Benjamin B. Compton said this at the end of a post:
How could employee ranking have changed the outcome? Is the current state
of Novell's tech support due to the fact that the competents have left?
Why have they left?
In my view the fact that employees were never ranked, and people were
never called what they were has had a tragic and sobering effect on the
organization and its ability to perform at a reasonable level.
I am open to other views on this scenario but it will take a lot to
convince me that employee ranking couldn't have done something to drive
performance to new levels instead of thrusting it in a constant decline.
*******end-of-quote******
Ben, as I read the case study, I see you making the case that employee
ranking could have been a useful intervention to modify the way things
happened at Novell and thus leading to success. The point is well taken
and well expressed.
There may be other interventions. The concern I have about employee
randking in this situation, given the mental models and mindsets of the
management as you described them, would an employee ranking system be able
to survive that identified the difference between competence and
incompetence? Was the capacity in place in the organization to
successfully implement such an intervention?
My thoughts have been expanded as I have read various posts on this thread
and I look forward to learning more when you respond. Thanks,
David Wilkinson
School Improvement Specialist
Des Moines Public Schools (IA)
Davidwilk@aol.com
--Davidwilk <Davidwilk@aol.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>