WOW! I am really excited about where this dialogue is now leading. As I
have read previous entries, I have been very frustrated and often angry.
Especially, when the postings were different from my views. I am catching
up on mail and on April 19 are reading and responding to an April 9
posting by Ben Compton.
It seems that I as have read the posts on employee ranking, that the
"tone" and focus have changed. In the past, it seems the focus was on
debate and discussion where the writer worked very hard to make a point of
view and to convince others to support it. As I read recent messages from
Rick, Ben, and Ron, I notice more of an emphasis into dialogue - that is
sharing of one's own assumptions and mental models and probing about the
assumptions and mental models of others for the purpose of uncovering what
can be learned, rather than to convince. For me, this is what learning is
about and emphasizes the need for patience in my work.
In a recent post, Ben stated:
---- quote of Ben's msg -----
I see employee ranking as a way of checking and balancing this trend. It
forces management to make important distinctions, which can have profound
and long-term effects on the performance of the organization. I'm not
going to deny the fact that it is difficult, and even painful at times,
but I still think there is great virtue in it.
I can think of an example where I was ranked, and which proved to be a
very enjoyable event. I had a manager early in my career who was a number
junky. He measured everything. I'm surprised he didn't measure how long it
took us to go to the bathroom ...grin.... Every morning he posted the
numbers from the previous days work. Everyone was ranked by the number of
incidents you had closed for the month. The posted statistics showed:
- - The number of incidents closed the day before
- - The total number of incidents closed for the month
- - The average number of incidents closed per day
- - The number of incidents re-opened by the customer for the month
Everyone could see where they were at, and how well they were doing
relative to everyone else. That spreadsheet was 90% of your evaluation.
The other 10% was based on the accuracy of the answers you gave customers,
determined by management through reviewing a sampling of your incidents.
That team started with 15 of us. After three years it had grown to include
100 people, and was by far the most united, focused, and best-performing
team in the division. We competed with each other, and we cooperated with
each other. There was this sense we each had that said, "Geez, Bob's
having a slow month. It could happen to me next month. So I'd better see
if I can help Bob." In the three years I worked there, we only had two
people fired for incompetence. And no one was laid off. That's a pretty
damn good record. And the amount of learning that took place during that
time period was phenomenal.
---- end of quote ----
What this triggers in me is the question, which parts of the above system,
provided the most leverage for success of the organization. For example,
was it the ranking that showed who was on top, in the middle and on the
bottom. Or was it, the availability and use of individual performance
data in relation to performance data of others that served as effective
feedback. Probably both. What I now realize is, that for me, the ranking
of employees from best to worst has also seemed not productive, given the
small number of employees that usually need to be fired. BUT, creating
systems that provide workers with feedback about their work is very
powerful, especially if it is measurable, from a variety of sources or
measures, and a process is in place that helps the worker to reflect on
the data, find meaning in it, and strive to improve fits very well with my
mental model.
Ben, I have continued to read your posts and I could only focus on the
ranking part. I could not see this other portion. I believe that part of
what I have said above (measurable data as feedback) is aligned with your
philosophy. Therefore, I can see we have much more common ground around
this issue. Before, I realized that we both care deeply about the
effectiveness of our organizations and have a strong desire for them to
success. Please let me know if my assumption is incorrect.
Let me move to a related issue for me -- accountability. What is
accountability in a learning organization?
I believe accountability in a learning organization requires the following
elements. The person must be able to:
1) clearly state what they wanted to achieve.
2) explain what they did with a rationale for why
3) identify the results, that is what occurred
4) indicate what was learned as the three previous steps are analyzed (or
provide an explanation of why the results that were achieved were achieved.
For me, this accountability should be part of the culture and is required
equally of successful projects and workers as well as projects or workers
who were not successful. To promote learning and reduce fear, structures
should be in place where everyone can learn from those who achieved
success and support is provided to help others be more successful. In
this type of environment, data such as Ben stated in his example, could be
useful in accountability.
Thanks for reading. I am interested in feedback on this issue.
David Wilkinson
School Improvement Specialist
Des Moines Public Schools (IA)
1800 Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50309
Davidwilk@aol.com
--Davidwilk <Davidwilk@aol.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>