Sorry Mike, I read your questions, but got on to other things in my last response.
Here we go:
Competition to have the lowest ERA or the most wins usually leads to unwanted behaviors, such as numbers manipulation. Inevitably, the opposing team will eventually put up some runs. In an effort to try to keep the ERA the same, or lower it, the pitcher may elect to stay in the game (if given the choice) beyond their usefulness. The pitcher may try reaching back for a little extra and end up hurting themselves. This plays out all season long if you follow baseball as much as I do. What good is a hurt pitcher to your ball club. Now say your team averages 6 runs a game, the opposing team averages 5. Do we create “friendly” competition amongst teammates in order to see how low an ERA we can produce? What good does it serve? For those of you following this thread having an interest in the difference between Maximizing and Optimizing situations, this scenario serves that point equally well. Now apply that to two runners on a team, or more classically, two drivers on a race team. Pushing one another unnecessarily hard usually results in too many negatives: eventual division between teammates or worse (wrecked car or pulled hamstring). This is not to say that folks don’t need to improve, I’m just saying this isn’t the way to do it.
As for the salesmen, well, Dr. Deming serves up several examples in his books. The one that takes my attention is the sales position that never seems to produce much, where by the salesperson in that area never seems to be able to rank high enough to win the prize. Ultimately, the region this salesperson supported was much different than the regions where other salespeople had things good. Who worked harder? Who deserves to be recognized? Who would really know?
A few years back, Nissan ran Subaru to re-establish Subaru as a player in the automaker’s world. Nissan recognized that with Subaru in ‘the game’ the field was a better place for it. The innovations coming from the Subaru camp helped Nissan to keep focus and improve in areas with in their own company. With out Subaru, the need might still be there (Honda, Toyota, Ford, GM, etc.), but less so. Can you imagine Ford running GM, or GM running Chrysler? Not here! Once the jugular is exposed, we go for the throat! To bad, because in the end, we the customer loses out, and eventually, so do the organizations. The theory is simple: the components in a system need to work together to achieve optimum levels of value. By competing against each other as a means, the opposite occurs and the system suffers.
Regards,
Kevin
Here we go:
Competition to have the lowest ERA or the most wins usually leads to unwanted behaviors, such as numbers manipulation. Inevitably, the opposing team will eventually put up some runs. In an effort to try to keep the ERA the same, or lower it, the pitcher may elect to stay in the game (if given the choice) beyond their usefulness. The pitcher may try reaching back for a little extra and end up hurting themselves. This plays out all season long if you follow baseball as much as I do. What good is a hurt pitcher to your ball club. Now say your team averages 6 runs a game, the opposing team averages 5. Do we create “friendly” competition amongst teammates in order to see how low an ERA we can produce? What good does it serve? For those of you following this thread having an interest in the difference between Maximizing and Optimizing situations, this scenario serves that point equally well. Now apply that to two runners on a team, or more classically, two drivers on a race team. Pushing one another unnecessarily hard usually results in too many negatives: eventual division between teammates or worse (wrecked car or pulled hamstring). This is not to say that folks don’t need to improve, I’m just saying this isn’t the way to do it.
As for the salesmen, well, Dr. Deming serves up several examples in his books. The one that takes my attention is the sales position that never seems to produce much, where by the salesperson in that area never seems to be able to rank high enough to win the prize. Ultimately, the region this salesperson supported was much different than the regions where other salespeople had things good. Who worked harder? Who deserves to be recognized? Who would really know?
A few years back, Nissan ran Subaru to re-establish Subaru as a player in the automaker’s world. Nissan recognized that with Subaru in ‘the game’ the field was a better place for it. The innovations coming from the Subaru camp helped Nissan to keep focus and improve in areas with in their own company. With out Subaru, the need might still be there (Honda, Toyota, Ford, GM, etc.), but less so. Can you imagine Ford running GM, or GM running Chrysler? Not here! Once the jugular is exposed, we go for the throat! To bad, because in the end, we the customer loses out, and eventually, so do the organizations. The theory is simple: the components in a system need to work together to achieve optimum levels of value. By competing against each other as a means, the opposite occurs and the system suffers.
Regards,
Kevin
)
Sorry. My O's make your Sox look great most years. I am rooting for them to beat the curse and the Yanks because my O's won't be able to do it and I root for the O's and whoever is playing the &%#@ Yankees!