On 9 Apr 99 at 12:20, John Gunkler wrote:
> 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."
I didn't take Philip's question with the same meaning as you did, but a)
sure there may be an meta-method such as you describe. And in fact, that's
probably what I would suggest. However, is it far from non-controversial
in real life situations.
You still have to bump up against some realities:
a) What is easy to measure objectively is not always important to measure.
b) What is hard to measure is often very important.
c) That any judgment, even if it be with relatively clear goals, is just
that' a judgmement whether we make it sound objective (percent of goal
achievement). It's a subjective assessment that is indeed controversial in
every single company doing this type of thing.
Unless of course one sets trivial goals that can be easily measured with
exactness.
> 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.
Are you aware of instances where this kind of thing is done routinely and
is NEVER contentious or controversial?
> 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.
I think, in general (and this isn't a comment on you or what you suggest
since I don't have enough details), that any approach which attempts to
make something sound objective by using numbers that are, in fact,
subjective, is damaging to both people in an organization, and the
organization.
I'm sorry, but I've seen this kind of obfuscation, and it is indeed
contentious, and as a result, one of the most destructive things companies
can do.
...better to do nothing.
Robert Bacal, author of PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT,(McGraw-Hill). Details at
http://members.xoom.com/perform and http://members.xoom.com/cooperate.
"Performance management - about people and creating success"=
Join the Performance Management/Appraisal discussion group by sending an email to perfmgt-subscribe@egroups.com
Visit the Perf. Management/Appraisal Resource Center at http://members.xoom.com/perform/index.htm
--"worknews" <rbacal@escape.ca>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>