On 9 Apr 98 at 13:42, Ben Compton wrote:
> When we choose not to fire someone who is incompetent (in the fullest
> sense of the word: Someone who refuses to learn, to develop the skills
> required to do the job) then we send a very strong message to those who
> work with that person that incompetence is acceptable. If another person
> proves to be incompetent, then it's tough to fire them because there is a
> precedent set that says "incompetence is acceptable."
I am WAY WAY more comfortable with this approach...in fact I think it goes
even farther. Tolerating incompetence has a devasting effect on the
perceptions that employees have of management, eroding confidence not only
in areas of competence but in all areas, encourages gossiping and
back-biting since lousy performance usually puts a heavier load on
others...etc.
> I see employee ranking as a way of checking and balancing this trend. It
> forces management to make important distinctions, which can have profound
> and long-term effects on the performance of the organization. I'm not
> going to deny the fact that it is difficult, and even painful at times,
> but I still think there is great virtue in it.
I think, Ben, that if you were able to recognize that there are simply
much BETTER ways (albeit imperfect) to accomplish what you seek, we would
probably be in total agreement. A proper MBO based goal-setting through to
appraisal approach allows an even better handle on these issues, while
allowing firings based on clear performance indicators (it' ain't
perfect).
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
--"Robert Bacal" <rbacal@escape.ca>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>