Geof,
You asked:
> I recall Deming's comment that performance within the limits of the
> system is random and should not be ranked. Your comment above seems to
> conflict with Deming. What is your response to Deming's opinion ? Are
> you aware of his assumptions behind his opinions on employee rating
> systems ? If you are not, perhaps it would serve you to explore his
> assumptions and compare them to yours. (I don't have the info to
> summarize them here, perhaps others can if you are not aware of them).
I would expect there to be variance in the performance levels of
employees. On the whole, however, I would say that a good statistical
sampling would enough to reveal the different levels of performance. I
would even find it acceptable to say that perhaps one quarter out of the
year one who is a top performer may be in the middle. Everyone needs time
to rejuvenate. But if a person is consistently at the bottom, then I'd
have to question their value to the company. I don't see variance in
performance enough evidence to justify not ranking employees according to
their value. The fact is there will always be some employees who are more
valuable than others. It is important to make this distinction, and reward
accordingly. Otherwise people might be rewarded f or work they have not
done, while those who have done the work are not rewarded as well as they
should be and that would be unethical.
The fact is that people do perform at work, and their performance does
determine their value. That is about as basic of a fact as you can get to.
Why are so many trying so hard to escape that fact?
> Would not the salary level reflect the employees' value to the company?
I would say that is indicative of an employees value. And so would
everyone else in a company. That's what creates the competition in the
first place: The desire to be paid more money, which means I must pit my
skill against everyone elses. If I don't compete, other people will
increase their skill and get a bigger pay increase. The fact is that a
department is given a budget, and they have to use that money for pay
increases. I'll always compete for the largest possible chunk of that
money. Why would I do otherwise?
> Why do we insist on using yearly increases to attempt to distinguish
> the value between employees?
Because their is a difference between the value of each employee, and
money is a great way to make that distinction and to encourage
comeptition, which, in turn, encourages people to increase their skill.
Why would you not attempt to distinguish the value of employees based on
salary? Would you like to pay someone who performs 100% less than another
the same amount? I don't understand the question.
> Why is it necessary to create competition between employees
> when we want teamwork between employees?
Why does competition automatically preclude teamwork? Can't they exist
together?
> How do you reconcile the two when they seem in conflict with each other?
Again, why do they conflict?
> What objective criteria is used to fairly separate a hundred people into
> a hundred increments of performance ? What is the definition of "fair"
> and in who's minds is it "fair" ?
A number of elements need to be defined: a) job description that clearly
defines the standard against which competency will be measured, b) a
statistical sampling the defines the "average" performance level, c) the
tools and resources needed to increase s kills need to be provided (as an
investment in the long-term survival of the company), d) the right things
need to be measured. With these four elements being defined or made
available it is possible to have an objective evaluation process.
--
Benjamin Compton
DWS Computer Consultants
"The GroupWise Integration Experts"
E-Mail: bcompton@emailsolutions.com
http://www.emailsolutions.com
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com>
Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>