Employee Ranking Systems LO17073

JAMES_H_CARRINGTON@HP-Westford-om1.om.hp.com
Tue, 17 Feb 1998 15:31:47 -0500

Replying to LO17046 --

Thank you fred and roxanne for your response to my question regarding
specific cases of successful companies that use alternative
compensation systems. I wish to make one point clear, however. When I
jumped into this fray a while back, I did say that:

"I agree that _ranking_ an employees' performance is a practice of
dubious benefit. Although it is a component of the performance review
structure here at HP, it is not a metric that we find of any value at
this site in particular. "

Indeed, the mind set of my posts has been defending performance
appraisal systems as usable tools against those who rushed to condemn
PA systems as inherently evil.
It would appear that the companies that Roxanne has listed are
using variations on appraisal systems (forgive me if I have
misinterpreted the information), the major thrust coming from
informalization. Note that informal, constant feedback between manager
and employee is a major factor in the performance review process at
HP. Also, the ranking system here qualifies for the definition of
'categorizing' as was discussed recently in this thread.

Also Fred wrote:
"Therefore, performance appraisal systems are (good/okay/necessary/
desirable)."

I would agree that _some form_ of performance appraisal is necessary.
It all depends on the implementation and the criteria used.

"Also implied is that performance appraisal systems and employee
rankings account, in some measure at least, for the success of these
successful companies."

I would agree with that statement also, but only from the point that
good management will be able to take the information from a
performance review and make the necessary changes to the environment
so that performance (quality and quantity) always shows improvement.
We have seen here that our efforts to get better tools, more training,
and more resources do not fall on deaf ears. The lack of resources has
always been taken into account when considering lower than expected
results. Bear in mind that the hysteresis in the PA feedback is very
small.

Bad implementation of performance appraisals _will_ hurt the
organization. Good implementation will only help.

One more note:
Robert Bacal wrote in LO17024
-If you ask a hundred people to do carpentry with a bent hammer,
does it make sense to train them for days to use the bent hammer, or
give them a straight one?

Obviously, you need the right tool for the job, but what do you
replace a bent hammer with?
Another hammer!

Conclusion: semantics. Be it a formalized process or 'coffee-talk',
there must be some way of monitoring ones' performance against the
expectations of management. Some ways work better than others
depending upon the application and implementation, but bad management
is bad management no matter what system or lack thereof you use.

JHC

-- 

JAMES_H_CARRINGTON@HP-Westford-om1.om.hp.com

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