Employee Ranking Systems LO17163

dwig@earthlink.net
Tue, 24 Feb 1998 22:00:07 -0800

Replying to LO16955 --

Ben Compton writes:
> This thread has been an emotionally expensive one for me. I've been
> through a number of different emotions as the thread has continued: Anger,
> amusement, frustration, disappointment, confusion, excitement, dismay.

I hope it's been worth the cost. Given the traffic on the thread, I think
it's been worth it for others, including me. Your confident insistence on
the value of competition within a company has forced me to consider things
I hadn't really examined closely. I'll try here to articulate some of
what I've come up with.

> Because it has been emotionally expensive I'm going to withdraw from the
> conversation. But I want to try, in a more calm voice, to express my
> beliefs on this matter before I let this slip past me.

Probably a good idea, to try to distill the best of the ideas that have
come out. It might be worth trying to write down for yourself the gist of
what your respondents have been saying (whether you post it or not).

> I don't think that competition and cooperation are mutually exclusive
> activities. I don't think you have to chose one over the other. If the
> right values are institutionalized, I think they can feed off each other
> in a very positive way. I have personally experienced this a number of
> times, both in my professional work and as an athelete.

This gets to the heart of my thinking. A system of competition is one
organizational design tool, and like any other tool, it has its strengths
and weaknesses. One of the things I've found lacking in much of the
discussion of competition is a consideration of the system aspects: who
sets it up, for what purposes, according to what rules? How will you know
if the system is achieving what it was intended for? What are the likely
side effects? Over what length of time does the competition occur?

> I don't think that ranking employees is inherently right or wrong. I think
> it is important for no other reason than to be able to reward those that
> perform best.

On what dimensions will you measure performance? It's important to be
careful here, because you will get the behaviors you reward, not
necessarily the behaviors the company needs.

> At the same time, the complexities of human interaction that go into
> meaningful achievement muddy the water. It is hard to determine how much
> value each person brings to a project when everyone is performing at a
> high level. It is not so hard when some are barely performing.

The waters are muddied even more by the interactions among people. In an
effort that requires a high level of teamwork, how do you separate out the
individual's contribution? Also, the social and cultural dynamics affect
how an individual performs. If a person isn't working out well in a team,
do you punish him or change his environment?

> According to my view, people should be rewarded for what they do, the
> results they achieve, based on the value of those results to the
> organization. I would consider this a very effective and highly ethical
> approach to human resource management.

The effectiveness of a system of competition can vary widely depending on
factors like those I've mentioned. I have a suspicion that the most
effective _and_ ethical competition systems will be designed by the
competitors themselves, rather than imposed on them by an outsider,
however well intentioned.

> The two questions I would ask are: How do you measure the quality of the
> competition within a team, department, or division? How do you measure the
> quality of cooperation in the same context?

> If you can't measure it then, I believe, you shouldn't reward it. That may
> be shortsighted, but it is the only way I know to avoid unethical
> practices.

Right on, but I'd go further: if you can't measure it, structure the
organization in a different way.

> Is it possible that if there isn't an objective standard by which to
> measure things then there is nothing at all?

Underlying any meaningful measurement is understanding of the thing being
measured and how the measure relates to it. You can have a deep
understanding without necessarily being able to come up with an objective
measure (remember the scene in "Dead Poets' Society" about measuring
poetry?).

One final thought: to paraphrase Aristophanes, who ranks the rankers? If
you're going to rate or rank your employees, will you allow them to rate
you? I've noticed that often those in the best position to know how well
a leader is doing are the ones being led.

Again, thanks for taking the pain to keep a valuable thread going.

Regards,
Don Dwiggins It's important to have a plan --
SEI Information Technology it gives you something to deviate from
dwig@earthlink.net -- Hermann Puterschein

-- 

dwig@earthlink.net

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