????媒體開始注意到，微軟、戴爾、埃森哲和紐約人壽等大公司均開始放棄管理界最令人厭惡的傳統之一：績效評估。《華爾街日報》在幾天前注意到了這種趨勢，上個月，《哈佛商業評論》和CNN財經頻道均發表了與此有關的文章。這些文文章的主題是一致的：哈利路亞，績效評級終于死了。

????要不是由于一個問題，我也會為此舉喝彩的。不同方式的績效評級只是一種工具，許多公司輕視它，并非因為工具本身不好，而是因為使用工具的人不稱職。公司真正要做的是提高工具使用者的技能水平，幫助員工變得更好，盡管這項任務更加艱巨，但領導者可能認為，他們可以通過改變工具來改善公司的績效——這是一種危險的心態。

????對于績效評估這一工具好壞的爭論，所有人最喜歡的一個例子是杰克·韋爾奇擔任通用電氣CEO時推行的強制評級制度：每年必須將所有員工劃分出高、中、低三檔（隨著制度的變化，具體的定義也在改變），并且必須將每個人的級別告訴他們。在通用電氣如日中天的時候，許多公司采用了這一制度，但結果并不美好。有些員工對自己得到的評級感到憤怒，有的感覺這種制度造成了彼此對立：我要進入一個更高的級別，必然有人要被擠下去。微軟直到兩年前才放棄這種制度，公司員工對此感到非常高興。

????當時，我曾與戴維·卡爾霍恩討論過這個問題。卡爾霍恩曾是通用電氣的高管，在尼爾森公司擔任過CEO。他是這種制度的支持者，也曾在尼爾森公司推行這種制度。他的回答非常簡單：這種制度的重點是“強制進行對話”。許多管理者討厭嚴厲且誠實地告訴員工評級結果。而這項制度正是為了迫使他們這么做。對于其他方式，他沒有什么意見，但按照他的經驗，哪怕你讓管理者有一丁點避免給員工誠實評價的回旋余地，大多數人也會大加利用。而如果出現這種情況，員工將永遠不知道他們的真正表現，從而也就失去了自我提高的機會。

????許多放棄舊評級制度的公司，正在尋找其他方式，以強迫管理者進行誠實的對話。例如，Adobe公司的“核查”制度吸引了不少人的關注，這項制度要求經常提供反饋，但沒有一年一次的要求。其他公司也開始采用這種制度。

????不論采用哪種方式，領導者面臨的真正問題在于文化。在你的公司，對上級、下級或同級坦誠談論個人績效，在文化上是否合適？如果是，你的公司肯定是一家優秀的公司。否則，公司的其他方面也很難做到出色。不論使用哪一種評估工具，公司都必須改變文化。這種改變首先要從最高層開始。（財富中文網）

????譯者：劉進龍/汪皓

????審校：任文科

????The media have begun to notice that several big, famous companies—Microsoft, Dell, Accenture, New York Life, and many more—are abandoning one of the most loathed traditions in management: the performance review. The Wall Street Journal noted the trend a few days ago, and last month the Harvard Business Review and CNNMoney documented it. The theme is consistent: Hallelujah, performance ratings are dead.

????And I’d be cheering too, except for one problem. Performance ratings in their multiple forms are tools, and at many companies they’re despised not because the tools are bad, but because the users of the tools are inept. The danger is that leaders may conclude they can improve their organization’s performance by changing the tool when the real issue, a much tougher one, is improving the skills of those who use any tool for helping employees get better.

????Everyone’s favorite example in the bad-tool argument is the forced ranking system popularized by General Electric when Jack Welch was CEO: Every employee every year had to be placed in a category—high, middle, or low (the exact definitions of which changed as the system evolved)—and had to be told where he or she stood. Many companies adopted the system when GE was flying high, and many of them had terrible experiences. Some employees were furious at how they were ranked, and some felt the system pitted them against one another: For me to be moved into a higher category, someone else must be moved out. Microsoft used the system until two years ago, and employees rejoiced when the company dumped it.

????At that time, I asked Dave Calhoun about it. A former GE executive, he was CEO of Nielsen and a fan of the system, which he used at Nielsen. His response was simple: The whole point “is to force a conversation,” he said. Many managers absolutely hate to tell employees, rigorously and honestly, where they stand. This is a way of making them do it. He had no quarrel with other means of making them do it—but experience has shown that if you give managers a half-inch of wiggle room to avoid giving employees an honest assessment, most of them will use it. In which case employees never know how they’re really doing and have a far less chance of improving.

????Many of the companies that are ditching the old rating systems are finding other ways to force that honest conversation. Adobe, for example, has attracted much attention with its “Check-In” system that requires feedback often, not annually. Other companies are adopting it.

????In this as in so much else, the real issue for leaders is culture. In your organization, is it culturally okay to be candid about performance, whether speaking upward, downward, or sideways? If so, your organization is probably an excellent performer. If not, then nothing else in the company will work well. Regardless of the evaluation tool being used, the culture needs changing. And change starts at the top.