Gregory:
Organizations require individuals to work within a "dual nature of work"
model. In the past, many organizations have had management doing the
improvement work and improvement thinking, while reports were primarily or
solely involved with daily tasks.
In a different model, each employee consciously combines both daily and
improvement work into personal and group process. Such an environment is
one, dynamic result of a continuous process of education, practice, and
skill manifestation over some period of time. There's no on-off switch
for this model's appearance. It's not easy to attain.
Small problem-solving and process management teams pursue their goals for
the sake of the organization--therefore, for the sake of customers,
whether internal or external. In many organizations, the results must be
shared--reported out--at the end of the team's work together, at the end
of their Performing stage. The standardization and reflection process in
some organizations includes dollar amounts associated with the work. For
example, "By reducing errors by 30% by end of Q3 in area G of our
organization, we have demonstrated a savings of $4,550 since February 1.
Annualized, the savings will reach dollar amount $X.00."
Or, "By creating this new process, we are bringing the following tangible
savings to our organization processes based upon the data we collected,
analyzed, and used to inform our plan and implementation:...".
Not all organizations are like what I have described, are they? No.
Now, to your question: suppose you PILOTED a program wherein a team which
demonstrates a savings of X would share in Y% of the organizations savings
according to a fair time schedule determined by management? For example,
if a team's work in pilot, as implemented and checked against performance
metrics set up front, saves the organization $5,000 over a fiscal year,
then the team would receive some percentage of that savings according to a
schedule of disbursement determined by the organization.
I'm giving you the bare bones. Those reading this may spill over with
questions or may manifest a conservative human propensity against this
kind of change uncommon in larger organizations. Sounds too complicated,
fraught with hidden problems, et cetera . Yup, that's what
"organizations" (whatever THEY are) often have to say about revolutionary
ideas. Just not enough time, energy (or intention) to create such a plan.
It would cause dislocation, hard feelings, unnecessary competition (sic),
and bookke eping nightmares. Oh?
Food for thought.
Best regards,
--Barry Mallis bmallis@markem.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>