82,891
edits
Performance appraisal: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
Fat chance of that, though. | Fat chance of that, though. | ||
===The horizontal 360=== | |||
Geometers will at once recognise that 360 degrees describes a complete revolution in a plane of ''two'', and not ''three'', dimensions. This got us wondering: if, as per modern dogma, employment really is a “two way conversation”, in which each side has obligations and rights; a symbiotic ecosystem where each party works for the enduring benefit of the other, then where is the company performance appraisal? At what point do staff get to say to their corporate overlords, and the gilded agents who occupy its executive suite that they have lacked focus, been ineffective, failed to deliver on key expectations? | |||
“Ah, but that is the [[employee survey]]!” they will cry. But it isn’t, is it? This is the [[change paradox]]: management is, in this regard, rather like that [[This email is auto-generated. Please do not reply to it.|pestering email sent from an unmonitored account]]: good for communication in ''one'' way only. A skilfully contrived questionnaire, full of leading questions, begging questions already answered in management’s own meta-theory, is no way to assess management’s performance. All answers, 1 through 5, are of a piece with management’s existing theory of the game. Thanks to the [[agency problem]], we feel this to be necessarily so: no agent designs a survey designed to prove her own redundancy. The [[employee survey]] is prisoner of the [[paradigm]] from which it emanates. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Force-ranking]] | *[[Force-ranking]] | ||