Brock Vodden, in Employee Ranking Systems LO17500, said:
>Perhaps the ranking vs. non-ranking argument is not the crucial point in
>this debate. Could it be that the determinant of effectiveness is the
>soundness of the overall design and the underlying philosophy of the
>system. Perhaps a given system works well - not because of the ranking or
>the non-ranking - but rather despite the presence of the disadvantages and
>the absence of the advantages of either?
And I think we would all have to agree.
There are some basics that are critical to the success of any organization
or system and would include things like Trust, Openness, Shared Visions,
Fairness, Communications, and those types of underlying constructs. My
list is not meant to be complete, but simply illustrative. And there are
so many factors about Big Companies versus smaller ones.
In this list, we talk a lot about personal experiences and hypothetical
constructs and we sometimes ignore some of the (what I think are) obvious
factors.
If the organization is pathological in its operations, ranking or no
ranking is not going to make a whole lot of difference overall.
But I do like the discussions!
BTW, if any of you are interested in my website, I'd love it if you would
take a look. I've got some articles about organizational improvement,
some information about The Search for The Lost Dutchman's Gold Mine and
some interesting links. It's new, and I'm constantly upgrading. Any
comments would, of course, be most appreciated.
-- For the Fun of It!Scott J. Simmerman SquareWheels@compuserve.com Performance Management Company
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>