In my plants I have found that people will strive for an impossible goal if:
1. Progress toward it can be measured
and 2. They are not reprimanded for failure to meet the goal and are
recognized for trying.
This is one reason Deming told us not to set numerical goals but to set
the direction and to measure progress toward that goal. Life is much
simpler when we do not have to set a numerical goal to achieve.
et
At 10:26 AM 5/5/99 -0500, you wrote:
>However, I'd like to modify (slightly, but importantly) your [is it
>Goldratt's?] definition of "ambitious." You wrote:
>
>>Ambitious: Nobody believes that can be achieved.
>
>Some pretty good empirical evidence exists (from McClelland's work) that a
>more effective definition would be:
>
>Ambitious: Everybody believes that there's only about a 50% chance of
>achieving it.
>
>Choosing a target that nobody believes can be achieved is de-motivating
>(as is choosing a target that can be too easily achieved.) But choosing a
>target that people believe they have about a 50% chance of achieving
>maximizes motivation to achieve it.
>
>"John Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
Eugene Taurman
interLinx Consulting
414-242-3345
http://www/execpc.com/~ilx
If a company values anything more than its' customer, it will lose the
customer.
The irony of that, if it is profitability, market share, security, teams,
learning or philanthropy that it values more it will lose the opportunity
for these too.
--Eugene Taurman <ilx@execpc.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>