I have long been a lurker on this list. Thanks to Rick and all for all of
the thinking you have sparked for me...
I have been reading this thread with mixed interest. I'd like to
contribute a few random thoughts.
- I think the objective of a ranking system is to develop all of the
people in an organization to their individual peak levels. So, the
"ranking" is really a gap analysis and development plan. I think what is
important between a manager and an individual in a PA is a consultation
that involves career objectives, skills necessary to achieve them, plans
to acquire or achieve those skills along with the skills necessary to
"peak" on the present assignment.
- I worked once for a telecommunications comapny that bucketed people
into categories- O (outsanding), CS+ (Consistently Satisfactory 'plus'),
CS, CS-, and Unsatisfactory. There was, in typical bell curve fashion, no
pun intended, a limit to the number of O's and CS+'s an organization could
have. This was at the same time as some belt-tightening was going on, so
the results were:
- some outstanding perfromers were not evaluated correctly (read this
as reinforced) for their performance and results
- Those that were virtually had a lock on the slot, since there was
little movement in the organization
- many in the CS+ and CS categories felt demotivated and stopped
creating innovative programs and stopped all the other 'extras' they did
as a matter of fact- remember the story about the navy? same deal here.
I thought, and still do think, that the real objective is to have as many
O's as possible...everyone benefits.
Kyle Blake
--Kyle Blake <kyleblak@snet.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>