Employee Ranking Systems LO16824

Scott Simmerman (SquareWheels@compuserve.com)
Tue, 3 Feb 1998 12:43:50 -0500

Replying to LO16752 --

Wow! Rol Fessenden really gets into Employee Ranking Systems LO16752 with
some great comments (as usual) and some food for thought. On my initial
two readings, I had a dozen or so reactions. Interesting.

Just a couple of points and thoughts herein.

I agree with Rol that

"the identification of sub-par performers is not a value-free process."

and with his later comment that:

"You know, the issues you raise in this paragraph are properly classified
as prejudice. You won't make prejudice go away by eliminating evaluation."

We all have our biases as to how things should work, how things should be,
etc. It develops from our personal history and from our models of the
world. We all have our preferences and they may not be in total alignment
on all things. Thus, any two people will generally have different ways of
approaching things and our measurement / assessment systems will often not
agree.

And even when performance problems exist, there will be different ways and
different preferences in solving them. How many "coaching" models exist,
for example. And how many work (All, I should guess).

And we all know that putting a good person in a poor system is a recipe
for continuous unimprovement regardless of skills and intentions.

Clarifying expectations as clearly as one can and aligning visions and
values is all nobel work but not necessarily a situation that is always
successful. Again, it is a continuous continuous improvement situation --
My Mom still thinks that if she tells me something once, it is sufficient
for total, radical change in my behavior. Guess it is the same thing with
my son!

Rol's point is a good one:

"The question is not why isn't this working, but why isn't it working when
we both agreed it should work, when nothing overwhelming prevented it
working, when others in the same position achieved the outcome. These
points are pretty rare."

Guess the last thing I will comment on is "Imperfection."

Many people learn one way to do a task and that becomes "The Way" when
they come into power. That is often oppressive. It is where "BOSS
spelled backwards is self-explanatory" comes from.

Imperfection has a lot of linkages to creativity and improvement in the
real world. Mistakes CAN offer improvements in process and systems. This
is not to say that all mistakes are good and that all performers making
mistakes should not receive corrective / positive feedback but that the
way we handle these imperfections offers us a lot in the way of continuous
improvement of quality and systems.

And while some bosses are good at giving feedback, coaching and mentoring,
experience would suggest that most are not. Many avoid these performance
improvement opportunities, ignoring poor behavior and hoping it will go
away. A few seem to take the Godzilla Meets Bambi approach, thumping hard
and heavy on even minor problems.

The SYSTEM of performance management and evaluation is not bad. The
EXECUTION (pun intended) is often not effective.

>From all the posts of Rol and Ben and many others on this list, they would
seem to be good folks to work for / with and would generate high levels of
performance from their staffs and co-workers.

On the other hand, there are some who constantly find fault, get involved
in analysis paralysis, and "pick fly specks out of the pepper" that I have
personally been involved with that pushes me to self-actualize out of the
employer - employee loop.

My first employer had us out consulting on behavior theory and
reinforcement - real Skinnerian stuff in organizations. Problem is no
personal alignment. When I had a real need to talk to him because a
program was in jeopardy, he generally answered his phone, "Scott, I've
only got a minute. What is on your mind?"

ALL of us knew that his two priorities were making lots of money from our
personal efforts and playing golf. All else got second shrift. The irony
of setting up systems of improvement based on positive feedback and the
reality of seldom hearing anything positive from him caused 33 consultants
to go through his organization in 3 years - with a maximum staff on 10 at
any one time.

He certainly knew the THEORY of ranking, feedback and the like. The
REALITY of his performance left a lot to be desired.

Thus, I don't generally like these ranking systems and like managers as
facilitators and problem solvers a lot more than being The BOSS.

-- 
For the Fun of It!

Scott J. Simmerman SquareWheels@compuserve.com Performance Management Company -- We support consultants and trainers worldwide with products like -- -- The Search for the Lost Dutchman's Gold Mine -- www.clicknow.com/stagedright/dutchman/

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