Discussion: View Thread

Sorry if I misinterpreted your intent.

I took benchmarking to mean looking at what some other enterprise is doing.
That is the predominant usage of the term in the current literature.

Crosby cautioned against comparisons to others. Comparison only to your own
activity yields better improvement, faster.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Sigerstad" <TSigerstad@FROSTBURG.EDU>
To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: "Socking it to 'em" via performance appraisals


> Jack and Bala,
> (tongue in cheek here) let's see...Crosby advice: discard benchmarking,
> accept continuous improvement regiment.
> My definition of continuous improvement regimen:
> Establish a starting place, say current performance, (I'd call that a
> benchmark), then improve upon it.
> To improve we employ lots of different mechanisms, teaching, coaching,
> skill enhancement, etc., etc.
> often taking into consideration social, cultural, and psychological
> differences of the coach and coached.
> At some point in the future assess improvement (perhaps by measuring a new
> "benchmark").
> Adjust the continuous improvement plan and perhaps create a target or just
> see where it takes you.
> At some point in the future assess improvement (perhaps by measuring a new
> "benchmark").
> Repeat as needed.
>
> If we measure and do nothing, shame on us. That could give benchmarking a
> bad name, but its only a mechanism for establishing a point of reference.
> Every good manager or organization I've ever known uses the benchmark to
> make decisions on, typically to set objectives for future performance
> outcomes but also to try to understand why and how they are where they are
> which often helps in determining where to set the goal. And, of course,
> its not the only measure.
>
> We haven't thrown away a useful tool (benchmarking) when we move to
> continuous improvement, we're just layering on where to go from the
> measure, what to do with it. I don't think it's about rejecting
> benchmarking in favor of continuous improvement. That's a little like old
> wine in new bottles, the thing that keeps professors publishing new
> papers, business writers selling new books, and consultants touting new
> programs. All three find it useful to create a new perspective on
> something that currently exists, perhaps to enhance, perhaps to reach more
> people with a slightly different spin, perhaps to create a "new" product
> to sell. I know I can't begin to keep up with the practitioner or
> academic press of "new" ideas. I hang out at a lot of used book sales
> looking for management history fodder and I find it amusing every time I
> pick up a business book from yesteryear to see how long we have been
> writing about something that has been rediscovered recently. In some ways
> its a good thing because we have a new generation of business idea
> consumers who don't read history and the ideas have to be repackaged in
> today's argot with today's examples. On the other hand, if you read
> history, or have been a part of history, its not bad to understand where
> this stuff comes from and pay homage to seminal or classic ideas as we put
> a fresh face on them for today's audience.
>
> Tom
>
> Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
> Strategic Management and Business Ethics
> 326 Framptom Hall
> College of Business
> Frostburg State University
> 101 Braddock Road
> Frostburg, MD 21532
> tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
> 301-687-4419 office
> 301-687-4380 fax
> 301-687-0712 home
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of Charles
> Wankel
> Sent: Mon 10/3/2005 5:47 AM
> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: "Socking it to 'em" via performance appraisals
>
>
>
> From: Jack Ring [mailto:jring@amug.org]
> <mailto:%5bmailto:jring@amug.org%5d>
>
>
>
>
>
> Glad you jumped in.
>
>
>
> I think you have summarized quite well the reasons quality guru Phil
> Crosby advised against benchmarking, recommending instead a continuous
> improvement regimen.
>
>
>
> Culturally dependent would presume there are clear lines of demarcation
> between cultures. Seen any?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: A G Balasubramanian <mailto:agbala_hr@REDIFFMAIL.COM>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I am from India and I am new to this group. Let me jump in to the fray
> anyway. Let me first tell you all that this discussion is very
> stimulating.
>
> I am wondering if this personal learning and drive that Tom is saying
> happens (or should happen as a result of the benchmarking)is moderated by
> the personality of the person. Depends on whether she has external locus
> of control or an internal locus of control. The first set of people would
> blame the inhibiting circumtances external to the company (and even within
> the company) for the her poor performance or looks for facilitating
> factors for the top guy's performance and then says "Well, my performance
> is okay, the star's performance was that good because he got a good
> territory" or "I could not make the levels this year because Katrina hit".
> For the next year, she does not expect Katrina and therefore hopes to get
> by with the same efforts.
>
> Rationalisation is possible because, in actual practice, rarely do the
> extreme end of the scales get used. The tendency is for most people to be
> marked off at 3 or 4 and very few get a 2 or 5 and no one gets a 1.
> One is able to "explain" the "small" difference rather easily?
>
> It is a different matter that these guys get fired or pushed out of the
> way for promotions after a couple of years of average performance. But by
> that time the damage is done that the average guy has become rigidfied to
> be an averager for life. Companies rarely fire the middling guys?
>
> Is what I am talking cultural dependent?
>
> Regards: Bala
>
>
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 Thomas Sigerstad wrote :
> >Gary,
> >First, I'm not touting any kind of theory to support a position here but
> >merely reflecting how I see practice; but let me take a stab at answering
> >the second round of questions:
> >
> >snip: Can you explain to me how you see benchmarking via a performance
> >appraisal as
> >helping to drive future performance for the organization? I recognize
> >that this
> >is a commonly touted approach from the statistical process control
> >movement, but
> >how does the appraisal of this past performance and using it as a
> >benchmark help
> >in improving future employee performance?
> >
> >I honestly think is pretty straightforward in that people want to know
> >where they stand and where they are expected to go. Most organizations
> >are pretty close mouthed about rankings, keeping members in the dark
> >about who is above and below them but some informal mechanisms reveal
> >some of this. The benchmarking then is to a scale that organizations use
> >to justify salary differentials and promotion. I don't plan on arguing
> >the good or bad in this...I think that it just reflects what goes on. On
> >a typical scale of 1-5 organizations rate various performance categories
> >and the appraisal recipient sees where they fall and either knows
> >expectation levels or is told what they are. If I know I'm a "3" and am
> >getting a mediocre raise and no promotion wouldn't I be driven to exceed
> >my current level of performance to achieve a "4" and get a bigger raise
> >and possibly the promotion? Don't I want to be in the group of employees
> >being considered for advancement? We all like to know where we stand and
> >why? We also all want to know what is expected of us to achieve
> >appropriate performance appraisals. I don't think this sounds elegant,
> >and it won't close any consulting contract deals, but it seems an awfully
> >lot like common sense to me as a practitioner that if I'm benchmarked in
> >the middle of the pack and don't want to be there I only have a single
> >choice assuming I am interested in more of whatever drives me. That
> >choice is to improve my rating in the next benchmarking exercise or
> >before. There are of course much more meaningful, insightful, and
> >helpful ways to go beyond mere benchmarking with the employee to inform
> >them of where they stand and why, as well as where they are expected to
> >go, and why, and how. Better managers would layer on these additional
> >methods to the basic benchmarking exercise, although I think they might
> >do it selectively dependent on who they want to invest in. In any
> >traditional benchmarking exercise I think the benchmarkers might also
> >explain how/why an organization is at a particular place, and how they
> >can move beyond it. Benchmarking answers the question "How am I doing?"
> >Assuming I, or we, want to do better, we seek out the answers (or give
> >them) to explain why we are there and what we have to do to move beyond.
> >
> >snip: Another thought: wouldn't the time to benchmark performance levels
> >be at the
> >beginning of the "review period" rather than at the end of it? Also,
> >shouldn't
> >the use of this benchmarking be used solely in the development of the
> >employee,
> >rather than in the measurement of performance, itself? After all,
> >shouldn't the
> >focus on measurement be on the goal to be obtained, rather than on the
> >progress
> >in improvement over the benchmark?
> >
> >Isn't the end of one period the beginning of another? (Except for a new
> >employee who I might not know very much about.) I would think that the
> >benchmark taken at the end of some period becomes the starting place in
> >that conversation about how we got there and how to move forward. The
> >beginning benchmark can lead to "budgeted" performance much like a budget
> >acts as a managerial tool after last year's results are in and we figure
> >out what we want to expect from ourselves for the next year. You are
> >absolutely on the same wavelength I am about the benchmark being capable
> >of more than a mere measurement of performance. It can be the starting
> >place for "budgeting" new performance, setting some goals and objectives.
> >I think people need to see where they are to get a handle on where they
> >are going and how to get there. As an appraised individual I hated
> >conversations that discussed open ended performance expectations like
> >"I'm looking for improvement" or "I expect you to excel." Improve over
> >what? Define excel with some point of reference. The "what" and the
> >"point of reference" are the benchmark. To answer the second part...I
> >don't think you can focus solely on development unless you can anchor
> >"develop from where", else we have a wall of framed platitudes and no
> >specifics. Employees don't want to hear "when the going gets tough, the
> >tough get going". They want to know that they closed 10% of their leads
> >and the top salesperson closed 15%. Then they want to know how to get
> >there. Where do I stand? How do I improve? Then the sales manager
> >jumps in with the necessary developmental tools. Focus on the goal, or
> >focus on improvement from the benchmark? Good question...perhaps some of
> >both. The goal for the end of the period may be the benchmark measured
> >at period end and we hope they turn out to be the same. I reported to a
> >CEO once who always had "stretch" goals but was pretty darn happy when
> >the troops had a respectable gain over last year's benchmark. This opens
> >the question of whether we develop goals/budgets based on improvement
> >over the benchmark (e.g.; year to year unit sales gains) or use
> >goals/budgets to push performance to new levels. I think we tend to some
> >of both philosophies in practice, or dependent on managerial style. That
> >CEO was a "coach" trying to make us all dig deep for the game. The real
> >budget that the Wall Street analysts saw (admittedly somewhat safe but
> >still giving them gains) was a performance over a previous benchmark.
> >
> >snip: As for the issue regarding benchmarking and engagement, it seems
> >from the
> >research I've read that there is no connection. Yes, recognition does
> >have a
> >connection, but do we need a benchmark in order for us to give someone
> >recognition for a job well done?
> >
> >I don't pretend to be up on the latest research in the HR domains so I
> >can't comment directly on what the variables are and how they are
> >measured, or whether they have statistical, but as importantly, practical
> >significance. I would think that we do benchmarks for a reason, to
> >position ourselves vis a vis something else that has meaning to us. Once
> >we know that, do we, and how do we become "engaged" to act on that
> >position knowledge? I've seen plenty of companies do research and not
> >act on it. That's the failure. But, isn't the action, when it happens,
> >engagement? Perhaps I don't know enough about how that term is used or
> >measured in the field. More basic question: If we want to give someone
> >recognition for a job well done, what is the criteria for making that
> >judgment? Haven't we compared them against something? Anything? I'll
> >bet sometimes we compare it to improvements, sometimes goals, sometimes
> >attitude. Sometimes we reward failure because we want to encourage risk
> >taking where neither the benchmark or goal is the criterion as much as
> >the actions, but then perhaps we are measuring something else which
> >turned out to be the measure we used in that case.
> >
> >Gary, I'm trying to simplify a portion of a very complex system of
> >training and development, and human motivation. I believe a simple
> >phenomenon of measuring current performance at some point in time (which
> >I am calling benchmarking) gives "people developers" an anchor to help
> >explain where people are and show them where the developer would like
> >them to go. I want to know where I'm at, and where I'm expected to go
> >from there. I can't tell my students any more than I could once tell my
> >employees that if they work hard I'll give them an "A" or the biggest
> >raise. If I'm arbitrary I'm in trouble in both camps. They want anchors
> >and scales. If I tell them where they stand at some point in time and
> >they don't like it, they "engage". That occurs in various forms.
> >
> >One more exchange and I think we have enough for a paper (chuckle).
> >
> >Tom
> >
> >Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
> >Strategic Management and Business Ethics
> >326 Framptom Hall
> >College of Business
> >Frostburg State University
> >101 Braddock Road
> >Frostburg, MD 21532
> >tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
> >301-687-4419 office
> >301-687-4380 fax
> >301-687-0712 home
> >
> >________________________________
> >
> > From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of Gary
> > Lear
> >Sent: Sun 10/2/2005 7:39 PM
> >To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> >Subject: Re: "Socking it to 'em" via performance appraisals
> >
> >
> >
> >Tom,
> >
> >Can you explain to me how you see benchmarking via a performance
> >appraisal as
> >helping to drive future performance for the organization? I recognize
> >that this
> >is a commonly touted approach from the statistical process control
> >movement, but
> >how does the appraisal of this past performance and using it as a
> >benchmark help
> >in improving future employee performance?
> >
> >Another thought: wouldn't the time to benchmark performance levels be at
> >the
> >beginning of the "review period" rather than at the end of it? Also,
> >shouldn't
> >the use of this benchmarking be used solely in the development of the
> >employee,
> >rather than in the measurement of performance, itself? After all,
> >shouldn't the
> >focus on measurement be on the goal to be obtained, rather than on the
> >progress
> >in improvement over the benchmark?
> >
> >As for the issue regarding benchmarking and engagement, it seems from the
> >research I've read that there is no connection. Yes, recognition does
> >have a
> >connection, but do we need a benchmark in order for us to give someone
> >recognition for a job well done?
> >
> >Make a Great Day!
> >
> >Gary Lear, President & CEO
> >
> >Resource Development Systems LLC
> >Managing the Human Side of Business (sm)
> >
> >www.ResourceDevelopmentSystems.com
> >
> >(c) 2005 permission denied to use this post in any other forum or in any
> >way
> >other than on the discussion list that it was originally posted.
>
>
>
> <http://adworks.rediff.com/cgi-bin/AdWorks/sigclick.cgi/www.rediff.com/signature-home.htm/1507191490@Middle5?PARTNER=3>
>
>

Jack,
I don't want you to be too quick letting me off the hook here. I'm not trying to limit benchmarking to internal, or self benchmarks. Let's look at the typical performance appraisal: On a scale of 1-5, I want you to be at least a 3 to be acceptable, a 4 is better, and if a 5 you're a star employee. What is a 3? I'd suggest the scale developers have the acceptable employee in mind. Those folks are probably describing some ideal employee at 4 or 5. I still need a point of reference if I'm going to work with my employee to build a program for their improvement. When I provide an employee with a performance appraisal, whether it's all prose or has been boiled down to a set of numbers, I am essentially appraising their performance against something, whether it be the ideal or against everyone else. I agree that most folks use the benchmark to compare against outside performance, but even when I'm not showing you how you rank compared to all other employees, I'm still comparing you to this mythical ideal employee as the benchmark (even if it's in my head). Bala hit on it when he suggested some of us are driven by internal standards and some have an external focus. Some days I am convinced I'm motivated only by my internal drive mechanisms and a mark I've set for myself. Other times I know that my actions are driven by some mark set by my peers. For some performance measures I have no idea where I stand compared to my colleagues. For other measures I know exactly where I stand. If I'm pleasing only myself, I might be happy with some level of performance, or be driven by some measure of internal benchmarking. On the other hand, knowing where I stand on some performance measure compared to my colleagues might be a powerful driver, whether I like it or not. Even that internal benchmark I have for myself is based on something, perhaps an admired mentor or colleague, perhaps some ideal of who I want to be. As I counsel my own performance I have a reference point in mind. Crosby's claim that internal comparisons yield better and faster results seems like quite a claim, and based on Bala's suggestion of inner/outer directedness as a factor, questions whether that is generalizable to all employees. The whole idea of specialized development plans for the individual based on their performance is a recognition that the one-size-fits-all approach is not the most effective; so, maybe some of us are driven to enhanced performance by a sense of competition to outside benchmarks. I'd like to think I am solely driven by some internal compass, but alas, I'm human with all its foibles, including outer focused competitive behavior and score keeping.
Tom

Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
Strategic Management and Business Ethics
326 Framptom Hall
College of Business
Frostburg State University
101 Braddock Road
Frostburg, MD 21532
tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
301-687-4419 office
301-687-4380 fax
301-687-0712 home

________________________________

From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of Jack Ring
Sent: Mon 10/3/2005 2:21 PM
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Benchmarking



Sorry if I misinterpreted your intent.

I took benchmarking to mean looking at what some other enterprise is doing.
That is the predominant usage of the term in the current literature.

Crosby cautioned against comparisons to others. Comparison only to your own
activity yields better improvement, faster.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Sigerstad" <TSigerstad@FROSTBURG.EDU>
To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: "Socking it to 'em" via performance appraisals


> Jack and Bala,
> (tongue in cheek here) let's see...Crosby advice: discard benchmarking,
> accept continuous improvement regiment.
> My definition of continuous improvement regimen:
> Establish a starting place, say current performance, (I'd call that a
> benchmark), then improve upon it.
> To improve we employ lots of different mechanisms, teaching, coaching,
> skill enhancement, etc., etc.
> often taking into consideration social, cultural, and psychological
> differences of the coach and coached.
> At some point in the future assess improvement (perhaps by measuring a new
> "benchmark").
> Adjust the continuous improvement plan and perhaps create a target or just
> see where it takes you.
> At some point in the future assess improvement (perhaps by measuring a new
> "benchmark").
> Repeat as needed.
>
> If we measure and do nothing, shame on us. That could give benchmarking a
> bad name, but its only a mechanism for establishing a point of reference.
> Every good manager or organization I've ever known uses the benchmark to
> make decisions on, typically to set objectives for future performance
> outcomes but also to try to understand why and how they are where they are
> which often helps in determining where to set the goal. And, of course,
> its not the only measure.
>
> We haven't thrown away a useful tool (benchmarking) when we move to
> continuous improvement, we're just layering on where to go from the
> measure, what to do with it. I don't think it's about rejecting
> benchmarking in favor of continuous improvement. That's a little like old
> wine in new bottles, the thing that keeps professors publishing new
> papers, business writers selling new books, and consultants touting new
> programs. All three find it useful to create a new perspective on
> something that currently exists, perhaps to enhance, perhaps to reach more
> people with a slightly different spin, perhaps to create a "new" product
> to sell. I know I can't begin to keep up with the practitioner or
> academic press of "new" ideas. I hang out at a lot of used book sales
> looking for management history fodder and I find it amusing every time I
> pick up a business book from yesteryear to see how long we have been
> writing about something that has been rediscovered recently. In some ways
> its a good thing because we have a new generation of business idea
> consumers who don't read history and the ideas have to be repackaged in
> today's argot with today's examples. On the other hand, if you read
> history, or have been a part of history, its not bad to understand where
> this stuff comes from and pay homage to seminal or classic ideas as we put
> a fresh face on them for today's audience.
>
> Tom
>
> Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
> Strategic Management and Business Ethics
> 326 Framptom Hall
> College of Business
> Frostburg State University
> 101 Braddock Road
> Frostburg, MD 21532
> tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
> 301-687-4419 office
> 301-687-4380 fax
> 301-687-0712 home
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of Charles
> Wankel
> Sent: Mon 10/3/2005 5:47 AM
> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: "Socking it to 'em" via performance appraisals
>
>
>
> From: Jack Ring [mailto:jring@amug.org]
> <mailto:%5bmailto:jring@amug.org%5d>
>
>
>
>
>
> Glad you jumped in.
>
>
>
> I think you have summarized quite well the reasons quality guru Phil
> Crosby advised against benchmarking, recommending instead a continuous
> improvement regimen.
>
>
>
> Culturally dependent would presume there are clear lines of demarcation
> between cultures. Seen any?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: A G Balasubramanian <mailto:agbala_hr@REDIFFMAIL.COM>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I am from India and I am new to this group. Let me jump in to the fray
> anyway. Let me first tell you all that this discussion is very
> stimulating.
>
> I am wondering if this personal learning and drive that Tom is saying
> happens (or should happen as a result of the benchmarking)is moderated by
> the personality of the person. Depends on whether she has external locus
> of control or an internal locus of control. The first set of people would
> blame the inhibiting circumtances external to the company (and even within
> the company) for the her poor performance or looks for facilitating
> factors for the top guy's performance and then says "Well, my performance
> is okay, the star's performance was that good because he got a good
> territory" or "I could not make the levels this year because Katrina hit".
> For the next year, she does not expect Katrina and therefore hopes to get
> by with the same efforts.
>
> Rationalisation is possible because, in actual practice, rarely do the
> extreme end of the scales get used. The tendency is for most people to be
> marked off at 3 or 4 and very few get a 2 or 5 and no one gets a 1.
> One is able to "explain" the "small" difference rather easily?
>
> It is a different matter that these guys get fired or pushed out of the
> way for promotions after a couple of years of average performance. But by
> that time the damage is done that the average guy has become rigidfied to
> be an averager for life. Companies rarely fire the middling guys?
>
> Is what I am talking cultural dependent?
>
> Regards: Bala
>
>
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 Thomas Sigerstad wrote :
> >Gary,
> >First, I'm not touting any kind of theory to support a position here but
> >merely reflecting how I see practice; but let me take a stab at answering
> >the second round of questions:
> >
> >snip: Can you explain to me how you see benchmarking via a performance
> >appraisal as
> >helping to drive future performance for the organization? I recognize
> >that this
> >is a commonly touted approach from the statistical process control
> >movement, but
> >how does the appraisal of this past performance and using it as a
> >benchmark help
> >in improving future employee performance?
> >
> >I honestly think is pretty straightforward in that people want to know
> >where they stand and where they are expected to go. Most organizations
> >are pretty close mouthed about rankings, keeping members in the dark
> >about who is above and below them but some informal mechanisms reveal
> >some of this. The benchmarking then is to a scale that organizations use
> >to justify salary differentials and promotion. I don't plan on arguing
> >the good or bad in this...I think that it just reflects what goes on. On
> >a typical scale of 1-5 organizations rate various performance categories
> >and the appraisal recipient sees where they fall and either knows
> >expectation levels or is told what they are. If I know I'm a "3" and am
> >getting a mediocre raise and no promotion wouldn't I be driven to exceed
> >my current level of performance to achieve a "4" and get a bigger raise
> >and possibly the promotion? Don't I want to be in the group of employees
> >being considered for advancement? We all like to know where we stand and
> >why? We also all want to know what is expected of us to achieve
> >appropriate performance appraisals. I don't think this sounds elegant,
> >and it won't close any consulting contract deals, but it seems an awfully
> >lot like common sense to me as a practitioner that if I'm benchmarked in
> >the middle of the pack and don't want to be there I only have a single
> >choice assuming I am interested in more of whatever drives me. That
> >choice is to improve my rating in the next benchmarking exercise or
> >before. There are of course much more meaningful, insightful, and
> >helpful ways to go beyond mere benchmarking with the employee to inform
> >them of where they stand and why, as well as where they are expected to
> >go, and why, and how. Better managers would layer on these additional
> >methods to the basic benchmarking exercise, although I think they might
> >do it selectively dependent on who they want to invest in. In any
> >traditional benchmarking exercise I think the benchmarkers might also
> >explain how/why an organization is at a particular place, and how they
> >can move beyond it. Benchmarking answers the question "How am I doing?"
> >Assuming I, or we, want to do better, we seek out the answers (or give
> >them) to explain why we are there and what we have to do to move beyond.
> >
> >snip: Another thought: wouldn't the time to benchmark performance levels
> >be at the
> >beginning of the "review period" rather than at the end of it? Also,
> >shouldn't
> >the use of this benchmarking be used solely in the development of the
> >employee,
> >rather than in the measurement of performance, itself? After all,
> >shouldn't the
> >focus on measurement be on the goal to be obtained, rather than on the
> >progress
> >in improvement over the benchmark?
> >
> >Isn't the end of one period the beginning of another? (Except for a new
> >employee who I might not know very much about.) I would think that the
> >benchmark taken at the end of some period becomes the starting place in
> >that conversation about how we got there and how to move forward. The
> >beginning benchmark can lead to "budgeted" performance much like a budget
> >acts as a managerial tool after last year's results are in and we figure
> >out what we want to expect from ourselves for the next year. You are
> >absolutely on the same wavelength I am about the benchmark being capable
> >of more than a mere measurement of performance. It can be the starting
> >place for "budgeting" new performance, setting some goals and objectives.
> >I think people need to see where they are to get a handle on where they
> >are going and how to get there. As an appraised individual I hated
> >conversations that discussed open ended performance expectations like
> >"I'm looking for improvement" or "I expect you to excel." Improve over
> >what? Define excel with some point of reference. The "what" and the
> >"point of reference" are the benchmark. To answer the second part...I
> >don't think you can focus solely on development unless you can anchor
> >"develop from where", else we have a wall of framed platitudes and no
> >specifics. Employees don't want to hear "when the going gets tough, the
> >tough get going". They want to know that they closed 10% of their leads
> >and the top salesperson closed 15%. Then they want to know how to get
> >there. Where do I stand? How do I improve? Then the sales manager
> >jumps in with the necessary developmental tools. Focus on the goal, or
> >focus on improvement from the benchmark? Good question...perhaps some of
> >both. The goal for the end of the period may be the benchmark measured
> >at period end and we hope they turn out to be the same. I reported to a
> >CEO once who always had "stretch" goals but was pretty darn happy when
> >the troops had a respectable gain over last year's benchmark. This opens
> >the question of whether we develop goals/budgets based on improvement
> >over the benchmark (e.g.; year to year unit sales gains) or use
> >goals/budgets to push performance to new levels. I think we tend to some
> >of both philosophies in practice, or dependent on managerial style. That
> >CEO was a "coach" trying to make us all dig deep for the game. The real
> >budget that the Wall Street analysts saw (admittedly somewhat safe but
> >still giving them gains) was a performance over a previous benchmark.
> >
> >snip: As for the issue regarding benchmarking and engagement, it seems
> >from the
> >research I've read that there is no connection. Yes, recognition does
> >have a
> >connection, but do we need a benchmark in order for us to give someone
> >recognition for a job well done?
> >
> >I don't pretend to be up on the latest research in the HR domains so I
> >can't comment directly on what the variables are and how they are
> >measured, or whether they have statistical, but as importantly, practical
> >significance. I would think that we do benchmarks for a reason, to
> >position ourselves vis a vis something else that has meaning to us. Once
> >we know that, do we, and how do we become "engaged" to act on that
> >position knowledge? I've seen plenty of companies do research and not
> >act on it. That's the failure. But, isn't the action, when it happens,
> >engagement? Perhaps I don't know enough about how that term is used or
> >measured in the field. More basic question: If we want to give someone
> >recognition for a job well done, what is the criteria for making that
> >judgment? Haven't we compared them against something? Anything? I'll
> >bet sometimes we compare it to improvements, sometimes goals, sometimes
> >attitude. Sometimes we reward failure because we want to encourage risk
> >taking where neither the benchmark or goal is the criterion as much as
> >the actions, but then perhaps we are measuring something else which
> >turned out to be the measure we used in that case.
> >
> >Gary, I'm trying to simplify a portion of a very complex system of
> >training and development, and human motivation. I believe a simple
> >phenomenon of measuring current performance at some point in time (which
> >I am calling benchmarking) gives "people developers" an anchor to help
> >explain where people are and show them where the developer would like
> >them to go. I want to know where I'm at, and where I'm expected to go
> >from there. I can't tell my students any more than I could once tell my
> >employees that if they work hard I'll give them an "A" or the biggest
> >raise. If I'm arbitrary I'm in trouble in both camps. They want anchors
> >and scales. If I tell them where they stand at some point in time and
> >they don't like it, they "engage". That occurs in various forms.
> >
> >One more exchange and I think we have enough for a paper (chuckle).
> >
> >Tom
> >
> >Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
> >Strategic Management and Business Ethics
> >326 Framptom Hall
> >College of Business
> >Frostburg State University
> >101 Braddock Road
> >Frostburg, MD 21532
> >tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
> >301-687-4419 office
> >301-687-4380 fax
> >301-687-0712 home
> >
> >________________________________
> >
> > From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of Gary
> > Lear
> >Sent: Sun 10/2/2005 7:39 PM
> >To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> >Subject: Re: "Socking it to 'em" via performance appraisals
> >
> >
> >
> >Tom,
> >
> >Can you explain to me how you see benchmarking via a performance
> >appraisal as
> >helping to drive future performance for the organization? I recognize
> >that this
> >is a commonly touted approach from the statistical process control
> >movement, but
> >how does the appraisal of this past performance and using it as a
> >benchmark help
> >in improving future employee performance?
> >
> >Another thought: wouldn't the time to benchmark performance levels be at
> >the
> >beginning of the "review period" rather than at the end of it? Also,
> >shouldn't
> >the use of this benchmarking be used solely in the development of the
> >employee,
> >rather than in the measurement of performance, itself? After all,
> >shouldn't the
> >focus on measurement be on the goal to be obtained, rather than on the
> >progress
> >in improvement over the benchmark?
> >
> >As for the issue regarding benchmarking and engagement, it seems from the
> >research I've read that there is no connection. Yes, recognition does
> >have a
> >connection, but do we need a benchmark in order for us to give someone
> >recognition for a job well done?
> >
> >Make a Great Day!
> >
> >Gary Lear, President & CEO
> >
> >Resource Development Systems LLC
> >Managing the Human Side of Business (sm)
> >
> >www.ResourceDevelopmentSystems.com
> >
> >(c) 2005 permission denied to use this post in any other forum or in any
> >way
> >other than on the discussion list that it was originally posted.
>
>
>
> <http://adworks.rediff.com/cgi-bin/AdWorks/sigclick.cgi/www.rediff.com/signature-home.htm/1507191490@Middle5?PARTNER=3>
>
>

Better you should read Crosby than hear it from me. Or Deming. Or Noel
Tichy (from whom Jack Welch learned).

Apparently you do not presume the existence of goals.
When goals exist the basis for appraising performance is; 1) goal
achievement, 2) resilience to disturbances while achieving goals and 3)
dynamic limits.
Anyone attempting performance appraisal without prior goals belongs to the
fiction and poetry club.

Typical performance appraisal forms do not interest me. The label, typical,
is your first clue that the lemmings have landed.

Here is a fun thing to do.
Take a set of appraisals prepared by Manager A who has scored the respective
employees as a 5 or a 4. Then point out to the Manager that either 1)
he/she is not necessary or 2) he/she has too many unchallenged employees so
needs to give up 20% of them. Then ask for his/her recommendation.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Sigerstad" <TSigerstad@FROSTBURG.EDU>
To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: Benchmarking


> Jack,
> I don't want you to be too quick letting me off the hook here. I'm not
> trying to limit benchmarking to internal, or self benchmarks. Let's look
> at the typical performance appraisal: On a scale of 1-5, I want you to be
> at least a 3 to be acceptable, a 4 is better, and if a 5 you're a star
> employee. What is a 3? I'd suggest the scale developers have the
> acceptable employee in mind. Those folks are probably describing some
> ideal employee at 4 or 5. I still need a point of reference if I'm going
> to work with my employee to build a program for their improvement. When I
> provide an employee with a performance appraisal, whether it's all prose
> or has been boiled down to a set of numbers, I am essentially appraising
> their performance against something, whether it be the ideal or against
> everyone else. I agree that most folks use the benchmark to compare
> against outside performance, but even when I'm not showing you how you
> rank compared to all other employees, I'm still comparing you to this
> mythical ideal employee as the benchmark (even if it's in my head). Bala
> hit on it when he suggested some of us are driven by internal standards
> and some have an external focus. Some days I am convinced I'm motivated
> only by my internal drive mechanisms and a mark I've set for myself.
> Other times I know that my actions are driven by some mark set by my
> peers. For some performance measures I have no idea where I stand
> compared to my colleagues. For other measures I know exactly where I
> stand. If I'm pleasing only myself, I might be happy with some level of
> performance, or be driven by some measure of internal benchmarking. On
> the other hand, knowing where I stand on some performance measure compared
> to my colleagues might be a powerful driver, whether I like it or not.
> Even that internal benchmark I have for myself is based on something,
> perhaps an admired mentor or colleague, perhaps some ideal of who I want
> to be. As I counsel my own performance I have a reference point in mind.
> Crosby's claim that internal comparisons yield better and faster results
> seems like quite a claim, and based on Bala's suggestion of inner/outer
> directedness as a factor, questions whether that is generalizable to all
> employees. The whole idea of specialized development plans for the
> individual based on their performance is a recognition that the
> one-size-fits-all approach is not the most effective; so, maybe some of us
> are driven to enhanced performance by a sense of competition to outside
> benchmarks. I'd like to think I am solely driven by some internal
> compass, but alas, I'm human with all its foibles, including outer focused
> competitive behavior and score keeping.
> Tom
>
> Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
> Strategic Management and Business Ethics
> 326 Framptom Hall
> College of Business
> Frostburg State University
> 101 Braddock Road
> Frostburg, MD 21532
> tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
> 301-687-4419 office
> 301-687-4380 fax
> 301-687-0712 home
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of Jack
> Ring
> Sent: Mon 10/3/2005 2:21 PM
> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Benchmarking
>
>
>
> Sorry if I misinterpreted your intent.
>
> I took benchmarking to mean looking at what some other enterprise is
> doing.
> That is the predominant usage of the term in the current literature.
>
> Crosby cautioned against comparisons to others. Comparison only to your
> own
> activity yields better improvement, faster.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thomas Sigerstad" <TSigerstad@FROSTBURG.EDU>
> To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 8:15 AM
> Subject: Re: "Socking it to 'em" via performance appraisals
>
>
>> Jack and Bala,
>> (tongue in cheek here) let's see...Crosby advice: discard benchmarking,
>> accept continuous improvement regiment.
>> My definition of continuous improvement regimen:
>> Establish a starting place, say current performance, (I'd call that a
>> benchmark), then improve upon it.
>> To improve we employ lots of different mechanisms, teaching, coaching,
>> skill enhancement, etc., etc.
>> often taking into consideration social, cultural, and psychological
>> differences of the coach and coached.
>> At some point in the future assess improvement (perhaps by measuring a
>> new
>> "benchmark").
>> Adjust the continuous improvement plan and perhaps create a target or
>> just
>> see where it takes you.
>> At some point in the future assess improvement (perhaps by measuring a
>> new
>> "benchmark").
>> Repeat as needed.
>>
>> If we measure and do nothing, shame on us. That could give benchmarking
>> a
>> bad name, but its only a mechanism for establishing a point of reference.
>> Every good manager or organization I've ever known uses the benchmark to
>> make decisions on, typically to set objectives for future performance
>> outcomes but also to try to understand why and how they are where they
>> are
>> which often helps in determining where to set the goal. And, of course,
>> its not the only measure.
>>
>> We haven't thrown away a useful tool (benchmarking) when we move to
>> continuous improvement, we're just layering on where to go from the
>> measure, what to do with it. I don't think it's about rejecting
>> benchmarking in favor of continuous improvement. That's a little like
>> old
>> wine in new bottles, the thing that keeps professors publishing new
>> papers, business writers selling new books, and consultants touting new
>> programs. All three find it useful to create a new perspective on
>> something that currently exists, perhaps to enhance, perhaps to reach
>> more
>> people with a slightly different spin, perhaps to create a "new" product
>> to sell. I know I can't begin to keep up with the practitioner or
>> academic press of "new" ideas. I hang out at a lot of used book sales
>> looking for management history fodder and I find it amusing every time I
>> pick up a business book from yesteryear to see how long we have been
>> writing about something that has been rediscovered recently. In some
>> ways
>> its a good thing because we have a new generation of business idea
>> consumers who don't read history and the ideas have to be repackaged in
>> today's argot with today's examples. On the other hand, if you read
>> history, or have been a part of history, its not bad to understand where
>> this stuff comes from and pay homage to seminal or classic ideas as we
>> put
>> a fresh face on them for today's audience.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
>> Strategic Management and Business Ethics
>> 326 Framptom Hall
>> College of Business
>> Frostburg State University
>> 101 Braddock Road
>> Frostburg, MD 21532
>> tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
>> 301-687-4419 office
>> 301-687-4380 fax
>> 301-687-0712 home
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of
>> Charles
>> Wankel
>> Sent: Mon 10/3/2005 5:47 AM
>> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>> Subject: Re: "Socking it to 'em" via performance appraisals
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Jack Ring [mailto:jring@amug.org]
>> <mailto:%5bmailto:jring@amug.org%5d>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Glad you jumped in.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think you have summarized quite well the reasons quality guru Phil
>> Crosby advised against benchmarking, recommending instead a continuous
>> improvement regimen.
>>
>>
>>
>> Culturally dependent would presume there are clear lines of demarcation
>> between cultures. Seen any?
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: A G Balasubramanian <mailto:agbala_hr@REDIFFMAIL.COM>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am from India and I am new to this group. Let me jump in to the fray
>> anyway. Let me first tell you all that this discussion is very
>> stimulating.
>>
>> I am wondering if this personal learning and drive that Tom is saying
>> happens (or should happen as a result of the benchmarking)is moderated by
>> the personality of the person. Depends on whether she has external locus
>> of control or an internal locus of control. The first set of people
>> would
>> blame the inhibiting circumtances external to the company (and even
>> within
>> the company) for the her poor performance or looks for facilitating
>> factors for the top guy's performance and then says "Well, my performance
>> is okay, the star's performance was that good because he got a good
>> territory" or "I could not make the levels this year because Katrina
>> hit".
>> For the next year, she does not expect Katrina and therefore hopes to get
>> by with the same efforts.
>>
>> Rationalisation is possible because, in actual practice, rarely do the
>> extreme end of the scales get used. The tendency is for most people to be
>> marked off at 3 or 4 and very few get a 2 or 5 and no one gets a 1.
>> One is able to "explain" the "small" difference rather easily?
>>
>> It is a different matter that these guys get fired or pushed out of the
>> way for promotions after a couple of years of average performance. But
>> by
>> that time the damage is done that the average guy has become rigidfied to
>> be an averager for life. Companies rarely fire the middling guys?
>>
>> Is what I am talking cultural dependent?
>>
>> Regards: Bala
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 Thomas Sigerstad wrote :
>> >Gary,
>> >First, I'm not touting any kind of theory to support a position here but
>> >merely reflecting how I see practice; but let me take a stab at
>> >answering
>> >the second round of questions:
>> >
>> >snip: Can you explain to me how you see benchmarking via a performance
>> >appraisal as
>> >helping to drive future performance for the organization? I recognize
>> >that this
>> >is a commonly touted approach from the statistical process control
>> >movement, but
>> >how does the appraisal of this past performance and using it as a
>> >benchmark help
>> >in improving future employee performance?
>> >
>> >I honestly think is pretty straightforward in that people want to know
>> >where they stand and where they are expected to go. Most organizations
>> >are pretty close mouthed about rankings, keeping members in the dark
>> >about who is above and below them but some informal mechanisms reveal
>> >some of this. The benchmarking then is to a scale that organizations
>> >use
>> >to justify salary differentials and promotion. I don't plan on arguing
>> >the good or bad in this...I think that it just reflects what goes on.
>> >On
>> >a typical scale of 1-5 organizations rate various performance categories
>> >and the appraisal recipient sees where they fall and either knows
>> >expectation levels or is told what they are. If I know I'm a "3" and am
>> >getting a mediocre raise and no promotion wouldn't I be driven to exceed
>> >my current level of performance to achieve a "4" and get a bigger raise
>> >and possibly the promotion? Don't I want to be in the group of
>> >employees
>> >being considered for advancement? We all like to know where we stand
>> >and
>> >why? We also all want to know what is expected of us to achieve
>> >appropriate performance appraisals. I don't think this sounds elegant,
>> >and it won't close any consulting contract deals, but it seems an
>> >awfully
>> >lot like common sense to me as a practitioner that if I'm benchmarked in
>> >the middle of the pack and don't want to be there I only have a single
>> >choice assuming I am interested in more of whatever drives me. That
>> >choice is to improve my rating in the next benchmarking exercise or
>> >before. There are of course much more meaningful, insightful, and
>> >helpful ways to go beyond mere benchmarking with the employee to inform
>> >them of where they stand and why, as well as where they are expected to
>> >go, and why, and how. Better managers would layer on these additional
>> >methods to the basic benchmarking exercise, although I think they might
>> >do it selectively dependent on who they want to invest in. In any
>> >traditional benchmarking exercise I think the benchmarkers might also
>> >explain how/why an organization is at a particular place, and how they
>> >can move beyond it. Benchmarking answers the question "How am I doing?"
>> >Assuming I, or we, want to do better, we seek out the answers (or give
>> >them) to explain why we are there and what we have to do to move beyond.
>> >
>> >snip: Another thought: wouldn't the time to benchmark performance levels
>> >be at the
>> >beginning of the "review period" rather than at the end of it? Also,
>> >shouldn't
>> >the use of this benchmarking be used solely in the development of the
>> >employee,
>> >rather than in the measurement of performance, itself? After all,
>> >shouldn't the
>> >focus on measurement be on the goal to be obtained, rather than on the
>> >progress
>> >in improvement over the benchmark?
>> >
>> >Isn't the end of one period the beginning of another? (Except for a new
>> >employee who I might not know very much about.) I would think that the
>> >benchmark taken at the end of some period becomes the starting place in
>> >that conversation about how we got there and how to move forward. The
>> >beginning benchmark can lead to "budgeted" performance much like a
>> >budget
>> >acts as a managerial tool after last year's results are in and we figure
>> >out what we want to expect from ourselves for the next year. You are
>> >absolutely on the same wavelength I am about the benchmark being capable
>> >of more than a mere measurement of performance. It can be the starting
>> >place for "budgeting" new performance, setting some goals and
>> >objectives.
>> >I think people need to see where they are to get a handle on where they
>> >are going and how to get there. As an appraised individual I hated
>> >conversations that discussed open ended performance expectations like
>> >"I'm looking for improvement" or "I expect you to excel." Improve over
>> >what? Define excel with some point of reference. The "what" and the
>> >"point of reference" are the benchmark. To answer the second part...I
>> >don't think you can focus solely on development unless you can anchor
>> >"develop from where", else we have a wall of framed platitudes and no
>> >specifics. Employees don't want to hear "when the going gets tough, the
>> >tough get going". They want to know that they closed 10% of their leads
>> >and the top salesperson closed 15%. Then they want to know how to get
>> >there. Where do I stand? How do I improve? Then the sales manager
>> >jumps in with the necessary developmental tools. Focus on the goal, or
>> >focus on improvement from the benchmark? Good question...perhaps some
>> >of
>> >both. The goal for the end of the period may be the benchmark measured
>> >at period end and we hope they turn out to be the same. I reported to a
>> >CEO once who always had "stretch" goals but was pretty darn happy when
>> >the troops had a respectable gain over last year's benchmark. This
>> >opens
>> >the question of whether we develop goals/budgets based on improvement
>> >over the benchmark (e.g.; year to year unit sales gains) or use
>> >goals/budgets to push performance to new levels. I think we tend to
>> >some
>> >of both philosophies in practice, or dependent on managerial style.
>> >That
>> >CEO was a "coach" trying to make us all dig deep for the game. The real
>> >budget that the Wall Street analysts saw (admittedly somewhat safe but
>> >still giving them gains) was a performance over a previous benchmark.
>> >
>> >snip: As for the issue regarding benchmarking and engagement, it seems
>> >from the
>> >research I've read that there is no connection. Yes, recognition does
>> >have a
>> >connection, but do we need a benchmark in order for us to give someone
>> >recognition for a job well done?
>> >
>> >I don't pretend to be up on the latest research in the HR domains so I
>> >can't comment directly on what the variables are and how they are
>> >measured, or whether they have statistical, but as importantly,
>> >practical
>> >significance. I would think that we do benchmarks for a reason, to
>> >position ourselves vis a vis something else that has meaning to us.
>> >Once
>> >we know that, do we, and how do we become "engaged" to act on that
>> >position knowledge? I've seen plenty of companies do research and not
>> >act on it. That's the failure. But, isn't the action, when it happens,
>> >engagement? Perhaps I don't know enough about how that term is used or
>> >measured in the field. More basic question: If we want to give someone
>> >recognition for a job well done, what is the criteria for making that
>> >judgment? Haven't we compared them against something? Anything? I'll
>> >bet sometimes we compare it to improvements, sometimes goals, sometimes
>> >attitude. Sometimes we reward failure because we want to encourage risk
>> >taking where neither the benchmark or goal is the criterion as much as
>> >the actions, but then perhaps we are measuring something else which
>> >turned out to be the measure we used in that case.
>> >
>> >Gary, I'm trying to simplify a portion of a very complex system of
>> >training and development, and human motivation. I believe a simple
>> >phenomenon of measuring current performance at some point in time (which
>> >I am calling benchmarking) gives "people developers" an anchor to help
>> >explain where people are and show them where the developer would like
>> >them to go. I want to know where I'm at, and where I'm expected to go
>> >from there. I can't tell my students any more than I could once tell my
>> >employees that if they work hard I'll give them an "A" or the biggest
>> >raise. If I'm arbitrary I'm in trouble in both camps. They want
>> >anchors
>> >and scales. If I tell them where they stand at some point in time and
>> >they don't like it, they "engage". That occurs in various forms.
>> >
>> >One more exchange and I think we have enough for a paper (chuckle).
>> >
>> >Tom
>> >
>> >Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
>> >Strategic Management and Business Ethics
>> >326 Framptom Hall
>> >College of Business
>> >Frostburg State University
>> >101 Braddock Road
>> >Frostburg, MD 21532
>> >tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
>> >301-687-4419 office
>> >301-687-4380 fax
>> >301-687-0712 home
>> >
>> >________________________________
>> >
>> > From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of Gary
>> > Lear
>> >Sent: Sun 10/2/2005 7:39 PM
>> >To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>> >Subject: Re: "Socking it to 'em" via performance appraisals
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Tom,
>> >
>> >Can you explain to me how you see benchmarking via a performance
>> >appraisal as
>> >helping to drive future performance for the organization? I recognize
>> >that this
>> >is a commonly touted approach from the statistical process control
>> >movement, but
>> >how does the appraisal of this past performance and using it as a
>> >benchmark help
>> >in improving future employee performance?
>> >
>> >Another thought: wouldn't the time to benchmark performance levels be at
>> >the
>> >beginning of the "review period" rather than at the end of it? Also,
>> >shouldn't
>> >the use of this benchmarking be used solely in the development of the
>> >employee,
>> >rather than in the measurement of performance, itself? After all,
>> >shouldn't the
>> >focus on measurement be on the goal to be obtained, rather than on the
>> >progress
>> >in improvement over the benchmark?
>> >
>> >As for the issue regarding benchmarking and engagement, it seems from
>> >the
>> >research I've read that there is no connection. Yes, recognition does
>> >have a
>> >connection, but do we need a benchmark in order for us to give someone
>> >recognition for a job well done?
>> >
>> >Make a Great Day!
>> >
>> >Gary Lear, President & CEO
>> >
>> >Resource Development Systems LLC
>> >Managing the Human Side of Business (sm)
>> >
>> >www.ResourceDevelopmentSystems.com
>> >
>> >(c) 2005 permission denied to use this post in any other forum or in any
>> >way
>> >other than on the discussion list that it was originally posted.
>>
>>
>>
>> <http://adworks.rediff.com/cgi-bin/AdWorks/sigclick.cgi/www.rediff.com/signature-home.htm/1507191490@Middle5?PARTNER=3>
>>
>>
>
>

Howdy

What would you think of a two dimensional 1-9 rating scale with one
index being defined as 'qualities' and the other being 'results', add a
large team to team (primarily functional) 'calibration' session where
the outcome will meet a forced (pre-determined and announced)
distribution and then connect such directly to salary.

I believe in measurable objectives (measurability determined between
team member and team leader), continuous coaching (corrective,
developmental, and positive--and that a focus on the positive and
developmental will yield greater performance) and then summary
appraisal. I believe performance is improved first with clear
objectives mutually set, with coaching and summary appraisal. However
what happens when performance mgmt is used as a org change tool vs. an
alignment tool?

CHEERS,
Jack D. Cerva
920-721-5486 ofc
920-540-5365 cell
People = Competitive Advantage





-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion
[mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 9:44 PM
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Benchmarking


Better you should read Crosby than hear it from me. Or Deming. Or Noel

Tichy (from whom Jack Welch learned).

Apparently you do not presume the existence of goals.
When goals exist the basis for appraising performance is; 1) goal
achievement, 2) resilience to disturbances while achieving goals and 3)
dynamic limits.
Anyone attempting performance appraisal without prior goals belongs to
the
fiction and poetry club.

Typical performance appraisal forms do not interest me. The label,
typical,
is your first clue that the lemmings have landed.

Here is a fun thing to do.
Take a set of appraisals prepared by Manager A who has scored the
respective
employees as a 5 or a 4. Then point out to the Manager that either 1)
he/she is not necessary or 2) he/she has too many unchallenged employees
so
needs to give up 20% of them. Then ask for his/her recommendation.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Sigerstad" <TSigerstad@FROSTBURG.EDU>
To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: Benchmarking


> Jack,
> I don't want you to be too quick letting me off the hook here. I'm
not
> trying to limit benchmarking to internal, or self benchmarks. Let's
look
> at the typical performance appraisal: On a scale of 1-5, I want you to
be
> at least a 3 to be acceptable, a 4 is better, and if a 5 you're a star

> employee. What is a 3? I'd suggest the scale developers have the
> acceptable employee in mind. Those folks are probably describing some

> ideal employee at 4 or 5. I still need a point of reference if I'm
going
> to work with my employee to build a program for their improvement.
When I
> provide an employee with a performance appraisal, whether it's all
prose
> or has been boiled down to a set of numbers, I am essentially
appraising
> their performance against something, whether it be the ideal or
against
> everyone else. I agree that most folks use the benchmark to compare
> against outside performance, but even when I'm not showing you how you

> rank compared to all other employees, I'm still comparing you to this
> mythical ideal employee as the benchmark (even if it's in my head).
Bala
> hit on it when he suggested some of us are driven by internal
standards
> and some have an external focus. Some days I am convinced I'm
motivated
> only by my internal drive mechanisms and a mark I've set for myself.
> Other times I know that my actions are driven by some mark set by my
> peers. For some performance measures I have no idea where I stand
> compared to my colleagues. For other measures I know exactly where I
> stand. If I'm pleasing only myself, I might be happy with some level
of
> performance, or be driven by some measure of internal benchmarking.
On
> the other hand, knowing where I stand on some performance measure
compared
> to my colleagues might be a powerful driver, whether I like it or not.

> Even that internal benchmark I have for myself is based on something,
> perhaps an admired mentor or colleague, perhaps some ideal of who I
want
> to be. As I counsel my own performance I have a reference point in
mind.
> Crosby's claim that internal comparisons yield better and faster
results
> seems like quite a claim, and based on Bala's suggestion of
inner/outer
> directedness as a factor, questions whether that is generalizable to
all
> employees. The whole idea of specialized development plans for the
> individual based on their performance is a recognition that the
> one-size-fits-all approach is not the most effective; so, maybe some
of us
> are driven to enhanced performance by a sense of competition to
outside
> benchmarks. I'd like to think I am solely driven by some internal
> compass, but alas, I'm human with all its foibles, including outer
focused
> competitive behavior and score keeping.
> Tom
>
> Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
> Strategic Management and Business Ethics
> 326 Framptom Hall
> College of Business
> Frostburg State University
> 101 Braddock Road
> Frostburg, MD 21532
> tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
> 301-687-4419 office
> 301-687-4380 fax
> 301-687-0712 home
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of
Jack
> Ring
> Sent: Mon 10/3/2005 2:21 PM
> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Benchmarking
>
>
>
> Sorry if I misinterpreted your intent.
>
> I took benchmarking to mean looking at what some other enterprise is
> doing.
> That is the predominant usage of the term in the current literature.
>
> Crosby cautioned against comparisons to others. Comparison only to
your
> own
> activity yields better improvement, faster.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thomas Sigerstad" <TSigerstad@FROSTBURG.EDU>
> To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 8:15 AM
> Subject: Re: "Socking it to 'em" via performance appraisals
>
>
>> Jack and Bala,
>> (tongue in cheek here) let's see...Crosby advice: discard
benchmarking,
>> accept continuous improvement regiment.
>> My definition of continuous improvement regimen:
>> Establish a starting place, say current performance, (I'd call that a
>> benchmark), then improve upon it.
>> To improve we employ lots of different mechanisms, teaching,
coaching,
>> skill enhancement, etc., etc.
>> often taking into consideration social, cultural, and psychological
>> differences of the coach and coached.
>> At some point in the future assess improvement (perhaps by measuring
a
>> new
>> "benchmark").
>> Adjust the continuous improvement plan and perhaps create a target or

>> just
>> see where it takes you.
>> At some point in the future assess improvement (perhaps by measuring
a
>> new
>> "benchmark").
>> Repeat as needed.
>>
>> If we measure and do nothing, shame on us. That could give
benchmarking
>> a
>> bad name, but its only a mechanism for establishing a point of
reference.
>> Every good manager or organization I've ever known uses the benchmark
to
>> make decisions on, typically to set objectives for future performance
>> outcomes but also to try to understand why and how they are where
they
>> are
>> which often helps in determining where to set the goal. And, of
course,
>> its not the only measure.
>>
>> We haven't thrown away a useful tool (benchmarking) when we move to
>> continuous improvement, we're just layering on where to go from the
>> measure, what to do with it. I don't think it's about rejecting
>> benchmarking in favor of continuous improvement. That's a little
like
>> old
>> wine in new bottles, the thing that keeps professors publishing new
>> papers, business writers selling new books, and consultants touting
new
>> programs. All three find it useful to create a new perspective on
>> something that currently exists, perhaps to enhance, perhaps to reach

>> more
>> people with a slightly different spin, perhaps to create a "new"
product
>> to sell. I know I can't begin to keep up with the practitioner or
>> academic press of "new" ideas. I hang out at a lot of used book
sales
>> looking for management history fodder and I find it amusing every
time I
>> pick up a business book from yesteryear to see how long we have been
>> writing about something that has been rediscovered recently. In some

>> ways
>> its a good thing because we have a new generation of business idea
>> consumers who don't read history and the ideas have to be repackaged
in
>> today's argot with today's examples. On the other hand, if you read
>> history, or have been a part of history, its not bad to understand
where
>> this stuff comes from and pay homage to seminal or classic ideas as
we
>> put
>> a fresh face on them for today's audience.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
>> Strategic Management and Business Ethics
>> 326 Framptom Hall
>> College of Business
>> Frostburg State University
>> 101 Braddock Road
>> Frostburg, MD 21532
>> tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
>> 301-687-4419 office
>> 301-687-4380 fax
>> 301-687-0712 home
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of
>> Charles
>> Wankel
>> Sent: Mon 10/3/2005 5:47 AM
>> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>> Subject: Re: "Socking it to 'em" via performance appraisals
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Jack Ring [mailto:jring@amug.org]
>> <mailto:%5bmailto:jring@amug.org%5d>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Glad you jumped in.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think you have summarized quite well the reasons quality guru Phil
>> Crosby advised against benchmarking, recommending instead a
continuous
>> improvement regimen.
>>
>>
>>
>> Culturally dependent would presume there are clear lines of
demarcation
>> between cultures. Seen any?
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: A G Balasubramanian <mailto:agbala_hr@REDIFFMAIL.COM>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am from India and I am new to this group. Let me jump in to the
fray
>> anyway. Let me first tell you all that this discussion is very
>> stimulating.
>>
>> I am wondering if this personal learning and drive that Tom is saying
>> happens (or should happen as a result of the benchmarking)is
moderated by
>> the personality of the person. Depends on whether she has external
locus
>> of control or an internal locus of control. The first set of people
>> would
>> blame the inhibiting circumtances external to the company (and even
>> within
>> the company) for the her poor performance or looks for facilitating
>> factors for the top guy's performance and then says "Well, my
performance
>> is okay, the star's performance was that good because he got a good
>> territory" or "I could not make the levels this year because Katrina
>> hit".
>> For the next year, she does not expect Katrina and therefore hopes to
get
>> by with the same efforts.
>>
>> Rationalisation is possible because, in actual practice, rarely do
the
>> extreme end of the scales get used. The tendency is for most people
to be
>> marked off at 3 or 4 and very few get a 2 or 5 and no one gets a 1.
>> One is able to "explain" the "small" difference rather easily?
>>
>> It is a different matter that these guys get fired or pushed out of
the
>> way for promotions after a couple of years of average performance.
But
>> by
>> that time the damage is done that the average guy has become
rigidfied to
>> be an averager for life. Companies rarely fire the middling guys?
>>
>> Is what I am talking cultural dependent?
>>
>> Regards: Bala
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 Thomas Sigerstad wrote :
>> >Gary,
>> >First, I'm not touting any kind of theory to support a position here
but
>> >merely reflecting how I see practice; but let me take a stab at
>> >answering
>> >the second round of questions:
>> >
>> >snip: Can you explain to me how you see benchmarking via a
performance
>> >appraisal as
>> >helping to drive future performance for the organization? I
recognize
>> >that this
>> >is a commonly touted approach from the statistical process control
>> >movement, but
>> >how does the appraisal of this past performance and using it as a
>> >benchmark help
>> >in improving future employee performance?
>> >
>> >I honestly think is pretty straightforward in that people want to
know
>> >where they stand and where they are expected to go. Most
organizations
>> >are pretty close mouthed about rankings, keeping members in the dark
>> >about who is above and below them but some informal mechanisms
reveal
>> >some of this. The benchmarking then is to a scale that
organizations
>> >use
>> >to justify salary differentials and promotion. I don't plan on
arguing
>> >the good or bad in this...I think that it just reflects what goes
on.
>> >On
>> >a typical scale of 1-5 organizations rate various performance
categories
>> >and the appraisal recipient sees where they fall and either knows
>> >expectation levels or is told what they are. If I know I'm a "3"
and am
>> >getting a mediocre raise and no promotion wouldn't I be driven to
exceed
>> >my current level of performance to achieve a "4" and get a bigger
raise
>> >and possibly the promotion? Don't I want to be in the group of
>> >employees
>> >being considered for advancement? We all like to know where we
stand
>> >and
>> >why? We also all want to know what is expected of us to achieve
>> >appropriate performance appraisals. I don't think this sounds
elegant,
>> >and it won't close any consulting contract deals, but it seems an
>> >awfully
>> >lot like common sense to me as a practitioner that if I'm
benchmarked in
>> >the middle of the pack and don't want to be there I only have a
single
>> >choice assuming I am interested in more of whatever drives me. That
>> >choice is to improve my rating in the next benchmarking exercise or
>> >before. There are of course much more meaningful, insightful, and
>> >helpful ways to go beyond mere benchmarking with the employee to
inform
>> >them of where they stand and why, as well as where they are expected
to
>> >go, and why, and how. Better managers would layer on these
additional
>> >methods to the basic benchmarking exercise, although I think they
might
>> >do it selectively dependent on who they want to invest in. In any
>> >traditional benchmarking exercise I think the benchmarkers might
also
>> >explain how/why an organization is at a particular place, and how
they
>> >can move beyond it. Benchmarking answers the question "How am I
doing?"
>> >Assuming I, or we, want to do better, we seek out the answers (or
give
>> >them) to explain why we are there and what we have to do to move
beyond.
>> >
>> >snip: Another thought: wouldn't the time to benchmark performance
levels
>> >be at the
>> >beginning of the "review period" rather than at the end of it?
Also,
>> >shouldn't
>> >the use of this benchmarking be used solely in the development of
the
>> >employee,
>> >rather than in the measurement of performance, itself? After all,
>> >shouldn't the
>> >focus on measurement be on the goal to be obtained, rather than on
the
>> >progress
>> >in improvement over the benchmark?
>> >
>> >Isn't the end of one period the beginning of another? (Except for a
new
>> >employee who I might not know very much about.) I would think that
the
>> >benchmark taken at the end of some period becomes the starting place
in
>> >that conversation about how we got there and how to move forward.
The
>> >beginning benchmark can lead to "budgeted" performance much like a
>> >budget
>> >acts as a managerial tool after last year's results are in and we
figure
>> >out what we want to expect from ourselves for the next year. You
are
>> >absolutely on the same wavelength I am about the benchmark being
capable
>> >of more than a mere measurement of performance. It can be the
starting
>> >place for "budgeting" new performance, setting some goals and
>> >objectives.
>> >I think people need to see where they are to get a handle on where
they
>> >are going and how to get there. As an appraised individual I hated
>> >conversations that discussed open ended performance expectations
like
>> >"I'm looking for improvement" or "I expect you to excel." Improve
over
>> >what? Define excel with some point of reference. The "what" and
the
>> >"point of reference" are the benchmark. To answer the second
part...I
>> >don't think you can focus solely on development unless you can
anchor
>> >"develop from where", else we have a wall of framed platitudes and
no
>> >specifics. Employees don't want to hear "when the going gets tough,
the
>> >tough get going". They want to know that they closed 10% of their
leads
>> >and the top salesperson closed 15%. Then they want to know how to
get
>> >there. Where do I stand? How do I improve? Then the sales manager
>> >jumps in with the necessary developmental tools. Focus on the goal,
or
>> >focus on improvement from the benchmark? Good question...perhaps
some
>> >of
>> >both. The goal for the end of the period may be the benchmark
measured
>> >at period end and we hope they turn out to be the same. I reported
to a
>> >CEO once who always had "stretch" goals but was pretty darn happy
when
>> >the troops had a respectable gain over last year's benchmark. This
>> >opens
>> >the question of whether we develop goals/budgets based on
improvement
>> >over the benchmark (e.g.; year to year unit sales gains) or use
>> >goals/budgets to push performance to new levels. I think we tend to

>> >some
>> >of both philosophies in practice, or dependent on managerial style.
>> >That
>> >CEO was a "coach" trying to make us all dig deep for the game. The
real
>> >budget that the Wall Street analysts saw (admittedly somewhat safe
but
>> >still giving them gains) was a performance over a previous
benchmark.
>> >
>> >snip: As for the issue regarding benchmarking and engagement, it
seems
>> >from the
>> >research I've read that there is no connection. Yes, recognition
does
>> >have a
>> >connection, but do we need a benchmark in order for us to give
someone
>> >recognition for a job well done?
>> >
>> >I don't pretend to be up on the latest research in the HR domains so
I
>> >can't comment directly on what the variables are and how they are
>> >measured, or whether they have statistical, but as importantly,
>> >practical
>> >significance. I would think that we do benchmarks for a reason, to
>> >position ourselves vis a vis something else that has meaning to us.
>> >Once
>> >we know that, do we, and how do we become "engaged" to act on that
>> >position knowledge? I've seen plenty of companies do research and
not
>> >act on it. That's the failure. But, isn't the action, when it
happens,
>> >engagement? Perhaps I don't know enough about how that term is used
or
>> >measured in the field. More basic question: If we want to give
someone
>> >recognition for a job well done, what is the criteria for making
that
>> >judgment? Haven't we compared them against something? Anything?
I'll
>> >bet sometimes we compare it to improvements, sometimes goals,
sometimes
>> >attitude. Sometimes we reward failure because we want to encourage
risk
>> >taking where neither the benchmark or goal is the criterion as much
as
>> >the actions, but then perhaps we are measuring something else which
>> >turned out to be the measure we used in that case.
>> >
>> >Gary, I'm trying to simplify a portion of a very complex system of
>> >training and development, and human motivation. I believe a simple
>> >phenomenon of measuring current performance at some point in time
(which
>> >I am calling benchmarking) gives "people developers" an anchor to
help
>> >explain where people are and show them where the developer would
like
>> >them to go. I want to know where I'm at, and where I'm expected to
go
>> >from there. I can't tell my students any more than I could once
tell my
>> >employees that if they work hard I'll give them an "A" or the
biggest
>> >raise. If I'm arbitrary I'm in trouble in both camps. They want
>> >anchors
>> >and scales. If I tell them where they stand at some point in time
and
>> >they don't like it, they "engage". That occurs in various forms.
>> >
>> >One more exchange and I think we have enough for a paper (chuckle).
>> >
>> >Tom
>> >
>> >Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
>> >Strategic Management and Business Ethics
>> >326 Framptom Hall
>> >College of Business
>> >Frostburg State University
>> >101 Braddock Road
>> >Frostburg, MD 21532
>> >tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
>> >301-687-4419 office
>> >301-687-4380 fax
>> >301-687-0712 home
>> >
>> >________________________________
>> >
>> > From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of
Gary
>> > Lear
>> >Sent: Sun 10/2/2005 7:39 PM
>> >To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>> >Subject: Re: "Socking it to 'em" via performance appraisals
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Tom,
>> >
>> >Can you explain to me how you see benchmarking via a performance
>> >appraisal as
>> >helping to drive future performance for the organization? I
recognize
>> >that this
>> >is a commonly touted approach from the statistical process control
>> >movement, but
>> >how does the appraisal of this past performance and using it as a
>> >benchmark help
>> >in improving future employee performance?
>> >
>> >Another thought: wouldn't the time to benchmark performance levels
be at
>> >the
>> >beginning of the "review period" rather than at the end of it?
Also,
>> >shouldn't
>> >the use of this benchmarking be used solely in the development of
the
>> >employee,
>> >rather than in the measurement of performance, itself? After all,
>> >shouldn't the
>> >focus on measurement be on the goal to be obtained, rather than on
the
>> >progress
>> >in improvement over the benchmark?
>> >
>> >As for the issue regarding benchmarking and engagement, it seems
from
>> >the
>> >research I've read that there is no connection. Yes, recognition
does
>> >have a
>> >connection, but do we need a benchmark in order for us to give
someone
>> >recognition for a job well done?
>> >
>> >Make a Great Day!
>> >
>> >Gary Lear, President & CEO
>> >
>> >Resource Development Systems LLC
>> >Managing the Human Side of Business (sm)
>> >
>> >www.ResourceDevelopmentSystems.com
>> >
>> >(c) 2005 permission denied to use this post in any other forum or in
any
>> >way
>> >other than on the discussion list that it was originally posted.
>>
>>
>>
>>
<http://adworks.rediff.com/cgi-bin/AdWorks/sigclick.cgi/www.rediff.com/s
ignature-home.htm/1507191490@Middle5?PARTNER=3>
>>
>>
>
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may contain privileged, confidential, or proprietary information that is exempt from disclosure under law. If you have received this message in error, please inform us promptly by reply e-mail, then delete the e-mail and destroy any printed copy. Thank you.
==============================================================================

Then goals (measurable events on a timetable) are expressed in terms of the
organizational changes being sought.

Have you met anyone who is qualified to assert which qualities are key to
which results?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cerva, Jack" <jcerva@KCC.COM>
To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: Benchmarking


> Howdy
>
> What would you think of a two dimensional 1-9 rating scale with one
> index being defined as 'qualities' and the other being 'results', add a
> large team to team (primarily functional) 'calibration' session where
> the outcome will meet a forced (pre-determined and announced)
> distribution and then connect such directly to salary.
>
> I believe in measurable objectives (measurability determined between
> team member and team leader), continuous coaching (corrective,
> developmental, and positive--and that a focus on the positive and
> developmental will yield greater performance) and then summary
> appraisal. I believe performance is improved first with clear
> objectives mutually set, with coaching and summary appraisal. However
> what happens when performance mgmt is used as a org change tool vs. an
> alignment tool?
>
> CHEERS,
> Jack D. Cerva
> 920-721-5486 ofc
> 920-540-5365 cell
> People = Competitive Advantage
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Management Education and Development Discussion
> [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 9:44 PM
> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Benchmarking
>
>
> Better you should read Crosby than hear it from me. Or Deming. Or Noel
>
> Tichy (from whom Jack Welch learned).
>
> Apparently you do not presume the existence of goals.
> When goals exist the basis for appraising performance is; 1) goal
> achievement, 2) resilience to disturbances while achieving goals and 3)
> dynamic limits.
> Anyone attempting performance appraisal without prior goals belongs to
> the
> fiction and poetry club.
>
> Typical performance appraisal forms do not interest me. The label,
> typical,
> is your first clue that the lemmings have landed.
>
> Here is a fun thing to do.
> Take a set of appraisals prepared by Manager A who has scored the
> respective
> employees as a 5 or a 4. Then point out to the Manager that either 1)
> he/she is not necessary or 2) he/she has too many unchallenged employees
> so
> needs to give up 20% of them. Then ask for his/her recommendation.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thomas Sigerstad" <TSigerstad@FROSTBURG.EDU>
> To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 5:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Benchmarking
>
>
>> Jack,
>> I don't want you to be too quick letting me off the hook here. I'm
> not
>> trying to limit benchmarking to internal, or self benchmarks. Let's
> look
>> at the typical performance appraisal: On a scale of 1-5, I want you to
> be
>> at least a 3 to be acceptable, a 4 is better, and if a 5 you're a star
>
>> employee. What is a 3? I'd suggest the scale developers have the
>> acceptable employee in mind. Those folks are probably describing some
>
>> ideal employee at 4 or 5. I still need a point of reference if I'm
> going
>> to work with my employee to build a program for their improvement.
> When I
>> provide an employee with a performance appraisal, whether it's all
> prose
>> or has been boiled down to a set of numbers, I am essentially
> appraising
>> their performance against something, whether it be the ideal or
> against
>> everyone else. I agree that most folks use the benchmark to compare
>> against outside performance, but even when I'm not showing you how you
>
>> rank compared to all other employees, I'm still comparing you to this
>> mythical ideal employee as the benchmark (even if it's in my head).
> Bala
>> hit on it when he suggested some of us are driven by internal
> standards
>> and some have an external focus. Some days I am convinced I'm
> motivated
>> only by my internal drive mechanisms and a mark I've set for myself.
>> Other times I know that my actions are driven by some mark set by my
>> peers. For some performance measures I have no idea where I stand
>> compared to my colleagues. For other measures I know exactly where I
>> stand. If I'm pleasing only myself, I might be happy with some level
> of
>> performance, or be driven by some measure of internal benchmarking.
> On
>> the other hand, knowing where I stand on some performance measure
> compared
>> to my colleagues might be a powerful driver, whether I like it or not.
>
>> Even that internal benchmark I have for myself is based on something,
>> perhaps an admired mentor or colleague, perhaps some ideal of who I
> want
>> to be. As I counsel my own performance I have a reference point in
> mind.
>> Crosby's claim that internal comparisons yield better and faster
> results
>> seems like quite a claim, and based on Bala's suggestion of
> inner/outer
>> directedness as a factor, questions whether that is generalizable to
> all
>> employees. The whole idea of specialized development plans for the
>> individual based on their performance is a recognition that the
>> one-size-fits-all approach is not the most effective; so, maybe some
> of us
>> are driven to enhanced performance by a sense of competition to
> outside
>> benchmarks. I'd like to think I am solely driven by some internal
>> compass, but alas, I'm human with all its foibles, including outer
> focused
>> competitive behavior and score keeping.
>> Tom
>>
>> Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
>> Strategic Management and Business Ethics
>> 326 Framptom Hall
>> College of Business
>> Frostburg State University
>> 101 Braddock Road
>> Frostburg, MD 21532
>> tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
>> 301-687-4419 office
>> 301-687-4380 fax
>> 301-687-0712 home
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of
> Jack
>> Ring
>> Sent: Mon 10/3/2005 2:21 PM
>> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>> Subject: Benchmarking
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry if I misinterpreted your intent.
>>
>> I took benchmarking to mean looking at what some other enterprise is
>> doing.
>> That is the predominant usage of the term in the current literature.
>>
>> Crosby cautioned against comparisons to others. Comparison only to
> your
>> own
>> activity yields better improvement, faster.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Thomas Sigerstad" <TSigerstad@FROSTBURG.EDU>
>> To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
>> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 8:15 AM
>> Subject: Re: "Socking it to 'em" via performance appraisals
>>
>>
>>> Jack and Bala,
>>> (tongue in cheek here) let's see...Crosby advice: discard
> benchmarking,
>>> accept continuous improvement regiment.
>>> My definition of continuous improvement regimen:
>>> Establish a starting place, say current performance, (I'd call that a
>>> benchmark), then improve upon it.
>>> To improve we employ lots of different mechanisms, teaching,
> coaching,
>>> skill enhancement, etc., etc.
>>> often taking into consideration social, cultural, and psychological
>>> differences of the coach and coached.
>>> At some point in the future assess improvement (perhaps by measuring
> a
>>> new
>>> "benchmark").
>>> Adjust the continuous improvement plan and perhaps create a target or
>
>>> just
>>> see where it takes you.
>>> At some point in the future assess improvement (perhaps by measuring
> a
>>> new
>>> "benchmark").
>>> Repeat as needed.
>>>
>>> If we measure and do nothing, shame on us. That could give
> benchmarking
>>> a
>>> bad name, but its only a mechanism for establishing a point of
> reference.
>>> Every good manager or organization I've ever known uses the benchmark
> to
>>> make decisions on, typically to set objectives for future performance
>>> outcomes but also to try to understand why and how they are where
> they
>>> are
>>> which often helps in determining where to set the goal. And, of
> course,
>>> its not the only measure.
>>>
>>> We haven't thrown away a useful tool (benchmarking) when we move to
>>> continuous improvement, we're just layering on where to go from the
>>> measure, what to do with it. I don't think it's about rejecting
>>> benchmarking in favor of continuous improvement. That's a little
> like
>>> old
>>> wine in new bottles, the thing that keeps professors publishing new
>>> papers, business writers selling new books, and consultants touting
> new
>>> programs. All three find it useful to create a new perspective on
>>> something that currently exists, perhaps to enhance, perhaps to reach
>
>>> more
>>> people with a slightly different spin, perhaps to create a "new"
> product
>>> to sell. I know I can't begin to keep up with the practitioner or
>>> academic press of "new" ideas. I hang out at a lot of used book
> sales
>>> looking for management history fodder and I find it amusing every
> time I
>>> pick up a business book from yesteryear to see how long we have been
>>> writing about something that has been rediscovered recently. In some
>
>>> ways
>>> its a good thing because we have a new generation of business idea
>>> consumers who don't read history and the ideas have to be repackaged
> in
>>> today's argot with today's examples. On the other hand, if you read
>>> history, or have been a part of history, its not bad to understand
> where
>>> this stuff comes from and pay homage to seminal or classic ideas as
> we
>>> put
>>> a fresh face on them for today's audience.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
>>> Strategic Management and Business Ethics
>>> 326 Framptom Hall
>>> College of Business
>>> Frostburg State University
>>> 101 Braddock Road
>>> Frostburg, MD 21532
>>> tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
>>> 301-687-4419 office
>>> 301-687-4380 fax
>>> 301-687-0712 home
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of
>>> Charles
>>> Wankel
>>> Sent: Mon 10/3/2005 5:47 AM
>>> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>>> Subject: Re: "Socking it to 'em" via performance appraisals
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Jack Ring [mailto:jring@amug.org]
>>> <mailto:%5bmailto:jring@amug.org%5d>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Glad you jumped in.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you have summarized quite well the reasons quality guru Phil
>>> Crosby advised against benchmarking, recommending instead a
> continuous
>>> improvement regimen.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Culturally dependent would presume there are clear lines of
> demarcation
>>> between cultures. Seen any?
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>> From: A G Balasubramanian <mailto:agbala_hr@REDIFFMAIL.COM>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am from India and I am new to this group. Let me jump in to the
> fray
>>> anyway. Let me first tell you all that this discussion is very
>>> stimulating.
>>>
>>> I am wondering if this personal learning and drive that Tom is saying
>>> happens (or should happen as a result of the benchmarking)is
> moderated by
>>> the personality of the person. Depends on whether she has external
> locus
>>> of control or an internal locus of control. The first set of people
>>> would
>>> blame the inhibiting circumtances external to the company (and even
>>> within
>>> the company) for the her poor performance or looks for facilitating
>>> factors for the top guy's performance and then says "Well, my
> performance
>>> is okay, the star's performance was that good because he got a good
>>> territory" or "I could not make the levels this year because Katrina
>>> hit".
>>> For the next year, she does not expect Katrina and therefore hopes to
> get
>>> by with the same efforts.
>>>
>>> Rationalisation is possible because, in actual practice, rarely do
> the
>>> extreme end of the scales get used. The tendency is for most people
> to be
>>> marked off at 3 or 4 and very few get a 2 or 5 and no one gets a 1.
>>> One is able to "explain" the "small" difference rather easily?
>>>
>>> It is a different matter that these guys get fired or pushed out of
> the
>>> way for promotions after a couple of years of average performance.
> But
>>> by
>>> that time the damage is done that the average guy has become
> rigidfied to
>>> be an averager for life. Companies rarely fire the middling guys?
>>>
>>> Is what I am talking cultural dependent?
>>>
>>> Regards: Bala
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 Thomas Sigerstad wrote :
>>> >Gary,
>>> >First, I'm not touting any kind of theory to support a position here
> but
>>> >merely reflecting how I see practice; but let me take a stab at
>>> >answering
>>> >the second round of questions:
>>> >
>>> >snip: Can you explain to me how you see benchmarking via a
> performance
>>> >appraisal as
>>> >helping to drive future performance for the organization? I
> recognize
>>> >that this
>>> >is a commonly touted approach from the statistical process control
>>> >movement, but
>>> >how does the appraisal of this past performance and using it as a
>>> >benchmark help
>>> >in improving future employee performance?
>>> >
>>> >I honestly think is pretty straightforward in that people want to
> know
>>> >where they stand and where they are expected to go. Most
> organizations
>>> >are pretty close mouthed about rankings, keeping members in the dark
>>> >about who is above and below them but some informal mechanisms
> reveal
>>> >some of this. The benchmarking then is to a scale that
> organizations
>>> >use
>>> >to justify salary differentials and promotion. I don't plan on
> arguing
>>> >the good or bad in this...I think that it just reflects what goes
> on.
>>> >On
>>> >a typical scale of 1-5 organizations rate various performance
> categories
>>> >and the appraisal recipient sees where they fall and either knows
>>> >expectation levels or is told what they are. If I know I'm a "3"
> and am
>>> >getting a mediocre raise and no promotion wouldn't I be driven to
> exceed
>>> >my current level of performance to achieve a "4" and get a bigger
> raise
>>> >and possibly the promotion? Don't I want to be in the group of
>>> >employees
>>> >being considered for advancement? We all like to know where we
> stand
>>> >and
>>> >why? We also all want to know what is expected of us to achieve
>>> >appropriate performance appraisals. I don't think this sounds
> elegant,
>>> >and it won't close any consulting contract deals, but it seems an
>>> >awfully
>>> >lot like common sense to me as a practitioner that if I'm
> benchmarked in
>>> >the middle of the pack and don't want to be there I only have a
> single
>>> >choice assuming I am interested in more of whatever drives me. That
>>> >choice is to improve my rating in the next benchmarking exercise or
>>> >before. There are of course much more meaningful, insightful, and
>>> >helpful ways to go beyond mere benchmarking with the employee to
> inform
>>> >them of where they stand and why, as well as where they are expected
> to
>>> >go, and why, and how. Better managers would layer on these
> additional
>>> >methods to the basic benchmarking exercise, although I think they
> might
>>> >do it selectively dependent on who they want to invest in. In any
>>> >traditional benchmarking exercise I think the benchmarkers might
> also
>>> >explain how/why an organization is at a particular place, and how
> they
>>> >can move beyond it. Benchmarking answers the question "How am I
> doing?"
>>> >Assuming I, or we, want to do better, we seek out the answers (or
> give
>>> >them) to explain why we are there and what we have to do to move
> beyond.
>>> >
>>> >snip: Another thought: wouldn't the time to benchmark performance
> levels
>>> >be at the
>>> >beginning of the "review period" rather than at the end of it?
> Also,
>>> >shouldn't
>>> >the use of this benchmarking be used solely in the development of
> the
>>> >employee,
>>> >rather than in the measurement of performance, itself? After all,
>>> >shouldn't the
>>> >focus on measurement be on the goal to be obtained, rather than on
> the
>>> >progress
>>> >in improvement over the benchmark?
>>> >
>>> >Isn't the end of one period the beginning of another? (Except for a
> new
>>> >employee who I might not know very much about.) I would think that
> the
>>> >benchmark taken at the end of some period becomes the starting place
> in
>>> >that conversation about how we got there and how to move forward.
> The
>>> >beginning benchmark can lead to "budgeted" performance much like a
>>> >budget
>>> >acts as a managerial tool after last year's results are in and we
> figure
>>> >out what we want to expect from ourselves for the next year. You
> are
>>> >absolutely on the same wavelength I am about the benchmark being
> capable
>>> >of more than a mere measurement of performance. It can be the
> starting
>>> >place for "budgeting" new performance, setting some goals and
>>> >objectives.
>>> >I think people need to see where they are to get a handle on where
> they
>>> >are going and how to get there. As an appraised individual I hated
>>> >conversations that discussed open ended performance expectations
> like
>>> >"I'm looking for improvement" or "I expect you to excel." Improve
> over
>>> >what? Define excel with some point of reference. The "what" and
> the
>>> >"point of reference" are the benchmark. To answer the second
> part...I
>>> >don't think you can focus solely on development unless you can
> anchor
>>> >"develop from where", else we have a wall of framed platitudes and
> no
>>> >specifics. Employees don't want to hear "when the going gets tough,
> the
>>> >tough get going". They want to know that they closed 10% of their
> leads
>>> >and the top salesperson closed 15%. Then they want to know how to
> get
>>> >there. Where do I stand? How do I improve? Then the sales manager
>>> >jumps in with the necessary developmental tools. Focus on the goal,
> or
>>> >focus on improvement from the benchmark? Good question...perhaps
> some
>>> >of
>>> >both. The goal for the end of the period may be the benchmark
> measured
>>> >at period end and we hope they turn out to be the same. I reported
> to a
>>> >CEO once who always had "stretch" goals but was pretty darn happy
> when
>>> >the troops had a respectable gain over last year's benchmark. This
>>> >opens
>>> >the question of whether we develop goals/budgets based on
> improvement
>>> >over the benchmark (e.g.; year to year unit sales gains) or use
>>> >goals/budgets to push performance to new levels. I think we tend to
>
>>> >some
>>> >of both philosophies in practice, or dependent on managerial style.
>>> >That
>>> >CEO was a "coach" trying to make us all dig deep for the game. The
> real
>>> >budget that the Wall Street analysts saw (admittedly somewhat safe
> but
>>> >still giving them gains) was a performance over a previous
> benchmark.
>>> >
>>> >snip: As for the issue regarding benchmarking and engagement, it
> seems
>>> >from the
>>> >research I've read that there is no connection. Yes, recognition
> does
>>> >have a
>>> >connection, but do we need a benchmark in order for us to give
> someone
>>> >recognition for a job well done?
>>> >
>>> >I don't pretend to be up on the latest research in the HR domains so
> I
>>> >can't comment directly on what the variables are and how they are
>>> >measured, or whether they have statistical, but as importantly,
>>> >practical
>>> >significance. I would think that we do benchmarks for a reason, to
>>> >position ourselves vis a vis something else that has meaning to us.
>>> >Once
>>> >we know that, do we, and how do we become "engaged" to act on that
>>> >position knowledge? I've seen plenty of companies do research and
> not
>>> >act on it. That's the failure. But, isn't the action, when it
> happens,
>>> >engagement? Perhaps I don't know enough about how that term is used
> or
>>> >measured in the field. More basic question: If we want to give
> someone
>>> >recognition for a job well done, what is the criteria for making
> that
>>> >judgment? Haven't we compared them against something? Anything?
> I'll
>>> >bet sometimes we compare it to improvements, sometimes goals,
> sometimes
>>> >attitude. Sometimes we reward failure because we want to encourage
> risk
>>> >taking where neither the benchmark or goal is the criterion as much
> as
>>> >the actions, but then perhaps we are measuring something else which
>>> >turned out to be the measure we used in that case.
>>> >
>>> >Gary, I'm trying to simplify a portion of a very complex system of
>>> >training and development, and human motivation. I believe a simple
>>> >phenomenon of measuring current performance at some point in time
> (which
>>> >I am calling benchmarking) gives "people developers" an anchor to
> help
>>> >explain where people are and show them where the developer would
> like
>>> >them to go. I want to know where I'm at, and where I'm expected to
> go
>>> >from there. I can't tell my students any more than I could once
> tell my
>>> >employees that if they work hard I'll give them an "A" or the
> biggest
>>> >raise. If I'm arbitrary I'm in trouble in both camps. They want
>>> >anchors
>>> >and scales. If I tell them where they stand at some point in time
> and
>>> >they don't like it, they "engage". That occurs in various forms.
>>> >
>>> >One more exchange and I think we have enough for a paper (chuckle).
>>> >
>>> >Tom
>>> >
>>> >Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
>>> >Strategic Management and Business Ethics
>>> >326 Framptom Hall
>>> >College of Business
>>> >Frostburg State University
>>> >101 Braddock Road
>>> >Frostburg, MD 21532
>>> >tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
>>> >301-687-4419 office
>>> >301-687-4380 fax
>>> >301-687-0712 home
>>> >
>>> >________________________________
>>> >
>>> > From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of
> Gary
>>> > Lear
>>> >Sent: Sun 10/2/2005 7:39 PM
>>> >To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>>> >Subject: Re: "Socking it to 'em" via performance appraisals
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Tom,
>>> >
>>> >Can you explain to me how you see benchmarking via a performance
>>> >appraisal as
>>> >helping to drive future performance for the organization? I
> recognize
>>> >that this
>>> >is a commonly touted approach from the statistical process control
>>> >movement, but
>>> >how does the appraisal of this past performance and using it as a
>>> >benchmark help
>>> >in improving future employee performance?
>>> >
>>> >Another thought: wouldn't the time to benchmark performance levels
> be at
>>> >the
>>> >beginning of the "review period" rather than at the end of it?
> Also,
>>> >shouldn't
>>> >the use of this benchmarking be used solely in the development of
> the
>>> >employee,
>>> >rather than in the measurement of performance, itself? After all,
>>> >shouldn't the
>>> >focus on measurement be on the goal to be obtained, rather than on
> the
>>> >progress
>>> >in improvement over the benchmark?
>>> >
>>> >As for the issue regarding benchmarking and engagement, it seems
> from
>>> >the
>>> >research I've read that there is no connection. Yes, recognition
> does
>>> >have a
>>> >connection, but do we need a benchmark in order for us to give
> someone
>>> >recognition for a job well done?
>>> >
>>> >Make a Great Day!
>>> >
>>> >Gary Lear, President & CEO
>>> >
>>> >Resource Development Systems LLC
>>> >Managing the Human Side of Business (sm)
>>> >
>>> >www.ResourceDevelopmentSystems.com
>>> >
>>> >(c) 2005 permission denied to use this post in any other forum or in
> any
>>> >way
>>> >other than on the discussion list that it was originally posted.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> <http://adworks.rediff.com/cgi-bin/AdWorks/sigclick.cgi/www.rediff.com/s
> ignature-home.htm/1507191490@Middle5?PARTNER=3>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may
> contain privileged, confidential, or proprietary information that is
> exempt from disclosure under law. If you have received this message in
> error, please inform us promptly by reply e-mail, then delete the e-mail
> and destroy any printed copy. Thank you.
> ==============================================================================
>
>

Howdy Jack,

Yes and yes.

We originally had help from Wilson Learning/ADI, about 17 yrs ago. A yr
or so ago we started with a set from the Lominger- Leadership Architect
tools, then narrowed those down for Sr. Leaders to only 6-then the CEO
said "these could apply to any level" so since we had support we
developed role bands with behavioral examples for each of the 6, then
tested these internally globally- i.e. if you saw someone at this level
(individual, leader of team, or leader of leaders) doing this or that
would you consider that an example of e.g. decisive?

CHEERS,
Jack D. Cerva
920-721-5486 ofc
920-540-5365 cell
People = Competitive Advantage





-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion
[mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 4:42 PM
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Benchmarking


Then goals (measurable events on a timetable) are expressed in terms of
the
organizational changes being sought.

Have you met anyone who is qualified to assert which qualities are key
to
which results?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cerva, Jack" <jcerva@KCC.COM>
To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: Benchmarking


> Howdy
>
> What would you think of a two dimensional 1-9 rating scale with one
> index being defined as 'qualities' and the other being 'results', add
a
> large team to team (primarily functional) 'calibration' session where
> the outcome will meet a forced (pre-determined and announced)
> distribution and then connect such directly to salary.
>
> I believe in measurable objectives (measurability determined between
> team member and team leader), continuous coaching (corrective,
> developmental, and positive--and that a focus on the positive and
> developmental will yield greater performance) and then summary
> appraisal. I believe performance is improved first with clear
> objectives mutually set, with coaching and summary appraisal. However
> what happens when performance mgmt is used as a org change tool vs. an
> alignment tool?
>
> CHEERS,
> Jack D. Cerva
> 920-721-5486 ofc
> 920-540-5365 cell
> People = Competitive Advantage
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Management Education and Development Discussion
> [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 9:44 PM
> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Benchmarking
>
>
> Better you should read Crosby than hear it from me. Or Deming. Or
Noel
>
> Tichy (from whom Jack Welch learned).
>
> Apparently you do not presume the existence of goals.
> When goals exist the basis for appraising performance is; 1) goal
> achievement, 2) resilience to disturbances while achieving goals and
3)
> dynamic limits.
> Anyone attempting performance appraisal without prior goals belongs to
> the
> fiction and poetry club.
>
> Typical performance appraisal forms do not interest me. The label,
> typical,
> is your first clue that the lemmings have landed.
>
> Here is a fun thing to do.
> Take a set of appraisals prepared by Manager A who has scored the
> respective
> employees as a 5 or a 4. Then point out to the Manager that either 1)
> he/she is not necessary or 2) he/she has too many unchallenged
employees
> so
> needs to give up 20% of them. Then ask for his/her recommendation.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thomas Sigerstad" <TSigerstad@FROSTBURG.EDU>
> To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 5:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Benchmarking
>
>
>> Jack,
>> I don't want you to be too quick letting me off the hook here. I'm
> not
>> trying to limit benchmarking to internal, or self benchmarks. Let's
> look
>> at the typical performance appraisal: On a scale of 1-5, I want you
to
> be
>> at least a 3 to be acceptable, a 4 is better, and if a 5 you're a
star
>
>> employee. What is a 3? I'd suggest the scale developers have the
>> acceptable employee in mind. Those folks are probably describing
some
>
>> ideal employee at 4 or 5. I still need a point of reference if I'm
> going
>> to work with my employee to build a program for their improvement.
> When I
>> provide an employee with a performance appraisal, whether it's all
> prose
>> or has been boiled down to a set of numbers, I am essentially
> appraising
>> their performance against something, whether it be the ideal or
> against
>> everyone else. I agree that most folks use the benchmark to compare
>> against outside performance, but even when I'm not showing you how
you
>
>> rank compared to all other employees, I'm still comparing you to this
>> mythical ideal employee as the benchmark (even if it's in my head).
> Bala
>> hit on it when he suggested some of us are driven by internal
> standards
>> and some have an external focus. Some days I am convinced I'm
> motivated
>> only by my internal drive mechanisms and a mark I've set for myself.
>> Other times I know that my actions are driven by some mark set by my
>> peers. For some performance measures I have no idea where I stand
>> compared to my colleagues. For other measures I know exactly where I
>> stand. If I'm pleasing only myself, I might be happy with some level
> of
>> performance, or be driven by some measure of internal benchmarking.
> On
>> the other hand, knowing where I stand on some performance measure
> compared
>> to my colleagues might be a powerful driver, whether I like it or
not.
>
>> Even that internal benchmark I have for myself is based on something,
>> perhaps an admired mentor or colleague, perhaps some ideal of who I
> want
>> to be. As I counsel my own performance I have a reference point in
> mind.
>> Crosby's claim that internal comparisons yield better and faster
> results
>> seems like quite a claim, and based on Bala's suggestion of
> inner/outer
>> directedness as a factor, questions whether that is generalizable to
> all
>> employees. The whole idea of specialized development plans for the
>> individual based on their performance is a recognition that the
>> one-size-fits-all approach is not the most effective; so, maybe some
> of us
>> are driven to enhanced performance by a sense of competition to
> outside
>> benchmarks. I'd like to think I am solely driven by some internal
>> compass, but alas, I'm human with all its foibles, including outer
> focused
>> competitive behavior and score keeping.
>> Tom
>>
>> Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
>> Strategic Management and Business Ethics
>> 326 Framptom Hall
>> College of Business
>> Frostburg State University
>> 101 Braddock Road
>> Frostburg, MD 21532
>> tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
>> 301-687-4419 office
>> 301-687-4380 fax
>> 301-687-0712 home
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of
> Jack
>> Ring
>> Sent: Mon 10/3/2005 2:21 PM
>> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>> Subject: Benchmarking
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry if I misinterpreted your intent.
>>
>> I took benchmarking to mean looking at what some other enterprise is
>> doing.
>> That is the predominant usage of the term in the current literature.
>>
>> Crosby cautioned against comparisons to others. Comparison only to
> your
>> own
>> activity yields better improvement, faster.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Thomas Sigerstad" <TSigerstad@FROSTBURG.EDU>
>> To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
>> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 8:15 AM
>> Subject: Re: "Socking it to 'em" via performance appraisals
>>
>>
>>> Jack and Bala,
>>> (tongue in cheek here) let's see...Crosby advice: discard
> benchmarking,
>>> accept continuous improvement regiment.
>>> My definition of continuous improvement regimen:
>>> Establish a starting place, say current performance, (I'd call that
a
>>> benchmark), then improve upon it.
>>> To improve we employ lots of different mechanisms, teaching,
> coaching,
>>> skill enhancement, etc., etc.
>>> often taking into consideration social, cultural, and psychological
>>> differences of the coach and coached.
>>> At some point in the future assess improvement (perhaps by measuring
> a
>>> new
>>> "benchmark").
>>> Adjust the continuous improvement plan and perhaps create a target
or
>
>>> just
>>> see where it takes you.
>>> At some point in the future assess improvement (perhaps by measuring
> a
>>> new
>>> "benchmark").
>>> Repeat as needed.
>>>
>>> If we measure and do nothing, shame on us. That could give
> benchmarking
>>> a
>>> bad name, but its only a mechanism for establishing a point of
> reference.
>>> Every good manager or organization I've ever known uses the
benchmark
> to
>>> make decisions on, typically to set objectives for future
performance
>>> outcomes but also to try to understand why and how they are where
> they
>>> are
>>> which often helps in determining where to set the goal. And, of
> course,
>>> its not the only measure.
>>>
>>> We haven't thrown away a useful tool (benchmarking) when we move to
>>> continuous improvement, we're just layering on where to go from the
>>> measure, what to do with it. I don't think it's about rejecting
>>> benchmarking in favor of continuous improvement. That's a little
> like
>>> old
>>> wine in new bottles, the thing that keeps professors publishing new
>>> papers, business writers selling new books, and consultants touting
> new
>>> programs. All three find it useful to create a new perspective on
>>> something that currently exists, perhaps to enhance, perhaps to
reach
>
>>> more
>>> people with a slightly different spin, perhaps to create a "new"
> product
>>> to sell. I know I can't begin to keep up with the practitioner or
>>> academic press of "new" ideas. I hang out at a lot of used book
> sales
>>> looking for management history fodder and I find it amusing every
> time I
>>> pick up a business book from yesteryear to see how long we have been
>>> writing about something that has been rediscovered recently. In
some
>
>>> ways
>>> its a good thing because we have a new generation of business idea
>>> consumers who don't read history and the ideas have to be repackaged
> in
>>> today's argot with today's examples. On the other hand, if you read
>>> history, or have been a part of history, its not bad to understand
> where
>>> this stuff comes from and pay homage to seminal or classic ideas as
> we
>>> put
>>> a fresh face on them for today's audience.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
>>> Strategic Management and Business Ethics
>>> 326 Framptom Hall
>>> College of Business
>>> Frostburg State University
>>> 101 Braddock Road
>>> Frostburg, MD 21532
>>> tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
>>> 301-687-4419 office
>>> 301-687-4380 fax
>>> 301-687-0712 home
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of
>>> Charles
>>> Wankel
>>> Sent: Mon 10/3/2005 5:47 AM
>>> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>>> Subject: Re: "Socking it to 'em" via performance appraisals
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Jack Ring [mailto:jring@amug.org]
>>> <mailto:%5bmailto:jring@amug.org%5d>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Glad you jumped in.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you have summarized quite well the reasons quality guru Phil
>>> Crosby advised against benchmarking, recommending instead a
> continuous
>>> improvement regimen.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Culturally dependent would presume there are clear lines of
> demarcation
>>> between cultures. Seen any?
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>> From: A G Balasubramanian <mailto:agbala_hr@REDIFFMAIL.COM>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am from India and I am new to this group. Let me jump in to the
> fray
>>> anyway. Let me first tell you all that this discussion is very
>>> stimulating.
>>>
>>> I am wondering if this personal learning and drive that Tom is
saying
>>> happens (or should happen as a result of the benchmarking)is
> moderated by
>>> the personality of the person. Depends on whether she has external
> locus
>>> of control or an internal locus of control. The first set of people
>>> would
>>> blame the inhibiting circumtances external to the company (and even
>>> within
>>> the company) for the her poor performance or looks for facilitating
>>> factors for the top guy's performance and then says "Well, my
> performance
>>> is okay, the star's performance was that good because he got a good
>>> territory" or "I could not make the levels this year because Katrina
>>> hit".
>>> For the next year, she does not expect Katrina and therefore hopes
to
> get
>>> by with the same efforts.
>>>
>>> Rationalisation is possible because, in actual practice, rarely do
> the
>>> extreme end of the scales get used. The tendency is for most people
> to be
>>> marked off at 3 or 4 and very few get a 2 or 5 and no one gets a 1.
>>> One is able to "explain" the "small" difference rather easily?
>>>
>>> It is a different matter that these guys get fired or pushed out of
> the
>>> way for promotions after a couple of years of average performance.
> But
>>> by
>>> that time the damage is done that the average guy has become
> rigidfied to
>>> be an averager for life. Companies rarely fire the middling guys?
>>>
>>> Is what I am talking cultural dependent?
>>>
>>> Regards: Bala
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 Thomas Sigerstad wrote :
>>> >Gary,
>>> >First, I'm not touting any kind of theory to support a position
here
> but
>>> >merely reflecting how I see practice; but let me take a stab at
>>> >answering
>>> >the second round of questions:
>>> >
>>> >snip: Can you explain to me how you see benchmarking via a
> performance
>>> >appraisal as
>>> >helping to drive future performance for the organization? I
> recognize
>>> >that this
>>> >is a commonly touted approach from the statistical process control
>>> >movement, but
>>> >how does the appraisal of this past performance and using it as a
>>> >benchmark help
>>> >in improving future employee performance?
>>> >
>>> >I honestly think is pretty straightforward in that people want to
> know
>>> >where they stand and where they are expected to go. Most
> organizations
>>> >are pretty close mouthed about rankings, keeping members in the
dark
>>> >about who is above and below them but some informal mechanisms
> reveal
>>> >some of this. The benchmarking then is to a scale that
> organizations
>>> >use
>>> >to justify salary differentials and promotion. I don't plan on
> arguing
>>> >the good or bad in this...I think that it just reflects what goes
> on.
>>> >On
>>> >a typical scale of 1-5 organizations rate various performance
> categories
>>> >and the appraisal recipient sees where they fall and either knows
>>> >expectation levels or is told what they are. If I know I'm a "3"
> and am
>>> >getting a mediocre raise and no promotion wouldn't I be driven to
> exceed
>>> >my current level of performance to achieve a "4" and get a bigger
> raise
>>> >and possibly the promotion? Don't I want to be in the group of
>>> >employees
>>> >being considered for advancement? We all like to know where we
> stand
>>> >and
>>> >why? We also all want to know what is expected of us to achieve
>>> >appropriate performance appraisals. I don't think this sounds
> elegant,
>>> >and it won't close any consulting contract deals, but it seems an
>>> >awfully
>>> >lot like common sense to me as a practitioner that if I'm
> benchmarked in
>>> >the middle of the pack and don't want to be there I only have a
> single
>>> >choice assuming I am interested in more of whatever drives me.
That
>>> >choice is to improve my rating in the next benchmarking exercise or
>>> >before. There are of course much more meaningful, insightful, and
>>> >helpful ways to go beyond mere benchmarking with the employee to
> inform
>>> >them of where they stand and why, as well as where they are
expected
> to
>>> >go, and why, and how. Better managers would layer on these
> additional
>>> >methods to the basic benchmarking exercise, although I think they
> might
>>> >do it selectively dependent on who they want to invest in. In any
>>> >traditional benchmarking exercise I think the benchmarkers might
> also
>>> >explain how/why an organization is at a particular place, and how
> they
>>> >can move beyond it. Benchmarking answers the question "How am I
> doing?"
>>> >Assuming I, or we, want to do better, we seek out the answers (or
> give
>>> >them) to explain why we are there and what we have to do to move
> beyond.
>>> >
>>> >snip: Another thought: wouldn't the time to benchmark performance
> levels
>>> >be at the
>>> >beginning of the "review period" rather than at the end of it?
> Also,
>>> >shouldn't
>>> >the use of this benchmarking be used solely in the development of
> the
>>> >employee,
>>> >rather than in the measurement of performance, itself? After all,
>>> >shouldn't the
>>> >focus on measurement be on the goal to be obtained, rather than on
> the
>>> >progress
>>> >in improvement over the benchmark?
>>> >
>>> >Isn't the end of one period the beginning of another? (Except for
a
> new
>>> >employee who I might not know very much about.) I would think that
> the
>>> >benchmark taken at the end of some period becomes the starting
place
> in
>>> >that conversation about how we got there and how to move forward.
> The
>>> >beginning benchmark can lead to "budgeted" performance much like a
>>> >budget
>>> >acts as a managerial tool after last year's results are in and we
> figure
>>> >out what we want to expect from ourselves for the next year. You
> are
>>> >absolutely on the same wavelength I am about the benchmark being
> capable
>>> >of more than a mere measurement of performance. It can be the
> starting
>>> >place for "budgeting" new performance, setting some goals and
>>> >objectives.
>>> >I think people need to see where they are to get a handle on where
> they
>>> >are going and how to get there. As an appraised individual I hated
>>> >conversations that discussed open ended performance expectations
> like
>>> >"I'm looking for improvement" or "I expect you to excel." Improve
> over
>>> >what? Define excel with some point of reference. The "what" and
> the
>>> >"point of reference" are the benchmark. To answer the second
> part...I
>>> >don't think you can focus solely on development unless you can
> anchor
>>> >"develop from where", else we have a wall of framed platitudes and
> no
>>> >specifics. Employees don't want to hear "when the going gets
tough,
> the
>>> >tough get going". They want to know that they closed 10% of their
> leads
>>> >and the top salesperson closed 15%. Then they want to know how to
> get
>>> >there. Where do I stand? How do I improve? Then the sales
manager
>>> >jumps in with the necessary developmental tools. Focus on the
goal,
> or
>>> >focus on improvement from the benchmark? Good question...perhaps
> some
>>> >of
>>> >both. The goal for the end of the period may be the benchmark
> measured
>>> >at period end and we hope they turn out to be the same. I reported
> to a
>>> >CEO once who always had "stretch" goals but was pretty darn happy
> when
>>> >the troops had a respectable gain over last year's benchmark. This
>>> >opens
>>> >the question of whether we develop goals/budgets based on
> improvement
>>> >over the benchmark (e.g.; year to year unit sales gains) or use
>>> >goals/budgets to push performance to new levels. I think we tend
to
>
>>> >some
>>> >of both philosophies in practice, or dependent on managerial style.
>>> >That
>>> >CEO was a "coach" trying to make us all dig deep for the game. The
> real
>>> >budget that the Wall Street analysts saw (admittedly somewhat safe
> but
>>> >still giving them gains) was a performance over a previous
> benchmark.
>>> >
>>> >snip: As for the issue regarding benchmarking and engagement, it
> seems
>>> >from the
>>> >research I've read that there is no connection. Yes, recognition
> does
>>> >have a
>>> >connection, but do we need a benchmark in order for us to give
> someone
>>> >recognition for a job well done?
>>> >
>>> >I don't pretend to be up on the latest research in the HR domains
so
> I
>>> >can't comment directly on what the variables are and how they are
>>> >measured, or whether they have statistical, but as importantly,
>>> >practical
>>> >significance. I would think that we do benchmarks for a reason, to
>>> >position ourselves vis a vis something else that has meaning to us.
>>> >Once
>>> >we know that, do we, and how do we become "engaged" to act on that
>>> >position knowledge? I've seen plenty of companies do research and
> not
>>> >act on it. That's the failure. But, isn't the action, when it
> happens,
>>> >engagement? Perhaps I don't know enough about how that term is
used
> or
>>> >measured in the field. More basic question: If we want to give
> someone
>>> >recognition for a job well done, what is the criteria for making
> that
>>> >judgment? Haven't we compared them against something? Anything?
> I'll
>>> >bet sometimes we compare it to improvements, sometimes goals,
> sometimes
>>> >attitude. Sometimes we reward failure because we want to encourage
> risk
>>> >taking where neither the benchmark or goal is the criterion as much
> as
>>> >the actions, but then perhaps we are measuring something else which
>>> >turned out to be the measure we used in that case.
>>> >
>>> >Gary, I'm trying to simplify a portion of a very complex system of
>>> >training and development, and human motivation. I believe a simple
>>> >phenomenon of measuring current performance at some point in time
> (which
>>> >I am calling benchmarking) gives "people developers" an anchor to
> help
>>> >explain where people are and show them where the developer would
> like
>>> >them to go. I want to know where I'm at, and where I'm expected to
> go
>>> >from there. I can't tell my students any more than I could once
> tell my
>>> >employees that if they work hard I'll give them an "A" or the
> biggest
>>> >raise. If I'm arbitrary I'm in trouble in both camps. They want
>>> >anchors
>>> >and scales. If I tell them where they stand at some point in time
> and
>>> >they don't like it, they "engage". That occurs in various forms.
>>> >
>>> >One more exchange and I think we have enough for a paper (chuckle).
>>> >
>>> >Tom
>>> >
>>> >Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
>>> >Strategic Management and Business Ethics
>>> >326 Framptom Hall
>>> >College of Business
>>> >Frostburg State University
>>> >101 Braddock Road
>>> >Frostburg, MD 21532
>>> >tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
>>> >301-687-4419 office
>>> >301-687-4380 fax
>>> >301-687-0712 home
>>> >
>>> >________________________________
>>> >
>>> > From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of
> Gary
>>> > Lear
>>> >Sent: Sun 10/2/2005 7:39 PM
>>> >To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>>> >Subject: Re: "Socking it to 'em" via performance appraisals
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Tom,
>>> >
>>> >Can you explain to me how you see benchmarking via a performance
>>> >appraisal as
>>> >helping to drive future performance for the organization? I
> recognize
>>> >that this
>>> >is a commonly touted approach from the statistical process control
>>> >movement, but
>>> >how does the appraisal of this past performance and using it as a
>>> >benchmark help
>>> >in improving future employee performance?
>>> >
>>> >Another thought: wouldn't the time to benchmark performance levels
> be at
>>> >the
>>> >beginning of the "review period" rather than at the end of it?
> Also,
>>> >shouldn't
>>> >the use of this benchmarking be used solely in the development of
> the
>>> >employee,
>>> >rather than in the measurement of performance, itself? After all,
>>> >shouldn't the
>>> >focus on measurement be on the goal to be obtained, rather than on
> the
>>> >progress
>>> >in improvement over the benchmark?
>>> >
>>> >As for the issue regarding benchmarking and engagement, it seems
> from
>>> >the
>>> >research I've read that there is no connection. Yes, recognition
> does
>>> >have a
>>> >connection, but do we need a benchmark in order for us to give
> someone
>>> >recognition for a job well done?
>>> >
>>> >Make a Great Day!
>>> >
>>> >Gary Lear, President & CEO
>>> >
>>> >Resource Development Systems LLC
>>> >Managing the Human Side of Business (sm)
>>> >
>>> >www.ResourceDevelopmentSystems.com
>>> >
>>> >(c) 2005 permission denied to use this post in any other forum or
in
> any
>>> >way
>>> >other than on the discussion list that it was originally posted.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
<http://adworks.rediff.com/cgi-bin/AdWorks/sigclick.cgi/www.rediff.com/s
> ignature-home.htm/1507191490@Middle5?PARTNER=3>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may
> contain privileged, confidential, or proprietary information that is
> exempt from disclosure under law. If you have received this message
in
> error, please inform us promptly by reply e-mail, then delete the
e-mail
> and destroy any printed copy. Thank you.
>
========================================================================
======
>
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may contain privileged, confidential, or proprietary information that is exempt from disclosure under law. If you have received this message in error, please inform us promptly by reply e-mail, then delete the e-mail and destroy any printed copy. Thank you.
==============================================================================

Great.
Let's see if I asked the right question.
Please tell us the qualities that are essential for an organization of
machinists to change from the hierarchical form as described by Henry Ford
to the chaordic behavior as described by Dee Hock.
And please tell us how the list of qualities was validated to be both
necessary and sufficient.
Thanks,
Jack Ring

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cerva, Jack" <jcerva@KCC.COM>
To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: Benchmarking


> Howdy Jack,
>
> Yes and yes.
>
> We originally had help from Wilson Learning/ADI, about 17 yrs ago. A yr
> or so ago we started with a set from the Lominger- Leadership Architect
> tools, then narrowed those down for Sr. Leaders to only 6-then the CEO
> said "these could apply to any level" so since we had support we
> developed role bands with behavioral examples for each of the 6, then
> tested these internally globally- i.e. if you saw someone at this level
> (individual, leader of team, or leader of leaders) doing this or that
> would you consider that an example of e.g. decisive?
>
> CHEERS,
> Jack D. Cerva
> 920-721-5486 ofc
> 920-540-5365 cell
> People = Competitive Advantage
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Management Education and Development Discussion
> [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 4:42 PM
> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Benchmarking
>
>
> Then goals (measurable events on a timetable) are expressed in terms of
> the
> organizational changes being sought.
>
> Have you met anyone who is qualified to assert which qualities are key
> to
> which results?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cerva, Jack" <jcerva@KCC.COM>
> To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 1:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Benchmarking
>
>
>> Howdy
>>
>> What would you think of a two dimensional 1-9 rating scale with one
>> index being defined as 'qualities' and the other being 'results', add
> a
>> large team to team (primarily functional) 'calibration' session where
>> the outcome will meet a forced (pre-determined and announced)
>> distribution and then connect such directly to salary.
>>
>> I believe in measurable objectives (measurability determined between
>> team member and team leader), continuous coaching (corrective,
>> developmental, and positive--and that a focus on the positive and
>> developmental will yield greater performance) and then summary
>> appraisal. I believe performance is improved first with clear
>> objectives mutually set, with coaching and summary appraisal. However
>> what happens when performance mgmt is used as a org change tool vs. an
>> alignment tool?
>>
>> CHEERS,
>> Jack D. Cerva
>> 920-721-5486 ofc
>> 920-540-5365 cell
>> People = Competitive Advantage
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Management Education and Development Discussion
>> [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
>> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 9:44 PM
>> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>> Subject: Re: Benchmarking
>>
>>
>> Better you should read Crosby than hear it from me. Or Deming. Or
> Noel
>>
>> Tichy (from whom Jack Welch learned).
>>
>> Apparently you do not presume the existence of goals.
>> When goals exist the basis for appraising performance is; 1) goal
>> achievement, 2) resilience to disturbances while achieving goals and
> 3)
>> dynamic limits.
>> Anyone attempting performance appraisal without prior goals belongs to
>> the
>> fiction and poetry club.
>>
>> Typical performance appraisal forms do not interest me. The label,
>> typical,
>> is your first clue that the lemmings have landed.
>>
>> Here is a fun thing to do.
>> Take a set of appraisals prepared by Manager A who has scored the
>> respective
>> employees as a 5 or a 4. Then point out to the Manager that either 1)
>> he/she is not necessary or 2) he/she has too many unchallenged
> employees
>> so
>> needs to give up 20% of them. Then ask for his/her recommendation.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Thomas Sigerstad" <TSigerstad@FROSTBURG.EDU>
>> To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
>> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 5:25 PM
>> Subject: Re: Benchmarking
>>
>>
>>> Jack,
>>> I don't want you to be too quick letting me off the hook here. I'm
>> not
>>> trying to limit benchmarking to internal, or self benchmarks. Let's
>> look
>>> at the typical performance appraisal: On a scale of 1-5, I want you
> to
>> be
>>> at least a 3 to be acceptable, a 4 is better, and if a 5 you're a
> star
>>
>>> employee. What is a 3? I'd suggest the scale developers have the
>>> acceptable employee in mind. Those folks are probably describing
> some
>>
>>> ideal employee at 4 or 5. I still need a point of reference if I'm
>> going
>>> to work with my employee to build a program for their improvement.
>> When I
>>> provide an employee with a performance appraisal, whether it's all
>> prose
>>> or has been boiled down to a set of numbers, I am essentially
>> appraising
>>> their performance against something, whether it be the ideal or
>> against
>>> everyone else. I agree that most folks use the benchmark to compare
>>> against outside performance, but even when I'm not showing you how
> you
>>
>>> rank compared to all other employees, I'm still comparing you to this
>>> mythical ideal employee as the benchmark (even if it's in my head).
>> Bala
>>> hit on it when he suggested some of us are driven by internal
>> standards
>>> and some have an external focus. Some days I am convinced I'm
>> motivated
>>> only by my internal drive mechanisms and a mark I've set for myself.
>>> Other times I know that my actions are driven by some mark set by my
>>> peers. For some performance measures I have no idea where I stand
>>> compared to my colleagues. For other measures I know exactly where I
>>> stand. If I'm pleasing only myself, I might be happy with some level
>> of
>>> performance, or be driven by some measure of internal benchmarking.
>> On
>>> the other hand, knowing where I stand on some performance measure
>> compared
>>> to my colleagues might be a powerful driver, whether I like it or
> not.
>>
>>> Even that internal benchmark I have for myself is based on something,
>>> perhaps an admired mentor or colleague, perhaps some ideal of who I
>> want
>>> to be. As I counsel my own performance I have a reference point in
>> mind.
>>> Crosby's claim that internal comparisons yield better and faster
>> results
>>> seems like quite a claim, and based on Bala's suggestion of
>> inner/outer
>>> directedness as a factor, questions whether that is generalizable to
>> all
>>> employees. The whole idea of specialized development plans for the
>>> individual based on their performance is a recognition that the
>>> one-size-fits-all approach is not the most effective; so, maybe some
>> of us
>>> are driven to enhanced performance by a sense of competition to
>> outside
>>> benchmarks. I'd like to think I am solely driven by some internal
>>> compass, but alas, I'm human with all its foibles, including outer
>> focused
>>> competitive behavior and score keeping.
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
>>> Strategic Management and Business Ethics
>>> 326 Framptom Hall
>>> College of Business
>>> Frostburg State University
>>> 101 Braddock Road
>>> Frostburg, MD 21532
>>> tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
>>> 301-687-4419 office
>>> 301-687-4380 fax
>>> 301-687-0712 home
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of
>> Jack
>>> Ring
>>> Sent: Mon 10/3/2005 2:21 PM
>>> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>>> Subject: Benchmarking
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry if I misinterpreted your intent.
>>>
>>> I took benchmarking to mean looking at what some other enterprise is
>>> doing.
>>> That is the predominant usage of the term in the current literature.
>>>
>>> Crosby cautioned against comparisons to others. Comparison only to
>> your
>>> own
>>> activity yields better improvement, faster.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Thomas Sigerstad" <TSigerstad@FROSTBURG.EDU>
>>> To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
>>> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 8:15 AM
>>> Subject: Re: "Socking it to 'em" via performance appraisals
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jack and Bala,
>>>> (tongue in cheek here) let's see...Crosby advice: discard
>> benchmarking,
>>>> accept continuous improvement regiment.
>>>> My definition of continuous improvement regimen:
>>>> Establish a starting place, say current performance, (I'd call that
> a
>>>> benchmark), then improve upon it.
>>>> To improve we employ lots of different mechanisms, teaching,
>> coaching,
>>>> skill enhancement, etc., etc.
>>>> often taking into consideration social, cultural, and psychological
>>>> differences of the coach and coached.
>>>> At some point in the future assess improvement (perhaps by measuring
>> a
>>>> new
>>>> "benchmark").
>>>> Adjust the continuous improvement plan and perhaps create a target
> or
>>
>>>> just
>>>> see where it takes you.
>>>> At some point in the future assess improvement (perhaps by measuring
>> a
>>>> new
>>>> "benchmark").
>>>> Repeat as needed.
>>>>
>>>> If we measure and do nothing, shame on us. That could give
>> benchmarking
>>>> a
>>>> bad name, but its only a mechanism for establishing a point of
>> reference.
>>>> Every good manager or organization I've ever known uses the
> benchmark
>> to
>>>> make decisions on, typically to set objectives for future
> performance
>>>> outcomes but also to try to understand why and how they are where
>> they
>>>> are
>>>> which often helps in determining where to set the goal. And, of
>> course,
>>>> its not the only measure.
>>>>
>>>> We haven't thrown away a useful tool (benchmarking) when we move to
>>>> continuous improvement, we're just layering on where to go from the
>>>> measure, what to do with it. I don't think it's about rejecting
>>>> benchmarking in favor of continuous improvement. That's a little
>> like
>>>> old
>>>> wine in new bottles, the thing that keeps professors publishing new
>>>> papers, business writers selling new books, and consultants touting
>> new
>>>> programs. All three find it useful to create a new perspective on
>>>> something that currently exists, perhaps to enhance, perhaps to
> reach
>>
>>>> more
>>>> people with a slightly different spin, perhaps to create a "new"
>> product
>>>> to sell. I know I can't begin to keep up with the practitioner or
>>>> academic press of "new" ideas. I hang out at a lot of used book
>> sales
>>>> looking for management history fodder and I find it amusing every
>> time I
>>>> pick up a business book from yesteryear to see how long we have been
>>>> writing about something that has been rediscovered recently. In
> some
>>
>>>> ways
>>>> its a good thing because we have a new generation of business idea
>>>> consumers who don't read history and the ideas have to be repackaged
>> in
>>>> today's argot with today's examples. On the other hand, if you read
>>>> history, or have been a part of history, its not bad to understand
>> where
>>>> this stuff comes from and pay homage to seminal or classic ideas as
>> we
>>>> put
>>>> a fresh face on them for today's audience.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>> Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
>>>> Strategic Management and Business Ethics
>>>> 326 Framptom Hall
>>>> College of Business
>>>> Frostburg State University
>>>> 101 Braddock Road
>>>> Frostburg, MD 21532
>>>> tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
>>>> 301-687-4419 office
>>>> 301-687-4380 fax
>>>> 301-687-0712 home
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of
>>>> Charles
>>>> Wankel
>>>> Sent: Mon 10/3/2005 5:47 AM
>>>> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>>>> Subject: Re: "Socking it to 'em" via performance appraisals
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Jack Ring [mailto:jring@amug.org]
>>>> <mailto:%5bmailto:jring@amug.org%5d>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Glad you jumped in.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you have summarized quite well the reasons quality guru Phil
>>>> Crosby advised against benchmarking, recommending instead a
>> continuous
>>>> improvement regimen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Culturally dependent would presume there are clear lines of
>> demarcation
>>>> between cultures. Seen any?
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>
>>>> From: A G Balasubramanian <mailto:agbala_hr@REDIFFMAIL.COM>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I am from India and I am new to this group. Let me jump in to the
>> fray
>>>> anyway. Let me first tell you all that this discussion is very
>>>> stimulating.
>>>>
>>>> I am wondering if this personal learning and drive that Tom is
> saying
>>>> happens (or should happen as a result of the benchmarking)is
>> moderated by
>>>> the personality of the person. Depends on whether she has external
>> locus
>>>> of control or an internal locus of control. The first set of people
>>>> would
>>>> blame the inhibiting circumtances external to the company (and even
>>>> within
>>>> the company) for the her poor performance or looks for facilitating
>>>> factors for the top guy's performance and then says "Well, my
>> performance
>>>> is okay, the star's performance was that good because he got a good
>>>> territory" or "I could not make the levels this year because Katrina
>>>> hit".
>>>> For the next year, she does not expect Katrina and therefore hopes
> to
>> get
>>>> by with the same efforts.
>>>>
>>>> Rationalisation is possible because, in actual practice, rarely do
>> the
>>>> extreme end of the scales get used. The tendency is for most people
>> to be
>>>> marked off at 3 or 4 and very few get a 2 or 5 and no one gets a 1.
>>>> One is able to "explain" the "small" difference rather easily?
>>>>
>>>> It is a different matter that these guys get fired or pushed out of
>> the
>>>> way for promotions after a couple of years of average performance.
>> But
>>>> by
>>>> that time the damage is done that the average guy has become
>> rigidfied to
>>>> be an averager for life. Companies rarely fire the middling guys?
>>>>
>>>> Is what I am talking cultural dependent?
>>>>
>>>> Regards: Bala
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 Thomas Sigerstad wrote :
>>>> >Gary,
>>>> >First, I'm not touting any kind of theory to support a position
> here
>> but
>>>> >merely reflecting how I see practice; but let me take a stab at
>>>> >answering
>>>> >the second round of questions:
>>>> >
>>>> >snip: Can you explain to me how you see benchmarking via a
>> performance
>>>> >appraisal as
>>>> >helping to drive future performance for the organization? I
>> recognize
>>>> >that this
>>>> >is a commonly touted approach from the statistical process control
>>>> >movement, but
>>>> >how does the appraisal of this past performance and using it as a
>>>> >benchmark help
>>>> >in improving future employee performance?
>>>> >
>>>> >I honestly think is pretty straightforward in that people want to
>> know
>>>> >where they stand and where they are expected to go. Most
>> organizations
>>>> >are pretty close mouthed about rankings, keeping members in the
> dark
>>>> >about who is above and below them but some informal mechanisms
>> reveal
>>>> >some of this. The benchmarking then is to a scale that
>> organizations
>>>> >use
>>>> >to justify salary differentials and promotion. I don't plan on
>> arguing
>>>> >the good or bad in this...I think that it just reflects what goes
>> on.
>>>> >On
>>>> >a typical scale of 1-5 organizations rate various performance
>> categories
>>>> >and the appraisal recipient sees where they fall and either knows
>>>> >expectation levels or is told what they are. If I know I'm a "3"
>> and am
>>>> >getting a mediocre raise and no promotion wouldn't I be driven to
>> exceed
>>>> >my current level of performance to achieve a "4" and get a bigger
>> raise
>>>> >and possibly the promotion? Don't I want to be in the group of
>>>> >employees
>>>> >being considered for advancement? We all like to know where we
>> stand
>>>> >and
>>>> >why? We also all want to know what is expected of us to achieve
>>>> >appropriate performance appraisals. I don't think this sounds
>> elegant,
>>>> >and it won't close any consulting contract deals, but it seems an
>>>> >awfully
>>>> >lot like common sense to me as a practitioner that if I'm
>> benchmarked in
>>>> >the middle of the pack and don't want to be there I only have a
>> single
>>>> >choice assuming I am interested in more of whatever drives me.
> That
>>>> >choice is to improve my rating in the next benchmarking exercise or
>>>> >before. There are of course much more meaningful, insightful, and
>>>> >helpful ways to go beyond mere benchmarking with the employee to
>> inform
>>>> >them of where they stand and why, as well as where they are
> expected
>> to
>>>> >go, and why, and how. Better managers would layer on these
>> additional
>>>> >methods to the basic benchmarking exercise, although I think they
>> might
>>>> >do it selectively dependent on who they want to invest in. In any
>>>> >traditional benchmarking exercise I think the benchmarkers might
>> also
>>>> >explain how/why an organization is at a particular place, and how
>> they
>>>> >can move beyond it. Benchmarking answers the question "How am I
>> doing?"
>>>> >Assuming I, or we, want to do better, we seek out the answers (or
>> give
>>>> >them) to explain why we are there and what we have to do to move
>> beyond.
>>>> >
>>>> >snip: Another thought: wouldn't the time to benchmark performance
>> levels
>>>> >be at the
>>>> >beginning of the "review period" rather than at the end of it?
>> Also,
>>>> >shouldn't
>>>> >the use of this benchmarking be used solely in the development of
>> the
>>>> >employee,
>>>> >rather than in the measurement of performance, itself? After all,
>>>> >shouldn't the
>>>> >focus on measurement be on the goal to be obtained, rather than on
>> the
>>>> >progress
>>>> >in improvement over the benchmark?
>>>> >
>>>> >Isn't the end of one period the beginning of another? (Except for
> a
>> new
>>>> >employee who I might not know very much about.) I would think that
>> the
>>>> >benchmark taken at the end of some period becomes the starting
> place
>> in
>>>> >that conversation about how we got there and how to move forward.
>> The
>>>> >beginning benchmark can lead to "budgeted" performance much like a
>>>> >budget
>>>> >acts as a managerial tool after last year's results are in and we
>> figure
>>>> >out what we want to expect from ourselves for the next year. You
>> are
>>>> >absolutely on the same wavelength I am about the benchmark being
>> capable
>>>> >of more than a mere measurement of performance. It can be the
>> starting
>>>> >place for "budgeting" new performance, setting some goals and
>>>> >objectives.
>>>> >I think people need to see where they are to get a handle on where
>> they
>>>> >are going and how to get there. As an appraised individual I hated
>>>> >conversations that discussed open ended performance expectations
>> like
>>>> >"I'm looking for improvement" or "I expect you to excel." Improve
>> over
>>>> >what? Define excel with some point of reference. The "what" and
>> the
>>>> >"point of reference" are the benchmark. To answer the second
>> part...I
>>>> >don't think you can focus solely on development unless you can
>> anchor
>>>> >"develop from where", else we have a wall of framed platitudes and
>> no
>>>> >specifics. Employees don't want to hear "when the going gets
> tough,
>> the
>>>> >tough get going". They want to know that they closed 10% of their
>> leads
>>>> >and the top salesperson closed 15%. Then they want to know how to
>> get
>>>> >there. Where do I stand? How do I improve? Then the sales
> manager
>>>> >jumps in with the necessary developmental tools. Focus on the
> goal,
>> or
>>>> >focus on improvement from the benchmark? Good question...perhaps
>> some
>>>> >of
>>>> >both. The goal for the end of the period may be the benchmark
>> measured
>>>> >at period end and we hope they turn out to be the same. I reported
>> to a
>>>> >CEO once who always had "stretch" goals but was pretty darn happy
>> when
>>>> >the troops had a respectable gain over last year's benchmark. This
>>>> >opens
>>>> >the question of whether we develop goals/budgets based on
>> improvement
>>>> >over the benchmark (e.g.; year to year unit sales gains) or use
>>>> >goals/budgets to push performance to new levels. I think we tend
> to
>>
>>>> >some
>>>> >of both philosophies in practice, or dependent on managerial style.
>>>> >That
>>>> >CEO was a "coach" trying to make us all dig deep for the game. The
>> real
>>>> >budget that the Wall Street analysts saw (admittedly somewhat safe
>> but
>>>> >still giving them gains) was a performance over a previous
>> benchmark.
>>>> >
>>>> >snip: As for the issue regarding benchmarking and engagement, it
>> seems
>>>> >from the
>>>> >research I've read that there is no connection. Yes, recognition
>> does
>>>> >have a
>>>> >connection, but do we need a benchmark in order for us to give
>> someone
>>>> >recognition for a job well done?
>>>> >
>>>> >I don't pretend to be up on the latest research in the HR domains
> so
>> I
>>>> >can't comment directly on what the variables are and how they are
>>>> >measured, or whether they have statistical, but as importantly,
>>>> >practical
>>>> >significance. I would think that we do benchmarks for a reason, to
>>>> >position ourselves vis a vis something else that has meaning to us.
>>>> >Once
>>>> >we know that, do we, and how do we become "engaged" to act on that
>>>> >position knowledge? I've seen plenty of companies do research and
>> not
>>>> >act on it. That's the failure. But, isn't the action, when it
>> happens,
>>>> >engagement? Perhaps I don't know enough about how that term is
> used
>> or
>>>> >measured in the field. More basic question: If we want to give
>> someone
>>>> >recognition for a job well done, what is the criteria for making
>> that
>>>> >judgment? Haven't we compared them against something? Anything?
>> I'll
>>>> >bet sometimes we compare it to improvements, sometimes goals,
>> sometimes
>>>> >attitude. Sometimes we reward failure because we want to encourage
>> risk
>>>> >taking where neither the benchmark or goal is the criterion as much
>> as
>>>> >the actions, but then perhaps we are measuring something else which
>>>> >turned out to be the measure we used in that case.
>>>> >
>>>> >Gary, I'm trying to simplify a portion of a very complex system of
>>>> >training and development, and human motivation. I believe a simple
>>>> >phenomenon of measuring current performance at some point in time
>> (which
>>>> >I am calling benchmarking) gives "people developers" an anchor to
>> help
>>>> >explain where people are and show them where the developer would
>> like
>>>> >them to go. I want to know where I'm at, and where I'm expected to
>> go
>>>> >from there. I can't tell my students any more than I could once
>> tell my
>>>> >employees that if they work hard I'll give them an "A" or the
>> biggest
>>>> >raise. If I'm arbitrary I'm in trouble in both camps. They want
>>>> >anchors
>>>> >and scales. If I tell them where they stand at some point in time
>> and
>>>> >they don't like it, they "engage". That occurs in various forms.
>>>> >
>>>> >One more exchange and I think we have enough for a paper (chuckle).
>>>> >
>>>> >Tom
>>>> >
>>>> >Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
>>>> >Strategic Management and Business Ethics
>>>> >326 Framptom Hall
>>>> >College of Business
>>>> >Frostburg State University
>>>> >101 Braddock Road
>>>> >Frostburg, MD 21532
>>>> >tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
>>>> >301-687-4419 office
>>>> >301-687-4380 fax
>>>> >301-687-0712 home
>>>> >
>>>> >________________________________
>>>> >
>>>> > From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of
>> Gary
>>>> > Lear
>>>> >Sent: Sun 10/2/2005 7:39 PM
>>>> >To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>>>> >Subject: Re: "Socking it to 'em" via performance appraisals
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >Tom,
>>>> >
>>>> >Can you explain to me how you see benchmarking via a performance
>>>> >appraisal as
>>>> >helping to drive future performance for the organization? I
>> recognize
>>>> >that this
>>>> >is a commonly touted approach from the statistical process control
>>>> >movement, but
>>>> >how does the appraisal of this past performance and using it as a
>>>> >benchmark help
>>>> >in improving future employee performance?
>>>> >
>>>> >Another thought: wouldn't the time to benchmark performance levels
>> be at
>>>> >the
>>>> >beginning of the "review period" rather than at the end of it?
>> Also,
>>>> >shouldn't
>>>> >the use of this benchmarking be used solely in the development of
>> the
>>>> >employee,
>>>> >rather than in the measurement of performance, itself? After all,
>>>> >shouldn't the
>>>> >focus on measurement be on the goal to be obtained, rather than on
>> the
>>>> >progress
>>>> >in improvement over the benchmark?
>>>> >
>>>> >As for the issue regarding benchmarking and engagement, it seems
>> from
>>>> >the
>>>> >research I've read that there is no connection. Yes, recognition
>> does
>>>> >have a
>>>> >connection, but do we need a benchmark in order for us to give
>> someone
>>>> >recognition for a job well done?
>>>> >
>>>> >Make a Great Day!
>>>> >
>>>> >Gary Lear, President & CEO
>>>> >
>>>> >Resource Development Systems LLC
>>>> >Managing the Human Side of Business (sm)
>>>> >
>>>> >www.ResourceDevelopmentSystems.com
>>>> >
>>>> >(c) 2005 permission denied to use this post in any other forum or
> in
>> any
>>>> >way
>>>> >other than on the discussion list that it was originally posted.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
> <http://adworks.rediff.com/cgi-bin/AdWorks/sigclick.cgi/www.rediff.com/s
>> ignature-home.htm/1507191490@Middle5?PARTNER=3>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>> This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may
>> contain privileged, confidential, or proprietary information that is
>> exempt from disclosure under law. If you have received this message
> in
>> error, please inform us promptly by reply e-mail, then delete the
> e-mail
>> and destroy any printed copy. Thank you.
>>
> ========================================================================
> ======
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may
> contain privileged, confidential, or proprietary information that is
> exempt from disclosure under law. If you have received this message in
> error, please inform us promptly by reply e-mail, then delete the e-mail
> and destroy any printed copy. Thank you.
> ==============================================================================
>
>