> One of the things I find very interesting concerning this debate
> regarding ranking and PA systems is that while proponents of such
> systems can point to specific systems that seem to work
> (Hewlett-Packard, L.L. Bean), opponents have not yet pointed to any
> specific examples of successful companies that have thrown out their
> old appraisal/ranking systems in favor of an alternative.
I know of one company that has done so and am checking with the senior VP
to see if I can refer you to him.
In the meantime, it seems, from your email address, that you are with
Hewlett-Packard, by all accounts a successful company, and one from which
we all might learn a great deal. So, I'll not delve into what constitutes
a successful company, let alone challenge H-P on that score.
In the various discussions of performance appraisals and employee
rankings, there has been an underlying, implicit logic that seems to run
as follows:
Successful companies (e.g., H-P, LL Bean, etc.) have performance
appraisal systems and rank their employees.
Therefore, performance appraisal systems are (good/okay/necessary/
desirable).
Also implied is that performance appraisal systems and employee rankings
account, in some measure at least, for the success of these successful
companies.
I don't think so. Others do. That's the essence of the discussion, isn't
it?
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>