On 8 Apr 98 at 21:01, Dale Emery wrote:
> I don't understand the value of this. If I dismiss everyone below the
> 50th percentile, then I'm left with a new set of people, and therefore a
> new ranking. If I measure them again, half will again be below the 50th
> percentile, so by the same logic I'd have to dismiss them. If I measure
> again, ...
This is a point I have made here and elsewhere in other articles, and to
be honest, I don't understand the thinking of people who continue to state
that a ranking system gives an indication of contribution. If you have an
excellent group, then have will still have to be below average, even if
they are ALL contributing above the industry average. Dismiss even the
bottom ten percent, and hire more, and you get WORSE.
Likewise if the HR department can't hire for their lives and brings in
people all pretty much substandard and below the industry, firing the
bottom half still leaves you with the top set of non-productive people.
> To me, the important thing is whether people are delivering value I am
> willing to pay for, not how they compare to others.
Seems self-evident to me, but obviously it's not.
Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and defusing hostility
at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
--"Robert Bacal" <rbacal@escape.ca>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>