利他？利己？探究團隊績效管理的互惠

Altruism? Self-Interest? Exploring Their Reciprocity in Team Performance Management

蕭嘉惠(Chia-Huei Hsiao) ； 曹校章(Hsiao-Chang Taso)

《大專體育學刊》 21卷2期 (2019/06) Pp. i-iv

https://doi.org/10.5297/ser.201906_21(2).0000

摘要

績效管理近年來在企業之中不斷地被提起與做為公司治理的運用，其主要的目的是在確認如何讓組織所訂定的目標，能有效且具體的達成，因此，它特別強調溝通、輔導和組織成員能力的提高，也正因為如此，績效管理不僅強調結果導向，而且重視達成目標的過程。在過去績效管理訂定與落實的過程中，多數的組織會把績效管理和年度考核相提並論，一般而言，這種做法強調否定而非肯定，阻礙了管理者和員工之間有建設性的對話，讓員工感到厭惡，也讓管理和人事部門頭痛不已，根本無法激勵員工，也不能改善績效。這樣的現象，在近代的績效管理制度有明顯的變革。在團體績效執行過程中，最大的收益者是誰？受到績效影響的又是誰？在組織的經營之中，到底是利他？還是利己？其實我們從利他主義的意涵來看，利他主義隱含一種為他人謀福利的精神，是一種發自內心來助人，並不要求從受助者身上獲得回報。而利己主義者，則是凡事只為自己或對自己有利益關係的團體，才會有行為的展現，其做事的態度都會以自身利益為優先。許多的研究也試圖瞭解，為何人們願意為無明顯獲益的事情承擔部分的成本（Dercole, Della Rossa, & Piccardi，2019）。Trivers（1971）認為每個人為了適應當地社會、經濟環境，自然會有利他行為或其他行為的表現。利他行為，就是人們行為獲益回報進化而來（de Waal，2008）。我們從利他或利己的定義中發現，其實是互為因果的，因為在績效管理之中強調組織目標和個人目標的一致性，強調組織和個人同步成長，形成「多贏」局面；績效管理體現著「以人為本」的思想，在績效管理的各個環節中都需要管理者和員工的共同參與，也充分的體現出良好的績效管理策略能夠同時兼顧團體及個人利益。換句話說，如果團體績效策略訂定的夠完善與夠周全，其所展現的成效，既能利他也能利己，目前許多企業已開始正視這個問題，如Google、GE、Netflix、微軟與高盛等知名企業，都已在嘗試拋棄傳統的績效考核方式，他們漸漸廢除傳統一年一度的績效管理，改為更頻繁且即時的回饋方式，讓績效管理真正發揮功效，不再只是形式化、量化、忽略員工動機的冰冷制度，同時也慢慢地將重心放在公司最大的資產──員工，透過利他的具體策略，例如：培育人才及公平獎勵員工，如此一來，更能達到組織績效提升並兼顧組織成員個人獲益，使員工和組織得到同步成長。因此，方向對了，策略對了，團隊績效管理再也不是兩難的問題，而是既能利人也能利己的互惠關係。

並列摘要

In recent years, performance management has often been noted for its application in the corporate governance of enterprises. Its main purpose is to ensure the effective achievement of concrete goals set by the organization. Therefore, it emphasizes communication, coaching, and organizational member empowerment. It not only emphasizes a results-oriented approach to goals, but also highlights the process of achieving them. In the past, in the process of setting and implementing performance management, most organizations would compare performance management with annual assessment. In general, this approach emphasizes negation rather than affirmation, hindering constructive dialogue between managers and employees. This leaves employees feeling depersonalized and demotivated, hampering their performance, and creating a headache for management and the personnel department. The modern performance management system, however, differs sharply in its approach. Consider who is affected by the collective performance of all employees: who are the biggest beneficiaries, the altruistic, or the self-interested? In fact, an altruistic point of view implies a sincere spirit of unselfishness that benefits others without expecting or requiring any repayment. Egoistic people, on the other hand, prioritize their own interests, behaving in ways that would benefit only them or groups they are closely associated with. Much relevant research analyzes individual behavior to understand why anyone would bear a cost for the benefit of others in the absence of a direct benefit to that individual (Dercole, Della Rossa, & Piccardi, 2019). Trivers (1971) believes that in order to find a balance appropriate to the local social and economic environment, each person will naturally behave in a manner that is self-beneficial. Evolutionary theory similarly postulates that altruistic behavior evolved for the return-benefits that it offers the performer (de Waal, 2008). Performance management emphasizes the consonance and harmony between organizational goals and individual goals, emphasizing the simultaneous growth of organizations and individuals to form a ＂win-win＂ situation. A comprehensive performance management strategy can simultaneously take into account the interests of a team and its individual members, to the benefit of all. Altruism and egoism are thus reciprocal. This ＂human-oriented＂ approach requires the participation of managers and employees in all aspects. Many companies, including well-known firms such as Google, GE, Netflix, Microsoft, and Goldman Sachs, have noted this dynamic and begun to gradually abandon the traditional management approach that relies on annual performance appraisal that is formal, quantitative, impersonal, and demotivating. They have shifted to more frequent and immediate feedback methods, so that performance management can function effectively. At the same time, those companies are slowly focusing on employees-the company's largest asset-through altruistic strategies such as nurturing talent and rewarding employees fairly. Therefore, the task of team performance management no longer presents a dilemma. Goals and strategies for organizational performance improvement instead take into account individual members, harmonizing self-interest and collective good, and creating a mutually reciprocal relationship that benefits both an organization and its individual members.

參考文獻

de Waal, F. B. M. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 279-300. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093625

Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35-57. doi:10.1086/406755

Dercole, F., Della Rossa, F., & Piccardi, C. (2019). Direct reciprocity and model-predictive rationality explain network reciprocity over social ties. Scientific Reports, 9, 5367.