To the List:
> > The U.S. Department of Education is investigating ways that
> > the Department can deal with poor performers. This is
> > based upon a recent employee survey in which only eight
> > percent believed that the Department was dealing
> > effectively with poor performance.
REH
I believe that this type of general exploration is poor for morale and
usually contains more than meets the eye. I believe they should pick one
of the excellent consultants on this list and give them more information
then such a cursory note and let them go seriously to work.
Government cont.
> > We are interested in hearing of various innovative ways
> > that organizations, both governmental and in the private
> > sector,deal with their poor performers.
REH
In my opinion, anyone that makes suggestions without knowing the
particulars is walking on very thin ice. Frankly, why would the Gov.,
for example, ask a music teacher how to deal with poor performance in
geology by a science teacher? There ARE general educational principles
but why would they ask to hear them. I would assume that these general
principles were a part of their training just as they were a part of
ours. Are they trying to use us as an inexpensive alternative authority
for decisions they have already made and want to implement?
Government cont.
> > We are not so much concerned with those who should
> > be fired but with those who could be redeemed.
Lon Badgett replied:
> 1. Find out why you are not so concerned with those who
> should be fired. (snip)
REH
How long and how much does it cost to replace them?
LB
> and second, spending supervisory time on our problem
> children does nothing to nurture our top performers.
REH
Are you sure that their "top performers" are not their "problem
children?" Perhaps "Problem Children" is not a metaphor that is
appropriate for professionals with such a high level of expertise.
LB
> 2. Ask each and every one of your people what they would do
> about it. Listen and do not comment.
REH
This is good advice but difficult. Consider talking to a man who is
your subordinate, but who is as well trained as you and who is more of
an expert in his area than yourself. Then imagine him feeling like he
is being patronized. How much will you get out of him? Then imagine a
whole room full of hostile post-graduates feeling patronized. Then
finally imagine yourself talking to a whole room of hostile
post-graduates feeling patronized who are a "limited commodity." They
possess the "Intellectual Capital" but not the desire to follow. What
you will probably get is more group therapy than group efficiency. They
will even "enjoy" the therapy and call it productive, which it isn't.
But what one of us who has worked hard for our nitch in society doesn't
enjoy a little narcissism.
This governmental "post" feels very dangerous for the successful solving
of the performance problem. There simply is not enough information here
for me to imagine success.
LB
> 3. Anyone you fire should be fired quickly and efficiently.
> Avoid reviewing the situation to death. Fire supervisors who
> cannot fire someone efficiently.
REH
I believe that the issue beneath this firing thing is not whether you
have the power to exert authority, but whether there is a very clear
realization of the issues involved in any government venture.
The reason you cannot do that(summarily fire them) is this. It is not a
private free market situation! What allows you to do it in the private
situation is, you are dealing with the production of "private consumable
goods." It is the production of something being consumed (and
finished), that creates the concept of productivity and it is the
creative stress that allows personnel elimination (firing) so easily in
the production of that product. If you do not have the power and the
will to exercise it, then the product will not be consumed and no one
will be paid. That is the definition of PRIVATE GOODS.
That is not, however, the definition in economics of PUBLIC GOODS.
Public Goods are not consumed. Like the Arts, (which are also Public
Goods) education is not and cannot ultimately be "productive" in the
sense of Private Goods. In Private Goods consumption creates scarcity
which encourages production and the competition that keeps the pricing
productive.
School teachers cost the same today as they did in my Fathers day. It
is impossible to be "productive" in the Private Goods economic sense.
Successful productivity in Private Goods means that the price, including
the labor, must go down. The "productivity" in the Public Goods is the
productivity of skill and efficiency, (not buy cheap, reproduce forever
and sell high).
Private Goods Productivity is not possible in Medicine, Education, Law,
the Arts, Religion or National Defense. The price of Public Goods labor
keeps pace with inflation and even rises in cost because the product and
the labor are one and the same in time. These are all Public Goods.
Public Goods Productivity is built around the constant "becoming" of the
skill and efficiency of the personnel. (See footnote)
All Public Goods benefits the private sector, stimulating and enriching
the environments where private exchange takes place. The reverse is
also true, but the rules are different for both. "Productivity" does
not
mean the same thing in both places. Neither does consumption or
competition. "Education" in economics is (like the performing arts), a
"Discriminating Monopoly." Monopolies are not desirable in the Private
Goods Free Market; however, competition within the classroom has
different goals and bares little resemblance to Private Goods
competition. You don't have two different teachers competing at the
same time for the pupils approval and purchase of a diminishing
consumable.
If I may use another metaphor, in architecture, buildings and bridges
have similar deep structures but their intention and use is different.
Private Goods are the "houses" where we live and exchange. Public Goods
are the "bridges" that connect us all and that must be strong enough to
take the abuse of general use with general upkeep. It is for that
reason that I do not trust this post from the "Government" and I do not
believe that anyone else should either, unless you just want to consider
it practice and self-development. I am not just distrusting the
"government." I am not a government "basher." I am distrusting the
intent of this post. If the intent was benign and with the purpose of
individual growth then it should not be posted so officially.
Harold L. Vogel, a Wall Street economist, who advises investors on the
Entertainment Industry has written a book that touches on this Public
Goods side. It is more general and market oriented than the highly
technical Arts and Public Goods economic texts. I would strongly
recommend it to anyone wanting to explore the issue. It is also a must
for investors in the commercial leisure market like the movies or
Casinos. His "creative greed" stimulated excellent research as well as
a fine record in the market. At all costs avoid the doctrinaire
"private" business self-serving materials that do not seem to understand
anything more complicated than buy low and sell high. In the commercial
leisure market such "angels" resemble butterflys. That way lays
barbarism.
The name of the book is Entertainment Industry Economics, A Guide for
Financial Analysis 3rd edition Cambridge Univ. Press.
I would also like to say that I agreed with Lon Badgett about his later
points. I like his writing and generally agree with what he has to
say. I also liked Lee Holmers post on this. His comment on another
culture is IMO another way of making the Public Goods point. I prefer
the PG because it is the one used generally in the economics books and
dictionaries that I have consulted for describing these realities. He
also makes the point about the high educational level
(skill/productivity) maintained in these departments. These days you
cannot even enter the door without having completed a Ph.D. That is not
a person to be taken lightly and is always a colleague. They deserve
that respect. I dont mean that you cant yell at them, only that to
disrespect the degree is more than just disrespecting the person.
Regards
Ray Evans Harrell, artistic director
The Magic Circle Chamber Opera of New York
mcore@idt.net
PUBLIC GOOD: A good for which the costs of production are independent of
the number of people who consume it. National defense is an example
where one persons consumption does not diminish the quantity available
to others. TV programs are almost pure public goods because the
program, no matter how it is recorded, remains unchanged regardless of
how many people view it. In contrast, pure private goods, once consumed
by an individual, are no longer available for someone else. For private
goods, say a slice of bread, the costs of production are related to the
number of people who consume it. Vogel (Glossary
--Ray Evans Harrell <mcore@IDT.NET>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>