In a message dated 2/8/98 12:35:52 PM, Ben Compton wrote:
>The list points out two very clear facts: a)
>not everyone has the same ability, b) one's ability does determine their
>value in the environment where that ability counts. Hence there is a
>natural ranking, according to value. The question is will we recognize
>this, and use it to our benefit, or will we spend huge amounts of time and
>money trying to get around a natural fact?
Ben, and others,
I've been an intrigued bystander to the Employee Ranking thread, at times
saying to myself "now that's a good point" and then saying the same thing
to those who take the opposite view. So, I will try to synthesize what I
am taking away from the thinking on this. This is a brain dump of ideas,
not necessarily in a logical order.
There is NO question in my mind that different people add different
value to each other and an organization, but that it is not absolute.
What adds value to one organization might not to another. One lover might
be great to one person and not for another.
Value is an ASSESSMENT people make based on THEIR STANDARDS which may or
may not be shared and THEIR OBSERVATIONS which may or may not be
representative. When there are different assessments, we have to look for
what grounding there is (observable facts), the standard being used and
the point of making the assessment. If the assessment is not shared, it
should lead to a conversation for new action that considers the limits of
the observer, the performance of the assessed as well as the purpose of
what they are trying to accomplish together.
Who is the person authorized to make the assessment to rank ALL
employees against each other? Are they really knowledgeable enough to
make well- grounded assessments?
There are many different domains of action that add value.
Organizations are webs/networks, therefore the whole requires the
interaction of those different domains and people to perform as a whole.
It is VERY difficult to assess the value of one person over another
since they are often interdependent. Yet, sometimes the breakdown in a
network can be isolated which has us fall into blaming that person. On
the other hand, if there are breakdowns, some people are better at
resolving them successfully, thus adding more value. (clearly, this is my
mental model or one of my standards for assessing value.) (Also, have you
ever heard the joke about the body parts trying to determine which organ
is the most important? <chuckle>)
Some of the domains of action are in support of others but
none-the-less, critical to the success of the organization.
Some people are more capable than others, but capability alone does not
produce value.
Ranking people from 1 - 2500 or whatever seems silly, however, some
system that reveals the underperformers and high achievers is useful to
help the organization sustain itself and improve.
Making assessments of people for the sake of the performance of the
organization can be done in a supportive manner or destructive manner.
Supportive accomplishes the purpose of making the assessment more than
destructive.
Principles of high performance show that an organization with a culture
of respect (caring and support), integrity (openly tell the "truth" as you
know it to be in a constructive manner) and continuous improvement (focus
on innovation and learning) will outperform an organization with a
different culture.
Sometimes, the person, the people and the organization are better off
when an underperforming member leaves.
Overperformers can also be destructive to the performance of the whole
and make the organization vulnerable to that one person's performance.
There is a lot of evidence that underperformance is often caused by the
structure or the system not the individual.
The assessment that a person is not adding as much value as desired
should lead to further inquiry on the cause which might lead to changing
the system, helping the person learn or helping the person do something
else that is more suitable, in or out of the organization.
Assessments are always made for the sake of taking care of a human
concern, based on the standards of the assessor. Powerful assessments
lead to effective action. But, "effective" is also an assessment! We
just can't divorce ourselves from human interpretation which is not THE
TRUTH.
The stories we tell ourselves can be more or less powerful, but we take
action, or not, based on them anyway. Some degree of reflection on our
stories is often useful.
Different organizations have different practices for taking care of this
critical aspect of organizational performance.
I probably missed something, but that's the gist of what I'm taking away
from this dialogue.
For what it's worth....
Margaret McIntyre
MargMcI@aol.com
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>