At 06:25 7/8/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Well . . . if employee performance is not highly correlated with customer
>satisfaction, indeed, *predictive* of such satisfaction then the job
>required of the employee is the *wrong* performance. Correcting that
>problem makes the measurement of employee performance perfectly
>appropriate and, in fact, makes employee performance a "second order"
>measurement of customer satisfaction.
Hal, you are hands down correct that there must be a high correlation
between customer satisfaction and employee performance. In the context of
learning organizations however, it is mandatory IMHO to move past (while
continuing to measure) that "predictive" correlation as an established
plateau in the ever upward cycle of improvement and renewal. What I
sensed Ginger was saying (while never presuming to speak for her) is that
measurement of employee performance is where most organizational metric
processes stop. This leaves an organization well short of the necessary
understanding (in both customer aand employee satisfaction) of "why" it is
achieving its level of performance and little, if any, truly predictive
information upon which to base future decisions. While devised for other
purposes, Deming's "Red Bead" experiment would serve to illustrate the
point I hope I'm making.
William
William O. Welsh III
Systems Integration Synergist
Cubic Application, Inc
wilycat@infi.net
--"William O. Welsh III" <wilycat@infi.net>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>