> Regarding incentives and performance appraisals, it is truly sad that there
> are still attempts to inflict subjective notions such as monetary
> "incentives" and the continuing abuse of performance appraisals on an
> organization's workforce.
> Among other things, it merely introduces added variation in an otherwise
> unstable system. Since each person is a unique human being, that person
> cannot be "individualized" as performing or not performing by a subjective
> supervisor, and attempts to assemble "performance-related data" so as to
> justify the appraisal are statistically indefensible.
>
> The cost in stress to the individuals involved, as well as to the system
> in terms of millions of dollars for a large corporation largely goes
> unnoticed as new attempts are made each organizational season.
I know of a Fortune 100 company, one of the best, that used rigorous
numeric averages derived from performance appraisals to handle their
downsizing. When a department was told how many to lay off, they started
at the bottom, i.e. the individual with the lowest score, and worked
their way up the list. All very neat and tidy, and best of all,
lawsuit-proof.
> My recommendation? Save the company millions, and cease and desist in the
> counterproductive efforts which merely perpeptuate which should have been
> eliminated years ago. One trains animals to jump with incentives ...is
> that what a company wants out of its workforce?
>
> Is the organization desirous of maintaining a reward/punishment mode when
> it has been shown to be counterproductive? This perpetuates fear in the
> organization, guarantees more, not fewer, problems, and contributes to
> competition when there should instead be cooperation. Which does one
> prefer? A fear-based system? No thank you.
>
> I really believe there are preferable alternatives.
I appreciate your comment on fear. I believe fear is a great motivator
when you must get people to do what they really don't want to do, like
work your fields or fight your battles. I've seen a lot of organizations
that look like medieval fiefdoms, and a lot of leaders who act like
medieval barons. These organizations find success for a time because
those in power reap benefits in money and prestige from the labor of the
serfs and oafs and churls, who remain in the organization out of fear and
necessity.
I hope this metaphor is not too far-fetched (or too cynical) for 1999.
Have you seen many companies make radical changes in their reward systems
that were successful, sustained, and transforming?
George Pinckney
pinckney@bellsouth.net
--George Pinckney <pinckney@bellsouth.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>