How to Invest in the Republic (part 5) 03/31 by CharlesXLamson | Art

How to Invest in the Republic (part 5) 03/31 by CharlesXLamson | Art: Investing is an active use of your money to accomplish certain goals. These goals may be short, medium, or long range, and most investors will have one or more from each range.

How to Invest in the Republic (part 4) 03/30 by CharlesXLamson | Art

How to Invest in the Republic (part 4) 03/30 by CharlesXLamson | Art: 1st half: The Republic 2nd half: How to Invest - A Discussion on Stocks

Performance Management: Changing Behavior That Drives Organizational Effectiveness (part 21)

Managing By Wandering Around (MBWA)

by

Charles Lamson

In their best-selling book, In Search of Excellence. Peters and Waterman (1982) introduced the concept of MBWA (Managing By Wandering Around). This immediately caught the attention of many managers, because the authors claimed it was associated with excellence; it made sense; it confirmed the practice of many, and, it was easy. Immediately upon reading the book, many managers who had not spent much time in the work area started frequenting the workplace, only to create chaos rather than excellence. The reason was they didn't know what to do in the workplace while they were there.

The manager's presence in the workplace may be an antecedent for both punishment and reinforcement. Unfortunately, in some cases, it resulted in more punishment to both management and non-management. In such cases, the manager used the wandering to learn what was going wrong, rather than what was going right.

A more serious problem is that an upper-level manager who wanders around without the front-line supervisor may reinforce or punish the wrong behaviors. This can happen for two reasons:

1. The manager may not know the proper methods or procedures that are supposed to be followed in the conduct of the job. Although a manager may have at one time been an expert on a particular job, being away from it every day may mean he/she is not aware of new methods. This could lead to reinforcing a performance that is not up to date or punishing one that is.
2. The manager may draw conclusions about the performance from too little data, because the wandering is infrequent. When going on the floor, a manager might catch a performer sitting down and punish him when he was resting from doing something extraordinary. On the other hand, he might provide reinforcement to someone who appears to be working, not knowing that she had been causing problems with co-workers and supervisors all day and only started working when he appeared.

The way to apply MBWA correctly is to wander with a purpose and in the company of a supervisor. Following are some tips for making MBWA successful through work sampling.

1. One purpose of work sampling, when down at levels below your direct reports, is to determine how well your organizational structure functions. When you talk to individuals, you are trying to diagnose the antecedents and consequences that drive their performance. Under the heading of antecedents, you want to know if their process is capable of producing what you want or if it interferes with performance. Are there interference issues that you need to resolve? Are communications of the most important issues clearly understood? Under the heading of consequences, you need to know if your policies and programs promote performance or interfere with it. Does the structure of the work encourage performance or interfere with it. Does the structure of the work encourage performance or make good work difficult? You should also find information that tells you which performance systems work, whether incentives, promotions, or procedures are working, and which ones need altering.
2. The second purpose of work sampling is to determine how well your management process works. Here you are looking at how people are managed. Your purpose is not to correct individual deficiencies or to reinforce behavior as you observe. Though that might seem to be an inevitable part of your investigation, correcting and reinforcing are functions of the immediate supervisor. Your purpose is to determine how effective your managers are at promoting discretionary behavior from their direct reports. Are they using their resources wisely and well? Are your managers participating in the process or are they impeding the process? You should expect to collect information that allows you to reinforce your direct reports' contributions to success, or information that allows you to more effectively pinpoint managerial behaviors to coach.
3. Sample work with the supervisor to ensure that you both are seeing the same things and to train him on what your criteria for success are. If you both see the same things, you will quickly calibrate what is important and what is not. Your commentary should be directed at the supervisor rather than at the performer. If something is done well, it is the supervisor who should be the target of your comments. If something is not done well, it is the supervisor who provides you with the information you need to be an effective participant in its correction.
4. Use this opportunity to strengthen the position of the supervisor rather than undercutting it. This means that you reinforce individuals only at the supervisor's direction. Your goal is to have her direct reports see that their boss is a contributing part of the reinforcement process. This pairing of reinforcement with upper management will make the supervisor's social reinforcement more powerful. When you must correct a direct report, do it privately. Consequences delivered by higher levels of management directly to the individuals involved, without the participation of the supervisor, can weaken that supervisor's ability to manage.

Most of the wandering around that any supervisor should do is among direct reports. While it is reinforcing for many managers to see the front-line activity in the organization, the primary responsibility of a manager is to reinforce direct reports. Upper managers should assist in reinforcing at all levels but usually at the direction of lower-level managers or supervisors. Komaki (1986) discovered that the most effective supervisors and managers spent more time in what she called job sampling than the ineffective ones did.

You can only deliver positive/immediate consequences to your direct reports when you are in the work area. Managers who opt to stay in their offices can only provide consequences for results, not the behaviors that produced them. Because of this, MBWA should be a part of every reinforcement plan. It is not something you do separately from Performance Management (PM); it is an integral part of the PM process.

*PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT: CHANGING BEHAVIOR THAT DRIVES ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS, 4TH ED., 2004, AUBREY C. DANIELS & JAMES E. DANIELS, PGS. 168-170*

end

How to Invest in the Republic (part 3) 03/29 by CharlesXLamson | Art

How to Invest in the Republic (part 3) 03/29 by CharlesXLamson | Art: 1st half: The Republic 2nd half: How to Invest: Everything You Wanted to Know About Mutual Funds

Performance Management: Changing Behavior That Drives Organizational Effectiveness (part 20)

The Trump Peepeegate Russian Collusion Witch Hunt

by

Charles Lamson 

Behaviors or Results: Which Should You Emphasize

Every job was created to produce particular results. Clearly then, results always need to be pinpointed. And if something is worth pinpointing, it is worth measuring. Therefore one simple rule that we can state concerning behaviors and results is this: Pinpoint both behaviors and results, but always pinpoint and measure results first. However, the Trump Peepeegate Russian Collusion Witch Hunt is a perfect example of what can go wrong when only results are pinpointed.

The necessity for pinpointing and measuring at least some of the behaviors required to produce results may not be clear to some people. Why worry about the means (behavior) if the (end) result is justified and being accomplished? The answer is that if you do not pinpoint relevant behaviors, one or more of the following problems may occur:

1. People may engage in illegal or morally reprehensible behavior such as falsifying data.
2. Behaviors necessary for the maintenance of long-term results may be neglected.
3. You may set up negative reinforcement contingencies that sub-optimize performance.

The Trump Peepeegate Russian Collusion Witch Hunt scandal that has led to the implosion of the Democratic Party is an example of the first type of problem. In that case, individuals were told to obtain certain information about the, then, presidential candidate, Donald Trump. The result, electing a Democrat president, was the important thing. Any behaviors that would lead to that end were considered justifiable by those involved and were reinforced by their superiors. As a consequence, those involved committed crimes (behaviors) that included illegal spying (the secret surveillance of Trump Tower) and falsifying intelligence reports (the bogus Peepeegate dossier). The course of American history has been dramatically altered as a result.

Those involved could have attended speeches by the Republican politicians. They could have talked to supporters and reporters. They could have analyzed the information obtained to understand the strategy the Donald Trump campaign was taking. These are all legal activities (behaviors) directed toward the same end as the illegal surveillance and colluding with a foreign country to produce falsified intelligence reports. Obviously, monitoring to see that the results were obtained by legal behaviors rather than illegal ones would have averted a major political scandal and saved the country countless dollars and untold grief.

Newspapers and television news constantly report problems of this nature. Under pressure to win (result), college coaches engage in illegal behavior to recruit star high school athletes. Athletes use steroids and other illegal substances (behavior) in an attempt to set performance records (result). The list seems endless. Systems that emphasize results to the exclusion of behaviors may encourage otherwise law-abiding individuals to perform illegal, immoral, or unethical acts.

Managers who focus exclusively on results may unwittingly create lying, cheating, and stealing. This is a frequent occurrence when there is a lot of pressure to produce results or else lose one's job or status within the organization. If the employees know the boss is only interested in the results, they may falsify the data or engage in other behavior that is even more reprehensible to avoid the punishment for not achieving those results.

Another problem that occurs when only results are evaluated is that behaviors necessary for long-term results will be neglected. In other words, short-term gains will be reinforced at the expense of long-term results. For example, preventative maintenance may be neglected in order to maximize short-term productivity. Of course, this may cause equipment failure in the long run and subsequent production losses far in excess of that gained from not doing the required maintenance. When the pressure is to get it out the door, quality may suffer in favor of meeting a shipping schedule. An organization is headed for trouble when you hear managers say things like, "I don't care how you do it. I want those chemicals disposed of by the end of the month" or "I don't care how you do it, but you had better make those budget cuts by the end of the month" or "I don't care how you do it, take out Trump."

In essentially every case, you should pinpoint and monitor behaviors and results. Even though you should monitor both, you will usually need to focus on one or the other. The Trump Peepeegate Russian Collusion Witch Hunt shows us what happens when only results are pinpointed to the exclusion of behaviors.

*SOURCE: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT: CHANGING BEHAVIOR THAT DRIVES ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS, 4TH ED., 2004, PGS. 161-163*

end

Performance Management: Changing Behavior That Drives Organizational Effectiveness (part 19)

TOP STORY 

Search Result

Reidland Intermediate 5th grader wins 1st place in Ohio River Sweep ...

KFVS-22 hours ago

PADUCAH, KY (KFVS) -Reidland Intermediate School fifth grader Tyler Croley's poster design won 1st place at the 30th annual Ohio River ...

The Right Pinpoint

by

Charles Lamson

All of us, at one time or another, face the challenge of distinguishing between the important and the urgent. Depending on the immediacy of consequences, even the trivial can become urgent. When consequences are delayed, the important can lose urgency. In this post I describe the process of identifying the most important result of a job or an organization - its mission. Once specified, this result lays the groundwork for all further pinpointing. 

Identifying the Mission

The right pinpoint always begins with identifying the outcome you want. There are relatively few times, outside of raising children, when you want to change behavior only for the sake of behavior change. This is particularly true in an organizational setting. Yet we see people expend considerable effort and resources attempting to change behaviors that have little, if any, impact on organizational performance. Most often they try to punish behaviors because the behaviors are annoying. Nuisance behaviors, such as complaining, being tardy to meetings, overstaying breaks and the like, cause others anguish because of the way they value the appropriate behaviors.

We also find people reinforcing behaviors that have little organizational value. Since you will get more of what you reinforce, this sometimes causes a problem because reinforcing the wrong thing gets you more of the wrong thing. You may reinforce something that contributes little to the desired result or that takes time and energy away from behaviors that are important to success. One of the greatest challenges to building a positive work environment is the matter of contingency, or what you reinforce. Too many people reinforce trivial behaviors and ignore those that really matters.

When deciding what to reinforce, always start with the outcome, but keep in mind that selecting the right outcome requires some thought. When managers are inundated with data on every facet of performance, how do they pinpoint behaviors that will make a difference? The answer is to begin by defining the mission.

We define the mission as "the reason the organization or the job exists." It is the single most important outcome associated with success. A mission statement does not define everything you must accomplish to be successful, only the core outcomes. Usually this is a three- to five-word statement of why the job exists.

There are two kinds of missions: organizational and job. At the organizational level, the mission is a short pithy statement that defines what the customer values in your product or service. The mission for a nuclear power plant might be as simple as, "Generate power." Usually these statements are wordier in an attempt to make them motivational to many constituencies. This is fine as long as the essential statement is clear and not obscured by the verbage. This same type of mission statement applies to internal units of the company. The sales department's mission, for example, should state as simply as possible the essential outcome of its efforts: contracted sales.



Managers should not confuse their function's mission with their own. If a sales manager's unit mission is to sell insurance, she should know that is not her function. Her boss should use sales data, not to reinforce or punish, but for analysis of her unit's performance. The sales manager's consequences should come primarily from what she personally contributes to the sales effort and success. This is usually defined by her job mission. How do we identify and quantify how her personal role contributes to the sales effort and success. This is usually defined by her job mission. How do we identify and quantify how her personal role contributes to the success of her unit? Most managers have worked for someone, at some point in their career, who was promoted not because of their competence, but in spite of their incompetence! This occurs because that manager's bosses only looked at the unit performance and mistook it as a reflection of the manager's performance. Just as every organization has its mission to perform, each job has a mission that contributes to that organizational mission. This is true of work at all levels, from the president to the head of research and development, to the customer service representative in the call center.

Once the job mission has been identified, measures and subordinate pinpoints flow naturally from it. However, the vague description of a personnel supervisor's job as supporting the organization by providing human resources does not naturally lead to job measures. Words that denote process, or how you will do something, generally are fatal to mission statements. But if you describe this same mission as an outcome such as job positions filled, several possible measures become apparent. They are percent of job positions filled, time required to fill open positions, percent of job openings with qualified applicants available, and percentage of new hires retained after probationary period. Missions are statements of outcomes, not of activities. In other words, missions should describe pinpointed results, not pinpointed behaviors.

Once you have defined the mission, measures of quantity, quality, timeliness, and cost naturally follow. The resulting measures will focus your efforts on the critical issues. Most jobs require many behaviors and produce many results. Until you know the most important result, priorities are often confused and much time and energy is wasted changing behaviors that are insignificant or in some cases counterproductive.



The best way to determine a job mission is to start by listing all the results and key activities of the job (with appropriate measures). Then try to summarize in one short statement why the performers do these things. The outcome of the combination of these activities, the single most important result of the job, is the job mission. Once you have a mission, go back and check all other results against it. If achieving these other results does not help achieve the mission, they are secondary to the mission, or they belong to some other job.

The process of identifying the most important results of a job consists of these three steps:

1. List all the results and key behaviors for which you are accountable.
2. Extract from the list a single result that explains why the job exists.
3. Check each remaining result against the mission and determine which ones (results) are critical to the accomplishment of the mission.
4. 
   

An Example of a Job's Mission

Let's illustrate this process by looking at the job of personnel supervisor, mentioned earlier. The list below contains some possible important results for this position.

• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requirements met
• Employee files current
• New applicant files available
• Recruiting interviews conducted
• Exit interviews conducted
• Jobs filled with qualified personnel
• Job openings filled within target time

With this list, it is easy to see that the one overall result the job is directed toward is jobs filled.

*PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT: CHANGING BEHAVIOR THAT DRIVES ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS, 4TH ED., 2004, AUBREY C. DANIELS &JAMES E. DANIELS, PGS. 155-157*

end

How to Invest in the Republic (part 2) 03/26 by CharlesXLamson | Art

How to Invest in the Republic (part 2) 03/26 by CharlesXLamson | Art: 1st half: The Republic 2nd half: How to Invest

Performance Management: Changing Behavior That Drives Organizational Effectiveness (part 18)

Measurement Methods

by

Charles Lamson

There are two major measurement methods: counting and judging. While counting is preferred because of greater reliability, judgement can be a valid way of measuring; it allows us to get the benefit of measuring in areas that would otherwise go unmeasured.

Counting

Counting is very straightforward. We can count the number of parts made, engineering drawings completed, lines of computer code written, or hours of overtime. Counting is the preferred method of measuring because practically everybody can do it - and with a high degree of reliability. It is easy and usually can be completed quickly.

Another advantage of counting is that when we do not need to count every instant of a behavior or result, we can sample. Sampling involves counting at random times or inspecting random units of production. The process of sampling is highly scientific and as such there are rules about how to select a sample and how many observations or counts constitute a representative sample. Most statistical books cover this subject in detail. Those readers who have been trained in Statistical Process Control are very familiar with sampling methods and processes.

Nevertheless, sampling errors are common in business and everyday life. We often draw conclusions about behavior and results based on too little information. If you are not counting every occurrence of something, you must make sure you have counted enough instances to have an adequate sample.

Judgment

When the pinpoints you have selected cannot be made specific enough to permit counting, you can use the judgment technique of measuring. Judgment is the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing.

Even though judgment is less reliable and more subjective than counting, it has at least two very practical uses in Performance Management (PM). First judgment allows you to measure any performance. Second, in most cases when you use judgment measures, you discover new ways to count, and counting is almost always preferred to judgment. However, when you cannot count, there are four techniques that are used in making judgments about performance. They are:

1. Opinion-based Ranking
2. Opinion-based Rating
3. Criteria-based Ranking
4. Criteria-based Rating

These alternatives are presented in the four cells of Figure 1. They range from a general opinion about who is better in Cell 1 to a much more specific rating of performance in Cell 4.

Figure 1 Four Techniques of Measuring by Judgment

Click to enlarge.

When making judgments you need a frame of reference. As a starting point, this reference is usually your experience or point of view - in other words, your opinion (Figure 1, Cells 1 and 2). When you rank (assign a number to your opinion), you are practically always forced to be more specific. Ranking causes you to think things like, Would she rank fifth or sixth? I believe I'll rank her fifth because she is friendlier than Ted when she waits on customers; or, I think George would rank above Jack in being responsive to customers because he asks more questions.

If each time you rate or rank you get a little more specific, you will be surprised at how quickly you increase the reliability of your judgments. For example, suppose we have a supervisor who wants to measure a mechanic's neatness but doesn't know exactly how to do it. Let's start by asking the supervisor to rate the performer on a neatness scale where 0 is the messiest mechanic he has ever known, and 10 is the neatest mechanic he has ever known. Also, at the end of the job, ask the mechanic to rate himself. Then compare the ratings. If they both agree, the supervisor has some evidence that they are measuring neatness in similar ways.

Most often they will not agree. What the mechanic sees as very good (an 8 on the scale); the supervisor may see as average (a 5). This will immediately cause questions to come up like, "Why did you give me a 5?" or "Why did you give yourself an 8?" The answers to these questions will add more definition to the scale so that with repeated measures their ratings will match on more items.

Over time, this opinion-based measure can be made more objective by specifying distinct criteria for judging performance. Once this happens, judgments can be made on the basis of observation (Figure 1, Cell 3 and Cell 4).

Let's assume one element in neatness is to clean up the debris produced before leaving the job. This creates what is referred to as a pre-established criterion.

Look at the samples in Cells 3 and 4. Note that the determinations about neatness are based on observation, rather than simple opinion. Cells 3 and 4 are still somewhat subjective, but they are much more objective than Cells 1 and 2.

The measure in Cell 4 is an Anchored Rating Scale. Judgments are described as concretely as possible and given a weight along the scale from 1 to 10. These judgments are pre-established criteria for, in this case, neatness. This method of judgment gives the performer significantly more information on how their behavior is perceived and specific indications as to how to improve.

While this is the most effective judgment technique. It can be improved by making it a Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS). Here examples of the value (neatness, in this case) are given to each rater who scores it on the selected scale (1-5, 1-7, etc.). The scores are averaged so that each example has a common perceived rating. The description "picks up tools and debris, organizes area, wipes surface clean," for example, might merit a value of 7.3. With BARS, we find enough descriptors to discriminate between several levels of performance. This method has the advantage of promoting greater inter-rater reliability so that judgments are not perceived as being capricious or as unique to an individual rater.

Rank or Rate?

As noted in Figure 1, we can rank or rate. Ranking involves comparing the performances of individuals against each other (Cells 1 and 3). You simply decide whether the performance you are considering is better or worse than the one closest to it. You are in effect lining up the performers from best to worst.

Using ranked scores may cause problems when the results are fed back to the performers. When you rank how well people do, you distribute performance measures across the whole range from best to worst. In other words, you establish only one winner, just as the typical contest does. If you have only one winner, you limit reinforcement for all other performers, thereby ultimately reducing the overall performance. Even if you have a hierarchy of winners (first, second, third place, etc.), you are creating a diminishing distribution of reinforcement. Since behavior is a function of its reinforcement, ranking should be used only when ratings are impractical.

Performances are judged independently when using ratings, thus avoiding the problem of limited reinforcement encountered in ranking systems. In a rating system, all performers could attain a perfect score at the same time, so the fact that you get reinforced for what you do does not reduce the reinforcement others experience for what they do.

Many performance appraisal processes use a ranking system but call the scores a rating. This is because so many systems try to accomplish incompatible outcomes with the same instrument. One is the attempt to distribute a limited amount of any reinforcer (money, promotion, etc.). This will always require ranking. Only if the reinforcer is unlimited can you use a rating system. The other part of the appraisal process is to improve performance. This requires reinforcement based on what the individual accomplishes and should not be limited by what others do or don't do. In fact, it should not be limited at all since increases in reinforcement increase the rate of change. Calling the hybrid score, used in most appraisal systems, by the more benign name (rating) does not change its nature or its function.

If your ratings are based on opinion, your labels will be terms like poor to excellent, or never, to very often. Your judgments involve only your impressions of the performance (Cell 2), and do not eventually move to rate pre-established criteria (Cell 4), your measure is probably not important to the performer. If it is important, the performers will want to know why they received the ratings they did and what they have to do to get a higher score. When you are able to tell them, you will have what you need to develop a pre-established criterion scale.

Figure 2 is another illustration of the four types of judgment techniques. This example includes only a few of the possible criteria that might be used to measure the value of a suggestion. However, it does demonstrate some of the ways you could measure a good idea.

Figure 2 Measurement Methods Using Judgment

Improving rate reliability

If you must use judgment as a measurement tool, consider training the observers so they use similar criteria. Increasing inter-rater reliability is a way to optimize the value you get from this approach. Since your judgment is based on your personal life experiences and value system, you will differ from others in how you judge what you see. Everyone knows of instances when in discussing someone's personality, opinions were expressed that were all over the map. This is all too often an issue in performance appraisal systems. When people use their opinion as a basis for measurement, you could encounter situations in which people give the same number for different reasons or see the same things but give different numbers.

Training those who will rate the performers - the observers - to see the same things is the objective of inter-rater reliability training. In essence, this means that the different observers judge the same performance, using the same criteria, and then compare their numbers. They explain their reasoning and determine which criteria used are common and which are unique to the observer. This process is repeated until there is a high degree of consistency in the ratings. This is the technique that allows judges of competitive events, such as athletic contests, to rate performances in a consistent fashion.

*PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT: CHANGING BEHAVIOR THAT DRIVES ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS, 4TH ED., 2004, AUBREY C. DANIELS & JAMES E. DANIELS, PGS. 139-144*

end

How to Invest in the Republic (part 1) 03/25 by CharlesXLamson | Art

How to Invest in the Republic (part 1) 03/25 by CharlesXLamson | Art: Investing is the process of being proactive about where your money works and how much it earns. You want your money to earn enough so that inflation and taxes do not eat it up with nothing left for you. Investing allows you to direct your financial future with a great deal more control than you may have guessed. 1st half: The Republic 2nd half: How to Invest

The Republic, the Financial System and the Economy (the conclusion) 03/23 by CharlesXLamson | Art

The Republic, the Financial System and the Economy (the conclusion) 03/23 by CharlesXLamson | Art: 1st half: The Republic 2nd half: The Financial System, the Economy and How To Invest

The Republic, the Financial System and the Economy (part 6) 03/22 by CharlesXLamson | Art

The Republic, the Financial System and the Economy (part 6) 03/22 by CharlesXLamson | Art: Forward, Futures, and Options Agreements Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present. ---Marcus Aurelius 1st half: The Republic 2nd half: The Financial System and the Economy

Performance Management: Changing Behavior That Drives Organizational Effectiveness (part 17)

TOP STORIES 

Search Results

Ohio River commission changes location of June meetings

The Columbus Dispatch-9 hours ago

The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission has changed the location of its next series of meetings, where discussion and a vote could ...

Catch of the day: Cairo residents fish the Ohio River floodwaters

The Southern-Mar 20, 2019

CAIRO — Several Cairo residents gathered to fish the flooded Fort Defiance State Park on Tuesday, basking in the warm sun, light breeze and ...

Authorities investigate sunken pontoon boat on Ohio River

WTAP-TV-Mar 20, 2019

BELPRE, Ohio (WTAP) - A pontoon boat was found partially submerged on the Ohio River Wednesday morning, and authorities said it probably ...

Measurement

by

Charles Lamson

Once you have pinpointed the behavior and the result you would like to change, you are ready to begin measuring. If you have a reliable pinpoint, measurement is easy. The most basic measurement is counting. Pinpoints allow you to count, because the specificity of a pinpoint enables you to observe actions you would not otherwise see. As you will learn, pinpointing allows you to measure many abstract performances or states such as morale, attitude and creativity. Once you have established the precise behaviors you will accept as evidence of these qualities, counting them is a simple task.

Why Measure?

Just as we manage organizational performance by data, we should manage human performance by data. If we pinpoint what we want from people, the next logical step is to measure their performance.

In many organizations, problems sometimes arise when we start measuring what people do. People may say things like "You can't measure what I do," "You don't trust me," or ""It's not fair." You might even hear comments about your micromanagement. These comments indicate that the performers may have had a history in which measurement has been an antecedent for punishment. This is understandable because a lot of what we measure is negative. We measure things like errors, defects, accidents, and waste. Quite naturally, people might not be delighted when someone suggests counting the number of errors they make. We want to insure that you look at measurement in terms of how it can be used to support positive change. In that sense, the measurement process is much more likely to be associated with reinforcement than with punishment.

One major reason for measuring in a PM (Performance Management) system is to increase the appropriate delivery of reinforcement. Measurement allows you to see smaller changes in performance than you could see through casual observation. Seeing these small improvements allows you to reinforce more often. This will guarantee faster change than if you wait until some final result has been attained. Certainly, measurement exposes poor performance, but knowing about poor performance helps us know when improvement occurs so we can positively reinforce the desired performance.

Another reason for measuring is to increase your own skills at influencing others. As with any skill, the more precise the feedback you get, the faster you learn how to get others to do what you want them to do. You will also get them to do it because they want to please you rather than because they feel coerced. When you measure the behavior you want to change, you will be able to see how quickly the changes take place. The data will also give you important clues as to whether these changes are the product of positive or negative reinforcement.

Progress requires measurement.

Measurement is the key to progress. In many areas of past human endeavor, progress was slow until effective measurement techniques were devised. The telescope and microscope, for example, generated great advances in astronomy and biology because they allowed better and more precise measurement than was possible with the naked eye. New measurement technologies have accelerated progress in science, technology, and business for the same reason. Similarly, human performance benefits from advances in measurement because it permits us to detect subtle changes in behavior.

If you do not measure, you usually cannot tell if performance is getting better, getting worse, or staying the same. Under those conditions, improvement results from chance, rather than from rational planning and evaluation.

Feedback and reinforcement require measurement.

Feedback - useful information on performance - is an essential part of Performance Management. Therefore, the effective application of PM requires measurement. Feedback depends on data - data obtained by measuring relevant performance. How are people to know how they are doing if their performance is not measured?

Optimal performance also requires reinforcement. Measurement increases the effectiveness of reinforcement because data helps you separate real from apparent change. Without measurement you may think there is an improvement when there is not - or vice versa. Without data, you may reinforce the wrong behavior, or reinforce at the wrong time. In other words, data helps you plan what and when to reinforce. By watching the data, even small improvements can be detected and reinforced when appropriate.

Measurement also helps you identify positive reinforcers by giving you a way to measure the effect of various reinforcers on performance. You may think you have an effective reinforcer to apply to someone's behavior, but if the behavior doesn't increase, then what you are using is not a reinforcer. By measuring the effect of the intended reinforcer on behavior, you can discover this earlier than you would without measurement.

Data also will inform you of when the value of the reinforcer you have been using is beginning to lose its effect through satiation. If the performance begins to decline over time, data will show that the value of the reinforcer has changed. With data, you can correct the problem before a serious deterioration in performance occurs.

Measuring increases credibility.

A popular saying among some quality professionals is, "In God we trust; all others bring data." They say this because solutions are often found by analyzing data, so those with data are more likely to have solutions. People perceive individuals who support their points with data as being objective and persuasive. Furthermore, those who offer solutions are more likely to command respect and have more influence in decision making. Ultimately, when people disagree, the one with the data is most likely to prevail.

Measuring reduces emotionalism and increases constructive problem solving.

Using objective unbiased data on performance reduces emotionalism. People get upset when they do not understand why someone says they are not doing well. Measurement helps us communicate the specifics of performance. If people understand why you have made a particular decision about performance, they are more likely to calmly discuss and accept the decision, because they understand that your action is not arbitrary, but based on fact.

Managing effectively requires performance data. If you do not have data to support your assessments, you may appear opinionated, subjective, and irrational. When data is continually collected and openly displayed, performance trends become more apparent. This allows the performer to take action to correct problems sooner than would be possible if they did not have measurement.

The introduction of Statistical Process Control (SPC) methods of Shewart (1939) as cited in Deming (1986) and others has made it possible for companies to make significant improvements in quality. With these measures, managers can separate variance in the process from variance in the performer. Therefore, when these measures are available, if performance is down as a result of variation in a process that is out of the performer's control, performers are less likely to be blamed. Another significant benefit of SPC is that the data tells performers when to take action to keep their process in control.

Data also increases the probability that you will make the right decisions about promotions, suspensions, performance appraisals, and of course, positive reinforcement. People who have the appropriate data have a clearer basis for devising effective solutions to problems. For example, displaying data at crew, shift, sales, or other meetings puts the focus on performance, not on excuses.

As a necessary condition for developing and maintaining optimal performance, measurement is one of the key attributes of Performance Management. 

*SOURCE: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT: CHANGING BEHAVIOR THAT DRIVES ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS, 4TH ED., 2004,  AUBREY C. DANIELS & JAMES E. DANIELS, PGS. 131-133*

end