I see this thread being closely related to several others recently and
currently discussed on this list. As usual, when discussions on
assessing individual performance measurement/quality measurement pop
up, there are two distinct sides to the fence. pro-measurement and
anti-measurement. I snipped the following quotes from the "Grading
Systems" thread currently being discussed.
Keith Cowan in LO15410 said:
>I am strongly in favour of defining the "outputs" required of any
>group and measuring their collective performance on the overall
>output. As long as I get the reasonable output I asked for, I can
>rate the group well.
>The real question for LO is how do I change that output in the next
>period to reflect the benefit I should be getting from LO. If the
>output does not continuously improve, then LO is a hoax. By rewarding
>the rate of improvement, I can start to create an inherent reward
>culture in which LO can flourish.
Notice how Keith describes asking for 'reasonable' performance and
then uses the metric as feedback to improve the next round. This is
the essence to quality management, using the results of measurements
as a learning tool to help the org. realize its' full potential.
scott simmerman said in 15420
>Define the measures, calculate the Performance Improvement
>Opportunity, put a dollar value on the annualized payoffs and then
>change the feedback and reward systems. Simple!
>Performance was easy to measure and put on the appraisal forms.
>Managers were rewarded for improvements in these key measures.
>HOWEVER, what we didn't measure or track didn't get done.
Here again, we see a key factor in proper management of metrics as
they relate to performance. Know what to measure, how to measure it
and how to implement change based on the results.
Rohit Talwar in lo15325
>all too often we still focus on measures and a search for the
>culprits of underperformance. Such a blame orientation is in
>diametric opposition to the LO ethic.
>The problem here is that when projects do go wrong, it is very hard
>to draw out any meaningful learning if the underlying culture is one
>of blame and punishment - few of us will be honest about our
>contribution to failure if the result will be a sanction or worse
Here, though, is the dark side of performance metrics. Laying blame
_is_ the antithesis to LO, but using measurement for continuous
improvement is a foundation for long term growth and success. It
should be made very clear to students of business management that
performance metrics is a useful tool to increase efficiency _and_
employee morale (as positive reinforcement for achieving ones'
personal best), not a Stalinist method for suppressing the spirit of
the lumpen proletariat.
My curmudgeoneous associate quips, "Management 101 - always
establish blame". Fortunately, we at HP can afford to be whimsical
about such issues. It is through constant measurement of employee
moral that HP has determined the value of continuing education and
employee benefit programs.
The question is not "should we incorporate measurement systems" but
"what measurement systems should we incorporate", and then the proper
use of the results. Anything less works to no ones' benefit.
JHC
--JAMES_H_CARRINGTON@HP-Chelmsford-om1.om.hp.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>