广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版) ›› 2023, Vol. 59 ›› Issue (1): 98-108.doi: 10.16088/j.issn.1001-6597.2023.01.009

• 治理效能 • 上一篇    下一篇

重思协作关系中的个体绩效与集体绩效——兼论实现社会公平的管理路径

张乾友   

  1. 南京大学 政府管理学院,江苏 南京 210023
  • 收稿日期:2021-12-10 出版日期:2023-01-15 发布日期:2023-03-24
  • 作者简介:张乾友(1986-),男,南京大学政府管理学院教授,博士生导师,研究方向:政治哲学与公共行政理论。
  • 基金资助:
    教育部哲学社会科学研究后期资助项目“公共行政的社会理论研究”(21JHQ070);南京大学文科青年跨学科团队专项“国家治理与国际治理的工具体系和话语体系研究”(011714370122)

Rethinking Individual Performance and Collective Performance in Collaborations —On the Management Path to Achieve Social Equality

ZHANG Qian-you   

  1. School of Government, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, China
  • Received:2021-12-10 Online:2023-01-15 Published:2023-03-24

摘要: 在现代社会中,大量的生产任务都是由人们协作完成的。有了协作就有了个体绩效与集体绩效,基于绩效认定的资源分配不仅会对组织,也会对社会层面的公平产生影响。传统绩效认定以测量为基础,集体绩效则被视为所有可测量个体绩效的加总。由于忽视了协作关系中的不可测量之物,这种方式实际造成了组织内外的分配不公。要促进绩效认定与资源分配的公平,我们需要区分不同协作关系。其中,非专业性的协作关系可以被视为一种投资关系,每种协作关系都对应着一个协作效率,使个体绩效与集体绩效都能得到准确计算。专业性的协作关系中存在个体绩效与集体绩效的断裂,即集体绩效不能被视为个体绩效的加总。在这种关系中,我们可以把可测量个体绩效的加总视为集体绩效的一半,并把不可测量绩效视为所有协作者的共同贡献,由此计算所有协作者的个体绩效。这将使以绩效为基础的组织分配更加公平,也将使社会层面的公平正义得到促进。

关键词: 分工—协作, 个体绩效, 集体绩效, 公平分配

Abstract: In modern society, a large number of production tasks are completed by people with collaboration. With collaboration, there will be individual performance and collective performance, and resource allocation based on performance identification will not only affect the organization, but also affect the fairness of society. Traditional performance recognition is based on measurement, while collective performance is regarded as the sum of all measurable individual performance. Due to the neglect of the immeasurable things in the cooperative relationship, this way actually leads to the unfair distribution inside and outside the organization. To promote the fairness of performance recognition and resource allocation, we need to distinguish different collaborative relationships. Among them, non-professional collaboration can be regarded as an investment relationship, and each collaboration relationship corresponds to a collaboration efficiency, so that individual performance and collective performance can be accurately calculated. There is a break between individual performance and collective performance in professional collaboration, that is, collective performance cannot be regarded as the sum of individual performance. In this relationship, we can consider the sum of measurable individual performance as half of the collective performance, and the unmeasurable performance as the common contribution of all collaborators, so as to calculate the individual performance of all collaborators. This will make the performance-based organization distribution more equitable, and will also promote fairness and justice at the social level.

Key words: division of labor and collaboration, individual performance, collective performance, fair distribution

中图分类号: 

  • C93-0
[1] 张乾友.绩效合法性与行政哲学的可能性[J].公共管理与政策评论,2019(2):3-13.
[2] Alchian A A, Demsetz H. Production, information costs, and economic organization[J]. The American Economic Review, 1972, 62(5): 777-795.
[3] Raz J. The morality of freedom[M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.
[4] Guest D E. Is the psychological contract worth taking seriously? [J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 1998, 19(S1): 649-664.
[5] Fama E F, Jensen M C. Agency problems and residual claims[J]. The Journal of Law and Economics, 1983, 26(2): 327-349.
[6] Holmstrom B. Moral hazard in teams[J]. The Bell Journal of Economics, 1982, 13(2): 324-340.
[7] 王学军.公共价值认同何以影响绩效:理论框架与研究议程[J].行政论坛,2019(2):95-102.
[8] Anderson J. Illusions of accountability: credit and blame sensemaking in public administration[J]. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 2009, 31(3): 322-339.
[9] Chang R. The possibility of parity[J]. Ethics, 2002, 112(4): 659-688.
[10] Einav L, Yariv L. What's in a surname? The effects of surname initials on academic success[J]. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2006, 20(1): 175-187.
[11] Levitt J M, Thelwall M. Alphabetization and the skewing of first authorship towards last names early in the alphabet[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2013, 7(3): 575-582.
[1] 褚添有. 社会治理机制:概念界说及其框架构想[J]. 广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2017, 53(2): 42-45.
[2] 李翔宇,刘茜雯. 马钢宪法探析[J]. 广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2015, 51(5): 185-195.
[3] 岳雪莲,李昌. 新型城镇化下西部城市流动人口公共服务供给问题探析[J]. 广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2015, 51(5): 196-200.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 温锁林. 汉语中的非量化名词[J]. 广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2018, 54(3): 67 -75 .
[2] 黄启兵. 中国近代教育主权问题的流变[J]. 广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2018, 54(3): 109 -114 .
[3] 张玥, 王运来. 抗战时期大学发展的四大危机及应对——基于校长治校的视角[J]. 广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2018, 54(3): 115 -119 .
[4] 王天根. 大数据时代的珍稀史料考释及史学价值所在——大英图书馆藏 “发信件簿”数据化处理及其反映清帝国通讯之侧影[J]. 广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2018, 54(1): 1 -11 .
[5] 赫曦滢. 马克思主义空间理论语境中的当代城市权利研究[J]. 广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2018, 54(2): 31 -36 .
[6] 熊素玲. 论经济新常态下高校创新人才培养[J]. 广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2018, 54(3): 126 -130 .
[7] 谢芳. 自然之生与宽之于公:王船山自由经济思想侧论[J]. 广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2017, 53(6): 31 -37 .
[8] 钟瑞添, 李旭华. 论马克思主义的现实价值[J]. 广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2017, 53(6): 1 -11 .
[9] 刘铁群. 文学研究与公共视野——从新西南剧展看文学研究介入现实的可能及意义[J]. 广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2017, 53(6): 78 -81 .
[10] 郭远, 郭坦. 传统孝文化的实现模式探析[J]. 广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2017, 53(6): 25 -30 .
版权所有 © 广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)编辑部
地址:广西桂林市三里店育才路15号 邮编:541004
电话:0773-5857325 E-mail: xbgj@mailbox.gxnu.edu.cn
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发