不同层面的忠诚度【外文翻译】 .doc

本科毕业论文（设计）外 文 翻 译原文：The different dimensions of loyalty The first problem in studying loyalty in human organizations is that there seems to be no generally accepted definition of this concept. Often, loyalty is taken to mean remaining in an organization for a long time. But some studies have shown how it can have many different dimensions. Cole (2000), for instance, interviewed David L. Sturn, President of the Loyalty Institute, an arm of Chicago-based Aon Consulting, about a study undertaken by that organization interviewing the employees of more that 200 of its corporate clients. According to that study, what characterizes a “committed” employee is that (1) he is a team player; (2) willing to make sacrifices for the good of the company; (3) believes in the companys products; (4) will recommend the company as among the best places to work, and (5) is prepared to stay in the company for the next several years, even if offered a modest pay increase elsewhere (Cole, 2000).Obviously, the first four characteristics of a committed employee go well beyond the fifth one, which is the only one related with remaining in the organization; and, still qualifying the fact of remaining in the organization by rejecting a change with a “modest” pay increase elsewhere.Employees are the basic ingredients, their enthusiasm on behalf of corporate morale, awareness of their work reflected in the subtle strength of the enterprise. Employee loyalty will greatly stimulate their initiative and creativity. So that potential employees into full play. Loyalty is the efficiency, increase employee loyalty and increase customer satisfaction there is promotion. Business per employee increased loyalty, competitive strength will have been improved.In the modern economy, employees will be judged according to their own personal development continue to find their own space, the flow of talent to be a common phenomenon. Enterprises as always in the dynamic development of economic organizations, employees and business contract between the text. Does not guarantee a stable relationship between employees and enterprises. To maintain this long-term stable relationship, and in good faith reliance on the need to build the employment relationship, nurture and increase employee loyalty. Powers (2000) offers an interesting set of indicators of loyalty: Remaining with the company; not leaving, not job hunting Staying late to complete a project Keeping the companys business confidential; no whistle-blowing Promoting the company to customers and community Adhering to rules without close supervision Sacrificing personal goals to achieve companys goals No gossiping, lying, cheating or stealing Buying companys products Contribution to company-sponsored charities Offering improvement suggestions Participating in companys extracurricular activities Following orders Taking care of company property and not being wasteful Working safely Not abusing leave policies; including sick leave Helping coworkers; cooperating Again, remaining with the company is a symptom of loyalty, but only a symptom. And a symptom is an indication, a noisy signal. A headache may be a symptom of a malignant brain tumor or a symptom of poor eyesight. The remaining indicators are also noisy signals, which go along with the basic intuitive concept of loyalty. In summary, both in the Cole and Powers articles, the basic idea is that an employee is committed, or loyal, to an organization when he holds two kinds of beliefs: (1) believes that what the organization is doing “is worth the while”, i.e., feels that the products of the company are really solving some type of human need; and (2) feels that the people he works with (superiors, subordinates, or at the same level) are people he can work with, and, therefore, is willing to cooperate with them, is willing to have initiatives, and be a team player. It is interesting to point out though, that in these analyses, loyalty and commitment are viewed as very positive for the organization and (possibly) for the individual. On the opposite side, some researchers have noticed some negative characteristics of loyalty and commitment. Randall (1987), for instance, signals as disadvantages of a strong commitment to an organization: (a) for the individual, that it may stymie individual growth and limit opportunities for mobility, as well as stifle creativity and innovation, and (b) for the organization, that it may blindly devote the individuals to their employers, and therefore perhaps waste their time and talents in jobs they dont like, making it a situation that is unprofitable both for the individual and for the organization. Essentially then, the unfavorable consequences of loyalty are reduced to the possible loss of efficiency that is obtained if an individual is used where he shouldnt be, which harms both the individual and the organization, but much more the former than the latter, and has to do with a misallocation of resources that is rather an error in judgement than a mistake arising from loyalty itself. Improve related incentives. Incentives for employees means recognition of the work of employees, whether an enterprise to meet the core needs of employees largely determines the respect and recognition of the core staff of the enterprise and work attitudes. First, material incentives, improve pay and benefits system of enterprises and the establishment of an effective performance appraisal system, so that pay and reward key employees as much as possible match; second spiritual motivation for the core employees is more important incentive in this regard , enterprises should fully express the respect and trust of key employees, such as regular communication with key employees, interest in and solve their problems, give them challenging work distribution and give the appropriate permissions and so on.The premise of the Herzberg et al. (1959) theory, known as the Two-Factor Theory of Motivation, was that managers could use factors known asmotivators to encourage employees to gain satisfaction and, subsequently, better performance in the workplace. Similarly, managers could try to minimize those factors that increase job dissatisfaction, 'hygiene factors' or ' hygienes ' for short. Maximizing the motivators associated with their jobs could enhance employees job satisfaction. On the other hand, if employees believe that factors associated with hygienes drop below acceptable levels, job dissatisfaction grows. An interesting point of the theory is that lack of satisfaction does not equate to dissatisfaction. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction are on two separate continua. This means that when employees do not perceive satisfaction among the motivators, they also may not perceive dissatisfaction among the hygienes. Employees may well be in a state of limbo, where they are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. This is an unproductive state for both employees and organizations, as it does not fuel growth, creativity or innovation. Therefore, there is entity value for organizational leaders and managers to recognize those aspects of the jobs within their purview that can promote satisfaction among employees and optimize them. According to Herzberg (1966), the factors associated with work considered to be motivators include: achievement; recognition; tasks (the work itself); responsibility; advancement; and personal growth. The factors associated with work considered to be hygienes include: policies and administration; supervision/managerial relationships; salary; working conditions; status; security; and coworker relationships. Other motivation theories have been studied extensively in the business literature, but they do not break down the components of motivation as specifically as the Two-Factor Theory and consequently do not allow for such detailed analysis. For example, Maslows Theory of Needs (1954) states that individuals reach higher level needs such as self-esteem and self-actualization only after lower level needs such as belongingness and safety needs have been met. While useful in other contexts, this theory is not geared towards job-related motivation. Alderfers ERG Theory (1972) states that people have three core needs: existence; that people have three core needs: existence; relatedness; and growth. This scheme does not include the rigid hierarchy of Maslow, indicating that employees may experience needs concurrently. But its broad categories lead to a generalized evaluation of motivation. McClellands Needs Theory (1961) also acknowledges three sets of needs: achievement; power; and affiliation. His research suggests that achievement needs, and to a esser degree, power and affiliation needs, are related to job performance, thus linking employee motivation with job outcomes. While beneficial at an individual level, the Needs Theory does not focus on the dynamics of group-level motivation. Adams Equity Theory (1965) explains that employees will strive for equitable situations when comparing themselves to coworkers as they consider inputs to a job, level of effort expended and job outcomes. However, Equity Theory does not expound upon the actual motivators that cause individuals to act the way that they do in the workplace. Thus, Herzbergs (1966) theory is best suited to this study because it contains many categories for analysis which allow for cultural evaluation, it is tailored to theworkplace, and it considers both individual and group level motivation. Herzbergs work (1966) is considered a major advancement in the literature. Befittingly , it has also been used recently by researchers in the study of job satisfaction (Brislin, MacNab, Worthley, Kabigting and Zukis 2005; DeShields, Kara and Kaynak 2005) with support for the theory. Herzbergs work has been employed to evaluate travellers satisfaction (Crompton 2003) and student satisfaction (Chyung and Vachon 2005), illustrating its applicability to a variety of settings. Yet all tests of the theory have not been confirmatory. Park (1988) and Al-Mekhlafie (1991) found partial support for the motivator-hygiene dichotomy with samples from Korea and Yemen, while Williams (1992) and Timmreck (2001) found mixed results using US samples. In an evaluation of Herzberg et al. (1959) of the Thai construction industry,Ruthankoon and Ogunlana (2003) found partial support for the theory. They attribute differences in the literature to the varying occupations and variety of workplaces included in the research. Despite these mixed theory results, motivation has been often associated with job satisfaction. Those employees who express satisfaction with their jobs often are motivated in their jobs (Thierry 1998). Tietjen and Myers (1998) also linked motivation and job satisfaction using the Herzberg (1966) framework. They concluded that once managers understood what motivated employees, managers could focus on the appropriate strategies to create job satisfaction among those workers. These varying results set the stage for additional research to occur with a new emphasis, i.e. the role of culture.Interestingly, the hospitality industry has been the focus of many job satisfaction studies. In a study of over 4,000 hotel workers, Barsky and Nash (2004) found that employee satisfaction on the job was driven by the emotions of the employees and their beliefs about their company. Aksu and Aktas (2005) studied job satisfaction among Turkish managers in first-class hotels. They discovered that despite long hours, low salaries and little colleague support (all hygienes), the managers were generally satisfied with their jobs due to the nature of the work itself and the authority (motivators) that came from managing a first-class facility. In a study of employee job satisfaction among Taiwanese hotel workers, Hwang and Chi (2005) found that internal marketing, or treating employees as customers, was positively related to job satisfaction and job satisfaction was positively related to organizational performance. Sizoo, Plank, Iskat and Serrie (2005) determined that among hotel workers at four-star hotels in Florida, employees with higher intercultural sensitivity expressed higher levels of job satisfaction and social satisfaction. This finding indicates that culture may influence employee perception of job satisfaction.Although a great deal of research has been completed in the area of job satisfaction, an examination of South American businesses remains a topic of value considering the continents rapidly increasing economic and development status. Recent scholarship has been promising. Ritter and Anker (2002) found workplace safety and job security issues were important to Brazilians, while Spector, Cooper, Poelmans and Allen (2004) found that Latin Americans in general had high job satisfaction. Barreto (2005) found that hotel guest satisfaction in Bahia, Brazil increased when employee satisfaction programmes were implemented. Though interesting, these studies did not comprehensively address all of Herzbergs (1966) factors and they did not fully consider the role of culture in the workplace.Source: Josep M. Rosanas and Manuel Velilla. Loyalty and Trust as the Ethical Bases of Organizations.DJournal of Business Ethics , 2003(1): 2944.译文： 不同层面的忠诚度在研究人类组织中的忠诚度的论题时，我们第一个面临的问题是人们对于忠诚还没有一个广泛接受的定义。通常，忠诚是指采取在组织剩余时间长。但一些研究也显示，它可以有许多不同的层面。科尔（2000年），例如，该访谈采访了更多的企业客户，其200名员工组织开展的一项研究与David L.斯特恩总裁的忠诚研究所，一个总部位于芝加哥的怡安咨询机构。根据这项研究，忠诚员工有如下特征：（1）他是一个团队合作精神;（2）愿意为公司的良好牺牲;（3）对公司产品的信念;（4）将建议作为其中最好的地方工作的公司，及（5）愿意留在公司未来数年，即使提供了一个温和的加薪别处（科尔，2000年）。  显然，前四个致力于员工的特点远远超出了第五个，这是唯一一个与该组织其他有关;并断然拒绝了排位赛还是用“温和”支付改变组织中的其余事实增加其他地方。员工是企业的基本成分，他们的热情代表企业的士气，他们的工作自觉性于潜移默化中体现企业的实力。员工忠诚将大大激发员工的主观能动性和创造力使员工潜在能力得到充分发挥。忠诚是效率，员工的忠诚度提高与客户满意度的提高存在着促进的作用。企业每名员工的忠诚度提高了，企业竞争实力也就得到了提升。在现代经济发展中，员工会根据自身的个人的判断不断寻找适合自己发展的空间，人才流动成为一个普遍现象。企业作为经济组织始终处于动态发展中，员工与企业之间的文字契约。并不能保证员工与企业之间稳定关系。要想维持这种长期稳定关系，就需要构建依赖和真诚的雇佣关系，培育并提高员工的忠诚度。权力（2000年）提供了一个有趣的忠诚度指标设置： - 继续呆在公司不走了，不找工作- 为了完成项目而加班加点- 保持公司的商业机密- 推进公司向客户和社会- 坚持不严密监督规则- 牺牲个人的目标，以实现公司的目标- 不说人家闲话，撒谎，欺骗或偷窃- 购买公司的产品- 促进公司赞助的慈善机构- 提供改进建议- 参与公司的课外活动- 服从命令- 以公司财产的关心和不被浪费- 工作安全- 不滥用给政策;包括病假- 帮助同事;合作再次，该公司余下的则是一个忠诚的症状，但只有一种症状。而一个症状是一种预示，嘈杂的信号。头痛可能是一个恶性脑肿瘤的症状或视力不佳的症状。其余指标也有噪声的信号，它走的基本概念以及直观的忠诚。总之，在科尔与权力的条款的，基本的想法是，一个员工对公司的忠诚，对一个组织时，他认为二种信念：（1）认为，该组织正在做什么“是值得的“，即认为该公司的产品是真正解决某种类型的人的需要;（2）认为，他的作品与他人（上司，下属或同级）符合，他能一起工作，和因此，愿意与他们合作，愿与有举措，是一个团队球员。有趣的是，虽然指出，在这些分析，忠诚和承诺是非常积极态度，对组织和（可能）对个人观看。在另一方面，些研究者已经注意到的忠诚和承诺的一些负面特征。兰德尔（1987），例如，作为一个坚定的承诺到组织的缺点信号：为个人的，它可能会妨碍个人的成长和流动性限制的机会，以及扼杀创造力和创新，以及为组织，它可能盲目地投入到他们的雇主的个人，因此可能浪费自己的时间和工作，他们不喜欢的人才，使其成为一个无利可图的情况是无论是对个人和组织。从本质上讲然后，忠实的不利后果减少到可能的效率损失，如果一个人得到使用，他不应该的，这既损害了个人和组织，但比后者的是前者，必须做的资源配置不当，而这是判断一个比一个忠诚本身所产生的错误，从错误。完善相关的激励机制。对员工的激励也就意味着对员工工作的肯定，企业是否满足核心员工的尊重与认可需要很大程度上决定了核心员工对企业与工作的态度。首先物质上的激励，完善企业的薪酬