Ben, Robert, Ed, Srinath, and Rick,
A lot has been happening in the last few days on this topic. I am curious
to see if there is some agreement on what it is.
First of all, there is some agreement on the need to assess, but it is not
universal. My hypothesis is that the term "assessment" has several
meanings, and those different meanings are some cause for concern. My own
view is that there are two significant components to assessment, and they
overlap. First, there is the 'observe, hypothesize, test, observe,
hypothesize, test...' process that is a form of assessment critical to
learning. Then there is the assessment that is really a grading process
for employees, and that one generates more energy. Whether we like it or
not, assessment in the learning sense includes in some part, assessment of
individuals to determine if they are in some way contributing to the
porblem, or solving the problem. And if they are contributing to the
problem, how can we influence them to change that. It is complex and
recursive and messy, and we may never be able to tease these two forms of
assessment into separate and distinct activities.
Second, some of us see ranking as a component of assessment, while others
of us see ranking as a highly destructive activity. My hypothesis is that
the two groups have different assumptions about what happens AFTER the
ranking process. Those who oppose ranking frequently refer to down-sizing
and firings as outcomes. Those who favor ranking also talk about firings,
but with particular emphasis on those who are INCORRIGIBLY incompetent for
whatever reason. Now, I hasten to explain myself, because the word
"incompetent" is itself a loaded word. I am in total and complete
agreement with Ben in his latest post:
> 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."
In addition, I would extend Ben's definition to include those people who
don't refuse, but simply are unable, to learn. Ben's point about the
impact on the rest of the organization is a critical one. However, as I
pointed out in a previous post, the numbers involved here are extremely
small in most cases. This is not a 10% of the workforce kind of a
problem, or a 50% problem, but more like a 0.1% kind of problem. Rare,
rare, rare, but highly destructive when it occurs, and is not resolved
expeditiously.
So, those are the areas where I think there may be some agreement. The
next part is more about areas where I think there is still disagreement,
but perhaps the context above can help clarify.
For example, Robert (I think) argued that most problems are not caused by
people but by systems, etc. Therefore any attempt to assess and in effect
put the responsibility on individuals was mis-directing the focus, which
should be on the system. This may surprise some, but I agree that the
system is the problem 80-90% of the time. However, I also claim that the
solution will NEVER spring from the system, but can only possibly spring
from people. My goal in using assessment is to use it to help people
learn the skills they need to change the system.
For example, at my company, we have hierarchy, but we do not often make
decisions through the hierarchy. Instead, decisions get made based on the
weight of arguments put forth by participants. Therefore, I expect that
my senior managers have three critical but somewhat ambiguous skills,
first assertiveness, second an ability to influence, third a demonstrated
ability to put the company's needs ahead of their own or their
department's. My expectation has the following corollaries. A person
aspiring to be a senior manager must demonstrate mastery of these skills.
A senior manager who does not have these skills faces demotion or possible
severance unless they obtain these skills. As you can see, the
requirements of the job help direct their learning efforts, but
fortunately or unforutnately, also direct my assessment efforts. It does
not matter. We have clear evidence that these skills are critical to
changing the faulty system, and if the system is faulty, then it MUST be
changed.
So, in summary, when Robert says,
>The practical difficulty is that we simply don't know when bad
>performance is a result of a person who is hopeless, an interaction
>between environment and person that is toxic, or an environmental/system
>problem.
I am in total agreement, but unfortunately, I cannot throw up my hands and
give up just because I don't know the exact cause of the problem. I have
to find someone, an effective person, who can begin to make some headway
on resolving the problem, and then I have to help that person develop the
abilities to resolve the problem. In any event, my focus is never on bad
performance, but on creating good performance.
Srinath, when you say,
> ranking seems to rest on the mismatch between the values of the
>organization and that of each of its employees.
I would restate that a bit to say that ranking _highlights_ the mismatch
between the values of the org and those of the employee.
That is a very important function, and that is why ranking seems so
important to me. It is especially useful when used in the 'triage'
context. Imagine the quality of the discussion that will result if an
employee could say he or she was in the top 10% of people in a group, and
the manager said that person was in the bottom 10%. There must be a
mismatch in values, and that creates a context for development or
clarification. On the other hand, if an employee said they were in the
bottom 10%, and I agreed, then _if_ their work was acceptable, I -- and
presumably they -- would have no problem.
Personally, I do not subscribe to the notion that ranking is for the
employee's own good. All assessment including ranking is for the good of
the organization. Frequently, perhaps most of the time, the employee may
benefit, but the goal is organizational success, not individual.
On the other hand, I am also not sanguine that the employee, if they
recognize the values mismatch, will "react accordingly" as you so nicely
state it. On the contrary, the organization has a responsibility to take
care of itself, and the employee has a responsibility to take care of
him/her self. The employee may choose to "skate by," if there is a
mismatch. It is up to the organization to determine how to respond to
meet its own best interests.
So, to summarize, assessment is a potential learning process, but it is
also a personal assessment vehicle, and these two uses will virtually
always be tightly intertwined. Second, ranking, is controversial, and it
may be used effectively and wisely, or it can be misused. Third, and more
controversially, systems ARE the problem most of the time, but solutions
can only come from people. Assessment helps them become solution
providers. Fourth, ranking helps highlight values (or skills) mismatch,
and fifth, assessment's primary goal is to help the organization succeed,
not to help the employee. Frequently, but not always, the employee can
learn and grow, but that is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
--Rol Fessenden
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>