> From: Dr Ilfryn Price <email@example.com>
> As I've mentioned before why not try quarters [for a reward system].
> Three as you have [(personal, team, department)] and a
> fourth for other peoples performance. If say Ben you and I both ran
> departments and I was rewarded for your performance [not the general
> performance but your specific performance], and that of a few others,
> imagine what would happen.
I'm trying to imagine what would happen, and what I come up with is a
mixed bag: I can imagine it would foster team work & cooperation, but also
the possibility of resentment if a "high-producer" feels his/her
compensation is lowered by a "low-producer". Also, I can see this
fostering a "teaching environment", where people share their expertise and
encourage the learning of others. On the other hand, this arrangement
seems to entail a great commitment to the development of each individual,
and I wonder if there needs to be a way to weed out individuals who just
can't or won't "measure up".
(I have combined two posts, so the following is what I was going to
respond with to Ben, but it applies to this topic generally.)
I have some general questions about your approach
1) How do individuals cope with being placed on a "bad" team?
2) How does a team cope with a "bad" individual?
3) Do all the individuals on a team get the same "team" performance feedback?
Of course, the same questions can apply to departments.
If individuals are going to be rated on the basis of other people's
performance (e.g., through the team and department ratings, I think there
ought to be some level of control that the individual can exert on those
others. This might consist of determining the members of the team or
department, or determining the relative feedback given to individuals
within the team or department.
Jeff Brooks <BrooksJeff@AOL.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <firstname.lastname@example.org> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>