Some added thoughts based on Scott's -- always valuable -- feedback.
When you say, "And we all know that putting a good person in a poor system
is a recipe for continuous unimprovement regardless of skills and
intentions."
This is the real crux of the problem (that and rewarding the superb
performers), because no system is ever as good as we would like it to be.
So we are making compromises from the beginning. On the other hand, if we
steer clear of fantasies of precision (you get a 3.54, and she gets a
3.56), and just focus on triage as I suggested, this is not a problem.
95% of the people will be operating in the vast middle ground most of the
time.
When you describe your boss who wanted first to make lots of money, and
second, play golf, I can sincerely sympathize, as I have been there. In
fact, we may have worked for the same guy, based on your description! But
no philosophy, no methodology, no process, no value system, no focus on
coaching, is going to change that guy. This is again, not a fault with
the process, but with the implementer. You did the right thing when you
moved on.
For me, the spirit of ranking does not conflict with the spirit of
coaching and mentoring, it enhances it. Assessing everyone's strengths
and weaknesses is a necessary first step to ranking, and it is hard work.
It takes a lot of time, requires collecting data from many sources, and
requires one to reassess the values, attitudes, and skills one is looking
for in people. Once the data collection and evaluation is done, the
opportunity for targeted coaching is much more available than previously.
And subtleties will come out of the data collection that will inform
future coaching efforts, whether the person is operating in the great
middle ground or not.
--Rol Fessenden
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>