It has been interesting to follow something of this debate and to think
through the assumptions underlying our discussions.
For example, Rol writes:
>Many people dislike the identification of sub-par performers. There are
>two reasons why it is important. First, the people who actually suffer
>the most from sub-par performers are their direct peers. Their peers, if
>they are motivated, will take on extra work to make up for the below
>average performance of someone in their workgroup. So in a very real and
>measurable way, below average performance directly impacts the nearest
>neighbors on the work team.
>
>The second reason to identify sub-par performers is that most of the time,
>those people are not getting any fulfillment out of their work.
Some of the assumptions here it appears to me are:
1. the identification of "sub-par performers" is a neutral, value-free
process. I am probably pushing what you said here somewhat Rol so forgive
me, but we simply find out who these non-performers are, and move them on
and/or out.
The question is why are they not performing? Is it the systems they work
in? Is it the fact that our ranking processes reward a particular kind of
behaviour, communication style, personality, gender or ethnic origin and
literally don't "see" other approaches or other outcomes?
Experiments in education have shown that if you tell a teacher a student
is bright, the teacher treats them as bright, whether or the child is or
not. Then children respond to the expectations teachers have of them.
The reverse negative expectations also apply.
2. that our ranking systems have served us well in the past even though we
on lists such of this spend much time criticising management for lack of
vision and talent etc.
I can only assume that the ranking systems of many organisations have
promoted the wrong people! That is, promoted folk to their level of
incompetence or promoted those unsuited to leadership.
3. that the identification and ranking of "high performing" individuals is
more important than the identification and ranking of "high performance"
teams
For example, teachers on early education programs for Australian
Aborigines complained that aboriginal students were stupid and backward
because they would not respond to their questions like eager European
children. In fact, aboriginals valued a corporate approach and did not
answer as individuals so as to not humiliate those who did not know.
In Sesame Street this is called cooperation!
These teachers were unaware both of their own criteria for ranking
students: eager response as individuals; or that another culture might
value another approach to ranking: group learning.
4. that low rankings are a motivation for high performance not for
plummeting personal morale
5. that staff actually know in terms related to their day to day work what
is expected of them and receive regular feedback on their performance
towards those goals
6. that management always sees its role as "clearing the deck" for staff
to perform at a high level and works towards aligning sytems, structures,
values and policies to that end.
In my experience the highly political nature of many organisations
constantly works against point 6 as ranking and performance systems still
often give the tacit message to managers: "strive first to look after
yourself and your patch..."
Philip Pogson
Philip Pogson
Manager Organisation Development Unit
University of Sydney
Margaret Telfer Building, K07
NSW 2006 Australia
ph: +61 2 9351 4218
+61 2 9351 3177 (direct)
fax: +61 2 9351 4951
Training Program URL:- http://www.usyd.edu.au/su/stafdev/
"We need magic and bliss and power, myth and celebration and
religion in our lives, and music is a good way to encapsulate
a lot of it."
Jerry Garcia
--Philip Pogson <P.Pogson@perspolicy.usyd.edu.au>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>