Hi Roxanne
> Please help!
Since no one else seems to want to debate your points (except for Ben C,
and he's jumping ship) I'll give it a shot.
> --ranking implies that there is a valid means to measure relative
>performance of employees in vastly different jobs.
Maybe it gives it a patina of "validity," but IMHO, regardless of whether
or not there is some sort of "systematic" ranking system, people and
organisations do make such value judgements all the time, very often in a
valuable ways and with productive results.
> - -forced distribution implies that there is validity and utility
> in assigning a predetermined percentage of employees to various
> performance categories.
Maybe I'm a Neanderthal, but do I think that people do have differing
abilities. And I think that different organisations have requirements for
people with different abilities. I would hope that my plumber hires
people who know how to plumb, and my lawyer hires people who know how to
litigate. I'd be very irked if my plumber sent me a lawyer to fix my
leaking toilet. So, in any organisation, there are desired people
qualities which exist, and can be measured. Also, for organisations which
plan for periodic attrition (e.g. investment banks, consulting firms,
etc.) forcing distributions (even on populations which by most standards
are extremely competent) is an essential utility.
> - -ranking and forced distribution are mathematical techniques
> applied to quantifiable measures which simply dont exist for most
> kinds of employee performance.
Even if you don't use "mathematical" techniques, any organisation that
wants to succeed had better know something about the absolute and relative
performance and potential of its most valuable resources. Shouldn't they?
> - -ranking diverts employees focus from customer satisfaction.
Not if one of the main criteria on which employees are ranked is their
contribution to customer satisfaction. This is exactly what some
companies (e.g. Sears) are doing. Viz. the latest HBR (Jan-Feb 1998, pp.
82-97).
>- -ranking diverts managements focus from systems performance and
> company results.
I, for one, would much rather "managements" be concerned with the
performance and potential of its people, than with such vague concepts as
"systems performance" and "company results."
> - -ranking pits employee against employee, damages relationships
> and may encourage attempts to brown-nose or defame or even
> sabotage other employees.
These sorts of antisocial behavior are purely humna, and can and do exist
quite happily in all organisations, regardless of whether or not they
"rank" employees.
> - -ranking causes management to see employees on a continuum from
>good to bad instead of recognizing the unique gifts and skills of
>each individual and seeking how best to best use each persons >
>talents.
The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Rank ordering employees
doesn't mean that you don't recognise the unique skills and talents that
each individual has. It only means that the organisation recognises that
some employees are more valuable than others, in relation to its purpose,
vision, competetive environment and strategies.
This is what I think, anyway.
Cheers for now
Richard Goodale
Managing Partner
The Dornoch Partnership
"Discovery, Creativity, Leadership"
PS--A long, long time ago, I actually spent 2 years running a small
part of what must have been one of the world's first and largest
"company-wide employee ranking" systems. (The US Army's Officer
Personnel Department's system for selecting field grade officers
(e.g. Major and above) for promotion, advanced training and command
assignments). I spent a fair amount of that time specifically
dealing with the issue of forced distribution of "employee" ratings.
It was not perfect, but it worked.
R
--Richard Goodale <fc45@dial.pipex.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>