In reply to the continuing thread on Employee Rankings, I have waited and
watched and enjoyed the play and counter-play, and now I would like to
offer several pennies worth to the discussion.
First, let me say that I am not in favor of ranking employees, whatever
the purpose, as I am not in favor of so-called Performance Evaluations,
whatever the purpose. Some purposes, however, are worse than others:
1. For raises, bonuses and other forms of compensation.
2. For promotions and career enhancement.
3. For disciplinary actions.
4. For awards.
5. For layoffs and other "workforce reduction".
This thread seems to have two primary branches; one, those who have tried,
as Roxanne does, to maintain an open mind on the subject and two, those
who are claiming to be psychic and simply "know" who the good ones are,
and who the bad ones are, supported by the "everybody knows" syndrome.
The truth, as in the case of complex adaptive systems, is that everybody
doesn't know, and those same members are often expressing their own
assumptions, prejudices and superior judgements in ranking employees,
based on old metaphors. These folks will not be swayed by information
which goes against the grain of their own experience. They appear to live
"inside the box", sorry to say.
For myself, I was one of them for many years, until I had cold water
thrown in my face by virtue of the application of variation to the
"methodology" of performance appraisal. I have participated in legal cases
in which a persons reputation, community standing, family ties and
economic resources were bound together and under fire by the use of
appraisal "systems". In that case, the so-called system proved to be
abusive and fraudulent, and the person allowed to maintain their dignity,
with their family made safe. This use of the term "system" as applied to
appraisals and evaluations, is a mis-nomer, as they are not systems. If
they were, they would be subject to the same rules applicable to other
true systems, able to be tested, verified and reproduced under stringent
standards.
If the proponents of PA systems, which include ranking (aptly named) would
offer that they know of "good" appraisal systems, I have yet to review one
in person, examine one by mail or fax, or receive one from members of this
list or any other. Let's be clear about the root issue, and get to the
"nitty-gritty". What we are talking about here is not so much machinery,
which may operate at less than 100% for many years, and still prove more
than adequate to the task at hand.
What we are dealing with, at the core, is PEOPLE. Human beings like you
and I, who are impacted every day by old methodologies and old training,
old belief systems and old response mechanisms. It is the people on both
sides of the appraisal/evaluation table that are under continuous stress
by the use of prescribed procedures, required by attorneys (or
consultants) in order to extract the most from each human widget in the
organization. Both sides of the table are abused by reliance on what is
fundamentally a SUBJECTIVE process, exemplified by the "everybody knows"
syndrome.
As part of my research, I occasionally sign on for a period of time in
order to better understand and appreciate what real people go through in
their daily worklife. I listen, and I watch. I know that not all that is
said is completely accurate, not all that I observe is completely
accurate, but the overall flavor is unmistakable. The mood of the company
is overwhelming, and is supported by individuals within. This is what most
working people go through on a daily basis. Human beings, not machines.
My purpose here is to ask those who may now be of the psychic variety to
restrain themselves. What if you are "wrong", in the sense of subjective
judgements?
For the sake of a learning organization, please perform your own version
of the red bead experiment, or the funnel experiment, and draw your
conclusions based on an open mind; we often DON'T know as much as we think
we do, myself included. But the danger is that those who live in the
"everybody knows" box do so to the detriment of those around them, and to
themselves.
I've said before, here and elsewhere, that the "unknowns and unknowables"
affect our lives, and those of organizations, perhaps more than those
things we may claim to know. Some members have discounted that as
ignorance on my part. I'll offer some more examples for your
consideration;
The impact of a customer who is unhappy with the product or service will,
to be sure, will be felt directly by the customer no longer purchasing the
products or services. But the company won't know anything about it until
the sales slump, and the blame is placed. It will be felt indirectly as
well, in that the customer, as we all do, will tell his/her friends,
neighbors and relatives about the bad news. This will not be known until
the sales slump, and blame is placed. But the cause will not be known.
Required reading for learning organizations should include DEATH OF A
SALESMAN, in tandem with ON DEATH AND DYING; the first for a feeling of
what abusive management looks and sounds like, and second, for what it
feels to be on the receiving end of abusive management, for the effects on
the body and the mind are the same.
Some on the list express less than profound understanding of:
a. the immorality,
b. the injustice,
c. the alienation,
d. the "soul-death"
e. the repressive nature, and
f. the lasting impacts of management's being wrong.
These far outweigh the supposed "benefits" of using existing subjective
systems. But will that prevent their continued use? Not at all likely, as
many are still convinced that they "know". Should managers and those they
manage communicate more often? Certainly, and even more so without the
need for PA's. Not all employees are out to steal, though too many
companies would have you believe so. Not all employees are motivated by
money, though too many companies would have you believe so. And not all
the "fault" in the company lies at the feet of the workforce.
For those members who believe otherwise...
SHOW ME THE MONEY!! (in this case, send me the "great" PA systems your
companies or clients use, and I'll let you know how great they really
are.)
I am not swayed by belief in the "top companies in the US" argument; it
uses the same approach, same logic, same lack of understanding as does the
root belief in money as a motivator, or reliance on what your competition
may be doing, or driving by rear-view mirror.
I can venture outside with my trusty theodolite and "shoot" a line for a
mile. But is it a "straight" line? Is the ground beneath my feet truly
"flat"? What do I know, and how do I know it?
I am not psychic.
Please take the time to test your own value systems, before you make a
claim to "know" what is good, and who is bad. I know my own values, and
they concentrate on human beings and the impact of abusive policies and
procedures.
I repeat my offer to members and their client companies; "show me
the documentation!" I'll treat it with the respect it deserves,
and will provide this list with the results.
-- Sincerely,John Constantine Rainbird Management Consulting PO Box 23554 Santa Fe, NM 87502-3554 Rainbird@Trail.Com http:\\www.trail.com\~rainbird
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>