Don, in response to Ben, says,
> Just be sure you don't give in to the lure of having too simple a value
>system. A successful organization depends on the application of a wide
>variety of skills by its people. Can you identify what those skills are,
>and value people according to the appropriate measures? Can you judge
>the relative worth to the company of a top-notch system programmer vs. a
>senior manager of mediocre ability? Can you judge the relative worth of
>a "hero" who works hard to rescue a project in deep trouble (maybe one
>he helped get in trouble) vs. a worker who quietly and effectively keeps
>projects out of trouble? Can you separate out the contribution of an
>individual on a project that required constant close teamwork among
>several people? Can you reward an individual for good work on a project
>that was an overall failure?
At the risk of boring someone, let me suggest again that triage, not four
decimal places of accuracy, is the goal. When we work in that context --
who are the superb few percent, who are the sub-par few percent, who are
the more or less average performers -- we don't have to deal with these
issues. Of course, when we get to learning, we do have to struggle with
these situations, but that is another story.
If we think of triage, the real issues then are, "Did you do what you said
you would do?" "Did you do what others in your position did?" "Did you
learn?" If you answer all three of those questions with a no, then there
is a very large problem.
Rol Fessenden
--Rol Fessenden <76234.3636@compuserve.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>