Dale 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.
Robert responded:
> 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.
W.E. Deming talks to this issue in both "Out of the Crisis" and "The New
Economics". He makes the point that the measurement of performance is
actually the measurement of the system. To find out whether or not a
person lies within or without the system, you can calculate control limits
based on the parameter of interest and plot all of the people in the
system on the chart. In most cases, you'll see a stable system, in
control, which gives bad results. The answer to most performance problems
is in the system that allows them to be.
John
--"John Zavacki" <jzavacki@greenapple.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>