2808.招商银行新进员工培训方案设计外文参考文献译文及原文

《2808.招商银行新进员工培训方案设计外文参考文献译文及原文》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《2808.招商银行新进员工培训方案设计外文参考文献译文及原文（14页珍藏版）》请在装配图网上搜索。

1、本科毕业设计（论文）外文参考文献译文及原文学 院 经济管理学院 专 业 工商管理 年级班别 学 号 学生姓名 指导教师 2007年 6 月 Contents1员工培训之:如何培训高层主管12 Emploree training: How executives grow7I1员工培训之:如何培训高层主管?来源:麦肯锡季刊虽然人才可以重金礼聘，但领先企业却往往自己培训人才。多数企业都承认，在高阶主管的培训方面，其投入差强人意。麦肯锡针对全美五十大企业内，担任两百种高阶职位的六千名主管做了一份调查，只有百分之三的受访主管认为公司在培训人才方面已有相当的成效，同时，大部分的受访主管均认为公司在主管发展

2、过程中所需的职务轮调、传统内部与外部训练或是辅导等方面都做得不够完善。有些企业认为绩效表现良好的员工会自然而然地被拔擢到上层，而其它企业则深信人才可以用金钱购买，例如有公司尝试着向素以培训人才闻名的奇异公司挖角。事实上，虽然企业应该尽一切努力为公司寻找高阶将才，然而更重要的是，同时也必须拥有一套完整的人才培训机制。首先，当人才日渐匮乏时，人才外购策略是极具风险且所费不赀的；其次，当企业大部分的高阶主管是从组织外部空降时，对于企业内部凝聚力与组织传承的杀伤力是相当可怕的，因此，不论是哪一种状况，凡无法自行培训人才的企业也极难吸引外界的优秀人员加入。工作经验加速高阶主管的养成企业尝试着透过多种途径

3、有效地培训出优秀的高阶主管：包括适时给予回馈、教导、辅导以及教育训练。而其中最重要的是，高阶主管必需在适当职位上获得做中学(on-the-job training)的经验。为此以下的四个考虑是相当重要的：1、工作的结构：高阶主管理当拥有职权与职责、订定范畴与多变的弹性。当组织采分权式运作或是有许多所谓的损益工作时即该类组织主管们所作出的决策与企业的收益或亏损直接相关，并以损益作为绩效衡量标准因此这类的组织要比其它中央集权式组织能创造出较多发展机会。2、具有高潜力的人才应该要接受一系列挑战性工作的考验，因为通常在两年或三年后，个人的学习曲线就会开始呈现平缓现象，这会使得有能力的人才开始抱怨。每个

4、人在某一特定职位待多久是因企业、工作挑战以及个人成长能力不同会有差异。有些企业的一级主管在24年内经历了18个职位，然而并非每个人都能够如此快速地进行职务调动，一般的企业往往让主管在特定职位上留待太长的时间。3、一系列不同工作应该提供不同的挑战。在不同地区或是与不同类型主管共事的目的，是要求高阶主管学习具备对于新环境掌控自如的能力。从幕僚角色领导企业起死回生、协助迟缓企业奋力前进，以及影响企业决策需要多种不同技能。4、高阶主管必须向身怀绝技的同侪以及上级主管学习他们的致胜技能。领导能力中有部份是可以经由师徒制度获得，然而学徒从世界级专家与领导者身上学到的，会比一般人身上更多。况且，成功会带来更

5、多的成功，优秀人才总是比较喜欢待在一个拥有许多优秀人才的组织内。工作经验对于人才成长与发展的重要性是无庸赘言的。但令人惊讶的是，在麦肯锡针对6000名高阶主管所作的调查中，却只有10%的受访主管认为其所属企业能有效地执行工作分配，其中问题症结在于控制整个流程的资深主管，并没有适当地将人才发展融入决策之中。通常部门主管会很理所当然地指派一个有经验且工作质量优异的候选人来担任关键职位，而不是提供机会来培训一个未来领导者，甚至，该主管可能根本就不知道该如何利用工作经验来培训人才！在麦肯锡的调查中，48%的人力资源主管认为大部分的高阶主管只是将人才发展视为训练课程的功能之一。这类的高阶主管训练课程通常

6、很热门，因为它们很容易吸引注意力，且容易规划与执行。透过课程计划的建立与执行，人力资源部门可以证明它对人才培训也尽了力。但是纯粹的训练课程根本无法培训出优秀的高阶主管，以下两者除外：实际的工作项目学习；提早针对管理技能给予训练，这能提供基本的工具、知识，并辅导个人的生涯转变。要有成效出现，做中学必须让潜力人才从事一个对公司影响重大的项目，由有限的候选成员组成，并且实际执行该项目计划。例如奇异公司的主管培训课程曾要求一个小组团队评估该公司在南韩的整体投资策略，然后在四星期后(部份时间待在韩国)，这个小组团队要对公司内部28位高阶主管提出建言，主管并依照建言内容对公司投资案作出决策。其它类型的训练

7、课程也同样具有价值。例如摩托罗拉大学(Motorola University)和奇异公司的Crotonville学院等顶级的企业大学，能协助建立强势组织文化，使公司依照策略 做事、提倡 最佳做法、建立个人人际网络，并策动组织变革的项目计划。但这些并非真正启动个人能力发展的引擎，真正产生差异的训练跟课程无关，而是跟非正式训练息息相关的，例如给予回馈、指导以及辅导。及时提供改善的建言虽然一点都不困难，但却是需要长期承诺与坦诚。AlliedSignal的总裁Lawrence Bossidy每年会为直接向他报告的主管进行评估。他在评估表格的一面点明优良表现，同时在纸的另一面，他列出希望能够修正的缺点。

8、此外，AlliedSignal会针对公司内部前途看好的20位员工进行详细的年度评估，派遣两位人力资源专家访谈15至20位这些员工的下属、同侪以及主管。这些回馈是具有相当大的帮助，更重要的是，高阶主管认为这些活动正积极改变企业的文化，其中一位主管认为：这赋予人才培训合法的地位，以及现在提出培训人才的需求并加以落实，是可以接受的。想要改善人类本能的非正式互动过程，本来就是比较困难的，特别是要改善教导与辅导成效，更是端赖于两造双方的化学作用。正式的导师分派是有帮助的，尤其是当企业说明了对这样关系的期待，并且提供一套有效的绩效评估流程时，便能有效激励主管给予下属更好的忠告建言。然而，更有效的是建立一个

9、重视教导的企业文化，并将这样的文化视为日常作息的一部份。几家麦肯锡分公司目前会定期询问顾问，哪些董事是他们心目中的导师。举例来说，麦肯锡视辅导为人才培训文化的关键要素，但这种价值观的普遍情形却仍然未理想。为了要鼓励这项文化的建立，几家麦肯锡分公司目前的做法是定期询问所有顾问，将哪些董事视为他们的顾问导师。虽然有一小部份的董事同时被许多顾问提名，但是多数的董事则出乎意料地发现，只有不到五个顾问真正认为他们是自己的导师。由于辅导结果会一年一次在董事会议中公开结果，因此目前麦肯锡内部对于辅导的注意力已大幅提升。五大原则对企业而言，确实执行以下五大原则，能够协助主管利用增加工作经验，带动高阶主管的养成

10、与快速成长。1、让发展成为组织架构设计的根基 对高阶主管的发展最具影响力的因素是工作职务建构的方式，也因此组织的设计方式便决定了组织成长机会的多寡。有些企业会受到业务组合的限制，然而有些仅仅从事单一业务的企业却依旧能够提供深具潜力的员工多样的发展机会。举例来说，哈雷机车 (Harley-Davidson)是由三个内部团队所组成之单一业务企业：一个团队负责开创产品，另一个团队负责创造需求，再一个则是提供支持服务。公司的24位高阶主管各自属于一个团队，他们不仅管理自己的团队，也一同制定决策，藉以扩展员工的视野、更加了解企业、参与重大的决策制定，并且经由团队成员的回馈与指导而获益。家庭仓库(Home

11、 Depot)则是提供管理者较大的自由度执行业务。与其它的零售商不同的是，该企业授予各分店 店长与部门主管雇用员工、下订单以及制定售价的权限。这是属于我的五千万美元事业！一位管理者如此说道，我可以令它创造双倍的利益，也可以令它一败涂地！有哪一家公司能够让我在33岁时，就获得这样的独立权与挑战机会？另一个提供主管丰富发展机会的企业是升阳信托公司(Sun Trust)，它舍弃银行界的集权化营运方针（如贷款业务），把业务扩展、成本控制以及人才培训工作授权交予当地银行。该企业相信有挑战性的工作有助于吸引、维持以及发展当地优秀与具远见的高阶主管与经营团队。2、发掘最佳人才如预期，在麦肯锡进行的调查中显示

12、，高阶主管认定某些特定职务工作，能提升员工发展的成效要高于其它性质的工作。然而由于获高阶主管评价为最有价值的职务之数量相当有限，因此也造成了最具挑战性的工作职务，理所当然给最具能力的人执行。当然，倘若企业不知道谁是明日之星，就无法提供快速成长途径。在绩效平平的企业里，只有14%高阶主管提到他们能够正确辨别公司内部里态度积极的与消极的员工，这样的企业需要建立一个更具成效的人才养成制度。首先，公司高阶管理者应针对企业的200位高阶主管做一个全面性检视，挑出表现最佳的前20%员工。这不是件简单任务，而且一定会有错误发生，但是这样的评量方式若是能够囊括不同观点的成员参加与讨论，其成效应是相当显著的。为

13、了获得较佳的回馈、教导与辅导，这样的讨论应该以每位高阶主管的长处、短处、以及短期的发展需求为重点，包括下一个职务将会是什么以及何时上任。3、打破部门藩篱的组织人才运用想象一下，打破组织部门藩篱的高阶主管人才库与职务数据库，人才何其多！但如果每个部门的高阶职务都只能交给现职人员，这会造成多少潜力人才发展上的损失！不幸的是目前这类的情形却到处在企业里上演，即地区主管和部门领导者只在组织内部寻找合适人选填补职务空缺。要是按照同样的思考逻辑，也就是说一些部门主管自然而然会私藏部门内最佳人才，那我们就可以大概了解过去擦身而过的好机会有多少！跨部门共享人才绝非自然形成，同时也具有些许风险，但仍具可行性。最

14、普遍也是最简易的方式就是像奇异公司(GE)、AlliedSignal、和Arrow Electronics等企业所使用的中央式管理。例如在奇异公司，500位高阶主管的雇用决定是由总公司负责：总部人力资源主管与总裁 Jack Welch 共同制做出一份公司各单位人士组成的人才名册，每当主管遇有职缺，便可以自由地从 名册中选取合适者。在Arrow Electronic，总裁Steve Kaufman说：各企业单位拥有极大的 决策制定自主权，但人事决策权责操之在我！其它企业，例如惠普科技(Hewlett-Packard)以及安隆(Enron)，则是使用一种由企业内部深植的价值观和一、二个简单过程主导

15、的自由市场(free-market)手法。惠普科技长久以来就存在不同业务单位之间调动，以处理不同类型挑战的优良传统，每位员工都会得到15的绩效表现评等，也因此管理者能够很容易发掘出最理想的员工。所有的主管也都能调阅公司挑选，以接受进阶训练且深具潜力的员工之名字与简历。同时由于公司提供前百大职位之下的职务公告系统(Job-posting system)，员工可以很轻易地找到自己喜欢的成长机会。4、不要选用最佳人选目前多数企业内执掌召聘雇用决策者，莫不将焦点放在选取质量最佳的人选。然而质量最佳的人选，不见得是能够在过程中学习最多的人。与其在选派高阶主管时完全强调过去的成绩单，企业更应当承担高阶主管

16、在发展需求过程中的风险。接受麦肯锡调查的主管中，有高达91%同意公司有时应该要有胆量承担风险，放手让具潜力的员工在尚未完全准备好之前接受挑战，虽然只有49%的企业主真正做到。然而在三个超强企业里的80%主管表示，他们有时的确会愿意为了人才养成，而做冒险的职务安排。更为普遍的是，高绩效企业的人力资源高阶主管有64%承认，公司的确是经由职务安排，而让人才发展机制确实生效。(相较于绩效平平企业的48%主管)。美孚石油公司(Mobil Oil)所能提供的发展经验或是特殊的工作分派加以记录编目，目的不仅是列出已具备某些必要能力的人员名单，同时也列出目前他们尚缺的必要经验。这些经验被分为两个大项：业务本质

17、的挑战(成长业务、转亏为盈、合资企业、大规模的任务团队、和工会谈判等)以及业务功能的挑战(例如营销、投资组合管理及共享服务)。想追求改变的人，可以搜寻职务或项目数据库，同样地，有职务空缺的主管也可以挑选急需要该类经验的员工。这种型式或复杂的过程，可能不适合某些企业风格，但这概念明确，并可以简单方式加以落实。5、让位居要职的庸禄之辈去职或许企业在人才培训上所能做的最大努力，就是将表现平庸者、缺乏潜力者、以及不具启发能力的主管，从关键职位上除名。因为即便允许极少数的平庸者担任企业内的部份前200个高阶职务，都会将整个系统能量消耗殆尽。当企业内20%的管理职务因剔除无潜力的主管而空出时，将会一下子释

18、放出许多可观的发展机会，尤其是那些以人才发展名闻遐迩的公司，更会采取类似方法让公司的人才培训机制永保竞争力。要完全了解关于培训优秀高级主管的每个相关议题是不可能的。然而企业若能真正导入能带动人才发展的工作经验模式，将会加快高阶主管成长的成效。要培训人才并没有其它的诀窍，只有当企业的高阶领导者能下定承诺，并审慎地经营公司高阶主管人才库，方可为公司培训出杰出的未来领袖。2 Emploree training: How executives growFrom:The Mckinsey QuarterlyMost companies are poor at developing their execu

19、tives, and most of them acknowledge this: only 3 percent of the 6,000 executives occupying the top 200 positions at 50 large US corporations examined by a recent McKinsey survey strongly agreed that their organizations developed talent quickly and effectively.1 In no area of executive developmentjob

20、 rotation, traditional internal and external training, or mentoringdid a majority of these executives believe that their employers were doing a good job (Exhibit 1).Some companies feel that their high performers will rise to the top naturally, like cream. Others, believing that talent can be bought,

21、 try to recruit executives from such sources as General Electric, a famous developer of people. In fact, though businesses should look for senior-level talent outside their own organizations, they themselves must also be good at developing it. In the first place, as talent becomes scarcerand demogra

22、phy suggests that it willthe buy-only strategy becomes risky and expensive. Moreover, recruiting all of a companys senior executives externally sacrifices cultural cohesion and institutional memory. In any case, companies that cant develop their own talent find it hard to attract good people from th

23、e outside.Job experience drives executive developmentCompanies develop executives in various ways: by giving them feedback, coaching, mentoring, and training. But more than anything else, executives need on-the-job experience in appropriate positions. What makes positions appropriate? Four considera

24、tions are crucial.The first is the way a job is structured: the executive who holds it should have both headroom (authority and responsibility) and elbow room (scope and variety). Organizations that are decentralized or that have many P&L jobsin which the holders decisions are linked to, and measure

25、d by, the companys profit or losstherefore create more opportunities for development than organizations that do not.Second, people with high potential should move through a series of challenging jobs, for after two or three years the learning curve in any position tends to flatten out, and capable p

26、eople start to chafe. How long any one person should stay put varies with the business, the extent of the challenge, and that persons ability to grow. One companys line executive held 18 positions in 24 years, and though not everyone can or should move so quickly, companies tend to leave executives

27、in jobs much too long.Third, this series of jobs should provide a range of challenges. Working in different geographic regions or with a variety of bosses requires executives to master new contexts. Leading a turnaround, stimulating a stagnant business, and influencing a company from a staff positio

28、n draw on different skills.Finally, executives need to learn their craft from highly skilled colleagues as well as superiors. The ability to lead can in part be acquired through apprenticeship, and apprentices learn more from world-class experts and leaders than from mediocre ones. Success, moreover

29、, breeds success, so good people are likelier to stay with an organization that has many other good people.The role of job experience in driving growth is fairly well understood. Thus, it is striking that only 10 percent of the 6,000 executives McKinsey surveyed thought that their companies used job

30、 assignments effectively. The problem is that the people who control the processsenior line executivesdont adequately factor development into their decisions. A division president naturally finds it safer to appoint an experienced, highly qualified candidate to a key position than to take a chance a

31、nd stretch a possible future leader. Furthermore, that division president might not know how to use job experience to develop people: in the McKinsey survey, 48 percent of human-resources executives said that most executives think development is simply a function of training programs.Except for acti

32、on learning and early training in managerial skills, training programs just are not capable of producing truly great executivesSuch programs are often favored because they are highly visible, as well as simple to create and run, and by establishing them an HR department can show that it is doing its

33、 bit to nurture people. But with two exceptionsaction learning, built around real work projects, and early training in managerial skills to provide basic tools and knowledge and to facilitate career changestraining programs dont produce great executives. To be effective, action learning should invol

34、ve a high-profile project important to a company, be limited to a small group of promising people, and in fact result in action. One project in a GE executive development course required a team to assess the companys investment strategy in South Korea. After four weeks partly spent in that country,

35、the team presented its recommendations to GEs top 28 executives, who based the companys investment decisions largely on those recommendations.Other kinds of training programs may be worthwhile as well. First-class corporate universities such as Motorola University and GEs Crotonville can help create

36、 strong corporate cultures, align companies with their strategies, disseminate best practices, build personal networks, and spur programs for corporate change. But these are not the engines that drive the development of individual capabilities. The kind of training that really makes a difference has

37、 nothing to do with programs and everything to do with the informal training that goes on within companies in the form of feedback, coaching, and mentoring.Improving feedback isnt hard, but it does take commitment and candor. Every year, Lawrence Bossidy, the CEO of AlliedSignal, writes assessments

38、of the people who report directly to him. On one side of a sheet of paper he explains what they do well; on the other side he notes deficiencies he would like to see corrected. In addition, AlliedSignal conducts detailed annual assessments of 20 up-and-coming people, dispatching two HR professionals

39、 to interview 15 to 20 subordinates, peers, and bosses of each, and this feedback is regarded as enormously helpful. Perhaps more important, executives say that the exercise has changed the companys culture: It legitimized development, commented one; now its OK to have development needs and work on

40、them.It is harder to improve coaching and mentoringinherently informal processes that depend on the chemistry between two people. The formal assignment of mentors can help, especially if a company explains what it expects from the relationship, and an effective performance evaluation process can pro

41、d bosses to provide better advice. But it is more effective to build a culture that values coaching and expects it as part of the daily routine.Several McKinsey offices now regularly ask associates which partners they view as mentorsAt McKinsey, for instance, mentoring is regarded as a vital part of

42、 the development culture but is still not as common as it should be. To encourage it, several McKinsey offices now ask all associates at regular intervals which partners they view as mentors. Although a small number of partners were named by as many as a dozen associates, most partners were surprise

43、d to find that fewer than five had so honored them. These results were monitored for a year and shared openly at partners meetings. Attention to mentoring has increased substantially.Five principlesCompanies should take action on five fronts to help executives grow quickly through job experience, th

44、e main force that drives executive development.1. Make development a fundamental part of organizational designThe foremost influence on executive development is the way jobs are structured, so the design of an organization determines the extent of its growth opportunities. Some companies are constra

45、ined by the narrowness of their portfolios, but even single-business firms can provide highfliers with diverse opportunities.Harley-Davidson, for example, is a single-business company organized around three teams: one to create products, another to create demand, and yet another to provide support s

46、ervices. Each of the companys top 24 executives belongs to one of the teams, which manage themselves and make decisions collectively, thus helping their members broaden their scope, learn more about the company, participate in big decisions, and benefit from feedback from and coaching by teammates.T

47、he Home Depot offers individual managers wide degrees of freedom to run their businesses. Unlike other retailers, the company gives store and department managers the freedom to hire their own people, order products, and set prices. This is my $50 million business, says one manager. I can double it o

48、r run it into the ground. Where else could I get that independence and challenge at 33?SunTrust, another company that gives many managers rich development opportunities, has resisted the general tendency in the banking industry to centralize by line of business (mortgages, for example), instead leav

49、ing revenue generation, cost control, and talent management in the hands of local banks. The company believes that big jobs help it attract, keep, and develop strong, broad-gauge executives and teams at the local level.2. Spotlight the best talentNot surprisingly, the McKinsey survey found that exec

50、utives regard certain kinds of jobs as better at promoting development than others (Exhibit 2). Since virtually all of the positions that executives regard as most valuable for promoting growth tend to be in limited supply, the most challenging jobs should go to the most talented people.Of course, a

51、 company cant provide a fast track for highfliers if it doesnt know who they are. Since only 14 percent of the executives at medium-performing companies say that they can identify their high- and lowfliers, such businesses need to create a more effective system for that purpose.2 First, the whole se

52、nior management group should review each of a companys top 200 executives and identify the best 20 percent or so. This wont be easy, and mistakes will be made, but the assessment is likely to be more insightful if it is founded on a candid discussion involving a number of different viewpoints. To pr

53、omote better feedback, coaching, and mentoring, the discussion should focus on each executives strengths, weaknesses, and short-term development needsincluding what job should come next, and when.3. Broker talent across the organizationImagine the pool of people and jobs across a companys executive

54、ranks. How much development potential is lost if each executive job in a division must be filled only by people who already work for it! Yet this is exactly what happens in many companies: division presidents and department heads fill vacancies by looking solely at inside candidates. Consider also t

55、he natural tendency of those same division presidents to hoard their best people, and you get some sense of the scale of the missed opportunities.Sharing talent across an organization doesnt come naturally and can be risky, but it is possible. The most common (and easiest) approach is the centrally

56、managed one practiced by GE, AlliedSignal, and Arrow Electronics. At GE, staffing decisions for the top 500 jobs begin at the corporate center: HR executives work with the CEO, Jack Welch, to develop a slate of candidates from all parts of the company. Managers with jobs to fill can then choose any

57、candidate they please. At Arrow Electronics, the CEO, Steve Kaufman, says, The business units have enormous autonomy to make business decisions, but I guide the people decisions.Others companies, such as Hewlett-Packard and Enron, use a kind of free-market approach supported by deeply embedded value

58、s and one or two simple processes. Hewlett-Packard has a tradition of moving people across business units to tackle different kinds of challenges. Everyone receives performance ratings from one to five so that managers can find the best people relatively easily. All managers also have access to the

59、names and resumes of the high-potential people chosen for the companys advanced training program. Since there is a job-posting system for every position below the top 100, it is easy for employees to find attractive opportunities.4. Dont choose the best-qualified personAt present, the people who mak

60、e staffing decisions in most companies focus, quite naturally, on getting the best-qualified person for the job. But the best-qualified person may not be the one who can learn most from it. Instead of focusing entirely on proven competence when appointing executives, companies should be prepared to

61、take risks by considering the needs of executive development.Ninety-one percent of the corporate officers in the McKinsey survey agreed that their companies should take risks sometimes by putting a high-potential person in a job before he or she is ready. Although only 49 percent of these officers t

62、hought that their companies actually did so, 80 percent of the officers at three very strong companies said that they sometimes took developmental staffing risks. More generally, 64 percent of the HR executives at top-performing companies (as compared with 48 percent at their medium-performing count

63、erparts) agreed that they actively and explicitly make development happen through staffing decisions.Mobil Oil, for example, developed a matching process cataloging the jobs each executive has held and the development experience every job or special assignment offers. The objective was not only to p

64、lace people who already had some of the required competencies but also to round out the experience of those who had not yet developed them. Experiences were described in two dimensions: the nature of the business challenge (a growth business, a turnaround, a joint venture, a large-scale task force, or negotiations with unions, for example) and the business function (such as marketing, portfolio management, and shared servic