查人人中国名人网长治医学院是二本b吗:英语高手帮我翻译一下（英译汉）
来源：百度文库 编辑：查人人中国名人网 时间：2024/05/05 13:41:31
THE ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE CONSTRUCT
Organizational Performance in Other Fields
Organizational performance is probably the most widely used dependent variable in organizational research today yet at the same time it remains one of the most vague and loosely defined constructs. The struggle to establish a meaning for performance has been ongoing for many years, and is not limited to the field of strategic HRM. Over thirty years ago, Katz and Kahn dryly commented that, “The existence of the problem of developing satisfactory criteria of organizational performance is clear enough; its solution is much less obvious” (1966, p. 150). Even twenty years ago Scott lamented the state of measures of organizational effectiveness, concluding, “After reviewing a good deal of the literature on organizational effectiveness and its determinants, I have reached the conclusion that this topic is one about which we know less and less.” (1977,p. 63). More recently, Murphy, Trailer, and Hill, after reviewing measures of performance in entrepreneurial research, concluded that, “. . . the lack of construct validity for what we call performance is so clear that we as a field should consider discontinuing the use of the term in research” (1996,p. 21).
Within the strategy field, the focus of attention on the performance construct has been almost entirely on financial measures of performance (Rowe, Morrow, & Finch 1995). Conceptually, it has been viewed as the comparison of the value created by a firm with the value owners expected to receive from the firm (Alchian & Demsetz 1972； Barney 1997). Venkatraman and Ramanujam (1986) noted that a narrow definition of performance “. . . centers on the use of simple outcome-based financial indicators that are assumed to reflect the fulfillment of the economic goals of the firm,” (1986, p. 803). They argued that the narrow performance construct of “financial performance” had dominated the strategic management literature, and proposed a broader performance construct of “business performance” that would include both financial and operational (new products, product quality, market share) indicators. In addition, they proposed a construct of “organizational effectiveness” which would consist of business performance plus account for the accomplishment of the super ordinate goals held by multiple stakeholders.
Organizational Performance in Other Fields
Organizational performance is probably the most widely used dependent variable in organizational research today yet at the same time it remains one of the most vague and loosely defined constructs. The struggle to establish a meaning for performance has been ongoing for many years, and is not limited to the field of strategic HRM. Over thirty years ago, Katz and Kahn dryly commented that, “The existence of the problem of developing satisfactory criteria of organizational performance is clear enough; its solution is much less obvious” (1966, p. 150). Even twenty years ago Scott lamented the state of measures of organizational effectiveness, concluding, “After reviewing a good deal of the literature on organizational effectiveness and its determinants, I have reached the conclusion that this topic is one about which we know less and less.” (1977,p. 63). More recently, Murphy, Trailer, and Hill, after reviewing measures of performance in entrepreneurial research, concluded that, “. . . the lack of construct validity for what we call performance is so clear that we as a field should consider discontinuing the use of the term in research” (1996,p. 21).
Within the strategy field, the focus of attention on the performance construct has been almost entirely on financial measures of performance (Rowe, Morrow, & Finch 1995). Conceptually, it has been viewed as the comparison of the value created by a firm with the value owners expected to receive from the firm (Alchian & Demsetz 1972； Barney 1997). Venkatraman and Ramanujam (1986) noted that a narrow definition of performance “. . . centers on the use of simple outcome-based financial indicators that are assumed to reflect the fulfillment of the economic goals of the firm,” (1986, p. 803). They argued that the narrow performance construct of “financial performance” had dominated the strategic management literature, and proposed a broader performance construct of “business performance” that would include both financial and operational (new products, product quality, market share) indicators. In addition, they proposed a construct of “organizational effectiveness” which would consist of business performance plus account for the accomplishment of the super ordinate goals held by multiple stakeholders.
组织表现修建
组织表现在其他领域
组织表现今天大概是最用途广泛的因变量在组织研究，它同时依然是其中一最隐晦和宽松地被定义的修建。 建立一个意思的奋斗为表现是持续的许多年和没有被限制到战略HRM的领域。 在三十年期间前， Katz和Kahn干燥地评论了那， “开发组织表现令人满意的标准的问题的存在足够确切; 它的解答是较不显然的” (1966年， p. 150)。 二十年前斯科特在组织有效率哀叹组织有效率措施状态，结束， “在回顾很多文学以后，并且它的定列式，我得出了结论这个题目是我们越来越少知道的一个”。 (1977年， p. 63)。 最近，墨菲、拖车和小山，在回顾表现措施以后在企业研究，认为， “…缺乏修建有效性为什么我们称表现很清楚我们，当领域在研究应该考虑中断对期限的用途” (1996年， p. 21)。
在战略领域之内，注意焦点在表现修建几乎整个地在表现(Rowe，次日， &雀科财政措施1995)。 概念上，它被观看了，企业创造的价值的比较与价值所有者准备从企业接受(Alchian & Demsetz 1972年; 巴尔尼1997)。 venkatraman和Ramanujam (1986)注意到，表现的一个狭窄的定义“…在假设反射企业的经济目标履行对简单的基于结果的财政显示的用途围绕”， (1986年， p. 803)。 他们争辩说， “财政表现”狭窄的表现修建控制了战略管理文学，并且提出了将包括财政和操作的“业绩”的更加宽广的表现修建(新产品、产品质量，市场份额)显示。 另外，他们提出了将包括业绩加上帐户为广泛赌金保管人举行的超级弹道高度目标成就“组织有效率”的修建。