Do performance appraisals and systems thinking sit comfortably together?

B

Bill Pflanz

cncmarine said:
But the bottom line is….”Show me the Money” and I will stay.

You answered your own question about money. Even the employee will leave no matter what their performance, what their pay or how they are treated on an appraisal if the salary and benefits are not fair. Deming suggested leadership rather than money as a way to get people to stay. As everyone works together, the welfare of the company improves and the manager is more free to stay competitive with salaries and to provide more profits for all to share in. When the manager is not a leader, workers will leave when opportunities occur.

Bill Pflanz
 
C

cncmarine

When the economy is good and the company is doing well…employees get compensated and everyone is happy.


But when things turn south and there are no raises etc…people leave. It does not matter if its George Patton leading the group or not.
 

Steve Prevette

Deming Disciple
Leader
Super Moderator
cncmarine said:
When the economy is good and the company is doing well…employees get compensated and everyone is happy.


But when things turn south and there are no raises etc…people leave. It does not matter if its George Patton leading the group or not.

True. I will say it is not an "all or nothing" proposition for most folks. Money is one factor of many, and the importance of it does vary from person to person.

And, it has been said, money doesn't motivate but lack of money does have a certain motivation.
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
Steve Prevette said:
True. I will say it is not an "all or nothing" proposition for most folks. Money is one factor of many, and the importance of it does vary from person to person.

And, it has been said, money doesn't motivate but lack of money does have a certain motivation.
All else being equal, money can be a significant factor in where one works, but doesn't necessarily have much to do with how happy one is once there. And that "all else being equal" qualifier is loaded in a big way--there are, as Steve suggests, a lot of factors.

The question here is not about how much money is paid, but about how the decisions are made as to who gets how much. Given that there is inevitably a finite amount of money to be doled out for salary increases (if increases are forthcoming at all), if that money is divvied up on the basis of numerical employee ratings, nothing good can come from it.
 

Wes Bucey

Prophet of Profit
Wes Bucey said:
The very same mentality that Deming warned about when proscribing buying goods on price alone is likely to carry over in employment decisions.
cncmarine said:
Wes can you please elaborate on the above.

In the majority of the companies that I have been involved with performance reviews = increase.(raise) The paper just gets in the way.

We can all sit through HR workshops and be educated about all the other benefits that motivate employees other then money. The health benefits go up every year, vacation days get trimmed and the biggest BS item in this world is profit sharing. In the small to medium manufacturing environment year to year profit sharing hardly ever happens. Also do not forget all the companies out there bailing out on there pension plans…

But the bottom line is….”Show me the Money” and I will stay.
Deming's 4th point:
4. End the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag. Instead, minimize total cost. Move toward a single supplier for any one item, on a long-term relationship of loyalty and trust.

In my experience, managers and owners who treat EVERY purchase like a reverse auction (going for the lowest price, then demanding the same quality and service as the highest price supplier) are the same ones who make it a firing offense for employees to share salary or benefit details and always try to pay below-market wages and will take advantage of shy employees too timid to ask for a raise by NEVER giving them one.

These are the same folks who practice a type of age discrimination by forcing out high wage senior employees in favor of low wage young employees.

A company with this kind of manager is characterized by low morale and high turnover of employees.

Sometimes (not always), these are the kind of managers who will hire illegal aliens or aliens who need employment to stay in America, then pay them wages far below market, always holding the threat over them to turn them in to the Immigration Service or to terminate them and notify the Immigration service immediately so the clock begins to run on expiring a work visa.

Tough wage times like the current one where white collar workers have been hit hard by layoffs and outsourcing of jobs to low wage countries are tailor-made to bring out the vicious streak in those managers who were previously held in check when employees could readily find other employment.

Sometimes we hear about "golden handcuffs" - in this case, the handcuffs are rusty iron ones.

My Sunday paper had a profile about a guy who got laid off from a $100,000/year job in a corporate buyout. After one year of unemployment, he took a job with Starbucks at $7.50/hour just to get medical benefits. The vicious practice of exploiting desperate employees seems to only get worse with each passing month.

Paternalism, in my opinion, is just as bad as the vicious exploitation. There is an organization in the Chicago suburbs which makes very well-respected products sold world-wide as components in OEM assembled goods. The work atmosphere, though, is stifling to many because the sole owner of this 500 employee company intrudes himself into the personal lives of his employees, playing the good father figure and personal counselor on decisions ranging from marriage to how many children to have, what clothes to buy, who to vote for, what charities to support. The wage range is from average to below average for similar work in the area. There is a core group of about 100 employees who absolutely LOVE this treatment. One of the women employees is 50 years old, worked for this employer since graduating from high school and has NEVER been outside the corporate boundaries of the small town of 25,000 in her entire life (even during school), not even to go to a museum or theater or store in another suburb, let alone make the 30 mile trip to Chicago's museums, stores, etc. There are folks who crave being cocooned. This woman is not retarded. She is smart and alert in every way except this desire to stay cocooned.

It's a sad variety of sado-masochism for an outside observer to witness. The boss loves to control and some of the employees love to be controlled. Alas, the other 400 employees are trapped by circumstance and desperation into working there.

The owner is older than my own folks. One son couldn't take it and fled the business. The other is a milquetoast, nominally with a big title, but a small salary compared to a comparable title at a similar size organization, waiting patiently to inherit, while the father splurges millions to influence local, regional, and state elections to advance his political agenda.

One good thing about the company - they are absolutely passionate about product and service quality. To my knowledge, no customer has ever been dissatisfied to the point of "firing" them over a quality issue.
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
Wes Bucey said:
Deming's 4th point:
4. End the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag. Instead, minimize total cost. Move toward a single supplier for any one item, on a long-term relationship of loyalty and trust.

Paternalism, in my opinion, is just as bad as the vicious exploitation. There is an organization in the Chicago suburbs which makes very well-respected products sold world-wide as components in OEM assembled goods. The work atmosphere, though, is stifling to many because the sole owner of this 500 employee company intrudes himself into the personal lives of his employees, playing the good father figure and personal counselor on decisions ranging from marriage to how many children to have, what clothes to buy, who to vote for, what charities to support.
I was reminded of reading about Henry Ford's management style when building his successful automotive plant. He paid his workers well for the times and gave time off when other employers would not. He also visited his lineworkers' apartments (or sent his supervisors to do same) to ensure they had heat and water, but also to ensure his workers were using their salaries to care for their families and not drinking the money away.

The comments I read regarded this as intrusive, but there is a connecting line between that and the awakening the Navy had when it ceased saying "Your family didn't come in your seabag" and started offering family services and personal financial counseling. The thesis was that family problems intrude on work effectiveness and resources would be profitable if they reduced accidents, alcoholism, divorces, bankruptcies and presenteeism.

I have read that leadership motivates better than money, but in my observation that is only the case when the workers are already being paid equitably (the key word being equitably). I submit if you can't support yourself or your family, you are bound to feel restless and underemployed--I agree that Patton himself couldn't lead people into tranquility in such circumstances.

So, sadly I have never seen performance appraisals that bring value in that their results are one-sided unless they assist to channel employees into greater rewards--surely not too great a thing to ask from this process.
 
B

Bill Pflanz

Wes Bucey said:
These are the same folks who practice a type of age discrimination by forcing out high wage senior employees in favor of low wage young employees.

A company with this kind of manager is characterized by low morale and high turnover of employees..

It is actually not against the Age Discrimination laws to eliminate a position due to high salary. The courts have ruled that it is not discrimination if the company is doing what is in the best economic interest of the company.

Wes Bucey said:
Tough wage times like the current one where white collar workers have been hit hard by layoffs and outsourcing of jobs to low wage countries are tailor-made to bring out the vicious streak in those managers who were previously held in check when employees could readily find other employment.

My Sunday paper had a profile about a guy who got laid off from a $100,000/year job in a corporate buyout. After one year of unemployment, he took a job with Starbucks at $7.50/hour just to get medical benefits. The vicious practice of exploiting desperate employees seems to only get worse with each passing month.

A coworker of mine who I had known for 20+ years lost his job in a corporate merger and ended up committing suicide due to the stress and loss of career. The papers reported that he was on his way to an HR meeting on the job loss when it happened. I also heard a story about a manager who was forced to fire people in a similar circumstance, did what he was told and then went home and committed suicide due to the stress of doing the dirty work of the executives.

Our local paper just had a story today about a vice president with my last employer who was found slain by a trash mound. He had 20 years of service and his wife said that losing his job robbed him of his sense of purpose and sent him into depression. He had not found permanent employment since his job loss 3 years ago. His wife said he went from a life full of promise and achievement to one ending in violence. The implication was that his search for work took him into risky areas.

I wonder how many executives know or care about the consequences of their decisions. Jack Welch did not know how to respond when he was asked if he expected to get into heaven. He still defended the practice of getting rid of the bottom 10% and he said that he was using his wealth for charitable purposes now that he had time.

Bill Pflanz
 

Steve Prevette

Deming Disciple
Leader
Super Moderator
These latest stories are morphing away from the thread on performance appraisals, but it should be noted that folks really should have a life (and family) outside of work. The folks who "become" their job title really get lost when the job ends, or for that matter, when they retire.

My example is at http://users.owt.com/prevette, although I do admit to putting some statistical applications to "work" in this hobby.
 

Wes Bucey

Prophet of Profit
The point about paternalism may be in the eyes of the beholder. Certainly, the woman in my anecdote did not feel oppressed. The eldest son of the owner did. As a customer for a number of years of the company, I visited frequently, both as an auditor and as an engineer/buyer dealing with their managers and engineers.

My observation of the owner's point of view in about 25 or 30 personal visits and two or three times that many phone calls over ten years was that he openly stated his opinion on every and any occasion that HE knew better what people needed than they knew. He was openly derisive of blacks, gays, welfare recipients, single mothers. He was supportive of no-knock searches, anti-abortion legislation, racial profiling, and well-armed local militia. ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) was a particular target for his scorn.

I guess what irritates me most is that he assumed I agreed with all his views since I was an archetypal WASP. I never responded to any of his tirades except to say something like, "Gee! I'm kind of pressed for time this trip. Could we discuss this another time over a drink or something?" Since his sociological views did not affect his products, I continued to buy from his company. In retrospect, I'm certain he interpreted my silence as agreement rather than stunned astonishment that anyone would express such views in a business setting. I learned too many personal details of some of his employees from him as he would brag how he kept one from "marrying a loser" and made another woman wear long sleeves to hide a flower tattoo. Of the lady with "ink," he said, "You wouldn't believe where else she has tattoos!"

There is a lot of difference between now and the time of George Pullman and Henry Ford and Henry Kaiser who provided a housing and social support structure for employees during a time before medical insurance and housing laws existed. If they built plants out in the suburbs, they built that housing close by to have a reliable pool of workers unhindered by travel constrictions, but they still took away the freedom of choice of where to live.

The armed services may look out for the dependent families of servicemen in some small way, but if the stories in my local papers are to be believed, there are a lot of dependent families suffering economically because a husband or wife is posted to a Middle East post.

One of my cousins is supporting his daughter-in-law and her child while his son is stationed in Afghanistan with his National Guard unit. As least the National Guard isn't telling her to wear long sleeves to hide the tattoo of the heart with her husband's name.
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
Wes Bucey said:
The armed services may look out for the dependent families of servicemen in some small way, but if the stories in my local papers are to be believed, there are a lot of dependent families suffering economically because a husband or wife is posted to a Middle East post.

One of my cousins is supporting his daughter-in-law and her child while his son is stationed in Afghanistan with his National Guard unit. As least the National Guard isn't telling her to wear long sleeves to hide the tattoo of the heart with her husband's name.
Very true, and it reminds me of an earlier post where I remarked that well-being is easier to achieve through leadership when basic needs are being met.

Don't get me started on how we have failed that of late in our armed forces (most specifically reservist and National Guard, I have noted)... :blowup:
 
Top Bottom