My sincerest apologies for getting back to you on this after such a long
time, but I've been swamped and just now got a chance to review my "posts
waiting-to-be-sent" files. :)
I thought your post was eloquently composed, and seemed desirous of a
reponse to your stated predicament:
"...and I can't explain myself in a simple, convincing way why peer
ranking is a less effective means for businesses."
May I offer that part of the problem stems from the inability of the
formula X PLUS Y PLUS (X TIMES Y) to solve for an INDIVIDUAL's
contribution or lack thereof. The employee plus the system, plus the
interaction of each together, is simply unsolvable, and yet many (in my
view far too many) organizations and managers pretend, or claim, or
struggle to try to fit the pieces together. They are just as frustrated as
you, and many of us besides.
If one cannot know the impact of the person on the system, without knowing
the impact of the system on the person, and the mix of the two, can ANY
form of review/appraisal/evaluation be considered anything but a guess,
peer or otherwise?
Almost every operation I've met with and spoken to over the past 12 years
has been operating on the basis of the following question: "DID YOU MAKE
YOUR NUMBERS THIS WEEK (MONTH, YEAR)? That simple question implies that
the only important item in the entire process is the RESULT, not the CAUSE
of the result.
In weighing one person/department/division/district/region against
another, we are making the same fatal error right at the outset. As
managers we must feel in control, and that is a big part of the very
complex problem, but not the only part. In order to be in control, we must
feel like we are "knowing" what we are doing, and others must feel the
same. So many managers implement without the grounding knowledge, and
forcefeed the results on the remainder. Management has constructed the
system, and has required people to work in it, but hasn't informed anyone
else that only about 10-15% is controllable by the employee workforce. If
you don't believe me, just check your best resources...those you know at
the lowest level of organization in a company.
Managers often consider an event as either one of two possibilities:
1. every one is considered a "special" cause, when in fact it is a result
of the system (common cause); or,
2. every one is considered "system problem" (a common cause), when in fact
it is a special cause.
Applying the following concept:
>>"...Deming pointed out that one could always avoid one mistake or the
other at the expense of optimizing the alternate mistake. Shewhart's
experiments gave him the control chart with 3 sigma limits as the most
economic way of balancing the two mistakes.
L. H. C Tippet in England >>came to similar conclusions around the same
time."
(The two mistakes are treated in William Latzko's book (with David
Saunders), "Four Days With Dr. Deming" on page 99 and in Dr. Deming's "Out
of the Crises" p. 318 and his "the New Economics" (2nd ed. p.174.))
Applying the underlying concept (from the above) to this complex adaptive
system (under Chaos Theory) and mixing in our review/appraisal process, we
would have to allow for "the system" to be in balance, and review what
that looks like first, before we do anything else. On the basis of our
findings, and the 3Sigma application to a control chart of our process, we
can find out in short order:
1. if the system process is in balance,
2. if all are WITHIN the control limits, or,
3. if some are OUTSIDE the control limits, either high OR low.
If we stopped there, what would peer review give us, in answer to the
basic question? Nothing, unless sufficient information exists for the
creation of the control chart.
If we decided against the chart and the application of the 3Sigma control
limits, because we had insufficient information/data, what would we have
in answer to the basic question? Nothing, because we cannot solve for the
complex formula stated above, the interaction of the individual AND the
system in which the individual finds him/herself.
That is why, IMO, many find it so difficult and perplexing to simply state
what is much more than a simple problem. And, why it is so important NOT
to make conclusions that take only certain bits and pieces into account
when more is needed and unavailable.
I've provided another file from Fortune Magazine which may offer more
support for your quest for knowledge. It has a lot to say about Learning
Organizations and other matters.
My best to you. I apologize for the delay in responding.
--Regards, John Constantine rainbird@trail.com Rainbird Management Consulting PO Box 23554 Santa Fe, NM 87502 http://www.trail.com/~rainbird
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>