Pseudoscience measure the performance of employees
is one of the most irrational practices of Management, which is given the appearance of science, based on to complicate absurd evaluation tables and formulas that subjectivity takes the appearance of objectivity.
Many evaluators and evaluated honestly believe that doing the right thing. I understand that common sense leads us to conclude that the practice is based. But common sense sometimes deceive us, our intelligence has its limitations. From our childhood we are taught to compete and gain scores, both at school and in sports or games. But the competition is poor among people who remain in the same organization should work together for their benefit. In turn, the scores should be interpreted knowledge of statistics to know when the different scores are due to chance or merit.
is no obvious and this distinction requires knowledge not usual. If you do not have this knowledge, they can mistakenly believe that an employee does his job better than someone who has obtained a "result" worse when the reality is that the difference is random, the degree of variability that the system itself produces.
Evaluations are a way to "manage" without looking at the people, without knowing and without being in day to day work, which makes managing from ignorance. For without adequate managerial skills and knowledge is easier to justify on the basis of scores, which manage the day to day everything can be improved and understanding people. As I said W. Edwards Deming " Feedback employees is the abdication of Management," 1994, "The New Economics."
If the welfare of employees depends on the score, such as is reasonable given more attention to it than any other aspect of the work or his own manager. Even if this company goes out injured, it is not its function question whether the goals have negative aspects for the organization (see reason 8).
manager's time would be much more useful and effective seeing for himself the daily work of its employees, teaching them to improve at the time and no later than one year and listening to their suggestions, filling out forms and looking graphics. Many pseudo-managers, however, do not support the work of their employees because they know what their role is limited to the administration, always easier to improve and learn.
W. Edwards Deming was frontally against any form of assessment as inconvenient for both the employee and the organization. Some of his reasons:
1 .- You can not know the true performance of employees by the score obtained by any method , chance and the organizational system have an influence of 95%. All scores are within a band with measurable limits, are as a result of chance and the system itself. Employees can not change it, only management can improve the system. Employees who are in this band are in the system and its score by chance.
An example of 6 employees who are measured judgments obtained score over 4 months old. Despite the differences (between 4 and 15), no score of any employee in any month is located outside the band of red lines are the random scores. Any result within the band (from 1 to 18 failures) is obtainable by random causes.
- Courtesy of Rafael Aguayo "The Metaknowledge Advantage", New York, 2004 -
2 .- Destroy collaboration among employees, departments and units creating competition harmful competition.
Deming said " The assessment creates competition between individuals, vendors, teams and departments." The New Economics "1994 - Ch 2-The Heavy Losses", page 26
3 .- denigrates the role of management, reducing it to mere administrative or judge who rewards and punishes with scores that are alien and usually subject to rules and rates that are imposed. But it leads him to be a leader who is, help, listen and understand your employees to improve their work
Deming said "... Management by numerical targets is an attempt to lead without the necessary knowledge ... usually ends up turning into fear direction. " "Out of the Crisis" 1982 - Ch.2 "Principles for Transformation," page 76
4 .- It is the objective which helps to improve, but the method. What new method we will get better results? The rest is to give a moody number that is worth more than a wish.
Many managers simply propose goals and make a deployment in the organization the conviction that this result is achieved. This is the model that Harold Geneen, ITT Directorr requirements and that he was carrying near ITT to ruin. This is what Deming called "Working backwards, establish desired outcomes and derive from them all the prerequisites necessary ..." Rafael Aguayo, 1990 in " Dr. Deming, The American Who Taught the Japanese About Quality ."
Only when the target is a vital need of the organization is justified this way of working, but not the method its chances of success are minimal.
Produce demoralized people.
The number of well-meaning and intelligent people who feel cheated by the system of assessments include even those who obtained the best results.
6 .- Favorecee cheating and deception to get the best score . Deming advised that if he made a scoring exercise, most people would come in the band calculation in which the results were due to chance, but if someone brought extraordinary results out of the band should see if you are doing something that harms the company in the long term, and if someone was under the band had to teach it to improve its management obligation. Or look for a job where according to their abilities. The selection is a key and the employee is not selected itself.
7 .- is based on the false assumption that most people only strive rewards and punishments.
8 .- Learn to departmental objectives between which there is some form of incompatibility is in most cases, impossible without appropriate systemic knowledge. Whether in the short or long term, the deployment of the objectives of an organization leads to conflicting goals.
Too often reducing costs in the short produces an increase in long-term costs elsewhere in the organization, when the analysis can be performed with a systemic view.
9 .- Achieving optimal results in a process can undermine the whole enterprise . (See my article "Optimal of the parties does not guarantee the optimal set " http://wp.me/p16VSv-3b ).
To this one might add that according to Alfie Kohn in "Punished by Rewards " economic incentives in most societies today, are useful only in 3 cases:
a) In repetitive tasks
b) When the amount is more important than quality
c) In short-term results
10 .- The evaluation costs are the horrors and cost of inefficiency management and administrative management of assessments and information technology.
11 .- Many of the most important aspects of a company are immeasurable. There endless somo examples of lost opportunities, identify unnecessary work without the involvement or the degree of learning.
entire development objectives should pay for the little faith that managers have about employees. Is designed under the premise of the bad employee who needs to "prize" or "punishment" to strive to do their job.
The solution is leadership, management in day to day, meet the staff, talk to them frequently, to understand and know how to do things, to help them improve and avoid errors continuously improving the system. This is the role of a manager and do algorithms measurements alleged that only lead to disaster. But for this the manager must have adequate knowledge, hence their inability to be supplemented with absurd methods.
The wage increases should be made by means other alleged individual performance measurements or units. Each company may follow a certain policy. The increases may be related to the overall performance of the entire organization, there may be a distribution of concepts such as seniority, the view of the immediate manager or the ability of sales, but according to a scheme in which all who belong to the same organization are rewarded by the outcome of all.
0 comments:
Post a Comment