> [Host's Note: Below is Ben's friend's msg. ...Rick]
> For example, I was a big advocate of rewarding people for writing TIDs at
> Novell. I believed that number of TIDs written would reasonably closely
> track real knowledge generated. As it turned out, when you made the sad
> sacks who didn't care about contributing to the knowledge base meet those
> numbers, all they did was spew noise into the databases.
(I'm assuming that TID means something like "Technical Information
Development" - basically a report of newly gained info.)
My first observation was that I think I'd like "writing up" something that
I learned and I'd appreciate what I'd learned being put into company
service. So, in answer to the question, "who'd like to write a TID for
others' benefit?" I'd raise my hand.
The next observation, and the point of view probably goes toward another
subject, is that I'd have more to report and more drive in learning if my
learning was outwardly "undirected" (partly). That makes sense in relation
to having the opportunity to report whatever I found rather than only
reporting on items having to do directly with the product.
Threat of measuring my performance is a threat! I'd lose confidence the
more the measuring activity was announced. Yet without the measure, I'd
expect my "findings" to be beneficial for the company, creating new
opportunities (within the company), being more observant of options and
customer attitudes and so forth.
Dr. Deming said measure or know not what is going on. I guess that the
main point is that measurement shouldn't be negative. It should be a means
of making visible what otherwise is not known. It should pertain to the
president and the janitor. It should pertain to the person making the
test, administering the test, and taking the test, and to their
supervisors. It should be subject to outcry, should outcry arise. That
means that when someone notices limitations or wrong limits in the test,
their voice should be heard among the decision-makers.
To motivate a Monarch (butterfly :) one has to use gentle means or maybe
none. Eventually, it could travel all over the world (figuratively) just
because that's what it does. The same task could be mournfully unwelcome
for another, and we'd all get tired trying to accomplish or get another to
accomplish what we've observed to be so effortless.
I'm not the pattern for workers or a butterfly or a monarch, so I'm not
saying my request is the voice of the people :)
Have a nice day
John Paul Fullerton
jpf@myriad.net
--"John Paul Fullerton" <jpf@mail.myriad.net>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>