If you really want to evaluate performance across individuals, here are some things that need to be in place

  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

In my previous article, I discussed how many organizations spend time identifying who the top performers and stack ranking employees, to the detriment of assessing other areas that drive performance.  Management teams obsess on determining the best performers are. Once done, this implies you now have what it takes to get ahead in business.  It’s an annual rite.  Despite this process causing lots of angst, the appearance of accuracy in the face of tertiary impressions, and the general lack of results and perhaps damage it causes, this activity continues to have a high priority for many organizations.

OK, so if you really want to do it – you really want to compare employees — here are some things that have to be in place if you don’t want to cause so much damage and angst in the process:

1. You can compare people only across very similar jobs

Many organizations attempt to compare people across the organization, in kind of similar jobs, and under different managers.  Then they try to assess the value of the various outputs of the jobs that had different inputs and outputs.  If there were different projects and different pressures, different customers and different challenges, then it will be difficult to say who is the better performer.

Read more