Please disable your adblock and script blockers to view this page
Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo including content not in the forum - Search results with No ads.

Week 1 Discussion - 14 Points

Status
Not open for further replies.

Steve Prevette

Deming Disciple
Staff member
Super Moderator
#11
Mary Davenport said:
In a perfect world Dr. Deming's system would help business to provide a quality product that was produced by a satisfied workforce, supervised by caring/nurturing managers who creatively kept their employees motivated and working toward a goal of continual improvement. To be successful in application of Deming's methodologies though, a company must abide completely by point 2 (adopt the new philosophy) and totally eliminate personal agendas, biases, and cultural considerations. This may be difficult to achieve in companies where the power structure and management styles have remained constant over long periods of time.
Good point. You are noticing that the 14 points comprise a system, and there are interactions between the 14 points.
 
J

jlowens

#12
re: Appraisals

I believe that in a perfect world, appraisals represent a good tool for evaluating worker skills and promoting improvement in the workplace. However, too many times have I seen management take advantage of this tool and use it inappropriately. If biases are removed and appraisals are used honestly and objectively, then yes. In some companies, people are ranked 1 thru 5 where 1 being the ultimate worker. It may already be established that so many people will be one's and most would be three's falling in the middle of the distribution curve. It may be impossible to be a 2 or 1 if the number of people to fall in this catagory is already decided by management. Good work may not matter. How does that promote motivation and self improvement?
 

Steve Prevette

Deming Disciple
Staff member
Super Moderator
#13
jlowens said:
If biases are removed and appraisals are used honestly and objectively, then yes. In some companies, people are ranked 1 thru 5 where 1 being the ultimate worker. ... How does that promote motivation and self improvement?
One thing to consider is that in the Red Bead Experiment, the ranking of the workers is completely unbiased and completely objective. The ranking of the workers is completely fair and the results used honestly. Yet the result is far from promoting motivation and self improvement, as we saw in both the MC506 live session and the video you viewed in MC550.

Thoughts? Why is this so?
 
J

Jamie Morris

#14
Appraisals

Mary Davenport said:
Jamie,
I agree with your assessment of the annual appraisal situation. I live under the same system and know that you are correct. It is not possible in this system to have pride of workmanship when you can rarely be anything more than average.
I need to clarify my earlier writing about appraisals. I certainly believe that employees need to have an assessment of how they are performing against their objectives. My point is that true to Dr. Deming's description of robbing people of their pride in workmanship, a numerical rating system tied to a subjective rating methodology and linked to merit increases equals forced distribution. Forced distribution results in a normal distribution of performance ratings, which in turn leads to the majority of folks ranking as average. This takes away pride, motivation, inspiration, ambitition, etc.
 
D

dwall

#15
Annual Appraisals

From one who wrote 6 annual appraisals and received my own annual appraisal last October may I add my voice. Since I do not anticipate my agency will abandon annual/mid year appraisals, I accept that I need to make the most of them as a tool for providing feedback to my employees and for receiving feedback from my manager. Initially, I solicit input from the employees as to what they feel they have accomplished in the prior period and what they fell short of accomplishing. (You would be surprised how much harder they are on themselves than I am). Accordingly, our agency process allows me to merely "check the box" for individuals performing at a "fully successful" level (read average) among several skill sets. Instead I choose to write in detail what the employee is doing that I think is meeting/exceeding/below my expectations and what specifically the employee should be doing to improve his/her performance in the next six months at the next appraisal interval. I know that this increases the amount of time it takes me to perform this exercise, but the employees seem to appreciate the feedback and know exactly what I think they must do to improve. At appraisal time, we sit down together and discuss the appraisal, expectations, mutual goals. Accordingly, since I can't abolish them I am trying to use them to lead the employees in the direction I want them to go so we can all be successful.
 
S

ssagreen

#16
Steve Prevette said:
One thing to consider is that in the Red Bead Experiment, the ranking of the workers is completely unbiased and completely objective. The ranking of the workers is completely fair and the results used honestly. Yet the result is far from promoting motivation and self improvement, as we saw in both the MC506 live session and the video you viewed in MC550.

Thoughts? Why is this so?
The basis for the red bead experiment is flawed. The assumption is that a worker has no control over the work that they do. They are just a pawn that can do nothing, but get the beads. In real life people can get to work late, or stay late, socialize half the day, or work on an MBA to improve themselves and their way of thinking. I have an awful lot of control over what I accomplish in a day and so does everyone else. The real high performers and poor performers are not just some statisically random occurence. They make themselves who they are one day at a time. A manager who knows and understands how to help and motivate his/her people will get better than 9 beads out of people. That is if they do more than dip a scoop into bucket or babysit an automated process.
Aaron
 
D

dwall

#17
Steve Prevette said:
One thing to consider is that in the Red Bead Experiment, the ranking of the workers is completely unbiased and completely objective. The ranking of the workers is completely fair and the results used honestly. Yet the result is far from promoting motivation and self improvement, as we saw in both the MC506 live session and the video you viewed in MC550.

Thoughts? Why is this so?
Darleen jumped in here...It seems that there was no direct correlation between the occurance of red beads in the paddle and the process of scooping red/white beads. So when employees have no control over the outcome, except by happenstance, they will become frustrated and assume that the system is unfair so why should they try anymore. Just like some employees in the companies we have been discussing. If the "best" employee is selected by happenstance then the employees lose faith that the system will treat them in an even handed manner.
 

Steve Prevette

Deming Disciple
Staff member
Super Moderator
#18
Yes, Dr. Deming did design the Red Beads such that all of the variability comes from the process not the workers. In reality, that is not true. However, many management systems do go to the other extreme of assuming all variability comes from the workers, not the process.
 
B

Bill Pflanz

#19
ssagreen said:
A manager who knows and understands how to help and motivate his/her people will get better than 9 beads out of people. That is if they do more than dip a scoop into bucket or babysit an automated process.
Aaron
With apologies to Steve for not being a student, I wanted to ask a question of Aaron. What if the process only allows 9 beads? An example would be improving the sales in a territory when price, inventory, specifications etc. do not allow more. That is not an uncommon problem and it is beyond the control of the seller.

Bill Pflanz
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom