>Clearly my ideas on employee ranking and competition are creating a stir.
>It is not my intention to be a pain in the ass. All I'm doing is pointing
>out some facts that so far no one has recognized as being true. So I will
>ask them explicitly, and independent of the employee ranking and
>competition threads, and see what happens.
I don't think you're being a "pain in the ass" (or "arse" for our British
friends), Ben, but you take firm, unequivocal stands, which invite forays
and skirmishes -- if for no other reason that to test your resoluteness.
That aside, I'll answer your questions, and I'll begin by agreeing with
Denis Cowan, who observed that you aren't pointing to facts at all but,
rather, to your own views and beliefs.
>1. Inequality in ability is a natural state of existence? True or false?
False. It is true that people display different abilities and different
levels of a particular ability. It is also true that, in some cases,
there are limits on the range and level of ability we might develop, but
it is not simply a matter of "natural state of existence." So, there are
enough exceptions to the general statement in Question 1 above that I
would not answer it as true.
>2. An employees value is, to a large extent, determined by their
>performance? True or false?
False. Presumably, you are referring to the employee's value to the
organization where he or she is employed. First, such a judgment cannot
be made by a single individual except in very small organizations. If by
"performance" you refer to the full range of contributions an employee
might make, then no single individual is in a position to know about let
alone evaluate them all. Further, contributions change over time; thus,
there is the matter of past, present and, most important, projected value.
Finally, the value of anything is greatly affected by the ease and cost of
replacing it, not just its current utilitarian value. So, again, I answer
"False."
>3. Not all employee are equally valuable to their employer? True or false?
True, False, and Pointless. Value varies over time. Joe might be more
valuable than Josephine on Wednesday but on Friday it's the other way
'round. There is no point to the question.
>4. Each person is ultimately responsible for their own competency and
>their own learning? True or false?
False. We live in a society where we depend on one another. Complete and
utter independency and self-sufficiency are destructive myths, delusions
that enable the insensitive and uncaring to go their way without feeling
guilty about their neglect of the human condition. Each person also bears
a portion of the responsibility to which you refer, and we each bear a
portion of the responsibility for the human condition.
I won't respond to your list of examples but I will respond to your
closing paragraph.
>The list could go on and on. 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?
The list points to no such facts. It points instead to the attributions
and judgments people make about each other.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
The Distance Consulting Company
nickols@worldnet.att.net
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
--Fred Nickols <nickols@worldnet.att.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>