Our HR group is starting an employee of the month program to recognize people who are doing a good job. They have come up with; Attendance, Quality, Production, and Housekeeping for the measurements. This works pretty well for the production lines but is more difficult for office personnel.

Anyone have any thoughts on how you would be able to objectively measure quality inspectors on quality and production? This is a bit difficult sense there are no pre-established measurements that have to be met like production numbers or reject rates. And honestly the last thing I need is to have to develop another chart that I have to keep up with.

Such questions represent reasons why I don't like employee-of-the-month rewards. It sure sounds good, but for every apparent superstar there is a whole bunch of people who might feel like wall flowers. The program may not exhibit a recognition that everyone may have somepart to play in quality, which I like to define as doing things well. Really, how can one person's contribution be compared against another if their set of expectations are so different?

And so I prefer to celebrate activities and not post mug shots. So how about, instead of employee of the month, celebrating the good work that unsung heroes do routinely, and highlight a project's success and value so it can be benchmarked?

Our HR group is starting an employee of the month program to recognize people who are doing a good job. They have come up with; Attendance, Quality, Production, and Housekeeping for the measurements. This works pretty well for the production lines but is more difficult for office personnel.

Anyone have any thoughts on how you would be able to objectively measure quality inspectors on quality and production? This is a bit difficult sense there are no pre-established measurements that have to be met like production numbers or reject rates. And honestly the last thing I need is to have to develop another chart that I have to keep up with.

These things often backfire in my experience. Setting arbitrary criteria, such as attendance, and unmeasurable ones, such as housekeeping, inevitably lead to trouble, bickering, and bad feelings. HR people seem to have some vague idea that people should be recognized for exemplary performance, but are either too dumb or too lazy to figure out how to do it without shooting themselves in the foot. If you're stuck with it, you should think about how inspectors are evaluated now, and try to work that into the criteria somehow.

Our HR group is starting an employee of the month program to recognize people who are doing a good job. They have come up with; Attendance, Quality, Production, and Housekeeping for the measurements. This works pretty well for the production lines but is more difficult for office personnel.

Anyone have any thoughts on how you would be able to objectively measure quality inspectors on quality and production? This is a bit difficult sense there are no pre-established measurements that have to be met like production numbers or reject rates. And honestly the last thing I need is to have to develop another chart that I have to keep up with.

Only do it if you're W*lm*rt........

Our HR group is starting an employee of the month program to recognize people who are doing a good job. They have come up with; Attendance, Quality, Production, and Housekeeping for the measurements. This works pretty well for the production lines but is more difficult for office personnel.

Anyone have any thoughts on how you would be able to objectively measure quality inspectors on quality and production? This is a bit difficult sense there are no pre-established measurements that have to be met like production numbers or reject rates. And honestly the last thing I need is to have to develop another chart that I have to keep up with.

Jerry,

Here is an idea. Reward and recognize folks who submit workable ideas for process and product improvements. This way, everyone can participate. Note that this "contest" is limited to workable ideas associated with the process and/or product otherwise you end up with the usual Bi__ & Gr__ ideas...I'll let you fill in the blanks.:D Dr. W. Edwards Deming had serious concerns about rewarding people for quality because they have limited control over quality. Re: Red Bead Experiment.

Just some thoughts on a rainy Friday afternoon in dried-out North Carolina.

Stijloor.

Jerry,

Here is an idea. Reward and recognize folks who submit workable ideas for process and product improvements. This way, everyone can participate. Note that this "contest" is limited to workable ideas associated with the process and/or product otherwise you end up with the usual Bi__ & Gr__ ideas...I'll let you fill in the blanks.:D Dr. W. Edwards Deming had serious concerns about rewarding people for quality because they have limited control over quality. Re: Red Bead Experiment.


This what we do and it works well.

For employee-of-the-month, whatever your criteria is, there will be people who will try to "game" the system, often to the detriment of the company. Recognizing one employee means you DIDN'T recognize the others. The others can become demoralized, and the recognized ones may become targets.

Honestly, does this sound like a place you would want to work?

As far as "gaming" in our current recognition system, I think it does happen. We get lots of suggestions from a handful of employees, some employees may have one or two a year, and others have never submitted a suggestion. The ones who submit lots of suggestions really, really, like the recognition. And, the company really, really likes their input.

For what its worth...

We give out an "Outstanding Act of Quality" award, with a company free lunch, when our inspectors "catch someone doing something right". Its the random acts of quality we want to reward, when no one thinks we are looking. After all, you get the behaviour that you reward.

You can measure performance this way yes, it's quite similar to any performance review companies do. Is it successful, maybe to a very small degree. It's difficult to get results based on this kind of reward system. I'm not a fan of it myself, I think it just makes the other employees resent the employee of the month.

In the past I found that setting departmental or organizational goals with group reward much much more productive. We'd do something simple like if we reached xxx goal we'd order catered food from Smokey Bones at the end of the month. Worked good, was cheap, got the team working more as a team, peak performers helping poor performers. The trick is keeping any such system fresh, because eventually staff comes to expect it and take it for granted or not care.

In truth, I feel that staff should take pride in performing well, doing a job well, but these days it seems you have to find some kind of mental motivator to encourage that behavior. I definately wouldn't go with employee of the month reward system though.

I agree with you on that. This is not a monthly award, We have an employee of the month award and it is a complete failure. Management is always under pressure to find 'someone' for the award, and make sure they didn't get is 'too recently' and this eventually makes a 'winner' out of a 'loser', and this is NOT lost on the other employees.
I established the quality award precisely due to that fact. We have no 'duration' of the awards, we can give them out daily or yearly, my one requirement is they ONLY go out if an ' Outstanding Act of Quality' is observed by one of my inspectors. They can go to multiple people, to departments, or to the same person repeatedly. NONE of the employee-of-the-month rules apply. I give my inspectors this list to go by -
1.Demonstrates that Quality of work is more important than amount of work.
(Doing it right the first time is better than doing it twice…)
2.Is willing to ‘go the extra mile’ to ensure the job is done correctly.
(Doing it right may take longer, but takes less time than doing it over…)
3.Does the work to the best of their ability, is willing to improve if instructed.
(Offers suggestions on how to do it better…)
4.Recognizes the next internal customers’ needs and works to provide for them.
(Understands how the work they perform fits into the overall picture…)
5.Performs the work as they would want it performed for them.
(The Golden Rule of a Team player…)
6.Takes responsibility for the work they perform.
(Accepts that being human, mistakes will occur, but learns from them…)

There is no minimum or maximum number of candidates set. If there is no one that qualifies, no attempt will be made to fill the gap by naming an unqualified person.
There is no attempt to pick candidates from each section, department, or any other division. Everyone qualifies, including all management, sales, and support staff, and other company areas.
Not all the points suggested above need to be met. They serve only as a guideline for the type of attitude that encourages quality. A candidate meeting even ONE of these points will be considered.