Chuck wrote,
> 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 suppose some of the answers to the above questions has to do with how
one defines 'ranking,' which we've not clearly settled on. Does
differentiation need to rely on ranking? I don't believe so, but again it
seems to rest with how we define the term. What is different about these
types of assessment (or whatever you want to call them) is that it is not
automatically presumed that the individual being assessed is alone in
his/her deficit. That there is an organizational responsibility as well,
to help ensure the individual can be most effective. If nothing seems to
help make them effective, then their role must be reassessed (generally,
they see this for themselves) or an exit is needed. Pay systems differ
among the places I've researched, though all rely to varying degrees on
profit sharing. And the people themselves, in conjunction with their work
groups and leaders, determine training needs and priorities. Again,
ranking is not necessarily involved; need is involved, and projections as
to what will be of most value to the collective in the future.
> 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!"
You're right, these are practical business/organizational concerns that
must be addressed. But often we get locked into thinking only along the
lines of how things have always been done, rather than looking for how
such decisions might be made differently and also be effective.
Addressing those long- neglected humanizing concerns does not necessitate
the elimination of broader business concerns. I don't see us as somehow
'glorifying' humanistic work; rather, it's recognizing (as you further
described in your note) the need to integrate the two.
--Terri Deems tadeems@aol.com
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>