Richard,
What a beautiful post! The bottom line, to me: Are you able of to do what
we need done to survive? If you can, great, go do it. Otherwise, how
willing are you to learn? How fast can you learn? The answer to these
questions, I think, will determine an employees value.
Richard wrote:
"You don't go much into the issue of the "6-sigma"s on the other end of
the distribution, but I suspect that many who have participated in this
thread inherently dislike the concept of identifying and nurturing "star"
performers as much as they dislike the identification of those who cannot
hack it. However, IMHO, this part of any "ranking" "system" is its most
critical function. Perhaps some readers can convince me otherwise, but my
reading of corporate (and other) organisational history is that great
organisations are built on the vision and capabilties of some discrete but
very small number of great people. In many, if not most, of these cases,
that vision and those capabilities included an ability and desire to
engage other people and nurture and expand their capabilities. Often,
that is what makes those people "great."
Regardless, if you ignore that there are "order of magnitude" higher
performers in any distribution of people (as did one of the posters to
this thread who seemed to disregard Bill Gates' observation that there
are, IN FACT, programmers who are 100X more effective than the "norm."),
you do so at your and your organisation's peril. It's what differs the
Citibanks from the Barclays of the world."
Beautiful. Absolutely beautiful.
-- Benjamin Compton DWS Computer Consultants "The GroupWise Integration Experts" E-Mail: bcompton@emailsolutions.com http://www.emailsolutions.comLearning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>