Originally posted by Kevin Mader
Mike,
As for the worth of measuring folks, well, this is an area of interest that I have studied for a good while now. My conclusions are very similar to those presented by a host of knowledgeable folks including the above mentioned folks as well as a few others, notably Alfie Kohn, Myron Tribus, David Langford and Peter Senge. Many others have contributed to my position which is that rating and ranking of people in unnecessary, unhelpful, and destructive. This contrary and radical viewpoint is difficult to accept in many societies, especially here in the US where 'competition' is used as a means-to-an-end rather than a building place for innovation and excellence. For all of our lives, we have been reinforced on a steady diet of competition, rewards, and consequences to the point where the inherent qualities we are born with are suppressed to a lower active state. Carol is probably right in that we should revisit this topic. Lots of smart folks here that might have something to add to a discussion.
Regards,
Kevin
Maybe I'm the dense one here. I don't suggest that I'm intellectually on par with the knowledgeable folks you mention, nor have I studied the subject as much as you obviously have. But from what I see of human nature, and what I feel as a human (despite some assertions to the contrary by others), I do not believe that eliminating "rating, ranking, and competition" among humans will ever work, nor do I think that anyone (okay, anyone other than maybe a small fraction of 1 percent) actually practices this in their daily life, so getting it out of the work life is next to impossible, IMO. From our choice of friends, mates, co-workers, doctors, and a host of other people relationships we have we rate and rank people. I believe it is an almost inborn trait to want to compete, to rank ones self and be ranked. It just seems like basic human behavior.
Now, are there different/better ways to do this in the employment arena based on the situation? Sure! There are different ways to do almost anything, some much better than others. I've never been a fan of the annual "review" that many (most?) managers do very poorly even within the constraints of that particular technique, so I can't defend that method. But I also can't swallow the idea of elimination of "rating, ranking, and competition" -- at least not yet.
One quick example pops into mind: If you (or the experts you mention) are the owner/manager of a baseball team, do you still eliminate "rating, ranking, and competition"? Is your lineup a random shuffling of the players' names, or do you make your lineup based on the strengths and weaknesses of the players (fast guy to lead-off, power-hitter in the cleanup spot, etc.)? How do you decide who makes the team in the first place? Do you eliminate stats of batting average, on-base percentage, wins and losses? I'd like to see the experts answer that one.
JMO.