Thursday, January 25, 2007
Assessments and Evaluations
Todd Biske commented on a previous posting of mines and I figured I would also analyze some of his thoughts in hopes that a solution will emerge...
For the record, this posting has absolutely zero to do with work. It has to do with observations of my industry peers and their rants and screeds. I figured I would comment on their perspective and some of it may or may actually differ from my own (my disclaimer already states this though).
Absolutely, it is important that each and every individual constantly self-reflect on their experiences and tune accordingly. I guess there is subtle distinctions though between self-reflection and self-evaluation...
Whoa, you are using a definition of success that most folks probably aren't familiar with. I bet it wouldn't be too difficult for you to name at least one hundred IT executives you have met in your travels that have risen the ranks of many organizations who are otherwise clueless but are successful because they surrounded themselves by folks that are less than them. We have all heard the analogy, A's hire other A's but B's go and hire C's.
Stop abusing the word leadership. Leaders are never assigned but management is. Management and leadership as words are not interchangable.
If you are an A, go and hire another A. But if you are a B, you better go and find as many C's as possible...
Reference models are beautiful things when comparing SOA approaches but yet they don't exist for humans (at least in the United States). You probably are aware that you are being compared to someone whom you may not even know nor if you did, wouldn't have a sense to understand the characteristics which lead to their score since all of that is HR confidential. Individuals sometimes need a bearingpoint so that they can tell how they are positioned relative to others. Since the notion of a bearingpoint is HR confidential most folks wander around lost in the wilderness.
I would say that my fellow IT professional in India got this right as it is typical for them to trade information on their reviews, salary increases and so on. If pay is a yardstick to measuring success then the folks over in India who will openly discuss their salaries are afforded an opportunity to build their own social bearingpoint. I wonder if our Indian bloggers could provide tips on how us Americans can inject this into our own culture?
You are onto something here. I would challenge you though to not think of the needs of a company as being distinct of the needs of an individual. We need to find ways to achieve a chaordic balance. Success is in the mix. How about encouraging companies to consider incorporating external factors into their internal human reference models. The enterprise is no longer insular and minimally needs to index itself not only in terms of IT strategy but the caliber of individuals on its payroll against other enterprises it either competes with and/or partners with. This would be a better predictor of success.
| | View blog reactions- I’m guessing that it must be annual review time at his place of employment.
For the record, this posting has absolutely zero to do with work. It has to do with observations of my industry peers and their rants and screeds. I figured I would comment on their perspective and some of it may or may actually differ from my own (my disclaimer already states this though).
- You need to know your strengths and you need know your weaknesses, and you need to be objective about them.
Absolutely, it is important that each and every individual constantly self-reflect on their experiences and tune accordingly. I guess there is subtle distinctions though between self-reflection and self-evaluation...
- The successful leaders don’t go out and find people with the exact same strengths as their own. They go out and find people that complement their strengths.
Whoa, you are using a definition of success that most folks probably aren't familiar with. I bet it wouldn't be too difficult for you to name at least one hundred IT executives you have met in your travels that have risen the ranks of many organizations who are otherwise clueless but are successful because they surrounded themselves by folks that are less than them. We have all heard the analogy, A's hire other A's but B's go and hire C's.
- So, when I’ve been assigned to a project in a leadership position
Stop abusing the word leadership. Leaders are never assigned but management is. Management and leadership as words are not interchangable.
- key to success is to understand your strengths AND your weaknesses, and surround yourself with people who can complement you.
If you are an A, go and hire another A. But if you are a B, you better go and find as many C's as possible...
- It will usually stem for the reference model that is used for comparison. If this reference model is documented, and both parties agree to it beforehand, you’ve at least eliminated one variable from the equation. The less that is formally documented, the more difficult the assessment becomes.
Reference models are beautiful things when comparing SOA approaches but yet they don't exist for humans (at least in the United States). You probably are aware that you are being compared to someone whom you may not even know nor if you did, wouldn't have a sense to understand the characteristics which lead to their score since all of that is HR confidential. Individuals sometimes need a bearingpoint so that they can tell how they are positioned relative to others. Since the notion of a bearingpoint is HR confidential most folks wander around lost in the wilderness.
I would say that my fellow IT professional in India got this right as it is typical for them to trade information on their reviews, salary increases and so on. If pay is a yardstick to measuring success then the folks over in India who will openly discuss their salaries are afforded an opportunity to build their own social bearingpoint. I wonder if our Indian bloggers could provide tips on how us Americans can inject this into our own culture?
- This reference model has to be independent of what your boss wants or what your company wants.
You are onto something here. I would challenge you though to not think of the needs of a company as being distinct of the needs of an individual. We need to find ways to achieve a chaordic balance. Success is in the mix. How about encouraging companies to consider incorporating external factors into their internal human reference models. The enterprise is no longer insular and minimally needs to index itself not only in terms of IT strategy but the caliber of individuals on its payroll against other enterprises it either competes with and/or partners with. This would be a better predictor of success.
