한․미 육군장교의 근무평정시스템 비교 : 중소기업 인사평정에의 적용 시사점과 함께

People are an important source of organization and crucial to the business' ultimate success or failure. It is obvious when you look at the most representative organization, corporation, people conduct most of essential functions in the organization such as production, marketing, personnel management, accounting, and financing. It is also true in other types of organizations such as army and SMEs. Lately, approach to assessing performance appraisal of the general-level promotion in Korean army has been an issue and therefore, study for personnel appraisal system is needed. This study describes and compares the performance evaluation system in Korean army and U.S. army to address similarities and differences along with other issues and solutions that can be applied to performance appraisal system in SMEs to improve their performance evaluation system. Performance evaluation is one of the effective tools to manage officers in army which results in improved quality of life and increase morale at work. The Korean army performance evaluation requires different skill sets by expertise and rank such as commander, staff, instructor, and professor. The Korean army evaluation report comprised essentially five parts：part I. Profile, part II. performance record, part III. achievement and ability evaluation, part IV. temperament assessment, and part V. overall evaluation. Among those five parts, achievement and ability, temperament assessment, and overall evaluation hugely depend upon a rater. In the achievement and ability evaluation(part III), there are four different skill sets are required by expertise as described below：1. Report for commander is comprised of preparation for warfare, education and training, and management of a military unit and the others. 2. Report for staff is comprised of staff activity and duty accomplishment ability. 3. Report for instructor and professor is comprised of education activity and duty accomplishment ability. There are two raters in the achievement and ability evaluation. They assign grades on a absolute scale in letters, A through E, within subject area and leave any additional comments. In the temperament evaluation(part IV), there are two criteria, work temperament and work behavior. In overall evaluation(part V), first rater and second rater assign final grade in letters by reviewing the results from achievement and ability and temperament evaluation, and second rater is required to leave the overall feedback. The U.S. army is different from Korean army in terms of performance evaluation system. U.S. army starts their evaluation by assembling the rating chain and it is comprised of rated officer, rater, intermediate rater, and senior rater. There are three different officer evaluation support forms by rank, DA form 67-9-1, DA form 67-9-1a, and DA form 67-9, and they are for field grade including major and higher rank, company grade including second lieutenant, first lieutenant, captain, and warrant officer, and all ranks respectively. There are five parts in DA form 67-9-1 to be filled：part I. name, rank, and organization of rated officer, part II. name, rank, and position of rating chain, part III. comments from the face-to-face counseling and follow-up, part IV. duties and responsibilities, major performance objectives, and major contributions of rated officer, and part V. rater comments and intermediate rater comments. There are also five parts in DA form 67-9-1a：part I. instructions for initial face-to-face counseling, part II. seven army values, attributes, and skills as a leader, part III. development action plan, part IV. authentication to verify the contexts in parts II and III, and part V. developmental assessment record for achievement, in-progress area, and not demonstrated area. The form for all ranks, DA form 67-9, consists of seven parts：part I. administrative data including the name, rank, and branch, part II. authentication to verify that an officer has reviewed completed parts 1 through 7, part III. duty description, part IV. army values, professionalism and leadership doctrine that cab be answered yes and no by an evaluator and army physical fitness test APET, part V. performance and potential evaluation to evaluate the rated officer's performance by checking one of the boxes for outstanding, satisfactory, unsatisfactory and other, part VI. intermediate rater's comments, and part VII. grade by a senior rater by checking one of the boxes for above center of mass, center of mass, below center of mass-retain, and below center of mass-do not retain. There was no significant difference between criteria for the performance evaluation system of Korean army and U.S. army; however, there were some differences when it comes to the process. First of all, performance evaluation system of Korean army does not allow the rated officer access to the evaluation results. In addition, since rules for the performance evaluation system of Korean army have been changed frequently, it is relatively confusing than the system of U.S. army who has the consistent rules and outlines. Secondly, the performance evaluation system of U.S. army requires face-to-face counseling and therefore, raters could have enough time to review and think through the support form before the main performance evaluation process. Third, since a relatively small percentage of the rated officers in Korean army has a chance to get promoted to upper grades, there is a negative impact such as reducing service will. Fourth, U.S. army includes skills and other related knowledge as the personal development and special ability in their performance evaluation system, while Korean army somewhat limit the criteria for the personal development. From those differences, we can drive the following implications. First of all, Korean army needs to consider using the support forms like U.S. army does to limit evaluator's personal feelings in the evaluation process. Second, rated officer should be allowed to review the performance evaluation. It can lead to the two-way communication system between the rated officer and the rater for the fair performance evaluation eventually. Third, the upper grade rate should be increased at least three times more and as high as five times more. It should be noted that the performance evaluation is rather to encourage the rated officer than discourage them. Fourth, to avoid arbitrary decision during the evaluation process, more than two senior raters should be involved. In conclusion, there are at least four implications that can be applied to personnel management and personnel appraisal system of SMEs. First, to evaluate the employees fairly, middle manager should be involved in the process to advance the whole performance evaluation system to more on-site basis. Secondly, by allowing the employees to have an access to the evaluation results, employees can be motivated for better performance and higher productivity. Third of all, by providing a form for the career development, employees and employers can have effective and efficient communication tool to be used in the evaluation process. Lastly, by emphasizing the importance of education and training, the volunteer-based personal development should be encouraged in the performance evaluation system in the reengineered personnel appraisal system.