Roxanne & John,
Clearly, what you mean by "Ranking" is much narrower than what I mean. So
there may be room for us to agree while disagreeing. I am not referring
to any literature, philosophy, technique, or "ism". I don't find a lot of
value in any of that. What I do is ranking as defined in Webster's. It
also qualifies as performance rating if I use the words as defined by
Webster's. So if you want to have a deeper discussion about
technically-defined methods which are known by certain names within the
profession, then my methods and experience are not relevant. If you are
interested in practical experience, then I have something relevant to say.
Performance rating systems are all ranking systems thinly disguised. At
some point, every organization I know of that uses performance ratings,
ranks.
When you discuss performance rating within organization or job
description, I am comfortable with that. It is still ranking, just on a
narrower scope. When you get to the point of making promotions, raises, or
lay-offs, ranking enters in.
John, you point out that no evaluation system is a system. It is a
process, and I agree. However, when you describe people being abused, I
don't agree that the process did that. People did it. People wanted to
abuse someone, so they bent the process to their needs. No refinement of
the process will ever eliminate this behavior. No matter how you change
the process, this will always be a possible outcome. You can have NO
process, and people can and will be abused, and I have seen that happen.
Avoidance of this behavior depends on changing the users, not changing the
process, and nothing you ever, ever do to the process will reduce peoples'
ability to abuse others. It may be immoral behavior, and I would likely
agree with you about that. But changing the process or eliminating the
process will not reduce the abuse one iota.
You also point out that no process is perfect. Yes. If you stick to
"triage" you will avoid most of the big pitfalls. If you feel a lot of
pain about the hard decisions, you are highly unlikely to make any big
mistake. The abusers you described felt no pain, they felt pleased by
what they were doing. Waiting is another way to avoid mistakes. For the
most momentous decisions, I wait a year, and I transfer the affected
person to another supervisor in order to get a fresh perspective.
John, you seem to see the down side, but I wonder if you see any upside.
The chance to learn, the chance to clarify expectations, the chance to
have another opinion of how you are doing, these are all positives of any
evaluation process. Do we just give these up?
Final point is, while I have a great deal of respect for you (and I think
you do for me) I fear that by pursuing and defending what I have found to
work very well for me, that you will reduce your estimation of me. I fear
that anyone who does not agree with you may be automatically put into a
"box", a classification -- and not a pretty one -- because we do not see
what you see. With no offense intended, my very serious question to you:
Is this a ranking system you are using? Because it sounded like one.
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>