Eric Bohlman, responding to Richard Goodale in LO16947, wrote:
>Finally, I want to point out something that's mathematicaly obvious but
>that too many people (especially those who just found out who John Galt
>is) forget: an individual's rank in a ranking of performances is
>determined not only by his own performance, but by other people's
>performances as well. Therefore, even in a situation where an individual
>has complete control over his level of performance and therefore has
>PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY (try to envision foot-high letters here) for his
>absolute level of performance, he does *not* have complete control over
>other people's performance and therefore does *not* have total PERSONAL
>RESPONSIBILITY for his rank. And if he *did* have such control, what sort
>of control would he need to exercise to increase his rank? The sort of
>control that would *lower* other people's absolute levels of performance,
>that's what.
The closing statement above is true enough but it is not the only option
available to the person in question. Lowering the perceived levels of the
performance of others might indeed result in a raising of the individual's
ranking. However, raising the perceived level of the individual's own
performance would have the same effect. There are two options here, not
just one.
>If an individual's level of contribution to an organization is determined
>by how far his performance is ahead of his co-workers' performances, than
>a mediocre performer surrounded by total slackers is more valuable than a
>high achiever surrounded by other high achievers. This, I propose, is
>total nonsense. Ranking cannot, by itself, identify "good" or "bad"
>performers because it doesn't compare performance to criteria.
Eric raises the distinction between norm-referenced and
criterion-referenced judgments, an important point if the basis for
ranking is a comparison of individuals, especially if it is a forced
choice comparison. However, I believe it was argued earlier that
criterion-referenced evaluations could result in ratings that could then
be used for ranking. This is technically feasible. Norm-referenced and
criterion-referenced are very different animals but not mutually exclusive
and not necessarily incompatible.
For my money, the most important point Eric raises is his very first one:
>Finally, I want to point out something that's mathematicaly
>obvious but that too many people ...snip... forget: an individual's
>rank in a ranking of performances is determined not only by his
>own performance, but by other people's performances as well.
Suppose Terry is first in a crew of 20 people. Lee, the next best
performer, is only half as good as Terry. The rest cluster along behind
Terry, except for Lou, who is not even half as good as Lee. In a ranking,
Terry would be first, Lee would be second, and Lou would be last. Lou
would be right after Marty, who, at number 19, is almost as good as Lee
who stands at number 2. That's one of the problem with rankings. It does
indeed yield a normative, comparative view of performance. However, with
the possible exception of the outliers, that view is quite misleading, and
it does not do justice to the individuals involved.
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>