Greetings,
In reply to the question "Is there a universal, non controversial way of
defining "high" and "low" performance, suitable for all circumstances and
all industries...", John Gunkler offers that the answer is "goal
attainment scaling."
I would take issue with any such statement normally, but in this instance
there is an opportunity to provide some potential learning to those who
have it so.
In answer to the same question (originally from Phil Pogson) I say that
there indeed is such a methodology which fits the description of:
-universal
-non controversial
-defines high and low performance
-suitable for all circumstances and all industries
Far too rarely is it used, for reasons which continue to be a mystery to
me. (I've had one manager recently state that she "has a gut feeling"
which she uses to define such things.) Is it any wonder that organizations
of all shapes and sizes, public and private, have such morale problems?
But first, a question or two...
How many people does it take to do your job, whatever it might be? Are
you an island unto yourself, in complete control of all your
surroundings so as to make the assumed connection to such things as
"goals", performance or otherwise? Are you a manager, responsible for
creating the various systems and subsystems, and the resulting processes
which "enable" work to be done? In that role, do you "mix and pour the
concrete" which starts to set as it makes its way downstream?
Do you pay the costs of the structure in which you work?
Do you have furniture? Where did it come from? Do you have computer
equipment? Does it self-install?
If you are A and the system in which you work is deemed B, then the
linkage to such things as goals are a combination of the intercepts A
intercept B, and the further links to all others with whom you interact
in order to do your job. A intercept B intercept C intercept D intercept
E intercept F intercept G, etc. No man or woman is an island, and yet so
many managers and supervisors rely on gut feelings and performance
documents which "relate" to an employee's contractual commitment to
"performance goals" and similar language.
Unfortunately, it is sheer drivel. And so, to return to the answer to
the basic question, what IS the answer?
Determine what your particular purpose is for what you are asking; if all
you want is to have someone to blame, you can act dumb and just use your
gut. It doesn't take much effort to do that. If you want to invest
yourself in the short-term, ask lots of pointed questions designed to
produce the desired answers, get the results and rank the individuals.
Keep the best and shoot the rest. Someday you will be among them.
If, on the other hand, you are seeking understanding, then earn the
difference between cause and effect; determine which are to be considered
as causes related to the system itself, and those which are not. With
adequate data, you can easily identify who is, and isn't, "within the
limits" of the system.
But, first consider your motives. It is a myth that goals and performance
can be easily linked, or linked at all, given the complexity of the modern
workplace, but people seem to be determined to believe otherwise.
Give it up and save the costs to your company in time, morale and
stress.
Sincerely,
John Constantine, Managing Partner
Rainbird Management Consulting
Santa Fe, NM
rainbird@trail.com
http://www.trail.com/~rainbird
--John Constantine <rainbird@trail.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>