Publication Year: 2013
Graduation Academic Year: 101
Language: 中文
Pages: 53
Keywords (in Chinese): 績效管理績效考核強迫排名末位淘汰組織變革
Keywords (in other languages): Performance Management, Performance Appraisal, Forced Ranking, Bottom Out, Organizational Change
Reference times: Clicks: 518Downloads: 5
Share:
School Collection Retrieve National Library Collection Retrieve Error Report
  • 人才管理是近年來企業發展人力資源最重視的課題之一,每家企業都希望培育出優秀人才,為組織創造更高績效表現,提高整體競爭優勢。培育人才的前提在於如何有效地區別出人才,而績效管理則為常見的重要工具。
    然而,傳統績效管理的缺點在於管理者僅把焦點放在打考核,而忽略了績效管理與人員管理、人才發展和企業策略的結合。績效評核的結果應與重要的人事決策如獎金、紅利、調薪、升遷、留任或資遣等連結,此為管理性的目的。發展性的目在於協助表現好的員工繼續發展,表現不好的員工找出能力缺口,持續改善。而績效管理的最終目的,實為策略性的一環,把個別員工的行動與公司的整體目標結合,確定方向一致。
    個案公司身處傳統製造業與外銷批發業,創立至今已逾四十多年,面對大環境的挑戰,僵化的組織逐漸喪失競爭力,近年來整體績效持續下滑。變革過程中,由家族企業轉變為專業經理人的管理模式,期待建立完整的管理制度來發展企業之永續經營。在顧問公司的輔導與新任執行長的帶領下,導入了策略性績效管理制度。透過各種工具訂定出策略目標,由上至下執行。利用強迫排名與人才差異化的措施,落實績效管理。面臨獲利持續下滑,開始有主管提議公司應該淘汰績效不好的員工,來促進組織活化。由原先吃大鍋飯的年資導向轉變為外商常見的功績導向,過程中原有的組織文化開始產生質變,高階主管的認同與員工的信任備受挑戰。
    本個案以哈佛式個案撰寫法,探討個案公司導入績效管理制度的幾年間,各階段執行所遇到不同的管理議題。本論文包含個案本文與教師教學手冊兩大部份。透過本論文學員可了解到,績效管理之於企業策略的重要性與其操作細節。另透過問題討論可解企業管理經營上,任何人事制度導入可能面臨的實務狀況,進而提出管理上的參考建議與方向。


    Talent Management is one of the most important topics for corporate human resource development in recent years. Talents can deliver better performance and as a key, to enhance the company’s competitive advantage over competitors. Before talking about managing talents, the crucial question is what the best way to identity good performers? Performance evaluation system is the most common tool in use.
    Traditionally, performance evaluation system focuses most in the process of performance appraisal and largely ignores its alignment with people management, talent development, and corporate strategy. For people management, the result of performance appraisal shall be tied to important decisions such as bonuses, raises, promotions, retention or layoff. For talent development, performance management helps keeping good performers for continuous growth and helps poor performers finding out the gap for improvement. The most significant advantage of performance management is to make sure all employees are bound to the same direction with corporate overall goal.
    In this case story, the company is in manufacturing and international trading business and has been established for over forty years. In face of growing competition, it has been losing its competitive advantage and profitability rapidly. In the process of turnaround, from a typical family-owned managerial style to a west-modern managerial style, the company has hired a new CEO for changing management. With the lead of the CEO and the advice from consulting company, strategic performance management system has been implemented. At beginning, the company has using several tools to develop a strategy map and to set up goals from top to bottom. Then, forced ranking evaluation and distinguished reward system has been carried out to make sure that the company hold the best and the brightest talents. However, it seems no improvement in terms of the company’s overall profitability. In order to improve the workforce, some managers suggest the company shall eliminate poor performers to aid the effectiveness of turnaround. With the conflicts of two different managerial styles, from pay-for-tenure to pay-for-performance, some top managers and senior employees have lose their trust on company and the moral is going down.
    Harvard Business Case study method is used in this study to discuss the scenario of different managerial issues during the implementation of strategic performance management system. This study includes two parts, case scenario and instructor teaching note. Readers are expected to understand the importance of performance management in terms of corporate strategy and how to execute the system in details. The objective of this study is to help readers understand what possible scenarios can be happened during the introduction of a new HR policy; further, to provide valuable advises for later study.

    摘 要 I ABSTRACT II 致謝 IV 目 錄 V 圖目錄 VI 表目錄 VII 開場白 1 壹、個案本文 5 一、績效管理制度的導入 5 二、強迫排名與人才差異化 11 三、末位淘汰的爭議性 16 貳、教師教學手冊(TEACHING NOTE) 20 一、個案總覽 20 二、教學主題與適用課程 20 三、學員課前討論問題 23 四、學員課前準備 24 五、個案角色介紹 24 六、教學重點與時間分配 26 七、教學項目 27 八、板書規劃 47 參考文獻 51 一、網路部分 51 二、中文部分 51 三、英文部分 52

    一、網路部分
    Career 學習網http://learning.career.com.tw
    Harvard Business School http://hbswk.hbs
    JISC infoNET http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk
    MBA智庫http://www.mbalib.com
    育碁數位科技 http://www.aenrich.com.tw
    新人力網站 http://www.xinrenli.com
    台灣新生報 http://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E5%85%AC%E5%8B%99%E5%93%A110%E5%B9%B43%E4%B8%99-%E6%B7%98%E6%B1%B0-160438809.html
    二、中文部分
    周萬祥(2007)。績效考核公平性與員工工作態度之研究-以台北捷運公司列車司機員為對象。世新大學行政管理學研究所未出版碩士論文。
    紀麗君(2010)。我國證券業績效管理施行成果探討。國立臺灣科技大學企業管理系未出版碩士論文。
    徐賽芬(2007)。領導型態對於組織變革與工作滿足的影響:以某國立大學行政主管之更迭為例。國立中央大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
    祝康偉(2005)。績效管理,叫我第一名。Career就業情報,第355期。
    袁芳煌(2002)。工作評價、績效管理與薪資管理之關係應用於實務之研究-以國內製造業為例。元智大學管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
    張瑋良(2003)。人力資源管理(二)。台北:雙葉書廊。
    張瑞明(2005)。績效管理制度設計。台北:中華人力資源管理協會。
    曾沁音譯(2006)。強迫排名:讓績效管理奏效,找出未來領導人。台北:臉譜出版。
    黃同圳(2010)。人力資源管理:全球思維本土觀點。台北:高立圖書。
    黃郁仁(2004)。績效管理變革制度之探討—以某網路公司為例。國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
    黃瓈慧(2009)。組織變革、領導型態、組織文化與工作績效之研究-以台灣南部三所大學為例。國立成功大學企業管理學系未出版碩士論文。
    楊仁壽等譯(2012)。組織理論與管理。台北:雙葉書廊。
    羅耀宗譯(2005)。致勝。台北:天下文化。
    三、英文部分
    Amalfe, C. A. & Adelman, H. (2002),” Forced rankings: The latest target of plaintiff’s employment lawyers.” Retrieved from http://www.gibbonslaw.com/news_publications/articles.php?action=display_publication&publication_id=790
    Barksdale, N. (2008), “Evaluating effects of forced ranking on employee performance and productivity.” Ph. D. dissertation, Northcentral University.
    Bates, S. (2003),” Forced rankling.” HRMagazine, 48(6), 62-62.
    Gerry, L. & Matt, L. (2003),” The rewards of work: The employment deal in a changing economy.” Perspectives 11, September 30.
    Grote, R. C. (2005), Forced ranking: Making performance management work. Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
    Guralnik, O. & Wardi, L.A. (2003), “Forced distribution: A controversy.” Society for Human Resource Management White Paper, August.
    Kelley, R., & Caplan, J. (1993), “How bell labs creates star performers.” Harvard Business Review, 71, 128-128.
    Kinsman, M. (2002), “Being good but irritating doesn’t work.” The San Diego Union-Tribune, January 22: C1.
    Kotter, J. P., Cohen, D. S., & Wyman, O. (2008), The Heart of Change: Real-life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations. St Martins Press.
    Novations group survey uncovers growing disenchantment with forced ranking performance management systems. (2004), Business Wire. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/445602460?accountid=8014
    Olson, C. A. & Davis, G. M. (2003), “Pros and cons of forced ranking and other relative performance ranking systems.” Society for Human Resource Management Legal Report. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/searchcenter/Pages/Results.aspx?k=Pros%20and%20cons%20of%20forced%20ranking%20and%20other%20relative%20performance%20ranking%20systems
    Scullen, S. E., Bergey, P. K., & Aiman-Smith, L. (2005), “Forced distribution rating systems and the improvement of workforce potential: A baseline simulation.” Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 1-1.
    Stewart, S. M., Gruys, M. L., & Storm, M. (2010), ”Forced distribution performance evaluation systems: Advantages, disadvantages and keys to implementation.” Journal of Management and Organization, 16(1), 168-179.

    無法下載圖示 Full text public date 2018/06/17 (Intranet public)
    Full text public date This full text is not authorized to be published. (Internet public)
    Full text public date This full text is not authorized to be published. (National library)
    QR CODE