论文部分内容阅读
近几年来,以“实绩”作为评价干部的标准,为客观公正地选拔任用干部开辟了一条新途径;为鼓励竞争、奖优罚劣,激励干部建功立业、开拓创新起了积极的作用。但是,由于考绩工作的初始性、复杂性和考绩方法的非精确性、非科学性,以实绩为标准评价和选拔干部也逐渐显示出局限性,归纳起来有以下几点: 1.实绩概念的不确定性与模糊性,导致实绩标准难以规范化。目前,关于“实绩”的定义大致有三种,一是“贡献”说,认为实绩是干部在他负责的岗位上通过创造性的劳动和组织领导活动为社会发展所作出的成绩和贡献;二是“有效劳动量”说,认为实绩是干部凝结在工作
In recent years, taking “actual performance ” as the standard for appraising cadres has opened up a new avenue for objectively and justly selecting and appointing cadres. It has played a positive role in encouraging competition, rewarding and punishing inferior cadres, and encouraging cadres to make contributions and innovate. However, due to the inaccuracy and unscientificness of the performance appraisal, the non-scientificalness of the appraisal performance appraisal and the evaluation and selection of cadres based on actual performance, the limitations of the appraisal cadres are gradually revealed. The following points are summarized: 1. The concept of performance Uncertainty and ambiguity, resulting in difficult to standardize the performance standards. At present, there are roughly three definitions of “actual performance ”. First, “contribution ” said that actual performance is the result and contribution made by cadres in social development through creative labor and organizational leadership activities in his responsible positions ; Secondly, “effective labor ” said that performance is the result of cadres condensation in the work