Mr. Harrel writes: (re: professionals developing their skill set)
>Serious skill is developed from commitment. I believe that it
>should be encouraged by the company and may even be paid for by the
>company. However, it must come from the commitment of the
>individual to the highest of skill development. I believe this was
>what you were saying earlier, yes?
Not exactly. We must keep in mind the impetus for further development.
In the companies I have worked for, the usual reason given is that the
employee wishes to go further in the organization and must complete
more education in order to do so. In some cases, it is so the person
can work on a project that requires skills beyond their current
capabilities. In all cases (except one) the driving force is a
requirement by the organization to maintain or otherwise improve the
level of quality, quantity, or general productivity that the employee
is responsible for. (The one exception was the case where a coworker
of mine was taking Japanese language classes because she thought it
would be fun and always wanted to learn. Now _that_ is a case of pure
personal improvement). In the case of highly skilled professionals
(surgeons, et al) You are correct. There is a commitment to personal
betterment. In my experiences with these people, their profession is
at the very core of who they are. One could say that it is the reason
for their existence.
in response to:
>In your organization, the feedback loop is immediate and continuous.
you write:
>In rehearsal, but I thought you were referring to verbal, external to
>the product, feedback. Did I read that wrong?
Yes, in rehearsals, but you cannot separate feedback from the product.
The entire reason to feedback performance appraisals is to improve the
product (or process). Whether evaluating actual productivity or
attitude, they all relate directly to the productivity of the group as
a whole.
an anecdote: way, way back when I was a bench technician, there was
another technician whose quality and quantity were well above the
department standards, problem was, we couldn't stand the guy. He was
arrogant and abrasive to all of us. He was finally fired because he
had a bad attitude.
This is what I euphemistically referred to as 'creative differences'
in my last posting. The arrogant one was urged to either attend a
personal relationship workshop or seek counseling, neither of which
was acceptable to him. This was clearly a case of someone in the wrong
position. Not because he could not do the work, but that he was
disruptive to those around him and negatively affected the
productivity of the whole department. He may have flourished doing the
same job in another company(although we all kind of doubted that).
But I digress.
I maintain that performance appraisals and constant learning are
essential for any organization to remain competitive. There are no cut
and dried, Black or white methods for this because we must respect the
individuality and needs of those that work for/with us. A good manager
employee relationship is the only way this will work.
JHC
james_carrington@hp.com
--JAMES_H_CARRINGTON@HP-Chelmsford-om1.om.hp.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>