On 11 Feb 98 at 16:25, Alderlink@aol.com wrote:
> On the other hand, how does one run his
> organization without one? How does one know what to focus on without a
> system of setting goals and of reviewing what has been accomplished and
> what needs special attention? How does one know that his people's own work
> and personal development goals are being met? How does one then compensate
> good work or prepare a program for those who need or seek improvement in
> their work or in their ability/skills to do their work?
I think there are answers to all of these questions. It's a long story. If
the goal is employee development, then my contention is that we can use
"Effectiveness Enhancement Processes" which are mutually agreed upon
(between each manager and staff) of how that should be done within some
other legal constraints (communication and documentation).
A MBO approach has the greatest potential as a system for answering most
of your questions..without rankings and without ratings, including
transmitting org. culture, documentation, communication, feedback and
development (and development planning).
The compensation issue is a tough one. If we use the same system for
developing employees, and determining compensation, we end up in a
conflict...and encourage some very odd behaviors.
> In several discussions over the years, I or somebody else would broach the
> idea of completely doing away with a system that "pretends to review, in a
> hopefully fair manner, the performance and development of people in the
> organization". Discussions would be heated until the following questions
> are inevitably asked: From associates, "So, how am I gonna be paid? How do
> I get raises? Or promotions?" ; or from supervisors /managers, "How am I
> gonna decide how much more to give Bill compared to Joe? Or whether a
> promotion is due? Or what training program Joe will be sent to?". We'd
> somehow just end up agreeing on some improvements on the PA system for the
> next annual review.
Note: Neither rankings or ratings fulfils this requirement unless one
assumes objective valid measurement. There are lots of ways to deal with
those issues. I don't know if I can answer all of them, but probably most
of them.
> A couple of times, I've actually seen a whole PR system replaced with a
> new one. The last company I worked with, in the first year of its business
> re- engineering program, actually went into an extended company-wide
> discussion of possibly scrapping the PA system altogether. The
> "breakthrough" idea was in fact raised by the President/CEO himself and
> was repeated on several occasions. Despite some very strong arguments
> against PA systems per se, the consensus in the end, surprisingly, was
> simply to develop a system that was "better" than the current one, not
> scrap the appraisal process/system completely. At the end of the day, a
> great majority agreed that they wanted to know how good or bad they did at
> work after all and what can be done for one to do better.
I would be willing to agree with the above approach. The question is what
is "better"--what does that mean...what do we want the thing to do. How
should it add value...how can we assess whether it adds value?
If we are concerned about communication and documentation, a few minutes
once a month with scribbled notes signed by both on a matchbook might just
do it? It all depends what you want and what you need.
I think that most would agree that a something is needed. But for what,
how and at what cost are the issues.
> In sum, I am led to think that each organization simply adopts a PA system
> that serves its purposes, whatever those may be.
This is where I disagree. I have consulted a bit on PA systems, and
my experience is that organizations tinker with PA systems, basically
staying within what they understand them as. There is little
ground-breaking thought, little analysis, little evaluation, etc, and
as such the new system looks a lot like the old one.
People aren't used to thinking about this differently. If you have ever
tried to get a personnel type bureacrat to forgo one of many copies of the
'form", you will know what I mean.
> Can we really presime to advise anyone what the better PA systems are?
Yes, PROVIDED we know what purpose the "anyone" has for doing it. If you
tell me what value it is to add, and how you are going to do it, I can
pretty much tell you whether your path will get you there or be another
rehash to the same destination you were at before.
Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and defusing hostility
at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
*Site Last Updated On Jan 24, 1998*
--"Robert Bacal" <rbacal@escape.ca>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>