John Constantine says:
> Gene Taurman offers a suggestion to deal with performance and shared
> vision:
>
> >Measurements measurements measurements.
>
> I'd suggest that if the system is not in reasonable control, measurement
> of the outcomes of a person's activity will be totally misleading and
> demeaning since that person cannot impact the system to the extent the
> system can impact him and his work.
Measurement is the only way to know if a system is in control. Measure,
plot the data, look for trends, stratification, out of control points,
etc.
> One of the best examples of the system's impact on the person working is
> to be found in the Red Bead experiment, available from several sites on
> the net. One of the great prohibitions is in regard to any focusing on
> outcome-based performance, and/or the use of goals, objectives, numbers,
> quotas, measurements etc, as linked to a worker's performance.
There seems to be some miscommunication here. Deming, in "Out of the
Crisis" doesn't say not to measure performance. He says to measure it,
compare it to the system (see the chapter on using control charts) and
decide whether it's in control before you take corrective action.
Additionally, the red bead experiment is used as a model of "uncontrolled
variation" and is a good reason to begin measuring and using control chart
technique, and other statistical methods to identify special causes of
variation and eliminate them in order to get to the common causes (the red
beads, in this example) and improve the system to eliminate them. One of
the four pillars of Deming's "Profound Knowledge" is the theory of
variation. You CAN apply systems thinking, psychology, or the theory of
knowledge to a system that is thoroughly out of control, but it's a lot
easier to understand the breadth and direction of the out of control
conditions when you can measure the system(s), graphically analyze, and
then begin the crusade based on objective evidence in combination with the
wonders of the gut feeling.
An additional caveat to think about: Deming says not to make judgments
based on numerical information, but to do a statistical analysis and use
the results of (trends, stratification, etc.) the analysis to formulate
your ideas.
...small snip...
> I would most strongly argue against the use of performance evaluations
> AT ALL, as utilizing rat-box methodologies, and offering little long
> term benefit either to the worker, the supervisor, or the company.
I am contrary to this one. If by performance evaluations, you mean
"boss-employee", I agree. A 360 degree session, on the other hand, well
designed, properly used, can raise individual and team performances (and
consciousness) dramatically.
-- jzavacki@wolff.com John Zavacki The Wolff Group 800-282-1218 http://www.wolff.com/Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>