Accountability and Performance Rating LO17516

Eugene Taurman (
Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:39:26

Replying to LO17497 --

John Cremer,

You are on target. They Accountability and performance rating can not be
separate. Unless there is clear agreed upon accepted purpose and
accountable there is nor measuring of performance for teams or
individuals. Because we do not know what it is they are to do and there
fore do not know what to measure.

This relates to What Deming was trying to tell us. "Without aim there is no
Aim, I believe may be equated to purpose.Only when there is purpose do we
know what to do.


At 04:42 PM 3/22/98 -0500, you wrote:
> I've been following both the accountability and performance rating
>subject threads for some time, but it just now occurred to me that they
>can be viewed as parts of the same package. Isn't the performance
>appraisal really an accountability tool designed to hold a person
>responsible for their job related behavior? An imperfect tool, often
>poorly administered and designed. It is frequently misused, but is an
>accountability tool none the less. No wonder they are widely disliked!
> Another thread that lately appeared is around grades. Couldn't you
>say that grading and testing are accountability tools in the same sense?
> "The commander is responsible for everything his/her unit does or
>fails to do." (Paraphrased from the Officers Guide). That statement
>fixes accountability for military commanders quite neatly. I don't know
>of any civilian counterpart, but one might be useful - especially in

Eugene Taurman

What you are is determined by the thoughts that dominate your mind.
Paraphrase of Proverbs 23 Ch7


Eugene Taurman <>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>