Ben,
Let me start with what I see from the first part of your scenario (about
measurements that were taken or not). I have also been manager and quality
manager in a customer support group. My experience is pretty much in line
with Deming's claim that the system set by management is responsible for
85% of the errors and the individuals are responsible for 15% of them.
And, just like you, I never took the responsibility to change a system I
saw fundamentally flawed - I didn't see it as clearly as I do now. Use of
the measurements you described should be targeted at first improving the
system (simple use of Pareto). Using those to evaluate individual
performance is , IMHO, abdicating management responsibility for the
system, and is equivalent to finger-pointing, but in a hidden way (is it
not a covered-up cover-up to reuse Argyris' terminology ?).
As for the second part of your scenario, about the layoffs...Of course,
ranking would have been a good tool. But it was not the only one available
! As a manager, whether or not you formally use ranking, you know which
employees are most valuable to the success of the group - and if you
don't, then you should question your management skills - and you could
have directly been involved in the layoff decisions (something I never had
to do, and I wish to never have to do).
I am not saying here that I would have always done the things I preach in
here. But I'm working hard at closing the gap between my espoused values
and the ones I actually enact.
--Christian Giroux, Manager, Operational Development - PU WIN Applications Ericsson Research Inc. Montrial
<christian.giroux@lmc.ericsson.se>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>