Cherry Vanderbeke <CKV@wang.co.nz> continues the thread on good and bad
performance with:
Robert went on to say:
>>"If this is so, then it brings us to a very odd, and to me disconcerting
>>state of affairs. No bad managers, no bad employees, only bad systems.
>>This has some serious implications regarding issues of personal
>>responsibility and accountability, and has the potential for allowing
>>almost everyone to blame the system. Come to think of it, isn't that the
>>case in society in general?"
--snip --
>Which comes back to the answering the original question - just "fixing"
>the people or changing the people won't help. The people become part of
>the system and are affected by it.
>While I've been writing this, Mary Apodaca'a message LO8908 has just
>arrived. For me, she has summed it up beautifully in her quote from the
>5th Discipline in answer to her own question:
>"...different people in the same structure tend to produce qualitatively
>similar results...The causes of the behavior must lie beyond individuals."
My interpretation of the need to examine and systematically change things
stems from my belief that
1) Most change efforts do not properly define the system and usually the
focus is too narrow, resulting in treating symptoms, and
2) There is no clear accountability for changing the system. Some assume
that its managements' job. Surely this assumption is disempowering to the
employees. Often, only the employees have the knowledge to even define the
system and should take accountability for initiating changes. The
managment is accountable for their management system and must have it
designed to accept and action such employee-initated change.
While this opens the possibility for everyone to blame the system, they
are doing that anyway so to some degree it represents a realistic starting
point for a change effort from this commonly-held assumption.
As I have mentioned before. performance in a given job is the result of
the placement system and the training system as well as perhaps the reward
system. Excellence in the design and execution of these systems will
eventually produce consistently excellent results IMHO "Roxanne S. Abbas"
<75263.3305@CompuServe.COM> then adds from Deming:
>..If I correctly recall, Deming said that managers are accountable for the
>bad systems. So bad systems would implicate managers.
The main problem I have with Deming is that he was using the old paradigm
of manufacturing and the systems were clearly identified and known to the
management (i.e. the assembly line or workflow of the process). When we
apply his principles to more complex environments, it is harder to know
what the system really is.
I also believe that "blaming" is counter to any change program because it
results in more defensive energy being wasted that could be harnessed for
moving the change process forward.
Elizabeth Reed-Torrence <ereedtorg@seattleu.edu> brings up the dreaded
bell curve:
>...If you have an organization that fits the "so -called" bell curve
>with a small percent of outstanding performers, many average performers
>and a small percent of "bad" performers, The focus should not be on the
>individuals but on the process.
>...But if given the opportunity to
>improve... most average folks will follow the lead of the outstanding
>performers, improving their performance as they move the curve to the
>right. The "bad" performers will quickly see that they are "sticking" out
>and being recognized as "bad". ...
>The basic assumption is that all people want to do good work and
>be recognized and will continue to do better work if moved to do so.
This is analogous to ranking systems for employees & managers in which
they are publicly ranked according to their current performance on the
organization's accepted measurements. (Any other ranking would be totally
destructive.) While this will generate short-term improvement, IMHO it is
a bad management "system" because ultimately it will cause people to
refrain from helping others being ranked on the same curve. People are not
stupid. Why would they help their company-defined "competitors" to beat
them out. It would not be a good tactic for an LO IMHO!....Keith
--Keith Cowan <72212.51@CompuServe.COM>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>