Managers should evaluate their employees each year and divide them into three groups:
Excellent employees, which make up a very small percentage of the organization's population, are medium-sized employees with the highest number of employees, and weak employees, which are only a small percentage of employees.
Is it reasonable to differentiate between employees? Does not this separation lead to discriminatory behavior of the manager in communicating?
Dear Sara,
I think that Is it reasonable to differentiate between employees. The three types you mentioned --- Excellent employees, which make up a very small percentage of the organization's population, are medium-sized employees with the highest number of employees, and weak employees, which are only a small percentage of employees -- makes sense to me. We could think of other classification, but the one you propose (excellent employees; medium-sized employees; weak employees) sound good to me.
I would be politically correct to say that that all the employees should be treated the same, because that division makes us think of competetion, not of cooperation. As all politically correct ideas are based on populism, they are dangerous.
The existence of three categories of empolyees does not necessarily leads to competition because they can cooperate. The division you propose is in accordance with the etical principle of equity, which is a better principle than an utopic and injustifed principle of eguality when is does not make any sense.
As I psycholigist I am much in favor of a sense of contigency, that is, a sence according to which one's outputs shoud be related to their inputs. If this were not the case, then we would be, even without intending it, making an appeal, to opportunism, populism, inactivity, the like.
As a psychologist, I think that if we lose sigtht of a sense of contigency, that there should be a relation between our inputs and ouptuts in any organization, then this woud be a more or less direct appeal to laziness and the idea that we can get almost everything without doing almost nothing.
Of course, there can be occasions on which the principle of equity cannot be apllied. For example, those who have no job should receive from their governments a mimanal salary such that they could have, say, a decent life.
KInd regards,
Orlando
Private companies have more flexibility in terms of how they do employee evaluations. Ranking and rating have been known to happen even in the biggest companies such as IBM. As long as the process is down as scientifically as possible and the process is explained clearly to all employees prior to evaluation that should be OK. It is a good way to reward the hard workers and warn the deadwood people that they must improve.
When it comes to the public sector implementation of ranking and rating is difficult. Unions are often opposed to such methods. In general there is seldom any merit based pay in governmental organizations.
Orlando & Srini
Thank you very much for your wise comment
Sincerely,
Sara
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science
- Reasoning