(1) There are problems in the assessment of cadres.
In the practice of cadre assessment, people have also encountered many difficulties and problems. Among them, the technical problems of personnel assessment are particularly prominent. If you do it seriously, it will be very complicated, and the final effect may not be good, which will get twice the result with half the effort. If we do it rudely, it will be superficial and even bring undue negative effects.
As far as the current enterprise assessment cadres are concerned, there are still the following shortcomings: first, the assessment indicators are relatively general and the assessment content is relatively abstract, which increases the arbitrariness of the appraiser's supervisor; Second, most examiners are appointed by various units and think that there are many factors and low technical content; The ability to eliminate subjective mistakes is low, which gives a few people with ulterior motives a chance; Fourth, when ranking comprehensively, it depends on the weighted average score. Due to the different groups of each unit participating in the assessment, it is difficult to reach an agreement on the assessment scale, which leads to incomplete equivalence of scores between different units, which naturally leads to low credibility and accuracy of the ranking.
Therefore, how to improve the quality of cadre assessment, make the assessment results reflect the real situation of the assessed object fairly and objectively, and let the cadres learn from each other and follow suit; It is still an important task of enterprise management in the new period to learn from the example and catch up with the goal.
(2) How to improve the assessment of team cadres
In this regard, the author puts forward some thoughts on improving the quality of cadres and perfecting the cadre assessment system by studying and thinking about the theory of personnel assessment and combining with the problems existing in the current cadre assessment.
1) designing a high-quality cadre assessment index system is the premise of successful assessment and the center and link of the whole assessment activity. The assessment index system usually consists of assessment elements (Deloitte |), assessment scores and assessment scales (scoring standards). The principles of homogeneity and reliability must be followed when setting indicators. Strive for "less but fine, less and complete".
In addition, in the indicator setting, try to avoid using abstract and grandiose words, such as "good political thinking" and "high enthusiasm for work", because such expressions are quite vague, and it is difficult to prevent appraisers from scoring based on subjective impressions, resulting in different evaluation results for the same object. The evaluation criteria of "good political thinking" and "high enthusiasm for work" should be clearly put forward, such as "serious and responsible work, being able to take the initiative to ask others to avoid arduous tasks, and being able to work overtime without compensation when necessary" to accurately measure the more abstract standard of "high enthusiasm for work". Only the effective combination of testability and operability can make each examiner objectively and accurately identify and evaluate according to the individual characteristics of candidates, thus greatly reducing the subjective arbitrariness of examiners.
2) Obtaining evaluation information objectively and fairly is the basis of achieving high-quality evaluation. With the deepening of political system reform, the process of enterprise democratization has also accelerated. The evaluation of cadres in enterprises is mainly based on democratic appraisal, that is, subordinates evaluate their superiors. As far as the present situation is concerned, most examiners still have fear. If they kick the shortcomings of their superiors and are afraid of being disgusted and retaliated, they will generally only report good news instead of bad news. In order to eliminate concerns, anonymous evaluation forms must be adopted. At the same time, subordinates often only start from the relationship with the assessed, increasing the human error of the assessment. In order to eliminate this error, it is the most scientific method to choose sampling technology for evaluation. In order to ensure the adequacy of the number of examiners and the representativeness of the distribution, stratified sampling can be carried out (for example, departmental cadres, managers, team leaders, general staff representatives, etc.). Give certain indicators in proportion, and classify and number all qualified personnel, mix them evenly, and then randomly select them according to the set quota, and the personnel selected by lottery are eligible to participate in the assessment).
So, how to determine the assessment amount? This involves the knowledge of mathematical statistics. Too few examiners will affect the representativeness, and too many will increase the difficulty of operation, which is time-consuming and labor-intensive.
3) The desire to eliminate error control is the guarantee to obtain real evaluation results.
While using sampling technology, we should constantly improve the quality of examiners, let each examiner master the standard language content of assessment, be familiar with the characteristics of the assessed object, cherish the power and opportunity of assessment, be responsible for employees and themselves, and cultivate their objective and realistic attitude and stable mood, so that they will not be assessed by any rules and regulations and subjective will, and will not be replaced by personal likes and dislikes, feelings and prejudices. At the same time, they will start from the factionalism of very few people.
Be as careful as possible in the evaluation organization and pay attention to every detail of the evaluation. For example, in the case that anonymous assessment forms are widely used, examiners should keep a proper distance to avoid mutual interference. Relevant information obtained from individual conversations can also be changed into anonymous questionnaires, and examiners should keep a proper distance to avoid mutual interference. Change the information obtained from individual conversations into anonymous questionnaires to eliminate the personal concerns of examiners as much as possible.
In the comprehensive analysis and evaluation statistics, it is one of the most effective means to eliminate the evaluation human error by eliminating the extreme highest score and the lowest score according to the ratio of 10%- 15%. Because although various technologies are used in the whole assessment process, it is still difficult to rule out the thinking errors caused by excessive emotional awareness or irresponsible judgment of individual examiners.
4) Establish a cadre assessment mechanism based on my debriefing and self-assessment, based on Pearl evaluation, and centered on the assessment team (experts). It is necessary for cadres to report their work and make self-evaluation, because only they know what they have done best. Through debriefing and appearance, the appraiser can understand the achievements made by the appraiser during his term of office, and also observe some personal qualities (such as organizational ability, oral and written expression ability, pragmatic attitude, etc.). ). So it is indispensable. But self-evaluation can only be used as a reference. If my self-evaluation is weighted into the total score, it will inevitably be suspected of distortion.
Democratic appraisal is comprehensive and extensive, and the appraisal conducted by the appraisers determined by sampling can represent the masses and reflect the WeChat and recognition of the leaders in the unit. The internal ranking of team members can be ranked according to the scores of democratic appraisal. Therefore, democratic appraisal is the basis of assessment. This article is in line with the people's hearts and cannot be shaken. The assessment of team members in the company is not the core. It is put forward in order to find outstanding talents in time in the internal assessment ranking of the company. Because most members of the assessment team have assessment skills and experience, they have deep theoretical and political accomplishment, and there are few personal connections in the second-level units of the company. It is easier to be objective and fair by rarely interfering with personal grievances. Moreover, the assessment methods adopted by the secondary units are consistent with the standards, so the scores obtained from the assessment are comparable. But these people can't all be experts in secondary factories and mines, and the information they get has certain limitations. The author suggests that the assessment of the members of the assessment team should be carried out after the democratic assessment and individual conversations (or questionnaires) are completed. Remove the highest score and the lowest score in the summary, and then get the weighted average score. In this way, the accuracy and feasibility of the ranking after the evaluation are indisputable.