From:
mike.kiska@artesyn.com [mailto:
mike.kiska@artesyn.com]
Barry Armandi wrote:
> Sounds like the way managers have been doing performance appraisals.
> There has been a tendency for managers to skew their appraisals so
> their subordinates can receive the "appropriate" compensation. Do
> others see this parallel? Barry
As an HR Manager, I constantly hear about line managers who come to an
HR department and say "I want to fire so-and-so. He's been a lousy
worker for years now." Then HR checks the employee file and calls the
line manager back in to ask, "If he's so lousy, why have you given him
above average marks in his performance appraisals over the years?"
Answers usually have to do with the avoidance of confrontation or the "I
want everyone to like me" approach to leadership.
I'm not sure this has a point. It was more a memory that was triggered
by Barry's comment. If there is a point to be made, however, it is that
we humans are trying to achieve in lots of different areas at the same
time. Perhaps "grading" in whatever fashion (A's & B's or performance
appraisals), runs into trouble when we try to use a grade to accomplish
something outside it's purpose. If a manager wants more or less
compensation for a worker, is that the purpose for which performance
evals were invented? And are there educators out there who are using
their students' grades to measure how effective their teaching methods
are?
It seems to me that "grades" have severe limitations and can only be
applied successfully to one narrow area of a person's striving at a
time. Perhaps the more clearly that one narrow area is defined, the
more useful "grading" will become.
kiska
(Sorry, I don't post very often, so when I do, I usually throw in 4
cents instead of the more traditional 2)