基于绩效特征的考评方法权变选择——对知识员工的研究
|
摘要
知识员工在知识经济时代对于获取组织核心竞争力、推动社会可持续发展起着关键作用,如何管理和激励知识员工成为摆在研究者和实践者面前的重要课题。“没有评价,就没有管理”,由于知识员工工作的复杂性以及绩效表现的多样性,评价知识员工的绩效常常是一件棘手的工作。本文在“知识员工考评的关键是抓住其绩效特征和本质”这一基本观点以及权变管理理论的启发下,重点对知识员工绩效特征的测量和识别、绩效特征与考评方法的匹配规律进行了理论和实证研究,研究的主要结论有:
(1)对知识员工下定义应主要抓住工作内容和工作性质两个方面,而对各类职业是否属知识工作进行判别,可以为厘清知识员工涵盖的对象提供操作化的界定。工作的非程序化程度和工作所需知识的“硬度”是知识员工分类的两个较好的维度。绩效是工作行为和工作结果的综合体观点更容易让人接受,但当工作具有某些特点时,绩效强调工作行为和工作结果的一个方面也是成立的。二维绩效模型广为学者们所引用,关系绩效考评是必要的,但由于其本质、考评的难度、以及中国文化等原因,本文的研究重点是任务绩效的考评。
(2)对知识员工的绩效特征进行集中研究的文献非常少,通过对有关研究成果的分析可以发现,如果把宽泛定义下的知识员工作为一个不言自明的总体,其绩效特征几乎没有,但如果对知识员工进行分类,各类知识员工的绩效特征是比较明显的,这些绩效特征表现在绩效属性上的“显性”或“弱性”。总结已有的关于绩效特征的论述,同时分析考评方法设计过程中回答4w问题时需要考虑的绩效特征,可以发现绩效特征聚焦在五个绩效属性的差异上,进一步对访谈案例的内容分析表明,理论构建的绩效属性要素具有良好的信度和效度。这五个绩效属性要素分别是绩效行为是否可评价、绩效结果是否具体、绩效结果是否具有专业性、绩效结果是否具团队性、绩效结果取得是否需要长周期性。绩效特征则表现为在这五个绩效属性上“是”与“否”的性质,也即“显性”与“弱性”表征。
(3)在文献研究和对访谈资料整理的基础上,编制初始的绩效特征问卷,经预测试、项目筛选、正式测试、信度、效度检验,形成最终的绩效特征量表。结果表明,五个绩效属性具有出色的辨别效度,绩效行为可评价性进一步可区分为绩效行为可视性、绩效行为标准化、绩效行为结构化三个维度,绩效结果具体性进一步可区分为结果可量化、内在确定性、环境稳定性三个维度,而绩效结果专业性、绩效结果团队性、绩效结果长周期性都是单维结构。正式的绩效特征量表为辨识绩效特征提供了操作化工具,而对绩效属性测量值的高低分组为绩效特征的识别提供了较为客观的标准,对所调查岗位在不同绩效特征中的分布可以看出,测量值高低分组确定的绩效特征标准具有较好的涵盖性,不同岗位的知识员工具有不同的绩效特征。
(4)绩效考评方法的分类视角除了考评内容之外,还有考评者、考评对象、以及考评周期等角度,这些分类视角是相互独立的,多视角的分类体系既利于人们对绩效考评方法有全面的认识,也可以给管理者在选择和设计考评方法时提示应考虑的因素。各种考评方法没有绝对的优劣之分,权变管理理论对于本研究的启示,就是不存在普遍适用的考评方法,只有在特定的绩效特征条件下最为合适的考评方法。
(5)知识员工对现行考评方法的接受程度并不理想,不同类型组织中的知识员工对现行考评方法的接受程度存在较大差异。对于不同岗位的知识员工而言,他们所期望的考评方法有明显的差别,而这些差别与他们具有不同的绩效特征有密切关系。
(6)基于绩效特征的考评方法权变选择模型就是绩效特征和考评方法相匹配的系列研究假设,假设检验表明,实践中并不存在普遍适用的考评方法,只有在特定绩效特征下最为合适考评方法,具体而言:对于绩效行为可评价性和绩效结果具体性都比较低的知识员工,员工特征-工作行为-工作结果综合考评法比其他考评方法的可接受程度更高;对于绩效行为可评价性较低、绩效结果具体性较高的知识员工,工作结果类考评法比其他考评方法的可接受程度更高;对于绩效行为可评价性和绩效结果具体性都比较高的知识员工,结果类考评方法,或者行为类考评方法,或者结果-行为类考评方法都较为适宜,它们比其他考评方法的可接受程度更高;对于绩效行为可评价性较高、绩效结果的具体性较低的知识员工,工作行为类考评方法比其他考评方法的可接受程度更高。
对于绩效结果专业性程度较高知识员工而言,专家评价法比非专家评价法、专家-非专家共同评价法的可接受性更高;对于绩效结果专业性程度较低知识员工,专家评价法、非专家评价法、专家-非专家共同评价法在被接受程度上没有明显区别。
对于绩效结果团队性程度较高的知识员工,团队-个人相结合的绩效评价法比团队性评价法、个体评价法更容易被接受;对于绩效结果团队性程度较低的知识员工,个体评价法比团队性评价法、团队-个人相结合的绩效评价法比更容易被接受。
对于绩效结果取得需要长周期性的知识员工,年度考评比季度考评、月度考评更容易被接受;对于绩效结果取得短周期性的知识员工,季度考评、月度考评比年度考评更容易被接受。
系列研究假设的检验结果还表明,在考虑影响考评方法选择的次要因素时,最优的考评方法仍然都属于匹配于绩效特征的方法,这说明绩效特征是选择考评方法的首要决定因素。尽管对不同绩效特征下考评方法权变选择综合模型中的有些研究假设没有进行检验,但从已得到的检验结果来看,绩效属性对考评方法选择的主效应起决定作用,这就为管理者提供了选择考评方法的参考体系。
论文最后还指出了本研究存在的不足以及后续研究方向。
Knowledge workers play a vital role to gain organizational core competition ability and push society sustainable development in knowledge-base economy times. It is an important mission that how to manage and motivate knowledge worker for researchers and practitioners. No evaluating, no management. Appraising knowledge worker’s performance becomes a great challenge because knowledge workers’work complexity and performance diversity. Being enlightened by both one basic viewpoint that the key of appraising knowledge workers’performance is grasping their performance characteristics and its nature and contingency management theory, this dissertation carried out a theoretical and empirical study on measuring and identifying knowledge workers’performance characteristics, and the match rule between performance characteristics and appraisal methods. The main conclusion as followed:
(1) Defining the‘knowledge workers’should concentrate on two aspects of both work content and work nature, moreover, to judge every kind of occupation whether or not belongs to knowledge work can provide an operational boundary for knowledge workers covering employee scope. The no-programmable degree and knowledge hardness within work are the two appropriate dimensions for classifying knowledge workers. It is easier to be accepted that performance is an integrative body of work behavior and work outcome, however, when a piece of work has some of characters, it is right that performance emphasizing either work behavior or work outcome. The task performance-context performance model is quoted extensively by scholars, appraising context performance is important, however, since its nature, the relative appraisal easiness, and Chinese culture, and so on; task performance appraisal is the importance in this dissertation.
(2) There were a few literatures that concentrate on studying performance characteristics of knowledge workers, based on reviewing the relative literature, we can find that there were little performance characteristics if regarding all knowledge workers as one collectivity and not classifying them, however, if classifying knowledge workers in advance, then every type of knowledge workers has unambiguous performance characteristics which embody the‘explicit’or‘implicit’on some performance attributes. Summarizing the existed discussion about performance characteristics, as well as analyzing the performance characteristics needed to be considered when answer 4W questions in process of designing performance appraisal methods, we can find that these performance characteristics of every kind of knowledge workers embody the significant difference on five performance attributes, further content analysis about interview cases indicates that the five performance attributes theoretically constructed has fine reliability and validity. These five performances attributes are that whether work behaviors can be evaluated or not, whether work outcome is definite or not, whether work outcome is special or not, whether work outcome is team oriented or not, whether performance acquired need long time or not. Performance characteristics represent‘yes’or‘no’on these performance attributes, namely‘explicit’or‘implicit’embodiment above mentioned.
(3) Initial performance characteristics questionnaire was compiled on the basis of studying literature and processing interviewing cases text, the final edition one was formed by preliminary test, items filter, formal test, reliability and validity test. The data analysis indicates that these five performance attributes have outstanding differentiating validity, further exploring factor analysis shows that the one work behaviors to be evaluable can be divided into three dimensions that work behaviors to be observable, work behaviors to be standardized, and work behaviors to be structural, the one work outcome to be definite can be divided into three dimensions that work outcome to be quantitative, work scheme to be mature, work environment to be stable, the other three ones that work outcome is special, work outcome is team oriented , and performance acquired need long time are all single dimension. The final edition questionnaire provide a operational tools to identify performance characteristics, and the high and low grouping about surveying value of performance attributes provide an objective standard to judge performance characteristics, through descriptive statistics on distribution of knowledge workers investigated at different performance characteristics, we can find that the high and low grouping about surveying value of performance attributes has extensive covering, knowledge workers in different positions have different performance characteristics.
(4) As to the criterion for classifying performance appraisal methods, besides appraisal content, it is adopted that appraiser, appraising unit, and appraisal cycle, these criterion are independent separately, multiple criterion system of classifying performance appraisal methods not only to be help for understanding all kinds of appraisal methods, but also offer a series of directing factors to managers who select and design appraisal methods. Every kind of performance appraisal methods has no absolute superiority; contingency management theory tells us that there were no performance appraisal methods which can be applied universally; there was only one which is the best for knowledge workers whit a certain performance characteristics.
(5) In practice, knowledge workers hold low acceptability to current appraisal methods, and there were great acceptability difference among knowledge workers in different type of organizations. As for knowledge workers in different position, they expect different appraisal methods, which are related to their different performance characteristics.
(6) The contingency theory model about appraisal methods selected and performance characteristics is a series of research hypothesizes that a certain appraisal method matchs some of performance characteristics, the test about research hypothesizes shows that there are no performance appraisal methods which can be applied universally; there is only one which is the best for knowledge workers whit a certain performance characteristics, specification as followed:
As to knowledge workers whose work behaviors not to be evaluable and work outcome not to be definite, trait-behaviors-outcome comprehensive appraisal method is fit better for them than other ones. As to knowledge workers whose work behaviors not to be evaluable and work outcome to be definite, outcome oriented appraisal method is fit better for them than other ones. As to knowledge workers whose work behaviors to be evaluable and work outcome to be definite, outcome oriented appraisal method, or behaviors oriented appraisal method, or outcome- behaviors comprehensive appraisal method is the best for them. As to knowledge workers whose work behaviors to be evaluable and work outcome not to be definite, behaviors oriented appraisal method is fit better for them than other ones.
As to knowledge workers whose work outcome is special, peer review is fit better for them than nopeer review, and peer-nopeer together review. As to knowledge workers whose work outcome is not special; the three appraisal methods above mentioned are the same at being accepted.
As to knowledge workers whose work outcome is team oriented, team-individual combinative appraisal method is fit better for them than team oriented appraisal method, and individual oriented appraisal method. As to knowledge workers whose work outcome is individual oriented, individual oriented appraisal method is fit better for them than both team oriented appraisal method and team-individual combinative appraisal method.
As to knowledge workers whose performance acquired need long time, performance appraisal once a year is better than do it once a month or once a quarter. As to knowledge workers whose performance acquired is not long time cycle, performance appraisal once a month or once a quarter is better than do it once a year.
The test result about research hypothesizes indicates that the best appraisal method is still belong to the ones which fit performance characteristics even if considering the less important factors that influencing appraisal method selected, which imply that performance characteristics is the most important factor that determining appraisal method selected. Although some research hypothesizes in the comprehensive contingency model of appraisal methods selected have not been tested yet because sample shortage, the known test result shows that main effect of performance attributes on appraisal methods selected is crucial. The research results about contingency model provide a reference system to select appraisal method.
Finally, this dissertation pointed out the research shortcoming and further research filed.
(1)对知识员工下定义应主要抓住工作内容和工作性质两个方面,而对各类职业是否属知识工作进行判别,可以为厘清知识员工涵盖的对象提供操作化的界定。工作的非程序化程度和工作所需知识的“硬度”是知识员工分类的两个较好的维度。绩效是工作行为和工作结果的综合体观点更容易让人接受,但当工作具有某些特点时,绩效强调工作行为和工作结果的一个方面也是成立的。二维绩效模型广为学者们所引用,关系绩效考评是必要的,但由于其本质、考评的难度、以及中国文化等原因,本文的研究重点是任务绩效的考评。
(2)对知识员工的绩效特征进行集中研究的文献非常少,通过对有关研究成果的分析可以发现,如果把宽泛定义下的知识员工作为一个不言自明的总体,其绩效特征几乎没有,但如果对知识员工进行分类,各类知识员工的绩效特征是比较明显的,这些绩效特征表现在绩效属性上的“显性”或“弱性”。总结已有的关于绩效特征的论述,同时分析考评方法设计过程中回答4w问题时需要考虑的绩效特征,可以发现绩效特征聚焦在五个绩效属性的差异上,进一步对访谈案例的内容分析表明,理论构建的绩效属性要素具有良好的信度和效度。这五个绩效属性要素分别是绩效行为是否可评价、绩效结果是否具体、绩效结果是否具有专业性、绩效结果是否具团队性、绩效结果取得是否需要长周期性。绩效特征则表现为在这五个绩效属性上“是”与“否”的性质,也即“显性”与“弱性”表征。
(3)在文献研究和对访谈资料整理的基础上,编制初始的绩效特征问卷,经预测试、项目筛选、正式测试、信度、效度检验,形成最终的绩效特征量表。结果表明,五个绩效属性具有出色的辨别效度,绩效行为可评价性进一步可区分为绩效行为可视性、绩效行为标准化、绩效行为结构化三个维度,绩效结果具体性进一步可区分为结果可量化、内在确定性、环境稳定性三个维度,而绩效结果专业性、绩效结果团队性、绩效结果长周期性都是单维结构。正式的绩效特征量表为辨识绩效特征提供了操作化工具,而对绩效属性测量值的高低分组为绩效特征的识别提供了较为客观的标准,对所调查岗位在不同绩效特征中的分布可以看出,测量值高低分组确定的绩效特征标准具有较好的涵盖性,不同岗位的知识员工具有不同的绩效特征。
(4)绩效考评方法的分类视角除了考评内容之外,还有考评者、考评对象、以及考评周期等角度,这些分类视角是相互独立的,多视角的分类体系既利于人们对绩效考评方法有全面的认识,也可以给管理者在选择和设计考评方法时提示应考虑的因素。各种考评方法没有绝对的优劣之分,权变管理理论对于本研究的启示,就是不存在普遍适用的考评方法,只有在特定的绩效特征条件下最为合适的考评方法。
(5)知识员工对现行考评方法的接受程度并不理想,不同类型组织中的知识员工对现行考评方法的接受程度存在较大差异。对于不同岗位的知识员工而言,他们所期望的考评方法有明显的差别,而这些差别与他们具有不同的绩效特征有密切关系。
(6)基于绩效特征的考评方法权变选择模型就是绩效特征和考评方法相匹配的系列研究假设,假设检验表明,实践中并不存在普遍适用的考评方法,只有在特定绩效特征下最为合适考评方法,具体而言:对于绩效行为可评价性和绩效结果具体性都比较低的知识员工,员工特征-工作行为-工作结果综合考评法比其他考评方法的可接受程度更高;对于绩效行为可评价性较低、绩效结果具体性较高的知识员工,工作结果类考评法比其他考评方法的可接受程度更高;对于绩效行为可评价性和绩效结果具体性都比较高的知识员工,结果类考评方法,或者行为类考评方法,或者结果-行为类考评方法都较为适宜,它们比其他考评方法的可接受程度更高;对于绩效行为可评价性较高、绩效结果的具体性较低的知识员工,工作行为类考评方法比其他考评方法的可接受程度更高。
对于绩效结果专业性程度较高知识员工而言,专家评价法比非专家评价法、专家-非专家共同评价法的可接受性更高;对于绩效结果专业性程度较低知识员工,专家评价法、非专家评价法、专家-非专家共同评价法在被接受程度上没有明显区别。
对于绩效结果团队性程度较高的知识员工,团队-个人相结合的绩效评价法比团队性评价法、个体评价法更容易被接受;对于绩效结果团队性程度较低的知识员工,个体评价法比团队性评价法、团队-个人相结合的绩效评价法比更容易被接受。
对于绩效结果取得需要长周期性的知识员工,年度考评比季度考评、月度考评更容易被接受;对于绩效结果取得短周期性的知识员工,季度考评、月度考评比年度考评更容易被接受。
系列研究假设的检验结果还表明,在考虑影响考评方法选择的次要因素时,最优的考评方法仍然都属于匹配于绩效特征的方法,这说明绩效特征是选择考评方法的首要决定因素。尽管对不同绩效特征下考评方法权变选择综合模型中的有些研究假设没有进行检验,但从已得到的检验结果来看,绩效属性对考评方法选择的主效应起决定作用,这就为管理者提供了选择考评方法的参考体系。
论文最后还指出了本研究存在的不足以及后续研究方向。
Knowledge workers play a vital role to gain organizational core competition ability and push society sustainable development in knowledge-base economy times. It is an important mission that how to manage and motivate knowledge worker for researchers and practitioners. No evaluating, no management. Appraising knowledge worker’s performance becomes a great challenge because knowledge workers’work complexity and performance diversity. Being enlightened by both one basic viewpoint that the key of appraising knowledge workers’performance is grasping their performance characteristics and its nature and contingency management theory, this dissertation carried out a theoretical and empirical study on measuring and identifying knowledge workers’performance characteristics, and the match rule between performance characteristics and appraisal methods. The main conclusion as followed:
(1) Defining the‘knowledge workers’should concentrate on two aspects of both work content and work nature, moreover, to judge every kind of occupation whether or not belongs to knowledge work can provide an operational boundary for knowledge workers covering employee scope. The no-programmable degree and knowledge hardness within work are the two appropriate dimensions for classifying knowledge workers. It is easier to be accepted that performance is an integrative body of work behavior and work outcome, however, when a piece of work has some of characters, it is right that performance emphasizing either work behavior or work outcome. The task performance-context performance model is quoted extensively by scholars, appraising context performance is important, however, since its nature, the relative appraisal easiness, and Chinese culture, and so on; task performance appraisal is the importance in this dissertation.
(2) There were a few literatures that concentrate on studying performance characteristics of knowledge workers, based on reviewing the relative literature, we can find that there were little performance characteristics if regarding all knowledge workers as one collectivity and not classifying them, however, if classifying knowledge workers in advance, then every type of knowledge workers has unambiguous performance characteristics which embody the‘explicit’or‘implicit’on some performance attributes. Summarizing the existed discussion about performance characteristics, as well as analyzing the performance characteristics needed to be considered when answer 4W questions in process of designing performance appraisal methods, we can find that these performance characteristics of every kind of knowledge workers embody the significant difference on five performance attributes, further content analysis about interview cases indicates that the five performance attributes theoretically constructed has fine reliability and validity. These five performances attributes are that whether work behaviors can be evaluated or not, whether work outcome is definite or not, whether work outcome is special or not, whether work outcome is team oriented or not, whether performance acquired need long time or not. Performance characteristics represent‘yes’or‘no’on these performance attributes, namely‘explicit’or‘implicit’embodiment above mentioned.
(3) Initial performance characteristics questionnaire was compiled on the basis of studying literature and processing interviewing cases text, the final edition one was formed by preliminary test, items filter, formal test, reliability and validity test. The data analysis indicates that these five performance attributes have outstanding differentiating validity, further exploring factor analysis shows that the one work behaviors to be evaluable can be divided into three dimensions that work behaviors to be observable, work behaviors to be standardized, and work behaviors to be structural, the one work outcome to be definite can be divided into three dimensions that work outcome to be quantitative, work scheme to be mature, work environment to be stable, the other three ones that work outcome is special, work outcome is team oriented , and performance acquired need long time are all single dimension. The final edition questionnaire provide a operational tools to identify performance characteristics, and the high and low grouping about surveying value of performance attributes provide an objective standard to judge performance characteristics, through descriptive statistics on distribution of knowledge workers investigated at different performance characteristics, we can find that the high and low grouping about surveying value of performance attributes has extensive covering, knowledge workers in different positions have different performance characteristics.
(4) As to the criterion for classifying performance appraisal methods, besides appraisal content, it is adopted that appraiser, appraising unit, and appraisal cycle, these criterion are independent separately, multiple criterion system of classifying performance appraisal methods not only to be help for understanding all kinds of appraisal methods, but also offer a series of directing factors to managers who select and design appraisal methods. Every kind of performance appraisal methods has no absolute superiority; contingency management theory tells us that there were no performance appraisal methods which can be applied universally; there was only one which is the best for knowledge workers whit a certain performance characteristics.
(5) In practice, knowledge workers hold low acceptability to current appraisal methods, and there were great acceptability difference among knowledge workers in different type of organizations. As for knowledge workers in different position, they expect different appraisal methods, which are related to their different performance characteristics.
(6) The contingency theory model about appraisal methods selected and performance characteristics is a series of research hypothesizes that a certain appraisal method matchs some of performance characteristics, the test about research hypothesizes shows that there are no performance appraisal methods which can be applied universally; there is only one which is the best for knowledge workers whit a certain performance characteristics, specification as followed:
As to knowledge workers whose work behaviors not to be evaluable and work outcome not to be definite, trait-behaviors-outcome comprehensive appraisal method is fit better for them than other ones. As to knowledge workers whose work behaviors not to be evaluable and work outcome to be definite, outcome oriented appraisal method is fit better for them than other ones. As to knowledge workers whose work behaviors to be evaluable and work outcome to be definite, outcome oriented appraisal method, or behaviors oriented appraisal method, or outcome- behaviors comprehensive appraisal method is the best for them. As to knowledge workers whose work behaviors to be evaluable and work outcome not to be definite, behaviors oriented appraisal method is fit better for them than other ones.
As to knowledge workers whose work outcome is special, peer review is fit better for them than nopeer review, and peer-nopeer together review. As to knowledge workers whose work outcome is not special; the three appraisal methods above mentioned are the same at being accepted.
As to knowledge workers whose work outcome is team oriented, team-individual combinative appraisal method is fit better for them than team oriented appraisal method, and individual oriented appraisal method. As to knowledge workers whose work outcome is individual oriented, individual oriented appraisal method is fit better for them than both team oriented appraisal method and team-individual combinative appraisal method.
As to knowledge workers whose performance acquired need long time, performance appraisal once a year is better than do it once a month or once a quarter. As to knowledge workers whose performance acquired is not long time cycle, performance appraisal once a month or once a quarter is better than do it once a year.
The test result about research hypothesizes indicates that the best appraisal method is still belong to the ones which fit performance characteristics even if considering the less important factors that influencing appraisal method selected, which imply that performance characteristics is the most important factor that determining appraisal method selected. Although some research hypothesizes in the comprehensive contingency model of appraisal methods selected have not been tested yet because sample shortage, the known test result shows that main effect of performance attributes on appraisal methods selected is crucial. The research results about contingency model provide a reference system to select appraisal method.
Finally, this dissertation pointed out the research shortcoming and further research filed.
引文
[1] Adizes, Ichak. Corporate Lifecycles: How and Why Corporation Grow and Die and What to do about it. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989
[2] Allan Locker & Kenneth Teel. Appraisal trends. personnel journal, 1988(9): 139-145
[3] Anastasi, A. Psychological Testing. NY: Macmillan Publishing, 1990
[4] Anderson, J. C., Gerbing, D. W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 1988(103): 411-423
[5] Austin & Villanova. The criterion problem: 1917-1992. Journal of applied psychology, 1992(77): 836-874
[6] Baird, L. S., Beatty, R. W. & Schneier, C. E. The performance appraisal source book. Amherst: Human Resource Development Press, 1990
[7] Baron, James N, Kreps, David M. Strategic human resource: Frameworks for general managers. New York
[8] Barrack M R., Mount M K. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel psychology, 1993(1): 1-26
[9] Barrick, MB, Monnt, M K. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta- analysis. Personnel Psychology, 1993(44): 1-26
[10] Becker, B. E. & Huselid, M. A. The Incentive Effects of Tournament Compensation Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1992(2): 336-350
[11] Beckstead D., Baldwin T. Dimensions of Occupational Changes in Canada’s Knowledge Economy, 1971-1996. The Canadian Economy in Transition Research Paper Series 11-622-MIE No. 004. Analytical Studies Branch. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2003
[12] Benjamin B Wolman, Dictionary of behavioral sciences(second edition): New York, Van Nostrand Rein-hold Company, 1989
[13] Bentler, P. M., Bonett, D. G. significant tests and goodness of fit in the analysis ofcovariance structures. psychology bulletin, 1980(88): 588606
[14] Bentler, P. M., Mooijaart, A.. Choice of structural model via parsimony: a rational based on precision. psychology bulletin, 1989(106): 315-317
[15] Bernardin. Human resource management. Irwir McGraw-Hill Press, 1998
[16] Berrin Erdogan, Maria L Kraimer, Robert C Liden. Procedural justice as a two-dimension construct: an examination in the performance appraisal context. The journal of applied behavioral science, 2001(2): 205-206
[17] Beverly E Thomas and John P baron. Evaluate knowledge worker productivity: literature review. In: USACERL Interim Report, 1994
[18] Bloom, M. The Performance Effects of Pay Dispersion on Individuals and Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 1999(2): 25-40
[19] Blum & Naylor. The performance appraisal process: A model and some testable propositions. Academy of Management Review, 1968(3): 635-646
[20] Borman W C, Motowidlo S J. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In: N Schmitt& W C Borman Ed. Personnel selection in organization. San Francisco: Josey-bass, 1993
[21] Borman W C, Motowidlo S J. Task performance and contextual performance: the meaning for personnel selection research. Human performance, 1997(2): 99-109
[22] Borman, W C. Hanson M. and Hedge, J. Personnel selection. Annual review psychology, 1997(48): 229-337
[23] Bos, W. & Tarnai, Ch. Content analysis in empirical social research. International Journal of Educational Research, 1999(1): 659-671
[24] Brief & Motowidlo. Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of management review, 1986(4): 710-725
[25] Brisley, C. L. Measure the immeasurable. In: IIE (ed. ) Proceeding of 1983(Fall IE Conference). Georgia, 1983
[26] Brisley, C. L. Measure the immeasurable. In: IIE Ed. Proceeding of 1983. Georgia, 1983
[27] CA: Sage Publication, 1989·
[28] Cambell, J. P, Mccloy, R. A, Oppler. S. H, A theory of performance. In: NSchmitt& W C Borman Ed. Personnel selection in organization. San Francisco: Josey-bass, 1993
[29] Cascio W F. Applied psychology in human resource management (5 th ed). prentice-hall, 1998
[30] Cheung, F M., Leung, K., Fan, R M., Development of Chinese personality assessment inventory. Journal of cross-culture psychology, 1996(1): 181-189
[31] Church, A. T., Burke, P. J. Exploratory and confirmatory tests of the big five and Tellengen’s three-and-four dimensional models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1994(66): 93-114
[32] Churchill, Jr. G. A. Better measurement practices are critical to better understanding of sales management issue. The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 1992(12): 73-80
[33] Cohen, S. G. New approaches to teams and teamwork. In J. R. Galbraith, & E. E. Lawler, Organizing for the future. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass, 1993
[34] Constant David, Kiesler Sara, Sproull Lee. What’s mine is ours, or is it? A Study of Attitudes about information Sharing. Information Systems Research, 1994(4): 400-421
[35] Conway J M. Analysis and design of multitrait-multirater performance appraisal studies. Journal manage, 1996(22): 139-162
[36] Conway J M. distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1999(1): 3-13
[37] Conway J M. Managerial performance development constructs and personality correlates. Human performance, 2000(1): 23-24
[38] Cortina, J. M. What is coefficient alpha? an examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1993(78): 98-104
[39] Costa P T., McCrae P R. Revised NEO personality inventory & NEO five-factor inventory professional manual. Psychological assessment resources, Inc, 1992
[40] D F. Beattie & F. M. K. Tampoe. Human resource planning for ICL. Long Range Planning, 1990(1): 17-28
[41] Daryl E Chubin, Edward J Hackett. Peerless Science: peer review and U. S.science policy. New York: State University of New York press, 1990
[42] Davenport Thomas H., Robert J. Thomas&Susan Cantrell. The Mysterious Art and Science of Knowledge-worker Performance. Sloan Management Review, 2002, 44(1 )23-30
[43] Davenport Thomas H. A Measurable Proposal, He's back-and Tom Davenport's betting on a new, big idea: knowledge workers are people too. Can their processes be quantified? Can we help their plight? This might just be the new reengineering. CIO, 2003(16): 1-2
[44] Davenport Thomas H. A Measurable Proposal, He's back-and Tom Davenport's betting on a new, big idea: knowledge workers are people too. Can their processes be quantified? Can we help their plight? This might just be the new reengineering. CIO, 2003(16): 1-2
[45] Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston, Ma: Harvard University School Press, 1998
[46] David Antonioni. Improve the management process before discontinue performance appraisal. Compensation and Benefits Review, 1994(3): 29-32
[47] Deming, W. E. Out of the crisis. Cambidge: MIT Press, 1986
[48] DeNisi, A S., Peters, L H. Organization of information in memory and the performance appraisal process: evidence from the field. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1996(81): 717-737
[49] Dove Rick. The knowledge worker. Automotive Manufacturing & Production, 1998, 110(6): 26-28
[50] Drucker Peter F.. Knowledge-Worker Productivity: The Biggest Challenge. California Management Review, 1999, 41(2): 79-94
[51] Drucker, Peter F. Managing in a Time of Great Change. Penguin Books USA Inc., New York: New York, 1995
[52] Drucker, Peter F. The Age of Social Transformation. The Atlantic Monthly, 1994, 274(5): 53-80
[53] Dunn, W S. Mount, M K. Barrick, M R. Ones, D S. Relative importance of personality and general mental ability in managers’judgment of appliedqualifications. Journal of Applied Psvychology, 1995(80): 500-509
[54] Edward P, Lazear. Pay equality and industrial politics. Journal of political Economy, 1989(97): 561-580
[55] Erdogan, B. Antecedents and consequence of justice perception in performance appraisals. Human resource management review, 2002(12): 555-559
[56] F J Landy, J L Farr. Judgmental measures of work performance. Human resource development press, Inc, 1987
[57] Farh, J L. impetus for action: a cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative science quarterly, 1997(42): 421-444
[58] Feldman J M. Beyond attribution theory: Cognition processes in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1981(2): 127-148
[59] Feldman, J. M. Instrumentation and training for performance appraisal: a perceptual cognitive viewpoint [A], in Rowland, K., Ferris, J. (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. Greenwich: JAI Press, 1986
[60] Ferris, G. R & Judeg, T. A., Personnel/human resources management: A political influence perspective. Journal of management, 1991(17): 1-42
[61] Folger & Cropanzano. Organization justice and human resource management. SAGE publications Inc, 1998
[62] Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 1981(18): 39-50
[63] Francisco Gil; Ramón Rico; Carlos M Alcover; Angel Barrasa. Change-oriented leadership, satisfaction and performance in work groups: Effects of team climate and group potency. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2005(20): 312-328
[64] Fred Luthans. Introduction to Management: A Contingency Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1976
[65] Garavan, T. N. and David McGuire, Competencies and work learning: Some reflections on the rhetoric and the reality. Journal of workplace learning, 2001(4): 144-163
[66] Gary P. Latham and Kenneth N. Wexley. Increasing Productivity through Performance Appraisal (2nd Edition). Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. 1994
[67] George Avalos. Stock options become less desirable as compensation. Knight rider Tribune business News Washington, 2005(5): 1
[68] George T. Milkovich and John W. Boudreau, Human resource management. Irwin: Richard Press, 1994
[69] George, J M. Brief, A P. Feeling good-doing good: a conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological bulletin, 1992(110): 310-329
[70] Gonzalez, M G., Burke, M J., Santuzzi, A M., Bradley, J C. The impact of group process variables on the effectiveness of distance collaboration groups. Computer and Human Behavior, 2003(19): 629–648
[71] Greenberg, J. Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of applied psychology, 1986(2): 340-342
[72] Guion R M, Gibson W M. Personnel selection and placement. Annual Review of Psychology, 1988(39): 349-374
[73] Guion R M., Gibson W M. personnel selection and placement. Annual review of psychology, 1988(39): 349-374
[74] Hambrick, D. C. and Siegel, P. A. Pay Dispersion within Top Management Groups: Harmful Effects on Performance of High-Technology firms. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1997
[75] Harris, M F & Vining, W. The IE’s future role in improving knowledge worker productivity. Industrial engineering, 1987, 19(7): 28-32
[76] Hart, Oliver, Holmstrom, Bengt. The Pory of Contracts, Advanced in economic theory: Fifth World Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 1987: 71-155
[77] Helton, Ray B. will the real knowledge worker pleased stand up. industrial management, 1987(1): 26-29
[78] Heneman, R. L. & von Hippel, C. Balancing group and individual rewards:rewarding individual contributions to the team. Compensation and Benefits Review, 1995(4): 63-68
[79] Hinkin, T. R. A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 1995(21): 967–988
[80] Hodgetts, R. M., Altman, S. Organizational Behavior. W. B. Saunders Co., 1997
[81] Horibe Frances. Managing knowledge worker: New skills and attitude to unlock the intellectual capital in your organization. John Wiley & Sons: Tornoto, 1999
[82] Horwitz Frank M., Chan Teng Heng&Hesan Ahmed Quazi.. Finders, Keepers? Attracting, motivating and retaining knowledge workers. Human Resource Management, 2003(4): 23-31
[83] Hough L M., Eaton N K., Dunnette M D., Kanp J D. Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effects of response distortion on those validities. Journal of applied psychology, 1990(75): 581-595
[84] Hough, L M, Eaton, N K, Dunnettc, M N, Kamp, J. P. Criterion- related validities of personality constructs and the effects of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1990(75): 581-595
[85] Howitt, P. On some problems in measuring knowledge-based growth. In: P. Howitt, Ed. The Implications of Knowledge-Based Growth for Micro-Economic Policies. Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 2002
[86] Insch, G. S., Moore, J. E., and Murphy, L. D. Context analysis in leadership research: examples, procedures, and suggestions for future use. Leadership Quarterly, 1997(1): 1-25
[87] Itoh, Hideshi. Cooperation in Hierarchical Organizations: An Incentive Perspective. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 1992(2): 321-345
[88] J S Kane, E E Lawler. Performance distribution assessment: A new framework for conceiving and appraising job performance. Unpublished manuscript, 1980
[89] J. Ivancevich, J. H. Donnelly, J. C. Gibson. Managing for performance. Business Publications, Inc, 1980
[90] J. S. kane, E. Elawer, Performance appraisal effectiveness: its assessment and determinants. In: B. M. Staw Ed. Research in organizational behavior [M].Greenwich: Jai Press, 1979
[91] Jamali, S. Putting a productivity improvement program into action: a six-step plan. Industrial engineering, 1983(2): 67-78
[92] Jerry W Hedge, Mark S Teachout. Exploring the concept of acceptability as a criterion for evaluating performance measures. Group & Organization Management, 2000(3): 22-40
[93] Jody W. Lipford. Group size and the free-rider hypothesis: An examination of new evidence from. Public choice, 1995(3): 291-303
[94] John E. Hunter, Frank L. Schmidt and Michael K. Judiesch. Individual Differences in Output Variability as a Function of Job Complexity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1990(1): 28-42
[95] Jonathan R. Cole & Stephen Cole. Social stratification in science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973
[96] Jonathan R. Cole & Stephen Cole. Social stratification in science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973
[97] Kaiser, H. F. The application of electronic computer to factor analysis. Educational psychology measurements, 1960(20): 141-151
[98] Katz, d. & Kahn, R. L. the social psychology of organization. New York: Wiley, 1978
[99] Kelloway, E. K. Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher’s guide. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications, Inc, 1998
[100] Kidd, A. L. The marks are on the knowledge worker. In: proceedings of chi’94 conference on IIuman factors in information system, Boston, 1994
[101] Kolbe, D., Rubin, I. M., Macintyre, J. M. Organization psychology: an experiential approach to organizational behavior(4th ed) Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1984
[102] LadWanee Allen, B. S. Assessing the effects of rater training on types and frequency of rater errors in performance appraisals. Austin State University, 1999
[103] Larson, Carl E., LaFasto, Frank M·J. Teamwork-What must go right/what can go wrong. Newbury Park
[104] Lawler, E. E. Creating the high-involvement organization. In J. R. Galbraith, & E. E. Lawler (Eds. ), Organizing for the future. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass, 1993
[105] Lee C. Increasing performance appraisal effectiveness: matching task types, appraisal process, and rater training. Academy of management review, 1985(10): 322-331
[106] Lee, T W. & Steven D. Maurer. The Retention of Knowledge Workers with the Unfolding Model of Voluntary Turnover. Human Resource Management Review, 1997, 7(3): 247-275
[107] Lepak David P., Snell Scott A. The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management, 1999(1): 31-48
[108] Levy, P. E. and J. R. Williams. The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the future. Journal of Management, 2004(6): 881-905
[109] Longenecker, Clinton O & Goff, Stephen J. Performance Appraisal Effectiveness A Matter of Perspective. S. A. M. Advanced Management Journal, 1992(2): 17-18
[110] M Gibbons. Methods for the evaluation of research. International journal of institutional management in higher education, 1985(9): 79-85
[111] March, J G & Simon, H A. Organizations (2nd edition), Mass: Blackwell, Cambridge, 1993
[112] Mark G Brown, Raynold A Svenson. Measuring R&D Productivity. Research Technology Management, 1998(Nov. -Dec): 30-34
[113] Marvin D Dunnette. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, 1983
[114] McClelland, D. C. Testing for competence rather than for intelligence. American psychologist, 1973(8): 57-64
[115] Mcdonald, R. P., Marsh, H. W. chooses a multivariate model: noncentrality and goodness of fit. psychology bulletin, 1990(107): 247-255
[116] McIver, J. P., & Carmines, E. G. Unidimensional scaling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1981
[117] Michael Raith. Specific Knowledge and Performance Measurement, 2004(1) Personnel Psychology Review, 1991(42): 703- 742
[118] Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. An economic approach to Influence activities in organizations. American journal of sociology, 1988(94): 154-179
[119] Mohrman, S. A. Integrating roles and structure in the lateral organization. In: J. R. Galbraith, & E. E. Lawler Ed. Organizing for the future. San Francisco CA: Josey-Bass, 1993
[120] Mohrman, Susa A., Cohen, Susan G and Mohrman, Allan M Jr·Designing team-based Organization. San Fran-icsco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1995
[121] Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., AlstineJ. V. et al. evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. psychology bulletin, 1989(105): 430-435
[122] Mundel, M. E. Improving productivity and effectiveness, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-hall, 1983
[123] Mutiara S. Panggabean. Impact of perceived justice in performance appraisal on work attitudes and performance. Nova Southeastern University, 2001
[124] Nathan & Lord. Cognitive categorization and dimensional schemata: a process approach to the study of halo in performance ratings. Journal of applied psychology, 1983(68): 1-50
[125] Neil R Anderson & Michael A West. Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1998(3): 235-258
[126] Nixon, B. Research and development performance measurement: A case study. Management Accounting Research, 1998, 9(3): 329-355
[127] Nunnally, J., Bernstein, G. Psychometric Theory. (3rd ed. ). NY: McGraw-Hill, 1994
[128] OECD. The Measurement of Scientific and Technical Activities: Frascati Manual. Paris: OECD, 1963
[129] Organ, D. W. Organizational citizenship behavior: the good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1988
[130] Ouchi, W. A. A conceptual framework for the design of organizational controlmechanisms. Management Science, 1979(25): 833-848
[131] Overby, W. M. Technique for group time measurement simplifies indirect labor observation. Industrial engineering, 1983(7): 34-40
[132] Pamela Loewen, Robert Loo. Assessing team climate by qualitative and quantitative approaches: Building the Learning Organization. the Learning Organization, 2004(11): 260-272
[133] Panggabean, Mutiara Sibarani. Impact of perceived justice in performance appraisal on work attitudes and performance. Nova Southeastern University, 2001
[134] Paul A. Schumann, Jr., Derek L. Ransley and Donna C. L. Prestwood. Measuring R & D Performance. Research Technology Management, 1995(3): 45-54
[135] Perreault, W. D. & Leigh, L. E. Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 1989(5): 135-148
[136] Peter Drucker. Post-Capitalist Society. Collins, 1993
[137] Pfeffer, J. and Langton, N. The Effect of Wage Dispersion on Satisfaction, Productivity, and Working Collaboratively: Evidence from College and University Faculty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1993(38): 382-407
[138] Piedmont R L., Weinstein H P. Predicting supervisor ratings of job performance using the NEO personality inventory. The journal of psychology, 1994(3): 255-265
[139] Piedmont, R L., Weinstein, H P. Predicting supervisor ratings of job performance using the NEO personality inventory. The Journal of Psychology, 1994, 128(3): 255-265
[140] Porter, L. W. Lawler, E. E., Managerial Attitudes & Performance. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1968
[141] Pradip K. Ray and S Sahu. The measurement and evaluation of white-collar productivity. IJOPM, 1988, 9(4): 28-32
[142] Pulakos, E. D., Scmmit, N. & Dorsey, D. W. et al. predicting adaptive performance: future test of a model of adaptability. Human resource, 2000(4): 299-323
[143] Raghu Nath and Kunal K. Sadhu. Comparative Analysis: Conclusions, and FutureDirections. In: Raghu Hath (ed. ) Comparative Management -A Regional View. Cambridge MA: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1988
[144] Randall S. Schuler & Vandra L. Huber. personel and human resource management. West Publishing Company, 1993
[145] Richard M Weiss. Developing an effective "team culture"[J].National Productivity Review,1987(3):371-373.
[146] Rotundo, M., Sackett, P. R. the relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: a policy-capturing approach. Journal of applied psychology, 2002(1): 66-80
[147] Salgado, J F. The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1997(82): 30- 43
[148] Scarbrough, Harry. Knowledge as work: Conflicts in the management of knowledge workers. Technology Analysis&Strategic Management, 1999(1): 5-16
[149] Schmitt & Stults, Methodology review: analysis of multitrait-multimethod matrices. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1986(1): 1-22
[150] Schneier, C. E., R. W. Beatly & C. S. Baired. The performance management source book. Amherst: Human Resource Development Press, Inc, 1987
[151] Scott, B. R. Stages of corporate development--Part 1. Boston: Intercollegiate Case Clearing House, Harvard University, 1971
[152] ShellyA. Bright Funderburg & Paul E. Levy, The influence of individual and contextual variables on 360-degree feedback systems attitudes. Group & Organization Management, 1997(2): 210-235
[153] ShellyA. Bright Funderburg & Paul E. Levy, The influence of individual and contextual variables on 360-degree feedback systems attitudes. Group & Organization Management, 1997(2): 210-235
[154] Sherman, et al, Managing human resources (Eleventh edition). North east finance economy university press, 1998
[155] Smith, Brie N., Hornsby, Jeffery S., Shirmeyer, Roslyn. Current trends in performance appraisal: An examination of managerial practice. S. A. M. Advanced Management Journal, 1996(3): 10-15
[156] Spencer & Spencer, Competence at work: Models for superior performance. New York: Willey Press, 1993
[157] Steiger, J. H. structure model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach. multivariate behavioral research, 1990(25): 173-180
[158] Stephen Cole, Jonathan R Cole, Gary A Simon. Chance and Consensus in Peer Review. Science, 1981, 214 (20): 879-882
[159] Steven D. Jones. Measuring team performance: a step by step, customizable approach for managers, facilitators, and team leaders. Jossey-bass, 2000
[160] Steven D. Jones. Measuring team performance: a step by step, customizable approach for managers, facilitators, and team leaders. Jossey-bass, 2000
[161] Stewart, G L Reward structure as a moderator of the relationship between extraversion and sales performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1996(81): 619-627
[162] Taylor, M Susan, Tracy, Kay B, Renard, Monika K., et al, Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative science quarterly, 1995(3): 495-522
[163] Taylor, M Susan., Tracy, Kay B., Renard, Monika K., Harrison, J Kline., Carroll, Stephen J. Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. administrative science quarterly, 1995(3): 495-523
[164] Terrence Hoffman, The meanings of competency. Journal of European industrial training, 1999(6), 275-285
[165] Tett, R P, Jackson D N, Rothstein M. Personality measure as predictors of job performance: a meta- analytic
[166] Thanhain, Hans J. Managing innovative R& D teams. R&D Management, 2003(33): 297-311
[167] Thomas W. Scott, P. Tiessen. Performance Measurement and Managerial Teams. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1999(24): 263-285
[168] Thomas Y Choi, Glenn H Varney. Know who your knowledge workers really are. human resource management international digest, 1995(6): 22-23
[169] Thorndike. Personal selection: test and measure. New York: wiley, 1949
[170] Van Scotter, Motowidlo. Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of applied psychology, 1994(65): 475-480
[171] Verna Allee著,刘民惠等译.知识的进化.珠海:珠海出版社, 1998
[172] Wayne, S. J. & Ferris, G. R. Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinateinteractions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1990(75): 487-499
[173] Weiner, M. J. implication of OCB and contextual performance for human resource management. Human resource management review, 2000(1): 13-24
[174] Zabojnik, Jan. pay-performance sensitivity and production uncertainty. Economics Letters, 1996(3): 291-296
[175]巴曙松.《基金大势》投资效应(三)[EB/OL]. http: //funds. money. hexun. com/2655_2191232. shtml, 2007. 4. 28
[176]白锋,程德俊.团队薪酬差距对个人和团队绩效的影响.经济科学, 2006(6): 126-127
[177]彼得.德鲁克. 21世纪的管理挑战.北京:北京广通时代图书有限公司, 2006
[178]陈健健. 792家公司披露中报,利润增长逾七成.中国证券报, 2007. 8. 20
[179]陈劲,宋建元,葛朝阳等.试论基础研究及其原始性创新.科学学研究, 2004(3): 320-321
[180]陈劲,宋建元等.试论基础研究及其原始性创新.科学学研究, 2004(3): 318-319
[181]辞海编辑委员会.辞海.上海:上海辞书出版社, 1979
[182]德姆塞茨,阿尔钦著.生产、信息费用与经济组织.载于科斯,阿尔钦,诺斯编.财产权利与制度变迁(论文集).上海:三联书店, 1991
[183]邓尼特.工业与组织心理学手册.芝加哥:南德.麦奈利学院出版社, 1976
[184]丁岳枫.创业组织学习与创业绩效关系研究.浙江大学档案馆, 2006
[185]杜旌,廖建桥,王福寿.绩效考评中的公正感与满意度研究综述.科技进步与对策, 2005(7): 191-193
[186]杜旌,廖建桥,王福寿.绩效考评中的公正感与满意度研究综述.科技进步与对策, 2005(7): 191-192
[187]方振邦,叶向锋.员工个性化评价.中国人力资源开发, 2002(7): 57-59
[188]弗朗西斯·赫瑞比.管理知识员工.北京:机械工业出版社, 2000: 5-15
[189]付亚和,许玉林.绩效管理.上海:复旦大学出版社, 2003
[190]甘怡群等.用中国人个性量表(CPAI)预测国有企业中高层管理者的绩效.应用心理学, 2002(8): 35-39
[191]龚旭.同行评议公正性的影响因素分析.科学学研究, 2004(6): 614-617
[192]郭碧坚,韩宇.同行评议制——方法、理论、功能、指标.科学学研究, 1994(3): 67-69
[193]郭碧坚.科技管理中的同行评议:本质、作用、局限、替代.科技管理研究, 1995(4): 9-11
[194]郭志刚.社会统计方法-SPSS软件应用.北京:中国人民大学出版, 1999
[195]侯杰泰,温忠麟,成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用.北京:教育科学出版, 2004
[196]胡宇辰,戴淑燕.股权激励实施的风险规避.中国工业经济, 2001(9)
[197]黄光国.人情与面子:中国人的权力游戏.杨国枢主编,中国人的心理.台北:桂冠图书公司, 1989
[198]蒋万胜.中国市场经济秩序型构的非正式制度分析.西安:西北大学档案馆, 2007
[199]库恩著,纪树立等译.必要的张力.福州:福建人民出版社, 1987
[200]拉卡托斯等著,周寄中译.批判与知识的增长.北京:华夏出版社, 1987
[201]雷蒙德·A·诺伊.人力资源管理:赢得竞争优势.第5版.北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2005
[202]李本乾.描述受众特征揭示因果关系:调查研究法简介.当代传播, 2000(3): 38-40
[203]李怀祖.管理研究方法论.西安:西安交通大学出版社, 2004
[204]李津燕.地方政府行为与市场秩序构建.武汉:武汉大学档案馆, 2005
[205]李流柱,刘有锦,苏沃涛译.组织与管理——系统方法与权变方法.中国社会科学出版社, 1985
[206]李树丞,乐国玲.企业知识型员工绩效特征及其影响因素分析.湘潭大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2004(4): 146-147
[207]廖建桥,陈建文,张光进.知识员工绩效特征的实证探析, 2007
[208]廖建桥,文鹏.知识员工的定义、特征及分类研究述评, 2008
[209]廖建桥,张光进.我国知识员工绩效考核现状及启示, 2007
[210]林浚清,黄祖辉,孙永祥.高管团队内薪酬差距、公司绩效和治理结构.经济研究, 2003(4): 31-40
[211]林学俊.论库恩的范式及其在科学认识中的作用.科学技术与辩证法, 1997(1): 37-40
[212]林泽炎. 3P模式:中国企业人力资源管理操作方案.北京:中信出版社, 2001
[213]刘刚,顾培亮.知识型劳动的度量方法与模型研究.科学学研究, 2002(3): 286-291
[214]刘华微.透析美国企业管理.全球科技经济瞭望, 2005(5): 25-26
[215]刘鹏.股票期权激励:人力资源管理新机制.国际经济合作, 2001(8)
[216]刘晓嫱.《中央企业负责人经营业绩考核暂行办法》的特点.财会通讯, 2004(5): 67-67
[217]刘智强.知识员工职业停滞测量与治理研究.华中科技大学档案馆, 2005
[218]骆静.知识员工绩效评估公平感及其对工作态度的影响研究.华中科技大学档案馆, 2007
[219]马成功,王二平,林平.基于行为的绩效评定方法的研究进展.心理科学进展, 2002(4): 456-457
[220]马文峰.试析内容分析法在社科情报科学中的应用.情报科学, 2000(4): 346-349
[221]孟凯韬.科技评价体制函待改革科研评价与指标.北京:红旗出版社, 2000
[222]默顿.科学社会学(上册).北京:商务印书馆, 2003
[223]乔纳森?科尔斯蒂芬?科尔.科学界的社会分层.北京:华夏出版社, 1989
[224]邱均平,邹菲.国外内容分析法的研究概况和进展.图书情报知识, 2003(6): 6-8
[225]盛宇华.管理通论.北京:中国商业出版社, 1995: 6
[226]施若谷.“科学共同体”在近代中西方的形成和比较.自然科学史研究, 1999(1): 1-2
[227]史蒂芬.科尔著,林建成,王毅译,科学的制造——在自然界与社会之间.上海:上海人民出版社, 2001
[228]孙建敏,焦长泉.对管理者工作绩效结构的探索性研究, 2002(3): 1-10
[229]孙海法,刘海山.高管团队价值观、团队氛围对冲突的影响[J].,2007(12):32-38.
[230]唐晓华.基于SH集团的绩效考评者个体特征与考评有效性关系研究.西南交通大学档案馆, 2006
[231]田东红.半年报数据解读:上市公司投资股票收益对比分析[EB/OL]. http: //www. stockstar. com/info/darticle. aspx?id=QJ, 20050909, 10073831, 2005. 9. 9
[232]王辉,李晓轩,罗胜强.任务绩效与情境绩效二因素绩效模型的验证,中国管理科学, 2003(4): 79-84
[233]王蕾.企业员工绩效评估的有效性研究.馆藏于南京师范大学档案馆, 2004
[234]王庆娟.团队情境与个人奖励平衡机制的研究.科学学与科学技术管理, 2007(7): 172-176
[235]王伟.跨越人与知识的界限. IT经理世界, 1999(18): 48-49
[236]王雁飞,朱瑜.国外社会惰性的理论与相关研究概述.心里科学进展, 2006(1): 146-152
[237]王勇,许庆瑞.知识工作者能力概念的界定.科学学与科学技术管理, 2003(5): 73-75
[238]王重鸣.心理学研究方法.北京:人民教育出版社, 2001
[239]魏光新,汪寿阳,黎建强等.基于协同效应的团队合作激励因素研究.管理工程学报, 2007(1): 1-9
[240] [美]韦恩F.卡肖著,王重鸣译.人力资源管理(原书第6版).北京:机械工业出版社, 2006
[241]文章代,侯书森.创新管理.北京:石油大学出版社, 1999
[242]吴强,万可.论知识员工的四分图管理模型.研究与发展管理, 2003(8): 35-40
[243]肖媛.知识型员工的劳动度量与考核方法探析.科研管理, 2004(1): 84-89
[244]邢以群.论“同行评议”方法的完善和发展.科技管理研究, 1997(5): 23-25
[245]邢以群.论“同行评议”方法的完善和发展.科技管理研究, 1997(5): 23-25
[246]熊丙奇.邱军平教授做客新浪网,畅谈大学评价问题.评价与管理, 2005(3): 63-66
[247]许庆瑞,王勇,陈劲.绩效评价源与多源评价.科学学与科学技术管理, 2002(3): 84-89
[248]许庆瑞,郑刚等.研究与开发绩效评价在中国:实践与趋势.科研管理, 2002(1): 465-469
[249]严进.周边绩效.外国经济与管理, 1999(5): 30-33
[250]颜沛逸.员工对组织绩效公平性认知及其对工作态度之影响.台湾:国立中山大学人力资源管理研究所, 2000
[251]央视国际.中央企业负责人经营业绩考核暂行办法出台[EB/OL]. http: //finance. sina. com. cn/g/20031128/1913539701. shtml, 2003. 11. 28
[252]杨杰,凌文辁,方俐洛.关于知识工作者与知识性工作的实证解析.科学学研究, 2004(2): 190-196
[253]杨杰,方俐洛,凌文铨.关于绩效评价若干基本问题的思考.科技进步与对策, 200(2): 40-51
[254]杨杰,方俐洛,凌文辁.关于绩效评价若干基本问题的思考.自然辩证法通讯, 2001(2): 40-46
[255]杨杰.国人对知识工作者的认知及人际互动特征研究.中科院心理研究所, 2004
[256]杨杰.基于知觉分析的知识性工作分类研究.科学学研究, 2006(1): 98-105
[257]袁方.社会研究方法教程.北京:北京大学出版社, 2004
[258]翟学伟.人情、面子与权力的再生产——情理社会中的社会交换方式.社会学研究, 2004(5): 48-57
[259]张朝孝,蒲勇健.团队合作与激励结构的关系及博弈模型研究.管理工程学报, 2004(4): 12-16
[260]张朝孝.基于博弈论的员工激励与合作的机制研究.重庆大学档案馆, 2003
[261]张德.人力资源开发与管理.北京:清华大学出版社, 2001
[262]张光进,廖建桥,初浩楠.理论研究水平的非正式认可度研究.科学学研究, 2007
[263]张光进,廖建桥.科研申请评价的特征.科研管理, 2007
[264]张光进,廖建桥.科研生产企业的短期奖励体系研究.中国人力资源开发, 2006(7): 76-80
[265]张光进,廖建桥.科研申请评价的特征:专业性.科研管理, 2007(5): 163-169
[266]张望军,彭剑锋.中国企业知识型员工激励机制实证分析.科研管理, 2001, 22(6): 90-96
[267]张维迎.大学的逻辑.北京:北京大学出版社, 2004
[268]张维迎.废除北大隐性合同.北京青年报, 2003. 12. 12
[269]张一弛,黄涛,李琦.策略性股票期权激励设计.中国人力资源开发, 2001(4)
[270]张一弛.人力资源管理教程.北京:北京大学出版社, 2002
[271]张正堂.高层管理团队协作需要,薪酬差距和企业绩效:竞赛理论的视角.南开管理评论, 2007(2): 4-11
[272]赵琛徽.知识员工雇佣管理模式研究——基于SHRM的分析.中国工业经济, 2004(8): 75-81
[273]赵曙明,沈群红.知识企业与知识管理.南京:南京大学出版社, 2000
[274]赵曙明.绩效管理与评估.北京:高等教育出版社, 2003
[275]郑绍濂,骆品亮.分成制与相对绩效评价机制及其效率研究.管理科学学报, 1998(1): 26-30
[276]支晓强.如何选择业绩评价标准——兼论业绩评价在激励机制中的作用.会计研究, 2004(11): 25-30
[277]钟金玉.公务人员绩效考核公平与工作态度之研究.台湾:国立中山大学人力资源管理研究所, 2000
[278]周黎安.柯荣住.从大学理念与治理看北大改革.学术界, 2003(5): 89-99
[279]周智红,王二平.作业绩效和关系绩效.心理学动态, 2000(1): 54-56
[280]朱瑞玲.中国人的社会互动:论面子的问题.杨国枢主编,中国人的心理.台北:桂冠图书公司, 1989
[281]朱枝富.论儒家思想与现代管理的艺术契合.江南论坛, 2001(4): 17-18
[282]佐斌.中国人的脸与面子——本土心理社会心理学探索.武汉:华中师范大学出版社, 1997
[2] Allan Locker & Kenneth Teel. Appraisal trends. personnel journal, 1988(9): 139-145
[3] Anastasi, A. Psychological Testing. NY: Macmillan Publishing, 1990
[4] Anderson, J. C., Gerbing, D. W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 1988(103): 411-423
[5] Austin & Villanova. The criterion problem: 1917-1992. Journal of applied psychology, 1992(77): 836-874
[6] Baird, L. S., Beatty, R. W. & Schneier, C. E. The performance appraisal source book. Amherst: Human Resource Development Press, 1990
[7] Baron, James N, Kreps, David M. Strategic human resource: Frameworks for general managers. New York
[8] Barrack M R., Mount M K. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel psychology, 1993(1): 1-26
[9] Barrick, MB, Monnt, M K. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta- analysis. Personnel Psychology, 1993(44): 1-26
[10] Becker, B. E. & Huselid, M. A. The Incentive Effects of Tournament Compensation Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1992(2): 336-350
[11] Beckstead D., Baldwin T. Dimensions of Occupational Changes in Canada’s Knowledge Economy, 1971-1996. The Canadian Economy in Transition Research Paper Series 11-622-MIE No. 004. Analytical Studies Branch. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2003
[12] Benjamin B Wolman, Dictionary of behavioral sciences(second edition): New York, Van Nostrand Rein-hold Company, 1989
[13] Bentler, P. M., Bonett, D. G. significant tests and goodness of fit in the analysis ofcovariance structures. psychology bulletin, 1980(88): 588606
[14] Bentler, P. M., Mooijaart, A.. Choice of structural model via parsimony: a rational based on precision. psychology bulletin, 1989(106): 315-317
[15] Bernardin. Human resource management. Irwir McGraw-Hill Press, 1998
[16] Berrin Erdogan, Maria L Kraimer, Robert C Liden. Procedural justice as a two-dimension construct: an examination in the performance appraisal context. The journal of applied behavioral science, 2001(2): 205-206
[17] Beverly E Thomas and John P baron. Evaluate knowledge worker productivity: literature review. In: USACERL Interim Report, 1994
[18] Bloom, M. The Performance Effects of Pay Dispersion on Individuals and Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 1999(2): 25-40
[19] Blum & Naylor. The performance appraisal process: A model and some testable propositions. Academy of Management Review, 1968(3): 635-646
[20] Borman W C, Motowidlo S J. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In: N Schmitt& W C Borman Ed. Personnel selection in organization. San Francisco: Josey-bass, 1993
[21] Borman W C, Motowidlo S J. Task performance and contextual performance: the meaning for personnel selection research. Human performance, 1997(2): 99-109
[22] Borman, W C. Hanson M. and Hedge, J. Personnel selection. Annual review psychology, 1997(48): 229-337
[23] Bos, W. & Tarnai, Ch. Content analysis in empirical social research. International Journal of Educational Research, 1999(1): 659-671
[24] Brief & Motowidlo. Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of management review, 1986(4): 710-725
[25] Brisley, C. L. Measure the immeasurable. In: IIE (ed. ) Proceeding of 1983(Fall IE Conference). Georgia, 1983
[26] Brisley, C. L. Measure the immeasurable. In: IIE Ed. Proceeding of 1983. Georgia, 1983
[27] CA: Sage Publication, 1989·
[28] Cambell, J. P, Mccloy, R. A, Oppler. S. H, A theory of performance. In: NSchmitt& W C Borman Ed. Personnel selection in organization. San Francisco: Josey-bass, 1993
[29] Cascio W F. Applied psychology in human resource management (5 th ed). prentice-hall, 1998
[30] Cheung, F M., Leung, K., Fan, R M., Development of Chinese personality assessment inventory. Journal of cross-culture psychology, 1996(1): 181-189
[31] Church, A. T., Burke, P. J. Exploratory and confirmatory tests of the big five and Tellengen’s three-and-four dimensional models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1994(66): 93-114
[32] Churchill, Jr. G. A. Better measurement practices are critical to better understanding of sales management issue. The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 1992(12): 73-80
[33] Cohen, S. G. New approaches to teams and teamwork. In J. R. Galbraith, & E. E. Lawler, Organizing for the future. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass, 1993
[34] Constant David, Kiesler Sara, Sproull Lee. What’s mine is ours, or is it? A Study of Attitudes about information Sharing. Information Systems Research, 1994(4): 400-421
[35] Conway J M. Analysis and design of multitrait-multirater performance appraisal studies. Journal manage, 1996(22): 139-162
[36] Conway J M. distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1999(1): 3-13
[37] Conway J M. Managerial performance development constructs and personality correlates. Human performance, 2000(1): 23-24
[38] Cortina, J. M. What is coefficient alpha? an examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1993(78): 98-104
[39] Costa P T., McCrae P R. Revised NEO personality inventory & NEO five-factor inventory professional manual. Psychological assessment resources, Inc, 1992
[40] D F. Beattie & F. M. K. Tampoe. Human resource planning for ICL. Long Range Planning, 1990(1): 17-28
[41] Daryl E Chubin, Edward J Hackett. Peerless Science: peer review and U. S.science policy. New York: State University of New York press, 1990
[42] Davenport Thomas H., Robert J. Thomas&Susan Cantrell. The Mysterious Art and Science of Knowledge-worker Performance. Sloan Management Review, 2002, 44(1 )23-30
[43] Davenport Thomas H. A Measurable Proposal, He's back-and Tom Davenport's betting on a new, big idea: knowledge workers are people too. Can their processes be quantified? Can we help their plight? This might just be the new reengineering. CIO, 2003(16): 1-2
[44] Davenport Thomas H. A Measurable Proposal, He's back-and Tom Davenport's betting on a new, big idea: knowledge workers are people too. Can their processes be quantified? Can we help their plight? This might just be the new reengineering. CIO, 2003(16): 1-2
[45] Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston, Ma: Harvard University School Press, 1998
[46] David Antonioni. Improve the management process before discontinue performance appraisal. Compensation and Benefits Review, 1994(3): 29-32
[47] Deming, W. E. Out of the crisis. Cambidge: MIT Press, 1986
[48] DeNisi, A S., Peters, L H. Organization of information in memory and the performance appraisal process: evidence from the field. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1996(81): 717-737
[49] Dove Rick. The knowledge worker. Automotive Manufacturing & Production, 1998, 110(6): 26-28
[50] Drucker Peter F.. Knowledge-Worker Productivity: The Biggest Challenge. California Management Review, 1999, 41(2): 79-94
[51] Drucker, Peter F. Managing in a Time of Great Change. Penguin Books USA Inc., New York: New York, 1995
[52] Drucker, Peter F. The Age of Social Transformation. The Atlantic Monthly, 1994, 274(5): 53-80
[53] Dunn, W S. Mount, M K. Barrick, M R. Ones, D S. Relative importance of personality and general mental ability in managers’judgment of appliedqualifications. Journal of Applied Psvychology, 1995(80): 500-509
[54] Edward P, Lazear. Pay equality and industrial politics. Journal of political Economy, 1989(97): 561-580
[55] Erdogan, B. Antecedents and consequence of justice perception in performance appraisals. Human resource management review, 2002(12): 555-559
[56] F J Landy, J L Farr. Judgmental measures of work performance. Human resource development press, Inc, 1987
[57] Farh, J L. impetus for action: a cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative science quarterly, 1997(42): 421-444
[58] Feldman J M. Beyond attribution theory: Cognition processes in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1981(2): 127-148
[59] Feldman, J. M. Instrumentation and training for performance appraisal: a perceptual cognitive viewpoint [A], in Rowland, K., Ferris, J. (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. Greenwich: JAI Press, 1986
[60] Ferris, G. R & Judeg, T. A., Personnel/human resources management: A political influence perspective. Journal of management, 1991(17): 1-42
[61] Folger & Cropanzano. Organization justice and human resource management. SAGE publications Inc, 1998
[62] Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 1981(18): 39-50
[63] Francisco Gil; Ramón Rico; Carlos M Alcover; Angel Barrasa. Change-oriented leadership, satisfaction and performance in work groups: Effects of team climate and group potency. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2005(20): 312-328
[64] Fred Luthans. Introduction to Management: A Contingency Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1976
[65] Garavan, T. N. and David McGuire, Competencies and work learning: Some reflections on the rhetoric and the reality. Journal of workplace learning, 2001(4): 144-163
[66] Gary P. Latham and Kenneth N. Wexley. Increasing Productivity through Performance Appraisal (2nd Edition). Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. 1994
[67] George Avalos. Stock options become less desirable as compensation. Knight rider Tribune business News Washington, 2005(5): 1
[68] George T. Milkovich and John W. Boudreau, Human resource management. Irwin: Richard Press, 1994
[69] George, J M. Brief, A P. Feeling good-doing good: a conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological bulletin, 1992(110): 310-329
[70] Gonzalez, M G., Burke, M J., Santuzzi, A M., Bradley, J C. The impact of group process variables on the effectiveness of distance collaboration groups. Computer and Human Behavior, 2003(19): 629–648
[71] Greenberg, J. Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of applied psychology, 1986(2): 340-342
[72] Guion R M, Gibson W M. Personnel selection and placement. Annual Review of Psychology, 1988(39): 349-374
[73] Guion R M., Gibson W M. personnel selection and placement. Annual review of psychology, 1988(39): 349-374
[74] Hambrick, D. C. and Siegel, P. A. Pay Dispersion within Top Management Groups: Harmful Effects on Performance of High-Technology firms. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1997
[75] Harris, M F & Vining, W. The IE’s future role in improving knowledge worker productivity. Industrial engineering, 1987, 19(7): 28-32
[76] Hart, Oliver, Holmstrom, Bengt. The Pory of Contracts, Advanced in economic theory: Fifth World Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 1987: 71-155
[77] Helton, Ray B. will the real knowledge worker pleased stand up. industrial management, 1987(1): 26-29
[78] Heneman, R. L. & von Hippel, C. Balancing group and individual rewards:rewarding individual contributions to the team. Compensation and Benefits Review, 1995(4): 63-68
[79] Hinkin, T. R. A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 1995(21): 967–988
[80] Hodgetts, R. M., Altman, S. Organizational Behavior. W. B. Saunders Co., 1997
[81] Horibe Frances. Managing knowledge worker: New skills and attitude to unlock the intellectual capital in your organization. John Wiley & Sons: Tornoto, 1999
[82] Horwitz Frank M., Chan Teng Heng&Hesan Ahmed Quazi.. Finders, Keepers? Attracting, motivating and retaining knowledge workers. Human Resource Management, 2003(4): 23-31
[83] Hough L M., Eaton N K., Dunnette M D., Kanp J D. Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effects of response distortion on those validities. Journal of applied psychology, 1990(75): 581-595
[84] Hough, L M, Eaton, N K, Dunnettc, M N, Kamp, J. P. Criterion- related validities of personality constructs and the effects of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1990(75): 581-595
[85] Howitt, P. On some problems in measuring knowledge-based growth. In: P. Howitt, Ed. The Implications of Knowledge-Based Growth for Micro-Economic Policies. Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 2002
[86] Insch, G. S., Moore, J. E., and Murphy, L. D. Context analysis in leadership research: examples, procedures, and suggestions for future use. Leadership Quarterly, 1997(1): 1-25
[87] Itoh, Hideshi. Cooperation in Hierarchical Organizations: An Incentive Perspective. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 1992(2): 321-345
[88] J S Kane, E E Lawler. Performance distribution assessment: A new framework for conceiving and appraising job performance. Unpublished manuscript, 1980
[89] J. Ivancevich, J. H. Donnelly, J. C. Gibson. Managing for performance. Business Publications, Inc, 1980
[90] J. S. kane, E. Elawer, Performance appraisal effectiveness: its assessment and determinants. In: B. M. Staw Ed. Research in organizational behavior [M].Greenwich: Jai Press, 1979
[91] Jamali, S. Putting a productivity improvement program into action: a six-step plan. Industrial engineering, 1983(2): 67-78
[92] Jerry W Hedge, Mark S Teachout. Exploring the concept of acceptability as a criterion for evaluating performance measures. Group & Organization Management, 2000(3): 22-40
[93] Jody W. Lipford. Group size and the free-rider hypothesis: An examination of new evidence from. Public choice, 1995(3): 291-303
[94] John E. Hunter, Frank L. Schmidt and Michael K. Judiesch. Individual Differences in Output Variability as a Function of Job Complexity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1990(1): 28-42
[95] Jonathan R. Cole & Stephen Cole. Social stratification in science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973
[96] Jonathan R. Cole & Stephen Cole. Social stratification in science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973
[97] Kaiser, H. F. The application of electronic computer to factor analysis. Educational psychology measurements, 1960(20): 141-151
[98] Katz, d. & Kahn, R. L. the social psychology of organization. New York: Wiley, 1978
[99] Kelloway, E. K. Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher’s guide. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications, Inc, 1998
[100] Kidd, A. L. The marks are on the knowledge worker. In: proceedings of chi’94 conference on IIuman factors in information system, Boston, 1994
[101] Kolbe, D., Rubin, I. M., Macintyre, J. M. Organization psychology: an experiential approach to organizational behavior(4th ed) Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1984
[102] LadWanee Allen, B. S. Assessing the effects of rater training on types and frequency of rater errors in performance appraisals. Austin State University, 1999
[103] Larson, Carl E., LaFasto, Frank M·J. Teamwork-What must go right/what can go wrong. Newbury Park
[104] Lawler, E. E. Creating the high-involvement organization. In J. R. Galbraith, & E. E. Lawler (Eds. ), Organizing for the future. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass, 1993
[105] Lee C. Increasing performance appraisal effectiveness: matching task types, appraisal process, and rater training. Academy of management review, 1985(10): 322-331
[106] Lee, T W. & Steven D. Maurer. The Retention of Knowledge Workers with the Unfolding Model of Voluntary Turnover. Human Resource Management Review, 1997, 7(3): 247-275
[107] Lepak David P., Snell Scott A. The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management, 1999(1): 31-48
[108] Levy, P. E. and J. R. Williams. The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the future. Journal of Management, 2004(6): 881-905
[109] Longenecker, Clinton O & Goff, Stephen J. Performance Appraisal Effectiveness A Matter of Perspective. S. A. M. Advanced Management Journal, 1992(2): 17-18
[110] M Gibbons. Methods for the evaluation of research. International journal of institutional management in higher education, 1985(9): 79-85
[111] March, J G & Simon, H A. Organizations (2nd edition), Mass: Blackwell, Cambridge, 1993
[112] Mark G Brown, Raynold A Svenson. Measuring R&D Productivity. Research Technology Management, 1998(Nov. -Dec): 30-34
[113] Marvin D Dunnette. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, 1983
[114] McClelland, D. C. Testing for competence rather than for intelligence. American psychologist, 1973(8): 57-64
[115] Mcdonald, R. P., Marsh, H. W. chooses a multivariate model: noncentrality and goodness of fit. psychology bulletin, 1990(107): 247-255
[116] McIver, J. P., & Carmines, E. G. Unidimensional scaling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1981
[117] Michael Raith. Specific Knowledge and Performance Measurement, 2004(1) Personnel Psychology Review, 1991(42): 703- 742
[118] Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. An economic approach to Influence activities in organizations. American journal of sociology, 1988(94): 154-179
[119] Mohrman, S. A. Integrating roles and structure in the lateral organization. In: J. R. Galbraith, & E. E. Lawler Ed. Organizing for the future. San Francisco CA: Josey-Bass, 1993
[120] Mohrman, Susa A., Cohen, Susan G and Mohrman, Allan M Jr·Designing team-based Organization. San Fran-icsco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1995
[121] Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., AlstineJ. V. et al. evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. psychology bulletin, 1989(105): 430-435
[122] Mundel, M. E. Improving productivity and effectiveness, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-hall, 1983
[123] Mutiara S. Panggabean. Impact of perceived justice in performance appraisal on work attitudes and performance. Nova Southeastern University, 2001
[124] Nathan & Lord. Cognitive categorization and dimensional schemata: a process approach to the study of halo in performance ratings. Journal of applied psychology, 1983(68): 1-50
[125] Neil R Anderson & Michael A West. Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1998(3): 235-258
[126] Nixon, B. Research and development performance measurement: A case study. Management Accounting Research, 1998, 9(3): 329-355
[127] Nunnally, J., Bernstein, G. Psychometric Theory. (3rd ed. ). NY: McGraw-Hill, 1994
[128] OECD. The Measurement of Scientific and Technical Activities: Frascati Manual. Paris: OECD, 1963
[129] Organ, D. W. Organizational citizenship behavior: the good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1988
[130] Ouchi, W. A. A conceptual framework for the design of organizational controlmechanisms. Management Science, 1979(25): 833-848
[131] Overby, W. M. Technique for group time measurement simplifies indirect labor observation. Industrial engineering, 1983(7): 34-40
[132] Pamela Loewen, Robert Loo. Assessing team climate by qualitative and quantitative approaches: Building the Learning Organization. the Learning Organization, 2004(11): 260-272
[133] Panggabean, Mutiara Sibarani. Impact of perceived justice in performance appraisal on work attitudes and performance. Nova Southeastern University, 2001
[134] Paul A. Schumann, Jr., Derek L. Ransley and Donna C. L. Prestwood. Measuring R & D Performance. Research Technology Management, 1995(3): 45-54
[135] Perreault, W. D. & Leigh, L. E. Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 1989(5): 135-148
[136] Peter Drucker. Post-Capitalist Society. Collins, 1993
[137] Pfeffer, J. and Langton, N. The Effect of Wage Dispersion on Satisfaction, Productivity, and Working Collaboratively: Evidence from College and University Faculty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1993(38): 382-407
[138] Piedmont R L., Weinstein H P. Predicting supervisor ratings of job performance using the NEO personality inventory. The journal of psychology, 1994(3): 255-265
[139] Piedmont, R L., Weinstein, H P. Predicting supervisor ratings of job performance using the NEO personality inventory. The Journal of Psychology, 1994, 128(3): 255-265
[140] Porter, L. W. Lawler, E. E., Managerial Attitudes & Performance. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1968
[141] Pradip K. Ray and S Sahu. The measurement and evaluation of white-collar productivity. IJOPM, 1988, 9(4): 28-32
[142] Pulakos, E. D., Scmmit, N. & Dorsey, D. W. et al. predicting adaptive performance: future test of a model of adaptability. Human resource, 2000(4): 299-323
[143] Raghu Nath and Kunal K. Sadhu. Comparative Analysis: Conclusions, and FutureDirections. In: Raghu Hath (ed. ) Comparative Management -A Regional View. Cambridge MA: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1988
[144] Randall S. Schuler & Vandra L. Huber. personel and human resource management. West Publishing Company, 1993
[145] Richard M Weiss. Developing an effective "team culture"[J].National Productivity Review,1987(3):371-373.
[146] Rotundo, M., Sackett, P. R. the relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: a policy-capturing approach. Journal of applied psychology, 2002(1): 66-80
[147] Salgado, J F. The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1997(82): 30- 43
[148] Scarbrough, Harry. Knowledge as work: Conflicts in the management of knowledge workers. Technology Analysis&Strategic Management, 1999(1): 5-16
[149] Schmitt & Stults, Methodology review: analysis of multitrait-multimethod matrices. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1986(1): 1-22
[150] Schneier, C. E., R. W. Beatly & C. S. Baired. The performance management source book. Amherst: Human Resource Development Press, Inc, 1987
[151] Scott, B. R. Stages of corporate development--Part 1. Boston: Intercollegiate Case Clearing House, Harvard University, 1971
[152] ShellyA. Bright Funderburg & Paul E. Levy, The influence of individual and contextual variables on 360-degree feedback systems attitudes. Group & Organization Management, 1997(2): 210-235
[153] ShellyA. Bright Funderburg & Paul E. Levy, The influence of individual and contextual variables on 360-degree feedback systems attitudes. Group & Organization Management, 1997(2): 210-235
[154] Sherman, et al, Managing human resources (Eleventh edition). North east finance economy university press, 1998
[155] Smith, Brie N., Hornsby, Jeffery S., Shirmeyer, Roslyn. Current trends in performance appraisal: An examination of managerial practice. S. A. M. Advanced Management Journal, 1996(3): 10-15
[156] Spencer & Spencer, Competence at work: Models for superior performance. New York: Willey Press, 1993
[157] Steiger, J. H. structure model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach. multivariate behavioral research, 1990(25): 173-180
[158] Stephen Cole, Jonathan R Cole, Gary A Simon. Chance and Consensus in Peer Review. Science, 1981, 214 (20): 879-882
[159] Steven D. Jones. Measuring team performance: a step by step, customizable approach for managers, facilitators, and team leaders. Jossey-bass, 2000
[160] Steven D. Jones. Measuring team performance: a step by step, customizable approach for managers, facilitators, and team leaders. Jossey-bass, 2000
[161] Stewart, G L Reward structure as a moderator of the relationship between extraversion and sales performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1996(81): 619-627
[162] Taylor, M Susan, Tracy, Kay B, Renard, Monika K., et al, Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative science quarterly, 1995(3): 495-522
[163] Taylor, M Susan., Tracy, Kay B., Renard, Monika K., Harrison, J Kline., Carroll, Stephen J. Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. administrative science quarterly, 1995(3): 495-523
[164] Terrence Hoffman, The meanings of competency. Journal of European industrial training, 1999(6), 275-285
[165] Tett, R P, Jackson D N, Rothstein M. Personality measure as predictors of job performance: a meta- analytic
[166] Thanhain, Hans J. Managing innovative R& D teams. R&D Management, 2003(33): 297-311
[167] Thomas W. Scott, P. Tiessen. Performance Measurement and Managerial Teams. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1999(24): 263-285
[168] Thomas Y Choi, Glenn H Varney. Know who your knowledge workers really are. human resource management international digest, 1995(6): 22-23
[169] Thorndike. Personal selection: test and measure. New York: wiley, 1949
[170] Van Scotter, Motowidlo. Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of applied psychology, 1994(65): 475-480
[171] Verna Allee著,刘民惠等译.知识的进化.珠海:珠海出版社, 1998
[172] Wayne, S. J. & Ferris, G. R. Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinateinteractions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1990(75): 487-499
[173] Weiner, M. J. implication of OCB and contextual performance for human resource management. Human resource management review, 2000(1): 13-24
[174] Zabojnik, Jan. pay-performance sensitivity and production uncertainty. Economics Letters, 1996(3): 291-296
[175]巴曙松.《基金大势》投资效应(三)[EB/OL]. http: //funds. money. hexun. com/2655_2191232. shtml, 2007. 4. 28
[176]白锋,程德俊.团队薪酬差距对个人和团队绩效的影响.经济科学, 2006(6): 126-127
[177]彼得.德鲁克. 21世纪的管理挑战.北京:北京广通时代图书有限公司, 2006
[178]陈健健. 792家公司披露中报,利润增长逾七成.中国证券报, 2007. 8. 20
[179]陈劲,宋建元,葛朝阳等.试论基础研究及其原始性创新.科学学研究, 2004(3): 320-321
[180]陈劲,宋建元等.试论基础研究及其原始性创新.科学学研究, 2004(3): 318-319
[181]辞海编辑委员会.辞海.上海:上海辞书出版社, 1979
[182]德姆塞茨,阿尔钦著.生产、信息费用与经济组织.载于科斯,阿尔钦,诺斯编.财产权利与制度变迁(论文集).上海:三联书店, 1991
[183]邓尼特.工业与组织心理学手册.芝加哥:南德.麦奈利学院出版社, 1976
[184]丁岳枫.创业组织学习与创业绩效关系研究.浙江大学档案馆, 2006
[185]杜旌,廖建桥,王福寿.绩效考评中的公正感与满意度研究综述.科技进步与对策, 2005(7): 191-193
[186]杜旌,廖建桥,王福寿.绩效考评中的公正感与满意度研究综述.科技进步与对策, 2005(7): 191-192
[187]方振邦,叶向锋.员工个性化评价.中国人力资源开发, 2002(7): 57-59
[188]弗朗西斯·赫瑞比.管理知识员工.北京:机械工业出版社, 2000: 5-15
[189]付亚和,许玉林.绩效管理.上海:复旦大学出版社, 2003
[190]甘怡群等.用中国人个性量表(CPAI)预测国有企业中高层管理者的绩效.应用心理学, 2002(8): 35-39
[191]龚旭.同行评议公正性的影响因素分析.科学学研究, 2004(6): 614-617
[192]郭碧坚,韩宇.同行评议制——方法、理论、功能、指标.科学学研究, 1994(3): 67-69
[193]郭碧坚.科技管理中的同行评议:本质、作用、局限、替代.科技管理研究, 1995(4): 9-11
[194]郭志刚.社会统计方法-SPSS软件应用.北京:中国人民大学出版, 1999
[195]侯杰泰,温忠麟,成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用.北京:教育科学出版, 2004
[196]胡宇辰,戴淑燕.股权激励实施的风险规避.中国工业经济, 2001(9)
[197]黄光国.人情与面子:中国人的权力游戏.杨国枢主编,中国人的心理.台北:桂冠图书公司, 1989
[198]蒋万胜.中国市场经济秩序型构的非正式制度分析.西安:西北大学档案馆, 2007
[199]库恩著,纪树立等译.必要的张力.福州:福建人民出版社, 1987
[200]拉卡托斯等著,周寄中译.批判与知识的增长.北京:华夏出版社, 1987
[201]雷蒙德·A·诺伊.人力资源管理:赢得竞争优势.第5版.北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2005
[202]李本乾.描述受众特征揭示因果关系:调查研究法简介.当代传播, 2000(3): 38-40
[203]李怀祖.管理研究方法论.西安:西安交通大学出版社, 2004
[204]李津燕.地方政府行为与市场秩序构建.武汉:武汉大学档案馆, 2005
[205]李流柱,刘有锦,苏沃涛译.组织与管理——系统方法与权变方法.中国社会科学出版社, 1985
[206]李树丞,乐国玲.企业知识型员工绩效特征及其影响因素分析.湘潭大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2004(4): 146-147
[207]廖建桥,陈建文,张光进.知识员工绩效特征的实证探析, 2007
[208]廖建桥,文鹏.知识员工的定义、特征及分类研究述评, 2008
[209]廖建桥,张光进.我国知识员工绩效考核现状及启示, 2007
[210]林浚清,黄祖辉,孙永祥.高管团队内薪酬差距、公司绩效和治理结构.经济研究, 2003(4): 31-40
[211]林学俊.论库恩的范式及其在科学认识中的作用.科学技术与辩证法, 1997(1): 37-40
[212]林泽炎. 3P模式:中国企业人力资源管理操作方案.北京:中信出版社, 2001
[213]刘刚,顾培亮.知识型劳动的度量方法与模型研究.科学学研究, 2002(3): 286-291
[214]刘华微.透析美国企业管理.全球科技经济瞭望, 2005(5): 25-26
[215]刘鹏.股票期权激励:人力资源管理新机制.国际经济合作, 2001(8)
[216]刘晓嫱.《中央企业负责人经营业绩考核暂行办法》的特点.财会通讯, 2004(5): 67-67
[217]刘智强.知识员工职业停滞测量与治理研究.华中科技大学档案馆, 2005
[218]骆静.知识员工绩效评估公平感及其对工作态度的影响研究.华中科技大学档案馆, 2007
[219]马成功,王二平,林平.基于行为的绩效评定方法的研究进展.心理科学进展, 2002(4): 456-457
[220]马文峰.试析内容分析法在社科情报科学中的应用.情报科学, 2000(4): 346-349
[221]孟凯韬.科技评价体制函待改革科研评价与指标.北京:红旗出版社, 2000
[222]默顿.科学社会学(上册).北京:商务印书馆, 2003
[223]乔纳森?科尔斯蒂芬?科尔.科学界的社会分层.北京:华夏出版社, 1989
[224]邱均平,邹菲.国外内容分析法的研究概况和进展.图书情报知识, 2003(6): 6-8
[225]盛宇华.管理通论.北京:中国商业出版社, 1995: 6
[226]施若谷.“科学共同体”在近代中西方的形成和比较.自然科学史研究, 1999(1): 1-2
[227]史蒂芬.科尔著,林建成,王毅译,科学的制造——在自然界与社会之间.上海:上海人民出版社, 2001
[228]孙建敏,焦长泉.对管理者工作绩效结构的探索性研究, 2002(3): 1-10
[229]孙海法,刘海山.高管团队价值观、团队氛围对冲突的影响[J].,2007(12):32-38.
[230]唐晓华.基于SH集团的绩效考评者个体特征与考评有效性关系研究.西南交通大学档案馆, 2006
[231]田东红.半年报数据解读:上市公司投资股票收益对比分析[EB/OL]. http: //www. stockstar. com/info/darticle. aspx?id=QJ, 20050909, 10073831, 2005. 9. 9
[232]王辉,李晓轩,罗胜强.任务绩效与情境绩效二因素绩效模型的验证,中国管理科学, 2003(4): 79-84
[233]王蕾.企业员工绩效评估的有效性研究.馆藏于南京师范大学档案馆, 2004
[234]王庆娟.团队情境与个人奖励平衡机制的研究.科学学与科学技术管理, 2007(7): 172-176
[235]王伟.跨越人与知识的界限. IT经理世界, 1999(18): 48-49
[236]王雁飞,朱瑜.国外社会惰性的理论与相关研究概述.心里科学进展, 2006(1): 146-152
[237]王勇,许庆瑞.知识工作者能力概念的界定.科学学与科学技术管理, 2003(5): 73-75
[238]王重鸣.心理学研究方法.北京:人民教育出版社, 2001
[239]魏光新,汪寿阳,黎建强等.基于协同效应的团队合作激励因素研究.管理工程学报, 2007(1): 1-9
[240] [美]韦恩F.卡肖著,王重鸣译.人力资源管理(原书第6版).北京:机械工业出版社, 2006
[241]文章代,侯书森.创新管理.北京:石油大学出版社, 1999
[242]吴强,万可.论知识员工的四分图管理模型.研究与发展管理, 2003(8): 35-40
[243]肖媛.知识型员工的劳动度量与考核方法探析.科研管理, 2004(1): 84-89
[244]邢以群.论“同行评议”方法的完善和发展.科技管理研究, 1997(5): 23-25
[245]邢以群.论“同行评议”方法的完善和发展.科技管理研究, 1997(5): 23-25
[246]熊丙奇.邱军平教授做客新浪网,畅谈大学评价问题.评价与管理, 2005(3): 63-66
[247]许庆瑞,王勇,陈劲.绩效评价源与多源评价.科学学与科学技术管理, 2002(3): 84-89
[248]许庆瑞,郑刚等.研究与开发绩效评价在中国:实践与趋势.科研管理, 2002(1): 465-469
[249]严进.周边绩效.外国经济与管理, 1999(5): 30-33
[250]颜沛逸.员工对组织绩效公平性认知及其对工作态度之影响.台湾:国立中山大学人力资源管理研究所, 2000
[251]央视国际.中央企业负责人经营业绩考核暂行办法出台[EB/OL]. http: //finance. sina. com. cn/g/20031128/1913539701. shtml, 2003. 11. 28
[252]杨杰,凌文辁,方俐洛.关于知识工作者与知识性工作的实证解析.科学学研究, 2004(2): 190-196
[253]杨杰,方俐洛,凌文铨.关于绩效评价若干基本问题的思考.科技进步与对策, 200(2): 40-51
[254]杨杰,方俐洛,凌文辁.关于绩效评价若干基本问题的思考.自然辩证法通讯, 2001(2): 40-46
[255]杨杰.国人对知识工作者的认知及人际互动特征研究.中科院心理研究所, 2004
[256]杨杰.基于知觉分析的知识性工作分类研究.科学学研究, 2006(1): 98-105
[257]袁方.社会研究方法教程.北京:北京大学出版社, 2004
[258]翟学伟.人情、面子与权力的再生产——情理社会中的社会交换方式.社会学研究, 2004(5): 48-57
[259]张朝孝,蒲勇健.团队合作与激励结构的关系及博弈模型研究.管理工程学报, 2004(4): 12-16
[260]张朝孝.基于博弈论的员工激励与合作的机制研究.重庆大学档案馆, 2003
[261]张德.人力资源开发与管理.北京:清华大学出版社, 2001
[262]张光进,廖建桥,初浩楠.理论研究水平的非正式认可度研究.科学学研究, 2007
[263]张光进,廖建桥.科研申请评价的特征.科研管理, 2007
[264]张光进,廖建桥.科研生产企业的短期奖励体系研究.中国人力资源开发, 2006(7): 76-80
[265]张光进,廖建桥.科研申请评价的特征:专业性.科研管理, 2007(5): 163-169
[266]张望军,彭剑锋.中国企业知识型员工激励机制实证分析.科研管理, 2001, 22(6): 90-96
[267]张维迎.大学的逻辑.北京:北京大学出版社, 2004
[268]张维迎.废除北大隐性合同.北京青年报, 2003. 12. 12
[269]张一弛,黄涛,李琦.策略性股票期权激励设计.中国人力资源开发, 2001(4)
[270]张一弛.人力资源管理教程.北京:北京大学出版社, 2002
[271]张正堂.高层管理团队协作需要,薪酬差距和企业绩效:竞赛理论的视角.南开管理评论, 2007(2): 4-11
[272]赵琛徽.知识员工雇佣管理模式研究——基于SHRM的分析.中国工业经济, 2004(8): 75-81
[273]赵曙明,沈群红.知识企业与知识管理.南京:南京大学出版社, 2000
[274]赵曙明.绩效管理与评估.北京:高等教育出版社, 2003
[275]郑绍濂,骆品亮.分成制与相对绩效评价机制及其效率研究.管理科学学报, 1998(1): 26-30
[276]支晓强.如何选择业绩评价标准——兼论业绩评价在激励机制中的作用.会计研究, 2004(11): 25-30
[277]钟金玉.公务人员绩效考核公平与工作态度之研究.台湾:国立中山大学人力资源管理研究所, 2000
[278]周黎安.柯荣住.从大学理念与治理看北大改革.学术界, 2003(5): 89-99
[279]周智红,王二平.作业绩效和关系绩效.心理学动态, 2000(1): 54-56
[280]朱瑞玲.中国人的社会互动:论面子的问题.杨国枢主编,中国人的心理.台北:桂冠图书公司, 1989
[281]朱枝富.论儒家思想与现代管理的艺术契合.江南论坛, 2001(4): 17-18
[282]佐斌.中国人的脸与面子——本土心理社会心理学探索.武汉:华中师范大学出版社, 1997