控制绩效考评中“老好人”倾向的案例研究

华中科技大学硕士学位论文控制绩效考评中“老好人”倾向的案例研究姓名：刘旭明申请学位级别：硕士专业：企业管理指导教师：廖建桥20080430I“”“”“”“”20062007IIAbstractHumanResourceManagementhasbeenthoughttobeimportantbytheenterprises,governmentorganizationsandthepulicorganiztions,andperformanceappraisalsisthekeypartandfoundationofhumanresourcemanagementanddevelopment.Scienticperformanceappraisalshasguideeffection,incentiveeffcetion,trainingeffection,feedbackeffectionandcomunicationeffection.Inourcountry,withtheimpactoftraditionalculture,the“Say-Yes-Man”-rendencyinperformanceappraisalsisveryserious,theresultsofappraisalhaveveryobviouscentral-tendency,verylowdistinction.Toacertainextent,appraisalhavelostitssignficance.IntheinvestigationfortheprojectofNationalNaturalScienceFoundation,wefoundtheschoolofmanagementofauniversityuesdtwodifferentmethodstoappraisalthedotoralthesis.Andofwhich,the“anonymousassessment+recessiverating+internalexperts”appraisalmethod(wecalledit“blind-commentary”)achievedgoodresults.Thismethoddidwellincontrolingthe“Say-Yes-Man-tendency”.Wecollectedthescoresofthedotoralthesisof2006and2007,includingtheblind-commentaryscoreandthepaper-defensescore.Basedonthepredecessors’studies,weputourassumptions:thebind-commentaryhadhighervaliditythanthepaper-defenseappraisalmethod.Thenweproveditfromthreeaspects:distinguishdegree,central-tendencyerrorsandleniencyerrors.Theresultswasthatthebind-commentarygothigherdistinguishdegreeandlowercentral-tendencyerrrorsandleniencyerrors.Thentheauthoranalysedthedifferencebetweenthetwomethods,andanalysedthedifferenceoftheinformationprocessingoftheraterwhenheusedthetwodifferentmethods,theoreticallyprovedwhytheblind-commentarydidwellincontrolingthe“Say-Yes-Man”-tendencyinthedotoralthesisappraisals.Atlast,theauthoranalysedtheproblemswemayencounterintheblind-commentary’spracticalapplication,andmaderecommendationsaboutit.Keywords:Performanceappraisals;Dotoralthesis;Distinguishdegree;Central-tendencyerrors;Leniencyerrors□_____□111.1Locke&Latham,1990Deming(1986)Steer&Lee,1983“”“”54.90%45.10%33%212.10%“”“”“”“”“”“”1.21“”Ivancevich1979Feldman1986/“”“”“”“”34532“”Bary1972WherryBartlett1953Feldman1981123431.314234“”5522.1SmithKendal1963Barret&Kernan1987Lawler1967Murphy1991“”10-156Sisson1948Cozan19551950Rogers1960SmithKendall1963——Pulakos19847Grate1996Bernardin&Beatty1984MurphyGarica198295%94%BlanzGhiselli1972+=-/Prien&Hughes1987MBO8“”2.1%1.52322.3033.19734.28245.33321983DrakeBeamMorin13002562.2BruceBlake197792.2————————————————————————BARS——BARS————10————————————————————CynthiaLee1985“”“——”2.2BushOrtinau1990AharonChristine1997,2000BARSBOSGRS2.2——200520062003112002CPAI2005200520032007200120022.3Ivancevich1979Feldman1986/Wexleyetal.197212Rand&Wexley1975Nathan&Lord1983Kozlowskl&Fore1981Feldman1981Borman1974Thomdike1920Korman1968SharonBartlett1969//20052005200713“”2.4WexleySanders&Yukl1973LandyZedeck&Cleveland1983WherryBartlett1953Feldman19811234Posner&Synder197514NathanLord1983Feldman1981/Blench1984“”“”1215“”34——162.5BESBOSraterobservationtrainingratererrortrainingcognitivetrainingBemadinWalter1977/Bemardin1978Pulakos1984/1733.1233;18“”3.21132321“”2“”19“”3“”3.11530202015“”“”36070%5060%4050%803.3“”20“”1162333.24220068864“”24“”“”72.7%3.4BruceBlake197721“”“”112222004200427%25%27%25%WXXDLH−=3-1DHXLXWD0.4D[0.30.4]D[0.20.3]D0.2()∑−−=XXnSi1123-22SnXiiX2Korman196823“”“”DecotissPetit197854NXXCEi∑−=3-3CEcentral-tendencyerroriXiXNCE3SharonBartlett1969/KaneBernadim1995“”Bretz19921242TaylorHastman1956kane1995Antonioni2001NXXi∑=3-4XXiiN33σαm=3-53-5()331∑−=XxNmiα3mσα=0α0α0α253.5200311.A1.B1.CFalcone2007“C”“3”“B”“4”“”22.A2.B2.C26ABC3.620062007“”“”125“”3“60”“100”3.3200620072006200760-651218.80%00.00%1524.60%00.00%65-701726.60%00.00%1219.70%00.00%70-751421.90%00.00%1626.20%00.00%75-801015.60%00.00%1321.30%00.00%80-85812.50%46.30%46.60%58.20%85-9011.60%5890.60%11.60%4675.40%90-9511.60%23.10%00.00%1016.40%95-10011.60%00.00%00.00%00.00%64100%64100%61100%61100%273.42006200760-652721.6%00.0%65-702923.2%00.0%70-753024.0%00.0%75-802318.4%00.0%80-85129.6%97.2%85-9021.6%10483.2%90-9510.8%129.6%95-10010.8%00.0%125100%125100%0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%100.0%6060-6565-7070-7575-8080-8585-9090-9595-1001003.120060.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%100.0%6060-6565-7070-7575-8080-8585-9090-9595-1001003.22007280.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%100.0%6060-6565-7070-7575-8080-8585-9090-9595-1001003.320062007SPSS12WilconxonSignedRanksSignP0.0520062007Bretz1992808590“”80200617.3%20078.2%12.8%1233.7125%25%WXXDLH−=29DHXLXWW=100Excel20061932.010043.6375.82=−=−=WXXDLH()6.59112=−−=∑XXnSi3.520062007060759.62.6345.73.9153.003.260.19320.04080.17320.05020.18300.045360SPSST343.5060753.000.18303.260.04530.20.2A2NXXCEi∑−=CEiXiX30NCE50“”[60100]80X=8080808085X200659.13=−=∑NXXCEi200674.2=−=∑NXXCEi3.6200620070607CE13.592.7414.012.8413.792.79SPSST5TP=0.000XXX=809.617.64B30031Excel200699.71==∑NXXi80.033==σαm3.720062007060771.9987.6771.1287.6171.565287.64160.80.120.32-0.440.63238-0.24696012SPSST66P=0.000C324“”“”4.14.133“”Antonioni1994AntonioniPark2001ThomasShi