Rol and Barry asked me to clarify my comments:
>The process of managers judging and assiging ratings (like the process of
>teachers judging and assigning grades) creates many of the obstacles. This is
>not to say that employees don't need feedback about how they're doing or
>information on what might be important to the organization and its
>customers.
My experience has led me to the belief that performance review of
individual employees and the rating of individual employees are obstacles
to productivity and enjoyment of work. I am not saying we should seek
better ways to do performance review; I am saying we should quit doing it.
My reasons:
- Performance review focuses on fixing the person, rather than fixing the
system.
- Performance rating suggests that employee performance can be validly
measured, which is very rarely the case.
- Performance review causes an individual, rather than a team, or
organizational focus and works against team efforts.
- This focus on individual outcomes suboptimizes organizational performance.
- Although performance review is often intended to motivate improved
performance, employees often report the process to be demoralizing and
demeaning.
- Performance ratings create a spirit of competition among employees and
discourage cooperative efforts.
- Performance _ review_ focuses on the past rather than the present and
future.
- Performance review reinforces the imbalance of power in traditional
organizations.
- Performance rating often causes employees to do whatever is necessary to
meet the stated standards or objectives, even if it means shipping bad
product or falsifying reports.
- Performance rating causes chronic problems of hiding bad news and
kissing up to the boss.
Barry, I agree that we need to exercise judgement in the work place, but I
don't agree that we need to judge other people. And I certainly don't
agree that alignment requires rating of people. Numerous organizations
(especially Deming companies) have abandoned performance review and
ratings years ago and they have found that their culture and their people
have flourished. Most of my clients over the past five years have chosen
to rid themselves of this practice. However, most replace the practice
with a formal peer or 360 degree feedback system and significant training
in how to give and receive feedback.
Beware of systems that put the manager and employee in parent and child
roles. When we treat adults like children, they tend to act childish
(dependent and often beligerant). Thanks for the challenging questions.
I believe our areas of agreement far out-weigh our differences. Please
tell me where you might think my reasoning is faulty.
Replying to LO4490 --
There are no federal laws that require job descriptions and I have never
heard of such a state law. When an organization falls into the pattern of
basing business decisions on avoiding risk, on protecting itself against
potential lawsuits, it is probably already doomed. At best, job
descriptions are a non-value adding task that is complied with at the
request of HR or the legal department. Have you ever heard of a customer
asking if the company's job descriptions are up to date? Perhaps the most
convincing case was made by Gary Scherling: as organizations abolish the
concept of jobs, how or why would we write a description of what we no
longer have?
Replying to LO4484 and LO4572--
Yes, I have found organizations that actually recognize and promote the
natural joy of learning and working. And in a small way I think I have
helped many organizations see the value and make progress in moving in
this direction. Carol Sager expressed her view that the focus should be
shifted to the individual to make this happen. I don't disagree with
Carol, but as a consultant to organizations and a natural born systems
thinker, I tend to seek systems solutions. Also, I believe that it is
very difficult for a healthy individual to thrive in an unhealthy
community.
Most of my work has been in creating pay and performance systems that
encourage learning and growth rather than encourage competition and hard
work. I think Carol is onto a potentially more impactful (is that a
word?) solution when she writes about a system in which we pull from
people's strengths rather than focusing on eradicating weaknesses. We
need to recognize and accept the diversity of our employees and then make
work assignments that allow each person to do the kind of work that they
most enjoy and do best. If there are necessary tasks that nobody wants to
do, this would tell us we need to pay more. If there are tasks that
nobody does well, then we need to train or hire someone who has this
capability. You will note that this environment has no jobs to force fit
people into. I know of several young emerging companies that work this
way. Does anyone know of an older organization that has transformed itself
into a joyful, jobless, boundryless world?
Thanks for the provocative dialogue!
-- Roxanne Abbas Abbas Compensation Strategies Compuserv:75263,3305 Internet:"Roxanne S. Abbas"<75263.3305@compuserve.com>