在360度评估体系中，评估者主要包括上级、下级、同级和员工本人。评估成员中往往有高估自己而低估他人的倾向，有时也会出现策略性的评估，这会导致评价结果出现偏差。另外在企业的实际应用中，各类评估者的权重往往是固定的，因此对于出现的各类偏差很难调整。本文通过分析成员的评分结果，确定成员自评与他评的一致性类型，给出了自评与他评的权重确定方法，在此基础上设计了成员的得分函数。本文的权重调整方法实际上是一种机制设计，主要是约束各类评估者策略性的评估或者降低由于心理因素带来的各类偏差。最后，将该方法应用于企业员工贡献值的排序问题，并通过与传统方法的比较，说明了此方法的有效性与合理性。
In this paper, the 360-degree feedback concept in performance evaluation is examined. Compared with the traditional information feedback system featured a single source of information, 360-degree feedback system is highly credible and effective. Since with this evaluation system, staffs' performance can be fully assessed by all related evaluators, such as supervisors, subordinates, peers and themselves. However in practice, evaluators tend to overestimate themselves while underestimate others, or even there will be a strategic evaluation leading to a assessment deviation. Moreover, weights assigned to different evaluators in practice are always fixed, which makes it difficult to adjust all kinds of bias. To address this issue, the conventional 360-degree feedback method is improved. Firstly, a 360-degree sealed scoring evaluation model is constructed to obtain and combine information from multiple evaluators. To ensure a uniform scoring scale from different evaluators, a standardized parameter Kj* is introduced, which is entirely ignored in existing researches. Then, consistency indices are designed to depict the deviation degree between self-evaluation and peers-evaluation. Based on consistency analysis, a reasonable weight adjustment method is proposed, in which a smaller weight will be assigned to inconsistent scores. In fact, the weight adjusted method is a kind of mechanism design, which aims to bound strategic evaluation or reduce deviations caused by psychological factors. Finally, the approach is applied to rank employees' contribution, and its effectiveness is demonstrated by comparisons with conventional 360-degree method.
[1] London M, Beatty R W. 360-degree feedback as competitive advantage[J]. Human Resource Management, 1993, 32(2-3):353-372.
[2] Carless A S, Mann L, Wearin A J. Leadership, managerial performance and 360-degree feedback[J]. Applied Psychology:An international review, 1998, 47(4):481-496.
[3] Jussi O. Performance of virtual organizations[R].Working Paper, Tampere University of Technology, 2005.
[4] Kalpan R E. 360-degree feedback plus:Boosting the power of coworker ratings for executives[J]. Resource Management, 1993, 2(1):299-314.
[5] 陆昌勤, 方俐洛, 凌文辁. 360度反馈及其在人力资源管理中的效用[J]. 中国管理科学,2001, 9(3):74-80.
[6] Rynes S L, Gerhart B, Parks L. Personnel psychology:Performance evaluation and pay for performance[J]. Annual Review of Psychology, 2005, 56:571-600.
[7] 向健, 刘蓉晖, 赵红. 管理者人格特征对其360度评价结果的影响研究[J]. 数学的实践与认识, 2014, 44(12):47-54.
[8] 王重鸣, 心理学研究方法[M].北京:人民教育出版社,1990.
[9] Yammarino F J, Atwater L E. Do managers see themselves as other see them? Implications of self-other rating agreement for human resources management[J].Organizational Dynamics, 1997, 25(4):35-44.
[10] Waldman D A, Atwater L E. Power of 360-degree feedback[M]. Houston Texas:Gulf Publishing Company, 1998.
[11] Bass B M. Reducing leniency in merit ratings[J]. Personnel Psychology, 1956, 9(3):359-369.
[12] Taylor S E, Brown J D. Illusion and well-being:A social psychological perspective no mental health[J]. Psychological Bulletin, 1988, 103(2):193-210.
[13] Farh J L, Werbel J D. Effects of purpose of the appraisal and expectation of validation on self-appraisal leniency[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1986, 71(3):527-529.
[14] 孙健. 360度绩效考评[M]. 北京:企业管理出版社, 2003.
[15] 沈超红, 郎晓新. 下属行为取向与上级评价关系之间的实证研究[J]. 湖南社会科学,2009, (5):126-129.
[16] 谢小云, 王重明. 自我评价绩效的因果模型与动态属性[J]. 管理世界,2006, (4):97-105.
