Do closed ranking sessions enable or shelter inappropriate conduct?
If you look at the many public cases where the inappropriate conduct of a city mayor, city council member, or other city official are exposed through a video or tweet, the conduct is usually promptly addressed. There is far less incentive to flush out inappropriate conduct from the participants of closed meetings.
14 comments:
"Do closed ranking sessions enable or shelter inappropriate conduct?"
This is probably true in some cases but it is more subtle than that. It could that most are fair but if everyone on the committee is on the take so to speak than yes it could have problems that never see the light of day. If everyone is legit on the committee it is fine, even if there are a few bad players the honest people can keep them inline. There is also some checks and balances so if you feel you got a bad evaluation you have some recourse. On the whole they seem to pretty fair, but there are always some odd things. The odd things are usually people getting higher evaluations than you would expect. Someone I get the sense you feel the whole things is beyond corrupt and you got treated unfairly. It is certainly possible in individual cases but I don't think the whole thing is corrupt.
"This is probably true in some cases but it is more subtle than that. It could that most are fair but if everyone on the committee is on the take so to speak than yes it could have problems that never see the light of day. If everyone is legit on the committee it is fine, even if there are a few bad players the honest people can keep them inline. There is also some checks and balances so if you feel you got a bad evaluation..."
Anyone who has the courage to say someone else's ranking comments are out of line in any meaningful way, will be at risk of loosing their ticket to the show. Anyone who takes a pattern of out of line conduct outside of the closed ranking meeting to say the person negatively impacted, HR, or Staff Relations, will get badly hosed. It's Lab culture. What goes in the evaluation is just the tip of the iceberg. If there were ever some measure of ranking session transparency, I bet rank groups or rank buckets, would again quickly become the most defendable way to do ranking. We currently have ranking with high resolution but with questionable accuracy and lots of man-hours to get there.
Not everyone needs to know everything. Stay in your lane and live your own life.
"Stay in your lane and live your own life"
Sorry this topic does not meet your specific expectations.
Apartheid also means: segregation on grounds other than race
As a refresher, the "lane" on this blog are all matters that relate to workers and retirees at LLNL without being hateful or vulgar. If such blog criteria encroaches on what you perceive to be your "lane", I'm sorry.
Sorry this topic does not meet your specific expectations.
Apartheid also means: segregation on grounds other than race
8/26/2020 8:02 AM
I don't get your point. These meetings are not as closed door as you might think. In any case literally every time I have heard of someone complain about how they where ranked it was always more than justified. Some people just like to complain.
Segregation on grounds of ability and competence is a good thing.
"Segregation on grounds of ability and competence is a good thing."
If you what you mean by "segregation" is a declaration of ability and competence through a ranking practice, then why not show some confidence in the ranking practice by adding some transparency to it, and transparency does not equal appraisal. The appraisal is a carefully edited frame in a motion picture. As one commenter said if we did, we would have to revert back to less man-hour consuming and more defendable rank group or rank bucket system. Some ranking managers clearly don't have a proven scientific, engineering, or technical talent to fall back on especially in recent years, and wouldn't like to have their self-value platforms diminished.
Prove that good scientific managers must have advanced degrees in science or technology. It is certainly not the case, proven over and over again. Look at the top technology companies, how many CEOs have advanced degrees?
"Look at the top technology companies, how many CEOs have advanced degrees?"
Outside of LLNS, CEOs of technology companies have real skin in the game with market share forces always at their doorstep. LLNS not so much, they are a private company in name with big NNSA funding training wheels.
In LLNS world, people without a strong scientific, engineering, or technical background have little respect for the rigor required for technical accomplishments because they have no point of reference, and are the easiest to administratively manipulate and they know it.
In secret ranking space, with virtually no external market force factor, you have an annual game of politics and testosterone sprinkled with performance and achievements, only made worse by people without a strong scientific, engineering, or technical backgrounds. Secret rankings and the steady flow of NNSA funding shift the ranking process from a mission goal orientation to a what's best for the for-profit contractor. Some ranking managers have received liberal arts degrees long after they got a ticket to the show.
"Secret ranking space" Yeah, good thing you are rational and not paranoid.
"Secret ranking space" Yeah, good thing you are rational and not paranoid.
It seems to be a reasonable request for some ranking transparency. Only those with poor ranking behavior or conduct would be paranoid, but you know this already.
You couldn't have transparent ranking at LANL. Too may feelings would get hurt. You would spend 100% of the funding either in HR "advocacy" discussions or paying for safe spaces. Truth is most just want to go back to Managerial, Technical, Administrative and years of service. They cannot compete.
"Only those with poor ranking behavior or conduct would be paranoid..."
LOL... no need for privacy, because if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.
No... rankings need to be kept confidential and closed so that professional victims do not go on the warpath because their feelz were hurt by critical evaluation.
Post a Comment