Replying to Eric Bohlman in LO16957 --
Eric Bohlman, responding to Richard Goodale in LO16947, wrote:
>Finally, I want to point out something that's mathematicaly obvious but
>that too many people (especially those who just found out who John Galt
>is) forget: an individual's rank in a ranking of performances is
>determined not only by his own performance, but by other people's
>performances as well. Therefore, even in a situation where an individual
>has complete control over his level of performance and therefore has
>PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY (try to envision foot-high letters here) for his
>absolute level of performance, he does *not* have complete control over
>other people's performance and therefore does *not* have total PERSONAL
>RESPONSIBILITY for his rank.
You are right, this is mathematically -- and also in the real world --
obvious. Without meaning to demean you, it is also irrelevant. In a
world in which continuous improvement is the norm, everyone is pushing
forward in small increments in their capabilities. Someone who is not
pushing forward begins eventually to lag behind. It may be that the work
does not galvanize that person, it may be any one of thousands of reasons.
The point is still relevant: this person is lagging behind his or her
peers in performance. While your point above is theoretically accurate,
in the real world, no one is making revolutionary strides forward. It
typically takes several years for a person to noticeably lag behind. That
means that for several years they were either not motivated, or not able
to continue to improve when everyone else did continue to improve. This
person needs one of two things, either a) more motivation or personalized
(focused) attention, or b) a different job.
You go on to say:
>If an individual's level of contribution to an organization is determined
>by how far his performance is ahead of his co-workers' performances, than
>a mediocre performer surrounded by total slackers is more valuable than a
>high achiever surrounded by other high achievers. This, I propose, is
>total nonsense. Ranking cannot, by itself, identify "good" or "bad"
>performers because it doesn't compare performance to criteria.
If I am a manager, then I only have what I have. You are proposing that I
compare a mediocre performer in the hand to a high achiever in the bush.
Of course, I would rather have the high achiever, but I don't. I can
still say to an employee they are the best one in the department, but
nevertheless, I can see a number of areas for improvement. This is how
performance ranking and rating works in the real world. Actually, I do
ranking and rating both, and both provide valuable perspectives. That
way, someone can be the top one in the department, and still be an
average, or even below average performer. But ranking is not bad, just
different. As long as we understand what it does and does not do, it is a
fine tool.
--Rol Fessenden
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>