????不論你的公司叫它360度反饋、多渠道反饋,，還是眾包績(jī)效評(píng)估,，你都可能被要求填寫(xiě)一個(gè)表格，表?yè)P(yáng)或者嘲弄你的同事和上司（也包括下屬）,。這種做法源自二戰(zhàn)期間的德國(guó)軍隊(duì),，流行于上世紀(jì)90年代的美國(guó),。而隨著科技的發(fā)展，在線調(diào)查問(wèn)卷淘汰了繁重的書(shū)面工作,，這種方式也變得越來(lái)越容易操作。

????2012年的一本暢銷(xiāo)書(shū)《眾包的績(jī)效評(píng)估：如何利用社會(huì)認(rèn)同的力量提高員工績(jī)效》（The Crowdsourced Performance Review: How to Use the Power of Social Recognition to Transform Employee Performance）則對(duì)這種方式的流行起到了推波助瀾的作用,。這本書(shū)的作者埃里克?莫斯利是人力資源咨詢(xún)公司Globoforce的CEO,，公司客戶(hù)包括金融軟件公司Intuit、安進(jìn)公司（Amgen）,、畢馬威會(huì)計(jì)事務(wù)所（KPMG）和寶潔（Procter & Gamble）等,。去年，莫斯利在《哈佛商業(yè)評(píng)論》（Harvard Business Review ）上發(fā)表了一篇極具影響力的博客文章,，大談360度反饋的好處,。他重點(diǎn)談了“群眾的智慧”，聲稱(chēng)“認(rèn)可是員工自然而然擁有的東西——他們希望認(rèn)可同僚出色的工作”,，他們是“及時(shí)的,、重要的見(jiàn)解”的源泉。

????或許如此吧,。據(jù)專(zhuān)家估計(jì),，美國(guó)三分之一到二分之一的公司目前都在使用某種形式的眾包績(jī)效評(píng)估——然而多年以來(lái)，大量研究一直在質(zhì)疑讓員工彼此評(píng)估是否公平,、準(zhǔn)確,、有效。

????例如,，有一項(xiàng)研究列出了眾包績(jī)效評(píng)估不可靠的四個(gè)主要理由,。其中一條是人們“更關(guān)心完成任務(wù)能夠獲得的獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)，而不是評(píng)估的實(shí)際內(nèi)容,?！睋Q句話說(shuō)，拿到這些360度評(píng)估表的時(shí)候,，大多數(shù)員工只是想趕快完成這個(gè)任務(wù),。但眾包績(jī)效評(píng)估最大的問(wèn)題在于，一旦遇到員工起訴公司的情況,，從法律層面來(lái)看,，這種做法會(huì)讓事情變得更加撲朔迷離。

????勞動(dòng)仲裁律師事務(wù)所Fisher & Phillips的律師奈舍巴?吉特靈說(shuō)：“員工的績(jī)效評(píng)估是雇主應(yīng)對(duì)歧視索賠的第一道防線,?！比绻菊J(rèn)為自己進(jìn)行解雇、降職或發(fā)放低于平均水平的獎(jiǎng)金有合法的,、非歧視性的理由,，詳細(xì)的績(jī)效評(píng)估資料可以為它的觀點(diǎn)提供支持,。

????相反，吉特靈說(shuō)：“同事之間的評(píng)估,，尤其是在社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境下,，可能會(huì)歪曲事實(shí)?！笔紫?，員工無(wú)法像上司一樣，對(duì)同事的職責(zé),、績(jī)效目標(biāo)或是否成功實(shí)現(xiàn)目標(biāo)等有著清晰的認(rèn)識(shí),。人們?nèi)狈ψ銐虻男畔?zhǔn)確判斷同事的工作，因此,，吉特靈認(rèn)為,，他們會(huì)將評(píng)估變成“一次人氣競(jìng)賽。對(duì)于不喜歡的同事,，他們可能會(huì)給出差評(píng),，而對(duì)于喜歡的同事，他們可能會(huì)給出夸大的分?jǐn)?shù),?！?/p>

????2010年一起有關(guān)性別歧視的集體訴訟案，也就是陳?奧斯特訴高盛（Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs）一案讓這個(gè)問(wèn)題得到了廣泛關(guān)注,。原告稱(chēng)高盛的眾包評(píng)估制度“允許令人難以接受的主觀性與偏見(jiàn)”,，稱(chēng)這種做法使得男性屢次選擇他們的朋友進(jìn)入績(jī)效評(píng)估排名的前列（可以獲得豐厚的獎(jiǎng)金），從而把女性排除在外,。

????吉特靈認(rèn)為,，眾包績(jī)效評(píng)估的吸引力很大程度上源于“管理者不喜歡進(jìn)行績(jī)效評(píng)估。他們太忙,，而且害怕傳達(dá)壞消息,。”但她補(bǔ)充說(shuō)把任務(wù)下放給員工會(huì)“增加公司的法律責(zé)任,。收集員工的反饋是可以的——只是公必須有明確的文件記錄,，表明公司采取的任何措施依據(jù)都是管理者的評(píng)估?！比绻闶且幻芾碚?，那么對(duì)下屬工作的評(píng)價(jià)只能以你的評(píng)估為準(zhǔn)。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：劉進(jìn)龍/汪皓???

????Whether your company calls it 360-degree feedback, multi-source feedback, or crowdsourced performance reviews, chances are you've been required to fill out a form designed to let you praise or pillory your peers and the people above you (as well as your subordinates, if you have any). The practice, which originated with the German military during World War II, spread through American companies in the 1990s. It's since been made easier by technology, with online questionnaires cutting out the cumbersome paperwork that used to be involved.

????A 2012 bestseller, The Crowdsourced Performance Review: How to Use the Power of Social Recognition to Transform Employee Performance, added fuel to the fire. Author Eric Mosley is CEO of human resources consulting firm Globoforce, which counts Intuit (INTU), Amgen (AMGN), KPMG, and Procter & Gamble (PG) among its many big clients.

????Extolling the virtues of 360-degree feedback in an influential Harvard Business Review blog post last year, Mosley pointed to the "wisdom of crowds" and declared, "Recognition is something that comes naturally to employees -- they want to recognize their peers for great work" and are a font of "timely, measurable insights."

????Maybe so. Experts estimate that between one-third and one-half of U.S. companies now use some form of crowdsourced performance appraisals -- despite reams of research over the years that cast serious doubt on whether letting employees rate each other is fair, accurate, or useful.

????One study, for instance, noted four primary reasons why crowdsourced reviews tend to be unreliable. One of them was that people "care more about the rewards associated with finishing the task than the actual content of the evaluation itself." In other words, faced with one of those 360-degree forms to fill out, most employees just want to get it over with.

????The biggest problem with crowdsourcing performance appraisals, however, is that the practice can muddy the legal waters if an employee sues the company.

????"Employees' performance reviews are an employer's first line of defense against discrimination claims," says Nesheba Kittling, an attorney at labor law firm Fisher & Phillips. Detailed documentation of job performance "provides support for an employer's contention that it had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons" for, say, a firing, a demotion, or a smaller-than-average bonus payout.

????By contrast, Kittling says, "Peer-to-peer reviews, especially in a social networking environment, will likely distort the truth." For one thing, employees often don't have as clear an understanding of other people's duties, their performance goals, or their success at meeting those goals as bosses have. Lacking enough information to judge colleagues' work accurately, people tend to turn evaluations into "a popularity contest," Kittling says. "They may be giving bad reviews to coworkers they don't like, and inflating the 'grades' of those they do."

????The issue came up in a widely-publicized 2010 sex discrimination class-action suit, Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs. The complaint alleged Goldman's (GS) crowdsourced review system "permitted unacceptable levels of subjectivity and bias," which the plaintiffs said led to men repeatedly voting their friends into the top quartile of performance -- where the juiciest bonuses go -- and shutting women out.

????Kittling believes much of crowdsourcing's appeal arises from the fact that "managers don't like giving performance reviews. They're too busy, and they dread delivering bad news."

????But handing the task off to employees' peers "just increases companies' legal liability," she adds. "It's okay to solicit some feedback from coworkers -- as long as there is a clear paper trail showing that any action the company takes is based on a supervisor's assessment alone." If you're a manager, your appraisal of your subordinates' work still has to be the only one that counts.