Part of the problem with the "implementation" of non-standard PA
mechanisms is that, instead of having been tried and found wanting, they
have been found difficult and not tried.
Such is the difficulty with such "instant pudding" approaches. They take a
fundamental shift from "who did it?" to "how can we make it better?"
Big difference. Many companies have adjusted to the longer-term, leaving
the dead and wounded behind. If the same was true for everyone, we
wouldn't be bothering with traditionalists who forget that today's
tradition is yesterday's great invention. Nothing lasts forever and the
damage done will eventually become simply old news.
Roxanne Abbas wrote:
> I know of only a few organizations that have made a major change from
> their traditional performance management system which includes a summary
> rating of the employee into one of three or four or five categories.
...big snip by your host...
> All surveys that I've seen show that most employees and managers are very
> dissatisfied with their traditional, top down, performance management
> system. Although there is a lot of tweaking going on, I haven't heard of
> many major changes. However, I do believe that ranking is a very rarely a
> component of a company-wide system. I know of no other company than
> Hewlett Packard and Osram Sylvania that use it. (Rol uses the term
> ranking for LL Bean's triage system, but this is more typically called a
> performance rating system.)
--Sincerely,
John Constantine Rainbird Management Consulting PO Box 23554 Santa Fe, NM 87502-3554 Rainbird@Trail.Com http:\\www.trail.com\~rainbird
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>