Phillip Pogson, in a nicely argued message, includes this question:
>Is there a universal, non-controversial way of defining "high" and
>"low" performance, suitable for all circumstances and all industries or
>is defining performance, in your opinion, situation specific?
To which I, perhaps surprisingly, answer, "Yes!" There is a universal,
non-controversial way of defining performance levels and, yes, it changes
from situation to situation.
How can this be?
It is based on a concept called "goal attainment scaling." To simplify,
goal attainment scaling involves setting performance goals (these are
situation specific) and agreeing to a way to measure "percent of goal
achievement" for each goal. So, even though your goals and my goals
differ, we both can be measured on the universal scale of "percent of goal
achievement."
Goal attainment scaling can be taken a step further toward universality by
finding ways to compare the "value" of the different goals that are set
(this can be very difficult, but there are often consensus judgment
methods available that make it possible and practical.) Goals are usually
judged by their contribution to the success of the organization -- i.e.,
contribution to achieving the organization's goals/strategies/mission.
Sometimes, for performance evaluation reasons, one also wants to use a
scale that captures how hard someone worked. This requires, again,
judging the goal (in addition to the percent achievement) -- but this time
one needs to judge how "ambitious" the goal is for the person. I have
actually done this, both as the worker and the manager, and it works best
when the "ambitiousness scale" is agreed upon by both worker and manager
(and, where appropriate, by the work team.) Historical data can be a
guide if the performance being measured is similar to past performance and
(though I'm seldom of fan of normative measures) comparison data from
other people who have set and worked toward similar goals may sometimes be
used.
These judgments about the goals themselves (whether organizationally based
or individually/group based) are used as "weightings" to be multiplied by
the percent achievement to establish measures of performance that can be
useful across individuals, departments, or even organizations.
With very little adaptation, goal attainment scaling can also be used to
measure the performance of a team, a department, or an entire organization.
--"John Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>