In a message dated 98-04-13 00:20:57 EDT, you write:
> Yes, it happens lots of places, under different names. But the process is
> to assess, not to rank in anyway. Portfolio assessments (I know by this
> name, but other places use a similar process naming it differently), for
> example, generally have no tie to pay. While part of the assessment
> involves 360, the bulk is the partnership involving the individual and the
> group and/or group leader. The thinking is simple: it's everyone's
> responsibility to make sure everyone else is effective and successful.
>
> The focus is not, What is this person doing right or wrong? but what are
> >we> doing well, and what do we need to refine in order for this person to
> be more effective? This is an important part of a vital or naturalized
> workplace. Effectiveness is collaborative, involving solidarity more than
> empowerment.
>
> And you are right, from what I've seen there is a tendency for trust to
> increase, morale boosted, a stronger sense of community to evolve, and
> ultimately productivity to increase. People who have gone through them,
> while describing them as being frustrating at first, say they are a far
> more effective learning tool than the systems that had previously been in
> place (including just the 360).
A few notes:
Partnership. Trust. Morale boosted. Stronger sense of community. Increase
in productivity. These are situations we all wish we had in our
organizations. And there will not be a dearth of anecdotes about these
existing or thriving in a large number of the places we work.
I'm uncomfortable, however, by statements like "assessing without
ranking", "assessment processes without ties to pay" and the like, which
seem to say that partnership, trust, etc. cannot exist/do not exist in
organizations where "ranking" is practiced and "performance-based pay" is
a norm.
So how is the performance of one differentiated from another and how are
the results of differentiation treated and made use of? How is pay
determined, in particular, pay increases and bonus payments? Do people get
the same amount of rewards? If not, how are the discrete amounts
determined? Does not some form of "ranking" really come into play when the
time comes to allocate rewards, to decide who needs more coaching for
improvement, to prioritize training needs, or, more long-termish, to
establish, confirm or revisit career paths?
I see all these as practical business/organizational concerns that still
need to be addressed as much as we'd want to address such long-neglected
humanizing concerns as partnerships, trust, cooperation, a sense of
community, and the like. Yet in glorifying the latter, we seem to be now
saying that the former issues are simply no longer relevant. It's like
saying "Up with people! Down with organizations!"
The issue in this thread isn't really "employee ranking", if we sift
through all the fluff. A number have already noted this earlier. The issue
is people vs. organizations. It's being treated as individuals, "being and
becoming", vs. being regarded as organizational cogs, efficient or
inefficient. But then again this dichotomy looks pretty much artificial
itself.
It may help to recall Blake and Mouton's "concern for people" vs. "concern
for production" grid, to clarify the point that the first should not
necessarily exclude the latter, and vice versa. If I recall correctly,
utmost concern for the first is described as a "country-club" management
style where "thoughtful attention to people's needs for satisfying
relationships leads to a comfortable and friendly organizational
environment, but a weak focus on work performance, performance criteria,
and efficiency rankings". On the other hand, utmost concern for the latter
is called an "authority-obedience, garrison-type" management style where
"efficiency in operations and work performance comes from creating
conditions/criteria of work in such a way that human elements interfere to
a minimal degree". The two authors point out, however, that "concern for
people" and "concern for production", and their attendant ramifications,
are not necessarily mutually exclusive concepts. They may in fact find a
confluence in "team management" where "accomplishments at work, measured
and ranked, are from committed people and interdependence due to a common
stake in the organization's mission leads to relationships of trust and
respect founded on a shared work ethic."
My point: We can go on and on with this thread, and we'll all be right at
the end of the day -- all with relevant viewpoints that make the greater
picture of a learning organization clearer and crisper.
My 2 cents.
Chuck Gesmundo
Minneapolis
--Alderlink <Alderlink@aol.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>