Evidence-Based Management & Good to Great, or Just Good?
If you want to have an operation, ask a surgeon if you need one. Ask a professor of organizational behavior if your management is not managing correctly, and he will tell you they are not. The system that is in place across the country and the world for that matter, limits the ability for managers to grasp these concepts. Even if they grasp them, in most organizations, implementing Evidence-based management is easier said than done. You would have to have most of your people on board with it, which would mean that they would all have to understand it, and believe in it. I believe that currently, social systems are in place to limit management and physicians ability to implement evidence-based management.
I am a strong believer in Intuition and its power to prevail over evidence-based decisions. I believe that management should always evaluate evidence and statistics first, before making a decision, but in the end, if after all the evidence is looked at, they think it just doesn’t feel right, then they should make the decision based off of their gut. I think that this opinion is shared by a lot of people, but not voiced strongly because of the lack of evidence to support it. Interesting that my statement on this topic is not supportable either.
As for “Good to Great, or Just Good?” Interesting statistical evaluation of an article that could not be supported based off of the existing evidence. I would think that maybe the author was looking at other things as well, and maybe if all the managers in the United States think the book is in the top 10 business books in America or the World for that matter, that maybe it has something that the Evidence-Based Management can not see.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Extra Readings for Chapter 9
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
This article reports on the 500-page document that criticizes the US intelligence community. The document states that the community was "group thinking" and was based on a system of communal agreement rather than a more aggressive system of challenging assumptions and arguing conclusions in order to get more detailed and supported analyses. This seems to be the system that was in place at the time, but I would of like to hear a discussion of how they American Intelligence community had slipped into a system of lowered expectations on the quality of intelligence out overall, and how the system was weakened to begin with. I would bet that this slippage in the system was built up over years or decades of Senate and Congressional Committees chipping away at the ability of the intelligence community to actually affectively gather quality information, until by 2000+ the information coming out of these areas from the UN was better than the information the very few operatives that the CIA had on the ground could provide.
This article reports on the 500-page document that criticizes the US intelligence community. The document states that the community was "group thinking" and was based on a system of communal agreement rather than a more aggressive system of challenging assumptions and arguing conclusions in order to get more detailed and supported analyses. This seems to be the system that was in place at the time, but I would of like to hear a discussion of how they American Intelligence community had slipped into a system of lowered expectations on the quality of intelligence out overall, and how the system was weakened to begin with. I would bet that this slippage in the system was built up over years or decades of Senate and Congressional Committees chipping away at the ability of the intelligence community to actually affectively gather quality information, until by 2000+ the information coming out of these areas from the UN was better than the information the very few operatives that the CIA had on the ground could provide.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Chapter 8 - Extra Readings
Strategies of Effective New Product Team Leaders:
This article looks at work teams in high-technology firms that are responsible for New Product development (NPD). The authors argue that team leaders need to change their behavior and the way they interact with team members. Diversity among the team members and open communication is a requirement for successful NPD teams. Creativity can be weakened due to micro-management, department-specific loyalties, and restricting information on need-to-know basis. Teams in the classic example of linear thinking and how it can lead to "interdepartmental rivalries and to escalated costs and time delays." This article reminds me of the book I am reading right now by Senge, The fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. How system thinking in organizations is important in preventing interdepartmental rivalries and activities that cause symptoms like lack of commitment in team members and stifling creativity.
This article looks at work teams in high-technology firms that are responsible for New Product development (NPD). The authors argue that team leaders need to change their behavior and the way they interact with team members. Diversity among the team members and open communication is a requirement for successful NPD teams. Creativity can be weakened due to micro-management, department-specific loyalties, and restricting information on need-to-know basis. Teams in the classic example of linear thinking and how it can lead to "interdepartmental rivalries and to escalated costs and time delays." This article reminds me of the book I am reading right now by Senge, The fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. How system thinking in organizations is important in preventing interdepartmental rivalries and activities that cause symptoms like lack of commitment in team members and stifling creativity.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Sin of Commission
I agree with everything that this article states, that poorly constructed incentive plans can seriously hurt the performance of your company. George Zimmer's comment on "you want incentives to be just large enough but not too large. . ." is a perfect statement. It also needs to help drive the corporate culture and system of the company. The area's I look at when implementing an incentive plan is customer service, keeping the business looking clean and in good condition, sales, expenses, and employee turnover.
What I have stopped agreeing with, that this article states, is that financial incentives are very low on the reason people work where they work. Over the past two months, we have spoke about financial incentives as being a weak reason people work where they work. First, no its not. It’s the top reason people do the work they do, with very few exceptions. There is the story of this person or that person deciding that they want to devote they lives to helping others, and are going to live meakly forever. I would say most of these people have sometime of emotional break that drives them to make this life altering commitment to poverty. The other 99.9% of people work everyday where they do because of the money. They might of decided along time ago that they wanted to be a doctor, an engineer, an artist, social worker, etc. . . but they are where they are because based on the financial compensation they receive, there is no better place for them to work with their given / current professional qualifications. We all try to convince ourselves that we aren't just in it for the money, but in reality, if we weren't working for the money, and really didn't need the money, we would workless, and most likely, if we didn't need to work, we would be sitting on a beach somewhere, swinging a golf club, or floating on a boat having the time of our lives. We might work once in awhile because it makes us feel good about ourselves, but really, people want money so they can buy things that make them feel good about themselves.
What I have stopped agreeing with, that this article states, is that financial incentives are very low on the reason people work where they work. Over the past two months, we have spoke about financial incentives as being a weak reason people work where they work. First, no its not. It’s the top reason people do the work they do, with very few exceptions. There is the story of this person or that person deciding that they want to devote they lives to helping others, and are going to live meakly forever. I would say most of these people have sometime of emotional break that drives them to make this life altering commitment to poverty. The other 99.9% of people work everyday where they do because of the money. They might of decided along time ago that they wanted to be a doctor, an engineer, an artist, social worker, etc. . . but they are where they are because based on the financial compensation they receive, there is no better place for them to work with their given / current professional qualifications. We all try to convince ourselves that we aren't just in it for the money, but in reality, if we weren't working for the money, and really didn't need the money, we would workless, and most likely, if we didn't need to work, we would be sitting on a beach somewhere, swinging a golf club, or floating on a boat having the time of our lives. We might work once in awhile because it makes us feel good about ourselves, but really, people want money so they can buy things that make them feel good about themselves.
Compensation and Performance - Arrow
Fast growing industry with highly profitable sales reps. Industry wide system vs company system. The Arrow can try as they may to keep the salespeople from interacting as W-2 jumpers, but the industry wide system that has developed will keep them from being successful in there fast paced, low company loyalty. It is very often that companies are worried about increasing the paying to their salespeople too fast, that the only option for a salesperson is to leave to another company to keep their salaries up to industry averages. What I don’t understand about the jumping, is if they being compensated properly, then there should be no incentive to jump to another company for purely financial reasons.
CEO is trying to micro manage general managers. Not possible in a company as large as they are now. Kaufman needs to move the HR function down several levels within the Regional VPs of the sales force. I would give the Regional VPs and the general managers more control over their people. It's not possible for the senior management team to know 4,000+ people personally, or know the leading salespeople in market areas that are outside the company. Without that ability, the CEO and HR department can not make an educated decision on the hiring and firing of people.
I think Kaufman is stuck in his idea of what a CEO does in a small company, and the system that he is trying to force the company's employees to function in, is strangling moral. He needs to re-focus his job on not being the HR manager and trust that the middle level managers he has hired can due the job of managing their employees. I think he feels that he has lost his grasp on the individual employee, and thought that EPR's would be the way for him to make sure the managers are doing everything right. Also, he seems to be very concerned that he received a 2 on his evaluation. Finally, sense implementing the EPR's, Operating Income has decreased every year.
CEO is trying to micro manage general managers. Not possible in a company as large as they are now. Kaufman needs to move the HR function down several levels within the Regional VPs of the sales force. I would give the Regional VPs and the general managers more control over their people. It's not possible for the senior management team to know 4,000+ people personally, or know the leading salespeople in market areas that are outside the company. Without that ability, the CEO and HR department can not make an educated decision on the hiring and firing of people.
I think Kaufman is stuck in his idea of what a CEO does in a small company, and the system that he is trying to force the company's employees to function in, is strangling moral. He needs to re-focus his job on not being the HR manager and trust that the middle level managers he has hired can due the job of managing their employees. I think he feels that he has lost his grasp on the individual employee, and thought that EPR's would be the way for him to make sure the managers are doing everything right. Also, he seems to be very concerned that he received a 2 on his evaluation. Finally, sense implementing the EPR's, Operating Income has decreased every year.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Chapter 6 - Extra Readings
Get Rid of the Performance Review!
Samuel Culbert builds a compelling argument against Performance Reviews, but some of his assumptions are weak at best. First, Performance Doesn't Determine Pay is in no way a truisms. In every company I ever worked for, performance within the established system was directly linked to promotions and pay increases, including bonuses. The only place I have seen where performance was not linked to pay was in union shops. Secondly, One Size Does Not Fit All. Well, true, but I am not convinced that it is even remotely beneficial to allow major deviations from the system accepted normal behavior just because not everyone is the same. Companies have certain corporate images that they want their employees to portray the public, and employees that can not, or will not act within the accepted normal behavior of the job, should not have to be tolerated just because the poor person has personal issues at home. Finally, in the section Immorality of Justifying Corporate Improvement, he states that "it's immoral to maintain the façade that annual pay and performance reviews lead to corporate improvement." I think immoral is a strong word, inappropriately used, and inflammatory. Additionally, he states in this section that he feels that "every organization should be considered partially a public entity" which smacks of Fascism.
I guess I just don’t get it, or I am just still fighting some of the ideas and philosophies that are presented on the book and the extra readings. Maybe its that I don’t work with 5,000 highly educated engineers and MBA's at SAS. I understand the theory, but does the theory really work in practice. It makes for a much more employee friendly work place. Disney is a great place where these ideas and theories are put to practice, but do these theories work everywhere on every business.
I believe that if used correctly, performance reviews can be useful for both the employee and the company. I do not think that waiting for 12 months to give any feed back to the employee is wise at all. Open communication and a strategy of positive reinforcements and extinction should be used to guide to workforce proactively. To a lesser degree, punishments should be used prior to firing an employee. I like goal setting and management by objectives, and I liked Culbert's "Alternative." Managing people is not a one time a year evaluation. It’s a constant interaction between manager and employee. I think performance reviews fall short of the mark when weak managers use them as the primary interaction with their workforce.
Samuel Culbert builds a compelling argument against Performance Reviews, but some of his assumptions are weak at best. First, Performance Doesn't Determine Pay is in no way a truisms. In every company I ever worked for, performance within the established system was directly linked to promotions and pay increases, including bonuses. The only place I have seen where performance was not linked to pay was in union shops. Secondly, One Size Does Not Fit All. Well, true, but I am not convinced that it is even remotely beneficial to allow major deviations from the system accepted normal behavior just because not everyone is the same. Companies have certain corporate images that they want their employees to portray the public, and employees that can not, or will not act within the accepted normal behavior of the job, should not have to be tolerated just because the poor person has personal issues at home. Finally, in the section Immorality of Justifying Corporate Improvement, he states that "it's immoral to maintain the façade that annual pay and performance reviews lead to corporate improvement." I think immoral is a strong word, inappropriately used, and inflammatory. Additionally, he states in this section that he feels that "every organization should be considered partially a public entity" which smacks of Fascism.
I guess I just don’t get it, or I am just still fighting some of the ideas and philosophies that are presented on the book and the extra readings. Maybe its that I don’t work with 5,000 highly educated engineers and MBA's at SAS. I understand the theory, but does the theory really work in practice. It makes for a much more employee friendly work place. Disney is a great place where these ideas and theories are put to practice, but do these theories work everywhere on every business.
I believe that if used correctly, performance reviews can be useful for both the employee and the company. I do not think that waiting for 12 months to give any feed back to the employee is wise at all. Open communication and a strategy of positive reinforcements and extinction should be used to guide to workforce proactively. To a lesser degree, punishments should be used prior to firing an employee. I like goal setting and management by objectives, and I liked Culbert's "Alternative." Managing people is not a one time a year evaluation. It’s a constant interaction between manager and employee. I think performance reviews fall short of the mark when weak managers use them as the primary interaction with their workforce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
