Ginger,
You are asking good and challenging questions. Let me expand on my prior
letter and see if that helps. First, I am not arguing for or defending
the kinds of perforamnce appraisals that Roxanne described. I agree they
are destructive. On the other hand, I am uncomfortable with any viewpoint
that excludes personal responsibility. The approach I am espousing
encourages learning, avoids judgement, and creates opportunities for
people to take empowerment. It is not the approach used broadly at my
company, and Bean is not necessarily espousing this. It is also not far
different from what Bean does. I am the only one responsible for what I
am describing.
You refer once or twice to 'the people I am trying to judge'. I reiterate
I am not judging anyone. I am describing another approach which is
neither judgemental nor devoid of responsibility.
I distinguish between judging and having expectations of someone. The
expectations are not mine alone. I have the expectations that I and the
other person have agreed on.
In that spirit, I said there is no escape from personal responsibility.
What did I mean by that? Well if someone says they will tackle a problem,
then I expect they will. They may not resolve it, but they will tackle
it. How can I expect less? They expect it of themselves, after all.
You know, today is a great day to talk about personal responsibility and
empowerment. Martin Luther King -- and other heroes of my youth --
practiced personal responsibility. MLK could well have chosen a different
path. He didn't choose his path because his boss said, go out and fix
racism. He found reasons within himself to tackle an 'impossible'
problem, and he made enormous strides. He could well have said, well,
let's do an organizational assessment top-down and then we'll understand
the problems. He didn't bother with that because he already understood
the problems. He lived with them.
The same is true of most organizational problems. People know the causes.
They don't need to wait for a top-down assessment that someone gives them
permission to do. If I went to my boss and said you know we got a problem
here between the buying process and the receiving process, he would say,
well, fix it! If I then say, I can't because senior management is the
problem, and I have to wait for a top down appraisal, he would say, look,
don't tell me I'm the problem. I don't want this problem. I never heard
of it until today. Please fix it. if I say, well, what about the
top-down assessment, he'll say don't wait for me to do it, do it yourself.
Therefore, when you say that when we appraise the organization we are
appraising the people from the top down, I have two problems. First,
"appraise" is not a word I would use here. My intent never was to
evaluate the organization or the people. It is to identify a weakness
that needs attention. Identifying a weakness is not the same as evaluating
it or in some way diminishing people who are associated with it. We don't
need appraisal, we don't need judging, we don't need evaluation. We need
to fix a problem.
Second, top-down is the same old bad medecine. We don't need a top-down
assessment, we need an inside-out assessment. We can and have done
Baldridge assessment, and we learned a lot. However, it never identified
the problem between buying and receiving. This needs a local viewpoint,
and despite all the bad press given to senior management, there is no one
in senior management who wants that problem to go on existing. By and
large, senior management never created the systems and processes they are
blamed for. Systems and processes that were once fine just got old and
irrelevant.
Martin Luther King took personal responsibility. He was also empowered.
People mostly describe empowerment as something that is gven by a manager
to a subordinate. This is not empowerment, it is the same old
paternalism. If I give it, then I can take it. If it can be taken away,
then it is not empowerment. MLK was empowered, and no one could take it
away from him. Why? Because he took empowerment when he accepted
personal responsibility for fixing the injustices of an entire nation.
This is the key lesson of King. Accepting personal responsibility is
synonymous with taking empowerment. The person who does that is a
formidable person indeed.
The next question is how does a person like me enable someone else to
empower themselves. If I can create an environment that allows people to
take empowerment, then I succeed. Some of it is training, but by and
large, that is the easy part. Not that we do enough of it, but it is
still the easy part.
I look to the best learners for my inspiration. Babys don't know how to
walk when they set out to learn, nor do they know how to talk. Six year
olds do not know how to ride a bike when they set out to learn. MLK did
not know how to lead a nation when he set out to learn. The common
element here is that they all practiced something that, if you really
think about it, seems impossible.
So I provide people a chance to struggle with impossible problems. My
only goal is that they take personal responsibility for the struggle, and
for learning. If they do that, they need not fear my judgement. I always
have a small collection of 'impossible' problems, and I give them to
people when I think they are ready for it. In many cases, they will
struggle and learn, and that is enough. Every once in awhile,someone will
succeed. It just happens that I am going through this with someone right
now. This person has realized there was no one but herself preventing her
from taking empowerment. Now that she has taken it, she has a sense of
power that no one can take away from her.
So, in this context, how do I answer your points? You said, "I believe
you may have misunderstood Deming's point. The 'people' who created and
are responsible for the "systems and processes" are senior
management/leadership, not the line production worker you're trying to
evaluate. Nothing wrong with asking someone to fix a process, if you have
empowered them (which must be preceeded with enabling, i.e., providing the
requisite skills) to do so. However, I don't think any "systems" are for
the line worker to be tinkering with!! Again, a thorough org
self-assessment will reveal where the system needs attention, where the
process can be improved, and exactly where your employees lack necessary
skills. Also, it will be obvious where management/leadership is letting
the organization down."
I did not misunderstand Deming's point, I disagree with him. He was an
engineer, not a psychologist, and he incorrectly blamed many things on the
'senior management' boogey man. Deming was brilliant and hugely
insightful, but in this case, he was practicing exactly the blaming and
judging that he railed against. Senior managers do not deserve it any
more than line workers. If we believe in systems and process, then let's
practice it on everyone, not just line workers. Second, as I explained
above, I don't empower, they do it for themselves. Other wise it does not
count. If I give I can take away. Third, I emphatically _do_ think
systems are for the line worker to be tinkering with if they are their
systems. Fourth, the line workers should conduct the assessment. They
will likely tell me what skills they need if this is done correctly.
I said that we need to be careful to not hold people accountable for
things that the system then prevents them from doing. Your response was
to ask how do I know if the system is preventing success. Generally, I
just ask. They know. They can tell me. Failing to ask would be the
height of arrogance and presumptuousness.
You refer to data collection. "My knowledge journey has led me to
discover the need for decision-based data collection efforts (an
information management system ala Goldratt.) In other words, information
coming from the system should answer the questions asked--by workers, by
management, by leadership, by the self-assessment process."
I am unfamiliar with these systems, but if they are computer-based, then
they are doomed. I don't know any company, no matter how rich, who thinks
they have all the process information they need to understand themselves.
Why? Because company information needs are changing approximately every
18 months, but computer systems can only be rebuilt every 3 years at most.
As a consequence, only critical systems are current, and everything else
tends to be out of date.
So, where are we? I can summarize my opinion. It is that people like MLK
exemplify the power of personal responsibility and empowerment. In a
corporate context, management can provide enabling experiences and
mentoring and training. The rest comes from the employee. The power
occurs precisely because the employee takes personal responsibility and
empowerment. The person may not succeed in the project, but as long as
they learn, you can't ask for more. In general, I think I am far more
willing to share responsibility than you are. The best way to find out
someone's opinion of what is happening in a project is to ask them, and
trust them. Finally, expect what you have agreed to expect.
-- Rol Fessenden LL Bean 76234.3636@compuserve.com