Eric Grosch, Letter to Dr. Morgenstern on LOR - Semmelweis ...

Recommendations

Info

easily than an individual arbitrarily marked down, despite his best effort, merely <strong>to</strong> “make distinctions between people.” Neither Albanes[34] nor Kingsbury[47] justified the need <strong>to</strong> make such distinctions. He presumably considered the principle axiomatic and self-evident. Since the end-of-rotation Likert-scale rating provides no progressive comparisons and since men<strong>to</strong>rs might balk at the administrative burden of completing Likert-scale ratings more often than once monthly, it provides no sequential comparison and fails criterion 6. 7. Participative Interpretation. . . . final . . . analysis can[not] be conducted without audience involvement. Joint interpretation is consistent with the developmental/formative purpose, as <strong>to</strong>gether we discuss meaning and follow-up action . . .[45] In the medical-education context, the Likert-scale rater rarely discusses his rating with his ratee(s) prior <strong>to</strong> entering it. It comes most often <strong>to</strong> the recipient's attention as a fait accompli, <strong>to</strong>o late for him <strong>to</strong> improve it. The Likert-scale rating fails criterion 7. 8. Safety and Security. Receiving performance feedback is . . . technical and . . . psychological . . . We need first <strong>to</strong> have the data correct (technical). . . Presenters must be sensitive <strong>to</strong> the psychology of the process and offer language and behavior that protect the recipients.[45] The Likert-scale rating inherently fails the technical criterion, since it consists of a set of numerical scores which obscures the evidence that purports <strong>to</strong> form its basis. Various errors, <strong>to</strong> wit, the halo-effect (supra) and tendency <strong>to</strong>ward the mean[48,49] inhere in the Likert-scale. As applied, it most often fails the psychological criterion since the social-control function, which Albanes[34] advocated is crucial <strong>to</strong> its deterrent/punitive function. To pull a punch at the moment of delivery would diminish or annihilate the crushing impact the rater can otherwise accomplish. 9. Practical and Action Oriented. To be useful, the data should suggest some followup action and should be practical enough <strong>to</strong> be used by professionals in the field. . . [32,50] Having received a rating of, e.g., “general medical knowledge, 3,” the recipient can discern no idea from the rating how <strong>to</strong> improve. The Likert-rating fails criterion 9. The evidence seems clear that ratings fail all of Ziegenfuss's rational criteria for effective feedback. b. inevitability of rating-inflation A universal human conceit holds that everybody's a fool and a moral pervert except for thee and me and I'm not so sure about thee. The individual expects others <strong>to</strong> rate him in a manner consonant with the intrinsic, superlative characteristics that he attributes <strong>to</strong> himself. When men<strong>to</strong>rs, in a medical-education setting, rate him harshly, he feels helpless and often non-plussed and feels an urge <strong>to</strong> press his raters <strong>to</strong> improve his rating. Some years ago, Sissela Bok, philospher and wife of Derek Bok, former President of Harvard
University, addressed merit-ratings on “fitness-reports” in the US Army. Her context was “lying” and her example of a liar was the supervisor who rated his subordinates <strong>to</strong>o highly on traits, such as “leadership,” “appearance,” etc., which are at least as nebulous as entities that raters in medicine attempt <strong>to</strong> address, e.g., “general medical knowledge,” “rapport with staff,” etc. They're all manifestations of the great tendency <strong>to</strong> generalize from skillful execution of a narrow scope of activities, such as getting high scores on tests, <strong>to</strong> global “excellence,” “outstandingness” or “bestness,” in general. Bok's description shows that your observation that “excellent” is a third-tier rating has a his<strong>to</strong>ry: ...Those who rate officers are asked <strong>to</strong> give them scores of “outstanding,” “superior,' “excellent,” “effective,” “marginal,” and “inadequate.” Raters know...that those who are ranked anything less than “outstanding” (say “superior” or “excellent”) are then at a great disadvantage, and become likely candidates for discharge...superficial verbal harmlessness combines with the harsh realities of the competition for advancement and job retention <strong>to</strong> produce an inflated set of standards <strong>to</strong> which most feel bound <strong>to</strong> conform. (Bok 73) ...The US Army tried <strong>to</strong> scale down evaluations by publishing the evaluation report...cited. It suggested mean scores for the different ranks, but few felt free <strong>to</strong> follow these means in individual cases, for fear of hurting the persons being rated. As a result, the suggested mean scores once again lost all value. (Bok 74) [51] Professor Bok, writing as a member of the establishment. LORs and performance-evaluations cause little <strong>to</strong> no worry <strong>to</strong> her and her husband, who have made it <strong>to</strong> the <strong>to</strong>p of the academic heap, from which pinnacle, they may comment on us, herebelow: In elite . . . organizations, the evaluation model tends <strong>to</strong> be elitism. Two lines of argument are involved. First, since the organizations have selected the best people, evaluation of performance is irrelevant. After all, if the best people could not succeed, who could do better? Second, since the quality of the organizations and their output is determined primarily by the equality of their people, attention <strong>to</strong> system, methods, or management is inconsequential. It follows that, if the organizations already have the best people, “the opportunities for increased productivity in them are small and come slowly.” Finally, . . . elitism tends <strong>to</strong> create self-perpetuating closed circles whose members are exempt from review except by peers within. Converting work problems in<strong>to</strong> people problems is a process of denying organizational accountability. It is a process of establishing a hierarchy of special privilege and immunity <strong>to</strong> rank with the hierarchy of authority. It is a process of maintaining the status quo; it denies both the need for change and the possibility. (27)[52] Accordingly, Professor Bok focused on the “lies” perpetrated <strong>to</strong> help the plebeian but omitted any mention of organization dishonesty: the rumor-grapevines, chiefly by telephone, which leave no paper-trail, and which circumvent and subvert the normal channels of committed, transparent, written communication, <strong>to</strong> which subjects of ratings on LORs might obtain access.[53] Personnel-managers use such underhanded means <strong>to</strong> evade legal liability for defamation of
Page 1 and 2: DR. ERIC N GROSCH - A new approach
Page 3 and 4: i. distortion from
Page 5 and 6: they were inferior. It is unfair, a
Page 7 and 8: Another Irving Langmuir? Can Americ
Page 9 and 10: deviations, as is the case when the
Page 11 and 12: method[11,12] for “objective” e
Page 13 and 14: than we now possess.[21] The progre
Page 15: 3. Descriptive, Not Evaluative. Use
Page 19 and 20: etter than any of his contemporarie
Page 21 and 22: In the industrial setting, in which
Page 23 and 24: criteria did the evaluato</
Page 25 and 26: Is it true or false that for every
Page 27 and 28: and the results . . . have been goo
Page 29: home, possibly as a way of accumula

Eric Grosch, Letter to Dr. Morgenstern on LOR - Semmelweis ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?