Employee Ranking Systems LO16819

Ben Compton (BCompton@dws.net)
Tue, 03 Feb 1998 11:06:39 -0500

Replying to LO16779 --

Roxanne,

You cut to the heart of the matter when you say,

"I've been waiting for you to suggest that ranking is another example of
Square Wheels. Yes, they work, but they also create a very uncomfortable
ride for everyone on the wagon."

The desire to make everyone involved "comfortable" seems to be the implied
motivation for not ranking employees. As I read this message my mind
flashed back to my college days (I did attend college, I just dropped out
after my second year). I was sitting in my economics class exploring the
implications of what the professor was saying. He was lecturing on the
redistribution of wealth. As he spoke I wrote the following poem:

The weight pressed down upon the people,
And the people cheered:
All suffering will be gone!
All suffering will be gone!

And the weight pressed down more upon the people,
And the people cheered:
All suffering will be gone!
All suffering will be gone!

And the weight crushed the people.
Their cheers were gone.
All suffering is gone!
All suffering is gone!

Discomfort is not always bad. It can be an indication that there is room
for growth. It can be a sign that good things are happening. The
discomfort that comes from the inequality of two or more people is good.
It encourage competition, personal growth, and creativity. It leads to
higher levels of performance across all segments of employees, from the
lowest performer to the highest performer.

Trying to evade this type of discomfort is a short road to destruction.
Here's my reasoning. There is a natural discrepancy between each person's
abilities. There will always be those who are the top performers. Perhaps
it is because they have unusual intelligence, or they have an
extraordinary amount of discipline to stick with something, or they have a
passion for what they are doing. There are a number of potential reasons.
The fact is, however, that there are those who perform better than most.
These are at the leading edge of the bell curve. Then there are the
average performers, where the discrepancy in performance is more difficult
to measure. These are the hump in the bell. And then there are those who
just don't perform well at all. For reasons that may not be obvious they
just can't seem to figure out how to do what is expected of them.

Clearly, in this situation, those at the tail end of the curve and those
in the middle will feel discomfort because of those at the front. Since
the majority of people will be in the middle, the natural inclination is
to alleviate their discomfort. But the only way to do that is to punish
the top performers, or at least not reward them according to their value.
This has two effects:

a) It drives the top performers away

which

b) redefines the bell curve by replacing some of the "average" performers
in the lead

The result is that nothing really changed, except that the exceptional
people have left. If this process occurs enough, the organization is left
with a bunch of average performers. And that leaves you with an average
organization.

And so the question follows, where have all the top performers gone?
Chances are the top performes stay in touch. They probably even recruit
one another. And soon the average organization finds that the top
performers are working for a competitor, who is now performing at a higher
level. The average organization's days are numbered. They will be crushed,
not by their competitors but "by the weight pressing down upon the
people." Their own policy will be the weight that crushes them. Then "All
suffering is gone," because their is nothing left to feel suffering.

I don't think employee ranking is a good example of Square Wheels. I think
not ranking employees is a good example of rectangular wheels!

If you want living proof of what I've said, take a look at the difference
between Microsoft and Novell (and Microsoft and WordPerfect, and Microsoft
and Borland, I could extend the list but it would be too long for this
message). Microsoft values intellgience. They reward the top performers
very well. They don't seem to give a damn about the touchy feely stuff,
and their success speaks for itself! And as a testament to the fact that
we can't stand inequality in our society, Microsoft has now begun to feel
the weight of its own government upon it's back, inspired, of course, by
the complaints of their competitors. We go to great lengths, in our
society, to punish the top performers! There's not a day that doesn't go
by that I don't damn my government for the way they're treating Microsoft;
and in the same breath I laugh, in mockery, of the incompetence of
Microsoft's competitors that inspired that treatment!

The tragedy of what you're saying, Roxanne, is that it is a suicidal
proposition camoflauged as an altruistic ideal!

-- 
Benjamin Compton
DWS Computer Consultants
"The GroupWise Integration Experts"
E-Mail: bcompton@emailsolutions.com
http://www.emailsolutions.com

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>