Replying to LO28850 --
Hello Benjamin,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and the link to the article.
Maybe the problem is mostly due to what is considered "efficient" for an
organisation and what "competence" is needed in what situation. Balancing
individual competences and the need for groups to work effective and
efficient seems to me a set of paradoxes. The paradoxes have to do with
the framing of the team versus the individual. The paradoxical nature in
this case has to do with power: a manager has to have authority over a
group - mostly for coordinating actions, but that gets extended to hire
and fire and therefore he or she assumes also the power to give out
rewards. This is better done - in my perspective - by the group. I have to
note that the business Enron was in is called the power-business.
Bye for now,
Jan
Benjamin Compton wrote:
> Four or five years ago I was an active participant on this list.
snip
> I was in favor of a formal ranking system, where people were
> grouped in thirds based on their performance. The top third was to be
> given the highest pay raises/bonuses, the middle third was reward but less
> generously, and the bottom third was told they'd better not be in the same
> position at the next evaluation or they'd be asked to leave.
>
> My idea wasn't particularly popular on the list, nor has it been
> particularly popular when I've explained it to those I work with.
> Nonetheless I've held that it is the best way to create a very efficient,
> dynamic, competitive organization. Central to this conviction is the fact
> that I believe individual competence is the basic ingredient to an
> organizations success.
>
> Given that fact that so many people have pushed back at my idea, I've been
> careful to look for reasons why my thinking is flawed -- essentially,
> reasons I believe my thinking is flawed. I couldn't find one, until today.
> And I thought I'd share it with this list.
>
> Today, a friend sent me this article in e-mail:
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020722fa_fact
>
> As I read it, I found myself agreeing with the first part, stunned by the
> middle, and finally accepting the article as the best explanation of why
> my thinking is flawed that I've come across. In fact, it has convinced me
> to think through my beliefs on this matter even more carefully. I may even
> change my mind, but that's a big step so I'm not committed to it.
--With kind regards - met vriendelijke groeten,
Jan Lelie
LOGISENS - Sparring Partner in Logistical Development mind@work est. 1998 - Group Resolution Process Support Tel.: (+31) (0)70 3243475 or GSM (car): (+31)(0)65 4685114 http://www.mindatwork.nl info@mindatwork.nl
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.