I sense that one of the issues related to this thread is two fold.
First, treating employees in a utilitarian manner. They are not
interchangeable parts. Two people with the same education, training, and
competency scores, also bring things to the job that they don't share. If
there is a competitive advantage anywhere it is identifying how to utilize
the intangibles in individuals.
Second, people are simply competent or not. I have some days when I'm
better at what I do that others. Often I don't know when one of those
days when you should had stayed home in bed or mowed the grass will show
up. People are complex beings. Organizations have had trouble in dealing
with that complexity. Yet, I'm convinced in what I see happen with
organizations. The better and flexible a company or organization is in
dealing with the complexity of human nature, the more they will get out of
the person. That is why I'm not sure employee rankings are necessarily
helpful, unless they are focused upon what they are to learn in the future
to achieve their goals.
One final word. I've never been ranked, except by compensation. I've
been evaluated, and that has also left something to be desired. What I
never had was a sense of commitment to being a partner in achieving the
goals for my area. It usually was this detached critical observer who
went down a list. It was very ineffective, and in my younger years
discouraging. Later, I just became cynical and prepared for being
ambushed. My point is that unless ranking and/or evaluation lead to
equipping the employee to perform better, it is a waste of time, energy
and a distraction from the normal course of work.
Ed Brenegar
Leadership Resources
edb3@msn.com
--"Ed Brenegar" <edb3@msn.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>