Employee Ranking Systems LO16848

Robert Bacal (rbacal@escape.ca)
Wed, 4 Feb 1998 13:43:04 +0000

Replying to LO16819 --

On 3 Feb 98 at 11:06, Ben Compton wrote:

> The desire to make everyone involved "comfortable" seems to be the implied
> motivation for not ranking employees.

Ben, I appreciate your taking the position because in my opinion we should
all challenge what might be accepted orthodox thought on organizations.
But I think your argument (this one) is a straw man.

The issue isn't comfort, it is value added (to use a bottom line business
term). Performance management in it's various incarnations adds value to
the extent that it provides for staff growth and development, or increase
effort. There are MUCH better ways to do that even within the perf. mgmt.
perspective.

Rankings don't say anything about specifically what an employee must
do to contribute better.
Rankings don't say anything about the contribution of the employee to
the organization, only the contribution gauged by peers. All could be
bad, all could be great, but we still need to classify relatively.

There's a lot more...in the original article at
http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal/performa.htm

I'd be interested in your rebuttal in the event you would like to present
it here.

Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and defusing hostility
at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
*Site Last Updated On Jan 24, 1998*

-- 

"Robert Bacal" <rbacal@escape.ca>

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