John Constantine wrote:
...snip...
> I don't know if TJ knows it, but this is precisely why there is the need
> for reconsideration by management of ANY and ALL such practices...because
> there is NO SUCH PERFECTION IN THEIR SYSTEMS, though they would have both
> employees and managers believe it to be so.
>
> What we are talking about here is not perfection, in any way, shape or
> form. What there IS, however, is VARIATION, the kind of variation which
> does not usually enter the minds of managers when something goes awry in
> their company. There is not desire for allowances due to natural variation
> and chance happenings. All problems, errors, defects and faulty things are
> considered caused by someone. Someone with a name and a face; someone with
> a history and a (potential) future; someone with a family.
This is a crucial point. Connected to another thread on this list, it is
the image that managers have of the organization that drives the
manifestation of employee rankings. If you attack the symptom I don't
think you get very far. Why do they still hold that supporting image?
What's in it for them?
I do a lot of work with companies in creating illustrations of
performance. The companies use the product or concrete results in
different ways. However, the process has the effect of allowing them to
see that the connections among performances are not always linear, that
there stated goals may not connect to the performances observed or
emphasized, that there is "white space" once the 'universe' of
performances has emerged - that is, all the performances do not add up to
accomplishment of their vision, there's stuff missing. John Constantine's
point that "The manager only knows (or thinks he/she knows) what he/she
sees, but does not know what he/she DOESN'T see" is essential here. "How
do you know what you don't know" is a question I find best asked after the
group has created their complete universe.
Then the opportunity exists to lead questioning of certain assumptions.
Since I espouse the use of participative methods to reach this point the
learning gained is available to a larger group. But I still find the
process a slow one. The cases where people rushed to conclusions that they
had 'gotten it' actually lacked the follow through. Success is where they
embrace a different mental map for their company; perhaps a combo of
metaphors.
I don't think that I would have gotten to do this by starting off telling
the group that they were wrong or unenlightened. I lead them through a
process and they discover what they discover. It's not as if there isn't a
body of reserach that suggests the need for quantitative measures
(Ghorpade & Chen) or anecdotes of connecting performance appraisal to
compensation (e.g., Mercer Consulting). So the world in which they operate
is one in which the subject still excites a diversity of opinion.
Thank you, John, for the stimulating response.
All the best,
-- T.J. Elliott Cavanaugh Leahy http://idt.net/~tjell 914 366-7499Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>