Roxanne writes,
"Initially I was surprised to find anyone defending the practice of
employee ranking, but I believe I'm beginning to understand."
I hope you're beginning to understand why I believe employee ranking is
good. And, in all honesty, I'm trying as hard as I can to understand why
it is perceived as bad. I've read this message three times to make sure
I'm reading it correctly. Honestly I'm scratching my head, trying to
figure out your position. The questions I'll ask are not meant as an
insult, but a legitimate inquiry into your thinking and your position.
"First, our postings have shown that many of us are defining this term
differently. Second, it appears that some of us have found ranking to be
useful and may not have had exposure to other tools that might be more
effective."
See my comments below. . .
"Employee ranking is the simplest form of employee performance
evaluation."
I'm not sure I was leave it at that. I would say it is simple and elegant,
as it effectively deals with the realities of the workplace. It takes into
account the fact that disparity in performance exists, it recognizes the
fact that inequality in ability exists, and it provides a fairly objective
way of evaluating an employees performance.
"It is a comparison of the total performance of each employee relative to
the total performance of each other employee. The process results in an
ordering of employees into a hierarchy from highest to lowest. My
original post referenced an ACA News article about the ranking system at
Sylvania that ranked all employees in the company from 1 to 3700."
I would agree to this definition, with a couple of exceptions. First I
don't see any practical purpose for ranking employees from 1 to 3,700. I
would rank the importance of each department, and then rank the value of
each employee within a department. That seems much more practical. Other
than that I have no problem with this definition.
"Performance rating systems generally compare the individual employee's
behaviors and results relative to the requirements of their own job rather
than relative to other employees."
OK. I get it. But it sounds more like a definition of "average" than it
does a method of evaluation. A job description always seemed to me to be
the minimum required to remain employed. Furthermore it doesn't address
the issue that employee A may perform the requirements of the job in two
hours, while employee B may take 10 hours. There is clearly a descrepancy
between the two employees, and that has a definite impact of their value
to the company. Measured in dollars, and return on investment, employee A
is much more valuable.
The question then becomes: Why is employee B so much slower? What is the
company going to do about it?
"Although performance rating systems have many critics, they are certainly
more sophisticated and useful for improving individual and company
performance."
Please explain your reasoning. If I'm evaluated based on my job
description, then chances are I'll work to satisfy those requirements and
no more. Why should I do otherwise? What is going to inspire me to work
beyond the requirements? There will be those who are motivated by their
own purposes, determined to increase their competency and productivity for
the pleasure of it, who will go beyond the job description but they will
not be formally rewarded for it. They will be treated the same as an
average performer.
I need help understanding how this approach is "useful for improving
individual and company performance." Can you help me out?
"Were might a true employee ranking system be useful?"
Where would it not be useful?
"I've tried to think of situations where ranking could be a good tool to
use. If a manager were faced with the directive that she had to lay off x
employees, ranking might help in the decision-making process. Likewise,
when deciding which candidate to hire for an open position, ranking could
be useful. Sylvania used their ranking process to determine pay
increases. I feel that this is a poor application of the tool."
You feel that way or you think that based on a logical argument? Feelings
are important, but I wouldn't trust my feelings on a matter as important
as this. Ranking is useful because it inspires competition, which in turn
inspires creativity and increased performance. How does perfomance
appraisals accomplish this? I'm not seeing the cause and effect your
suggesting.
"One of the tests I use to determine how a proposed system design might
affect the health of an organization, is to ask myself whether they would
use this method at home. Do you think that it's a good practice to rank
the overall performance of your children from high to low? Surely you
care as much or more about the performance of your children."
No offense, but I would never use that test to measure anything I did at
work. My children are a product of the procreative process; they're
members of my family because they were conceived through sex. They did not
choose to be a part of my family. And they have little choice but to be a
part of my family. And, because I created them, I have a moral obligation
to take care of them, nurture them, and teach them. Children do not serve
an instrumental purpose in the family
Employees work on a voluntary basis. They can always find another job.
Employees have an instrumental relationship with their employer: As long
as their producing what they should, they'll get paid. If they stop
producing, they'll get fired. Pretty black and white. Furthremore I have
never loved anyone I work with the same way I love my children, and I
would never, under any circumstance, spend as much time and energy in
helping an employee develop themselves as I do helping my children.
Children require teaching, tutoring, nurture because they haven't
developed all of the cognitive and emotional skills needed to face life.
Employees are adults, who are capable of reasoning, and therefore don't
require the same type of nurturing and patience.
"Is ranking of companies less offensive than the ranking of people?"
To whom is ranking offensive? Why do you want to placate these people? Is
a business a charity house or a money-making entity?
"Probably, but I think that we have proven that this process for companies
has some of the same inherent flaws as it does with people. The Halo
Effect is a term used to describe the human tendency to think of a good
performer as good in all respects."
I admire the atheleticism of many professional atheletes, while I disdain
their private lives. I would never hold Dennis Rodman up as a virtous
person, but I would say, without equivocation, that he is a great
athelete. I'm not following your thinking here.
" Some of us assumed that a highly ranked company would have good tools
for employee performance appraisal and that if highly ranked companies use
employee ranking, then employee ranking must be okay."
Okay? How about effective? How about congruent with nature?
"HP is a wonderful company, but I suspect that those who work there can
see many processes that could be enhanced. And if they can't, I recommend
that you sell your HP stock today!"
What are you saying? I can't believe your saying what I think your saying.
Just to make sure, I'm going to ask for an explicit clarification.
Basically, Roxanne, what I hear you defining is a valueless organization
that rewards mediocrity and punishes excellence. That just doesn't seem to
make a winning combination.
-- Benjamin Compton DWS Computer Consultants "The GroupWise Integration Experts" E-Mail: bcompton@emailsolutions.com http://www.emailsolutions.comLearning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>