Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  Jay Warner's Summary

    Posted 10-31-1999 08:54
    Jay,
    Looks like a powerful list. Thanks.
    An observation and a question --
    [JR] It may be better to consider that companies are collages but not
    systems. A system has Purpose. This means that the majority of employees
    in a company would be able to state the purpose of their effort and the
    purpose of their company and how the two match.

    [JR] My question is: Considering that, without anyone knowing it including
    the person themselves, the "person" may be severely preoccupied with
    marital problems, hypoglycemia, passive-aggressive mood, or another of his
    23 personalities, how does your list deal with such situation?

    On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:28:09, Jay Warner wrote RE: Why won't peole work? -
    summary
    [...]
    >A company is a system. We know that.


    >The questions below can be answered yes or no. I've included possible
    >solutions for any 'no' answer. In every case so far where I have
    >applied these questions, the solution to the problem fell out. We could
    >apply a solution to the _system_ problem, and the _symptom_ problem
    >'went away.'
    >
    >When a person doesn't do something as desired, ask the following:
    >
    > Does the person know what is requested?
    > Make the request in a way that they can respond that they
    > understood it.
    >
    > Does the person have appropriate tools and equipment?
    > List tools and equipment, make sure they work, and give the
    > person access to all of them, including equipment training as
    > needed.
    >
    > Do they understand what is to be done, step by step?
    > Write up a Work Instruction (a.k.a., a process sheet), review
    > with a knowledgeable expert, and assure that the person doing
    > the work has access to it and understands it.
    >
    > Does the person have adequate information to accomplish the task?
    > Review the Work Instruction for input information & data,
    > checking that the person can obtain all the needed
    > information.
    >
    > Can they tell when they have done the work well?
    > Assure that measures and tests of performance are included in
    > the Work Instructions. Whoever does the testing, assure that
    > results are provided to the person doing the work as soon as
    > possible.
    >
    > Are they rewarded for doing the job well (better than for doing the
    > job poorly)?
    > Check that management understands the reward structure for the
    > individual. It ain't always money. Find different, more
    > specific, rewards. Remove rewards for poor jobs and
    > non-accomplishments.
    >

    Jack Ring, 32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
    480-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615,


  • 2.  Jay Warner's Summary

    Posted 10-31-1999 13:54
    Jack, simply because a person does not know the purpose of his or her
    organization doesn't stop it from being a system. Along with purpose, which
    most organizations have regardless of who knows it, they also include the
    other facets of systems including an input, a thruput and an output. This is
    a given no matter what business, product, or service the organization
    performs. Jay's list of questions attempt to get at why a part of that
    system may be failing to accomplish its tasks. This list appears to come
    right out of situational leadership issues Dan addresses probably the most
    critical aspect of human activity systems: communications. If employees
    don't know what they need to do, what success looks like,don't want to do it
    or can't do it boils down to communications. Without looking at the
    organization as a system, you ma will probably miss key communications
    breakdowns as you attempt to analyze performance shortcomings.

    Dr. Ken Rossi
    Asst. Professor of Information Systems
    Hawaii Pacific University
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    (808) 544-1412
    kgrossi@worldnet.att.net
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
    Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 3:54 AM
    Subject: Re: Jay Warner's Summary


    > Jay,
    > Looks like a powerful list. Thanks.
    > An observation and a question --
    > [JR] It may be better to consider that companies are collages but not
    > systems. A system has Purpose. This means that the majority of employees
    > in a company would be able to state the purpose of their effort and the
    > purpose of their company and how the two match.
    >
    > [JR] My question is: Considering that, without anyone knowing it
    including
    > the person themselves, the "person" may be severely preoccupied with
    > marital problems, hypoglycemia, passive-aggressive mood, or another of his
    > 23 personalities, how does your list deal with such situation?
    >
    > On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:28:09, Jay Warner wrote RE: Why won't peole work? -
    > summary
    > [...]
    > >A company is a system. We know that.
    >
    >
    > >The questions below can be answered yes or no. I've included possible
    > >solutions for any 'no' answer. In every case so far where I have
    > >applied these questions, the solution to the problem fell out. We could
    > >apply a solution to the _system_ problem, and the _symptom_ problem
    > >'went away.'
    > >
    > >When a person doesn't do something as desired, ask the following:
    > >
    > > Does the person know what is requested?
    > > Make the request in a way that they can respond that they
    > > understood it.
    > >
    > > Does the person have appropriate tools and equipment?
    > > List tools and equipment, make sure they work, and give the
    > > person access to all of them, including equipment training as
    > > needed.
    > >
    > > Do they understand what is to be done, step by step?
    > > Write up a Work Instruction (a.k.a., a process sheet), review
    > > with a knowledgeable expert, and assure that the person doing
    > > the work has access to it and understands it.
    > >
    > > Does the person have adequate information to accomplish the task?
    > > Review the Work Instruction for input information & data,
    > > checking that the person can obtain all the needed
    > > information.
    > >
    > > Can they tell when they have done the work well?
    > > Assure that measures and tests of performance are included in
    > > the Work Instructions. Whoever does the testing, assure that
    > > results are provided to the person doing the work as soon as
    > > possible.
    > >
    > > Are they rewarded for doing the job well (better than for doing the
    > > job poorly)?
    > > Check that management understands the reward structure for the
    > > individual. It ain't always money. Find different, more
    > > specific, rewards. Remove rewards for poor jobs and
    > > non-accomplishments.
    > >
    >
    > Jack Ring, 32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
    > 480-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615,


  • 3.  Jay Warner's Summary

    Posted 10-31-1999 18:13
    On 31 Oct 99, at 8:53, Kenneth Rossi wrote:

    > Jack, simply because a person does not know the purpose of his or her
    > organization doesn't stop it from being a system. Along with purpose,
    > which most organizations have regardless of who knows it, they also
    > include the other facets of systems including an input, a thruput and an
    > output.

    I agree with you, but it gets really confused. I've talked to a number
    of Deming folks who subsribe to the "it's not a system if it has no
    purpose (what the heck DOES that mean) or if people don't know
    what the purpose is.

    The word system has been, in a sense, covertly redefined by
    some. Rather than using adjectives to describe different types of
    systems (an unguides system, a purposeless system, etc), they
    have chosen to say that a "purposeless system" is an oxymoron.

    > Without looking at the organization as a system, you ma
    > will probably miss key communications breakdowns as you attempt to analyze
    > performance shortcomings.

    It sounds to me like you use system to mean the same thing I do,
    which is a set of interdependent processes and parts that interact.

    ..which of course is probably a more "hardware" or tech. definition
    than some want to adopt.

    My computer is a system, but does it have a single purpose? We
    could choose from any number of possible purposes for this
    physical system but they would all be arbitrary and only a part of
    the picture.


    Visit the Business & Mgmt. Bookshelf - summaries of best books in HR, interviewing, leadership, motivation, training activities
    , and a number of other categories.
    Save time and money while finding the best books.
    http://members.xoom.com/topbooks


  • 4.  Jay Warner's Summary

    Posted 11-02-1999 12:45
    The following is what I have been using to diagnose performance.
    It comes from Rummler & Brache, Improving Performance.
    It is the most comprehensive system I have found yet.
    It is in hierarchical order, ie, ask the question in order and fix
    first things first, then move to the next one.

    1. Performance Specifications
    - do performance standards exist?
    - do performers know the desired output and performance standards?
    - do performers consider the standards attainable?

    2. Task Support
    - can the performer easily recognize the input requiring action?
    - can the task be done without interference from other tasks?
    - are the job procedures and work flow logical?
    - are adequate resources available for performance (time, tools, staff,
    information)?

    3. Consequences
    - are consequences aligned to support desired performance?
    - are consequences meaningful from the performers viewpoint?
    - are consequences timely?

    4. Feedback
    - do performers receive information about their performance?
    - is the informatin they receive: relevant, accurate, timely, specific,
    easy to understand?

    5. Skills/Knowledge
    - do performers have the necessary skills and kwowledge to perform?
    - do the performers know why desired performance is important?

    6. Individual Capacity
    - are the performers physically, metally, and emotionally able to perform?

    B.A. (Abe) Schoenewolf
    Business Management Officer
    Office of Senior Vice President,
    Eastern Division
    Canadian Natinal Railway
    schoenew@cn.ca


  • 5.  Jay Warner's Summary

    Posted 11-02-1999 14:50
    Thanks for summarizing R&B!

    ______________________

    Randall W. Kindley The Performance Group
    President 5215 45th Ave. S.
    V: 612-721-6752 Minneapolis MN 55417-2334
    F: 847-589-5231 www.performgroup.net
    kindley@dialupnet.com

    "Building High Performance Organizations by
    Developing People and Processes"

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    > [mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU]On Behalf Of B.A.(Abe)
    > Schoenewolf
    > Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 11:45 AM
    > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
    > Subject: Jay Warner's Summary
    >
    >
    > The following is what I have been using to diagnose performance.
    > It comes from Rummler & Brache, Improving Performance.
    > It is the most comprehensive system I have found yet.
    > It is in hierarchical order, ie, ask the question in order and fix
    > first things first, then move to the next one.
    >
    > 1. Performance Specifications
    > - do performance standards exist?
    > - do performers know the desired output and performance standards?
    > - do performers consider the standards attainable?
    >
    > 2. Task Support
    > - can the performer easily recognize the input requiring action?
    > - can the task be done without interference from other tasks?
    > - are the job procedures and work flow logical?
    > - are adequate resources available for performance (time, tools, staff,
    > information)?
    >
    > 3. Consequences
    > - are consequences aligned to support desired performance?
    > - are consequences meaningful from the performers viewpoint?
    > - are consequences timely?
    >
    > 4. Feedback
    > - do performers receive information about their performance?
    > - is the informatin they receive: relevant, accurate, timely, specific,
    > easy to understand?
    >
    > 5. Skills/Knowledge
    > - do performers have the necessary skills and kwowledge to perform?
    > - do the performers know why desired performance is important?
    >
    > 6. Individual Capacity
    > - are the performers physically, metally, and emotionally able to perform?
    >
    > B.A. (Abe) Schoenewolf
    > Business Management Officer
    > Office of Senior Vice President,
    > Eastern Division
    > Canadian Natinal Railway
    > schoenew@cn.ca