「華人戴明學院」是戴明哲學的學習共同體 ,致力於淵博型智識系統的研究、推廣和運用。 The purpose of this blog is to advance the ideas and ideals of W. Edwards Deming.

2022年10月10日 星期一

永和2件都更的故事

 永和2件都更的故事前曲

佳美;21/28曾山外陳老闆 孝道;夫妻等關心不同

2022年10月9日 星期日

20世紀最強「威爾許式經營」,如今被說害慘美國 Why big business is falling out of love with the annual performance review




Why big business is falling out of love with the annual performance review
    
Lately a small but growing number of major U.S. companies, includingAccenture, Adobe and Gap, have been saying goodbye to an annual rite of corporate life that both employees and managers love to hate: the traditional performance review.
Now General Electric, long seen as Corporate America's bellwether for management practices, is joining their ranks by piloting a big shift in the way it handles reviews at the industrial giant.
GE's overhaul, which the company recently began sharing publicly, is likely to be viewed as a tipping point in the rush to remake a process that both workers and their bosses have increasingly felt needs repair. It is experimenting with replacing a once-a-year formal review with more frequent conversations, introducing an app to help employees' managers and teammates share feedback and testing the idea of using no performance ratings at all.
Though the company has not decided whether it will do away with ratings, its testing of the concept is seen as a milestone — not just given GE's size, but given its historic association with the idea of rating and ranking employees. Its new changes are something of a corporate confession that the process, championed in its most aggressive form under former CEO Jack Welch in the 1980s and '90s, may be out of step with the modern-day workforce.
"Even more powerful than Deloitte or Accenture saying it's getting rid of scores," said Brian Kropp, the HR practice leader for the Corporate Executive Board, "is when you see companies that are known for developing great talent [do the same]. If a company like GE were to make the transition, that would really be powerful."
To date nearly 10 percent of Fortune 500 companies have done away with annual ratings, according to Cliff Stevenson, a senior research analyst for the Institute for Corporate Productivity, a research network that studies management practices. Adobe and Medtronic were some of the earliest large companies to do so several years ago, followed by places like Microsoft and Gap. That number is likely to rapidly grow.
"The snowball has started rolling," Stevenson said. "I would not be surprised to see next year when we do the large survey again that it may jump into the twenties." 
Others have a sense of deja vu, recalling the rush by companies to copy the "forced ranking" system Welch promoted. That system — since abandoned by GE — required supervisors to assign a certain percentage of employees to high, medium and low rankings, and then to cut the low ones. "We had countless chief human resources officers beating on our door, going: 'Look what that did for GE, we need one of those too,’ " said Ravin Jesuthasan, a consultant with Towers Watson. Now, he says, "we're at a similar rush to people going 'we need approaches like this.' It has a feeling of being the issue du jour."
Jesuthasan and others say the clamor to overhaul performance reviews is being driven by several factors. Technology is one: The amount of data available to companies to track worker performance on a real-time basis, as well as the ability to create apps and tools managers and workers can use to monitor performance, has grown exponentially.
In addition, over the past decade, the average manager's responsibilities have nearly doubled from four to seven direct reports, according to the Corporate Executive Board. This has led to a decrease in the amount of time that many managers spend informally coaching and mentoring any given employee. 
This downward trend in managerial feedback in the workplace has been taking place at the same time as there has been an upward trend in feedback elsewhere in peoples' lives, whether from friends liking photos on social media or consumers giving product reviews. That tension has made standard corporate culture feel particularly discordant for younger generations.

2022

傳奇CEO變病毒?20世紀最強「威爾許式經營」,如今被說害慘美國

【陳良榕專欄】最近有3本新書,不約而同清算威爾許。他的經營模式曾大受崇拜,子弟兵掌管很多企業,如今被形容成病毒,這是落井下石或典範轉移?



" 當前美國的種種問題,製造業外移、貧富差距擴大、企業重視股東勝於員工、工會式微等,相當程度都可歸咎到奇異的「威爾許式經營」,甚至將之稱為「病毒」..."
學長 陳良榕好文 ! 很諷刺吧,財經媒體昨日捧上天的經營之神,今天看起來卻像是經營之毒?這讓我想起最近關站的某媒體集團創辦人,當年高薪誘之搖蘋果樹棄之,亦曾被捧為報業破壞式創新典範,而今安在哉的事例。
可能是到了大叔年紀,愈來愈常提醒自己,很多事情也對也錯,善未易明、理未易察。

2015
"If you put this new generation in the box of the performance management we've used the last 30 years, you lose them,” said Accenture chief executive Pierre Nanterme. "People want to know on an ongoing basis, am I doing right? Am I moving in the right direction? Do you think I'm progressing? Nobody's going to wait for an annual cycle to get that feedback."
Accenture CEO on why he's ending annual performance reviews | On Leadership
Play Video1:01
Pierre Nanterme says Accenture will get rid of rankings for all 330,000 employees. (The Washington Post)
This, all while corporate leaders, it seems, haven't actually saved time or money by relegating feedback to a once-a-year cycle. Given the increased number of direct reports, the average manager now spends 210 hours a year on performance review-related activities, like filling out forms and delivering evaluations. Once those hours are added to the cost of the system itself, the Corporate Executive Board estimates that a company of 10,000 employees spends about $35 million per year to do its annual reviews. Deloitte, which has also said it's transforming its system, says it was spending 2 million hours a year on evaluations.
Finally, the accelerating pace of change has caused many companies to realize the goals set at the beginning of the year may be completely out of date by the end of it. More and more companies are paying out quarterly bonuses. Unless managers check in with employees more often, a single conversation at the end of the year can be pointless.
That increasing pace of change is the biggest reason GE is trying to evolve its program, said Athena Kaviris, a senior HR executive for GE Transportation. "Anything you wait a year to give meaningful feedback on is already old news," she said.
Most of the new performance management systems rolling out there and elsewhere are designed to gather more information, not less. Several of these companies, including Accenture and GE, are building proprietary apps that will more easily chart the ongoing performance discussions between employees and their supervisors, in some cases auto-flagging trouble areas if concerns show up repeatedly over the course of the year. 
"The HR function is becoming much more data and analytics driven," Kropp said.
The power of such technology means not only that employers can better target development programs, but it also potentially gives them even more legal defensibility around personnel decisions like raises or firings, since they have a greater frequency of conversations on record, and all collected in one digital hub.
Some think technology has another use: correcting for any biases managers have. The real problem, says Marcus Buckingham, a management consultant who works with companies on employee performance, isn't ratings themselves — indeed, big companies with hundreds of thousands of employees might need them to help differentiate the best performers from everyone else. It’s the sense that ratings are unfair and plagued with bias, with some managers rating people more harshly than others. Using data to test for biases could help mitigate that.
Technology could also help cut down on that end-of-the-year paperwork pileup. GE will still have a summary conversation at the end of the year, but the new program is designed to let that final conversation happen more naturally, without employees and managers having to recall a year's worth of accomplishments and setbacks. Some 80,000 GE workers are expected to pilot the program this year, with plans to roll it out company wide by the end of 2016.
A much smaller group — roughly 8,000 workers this year — is piloting the "no-ratings" concept. While Kaviris says the company is undecided about whether it will proceed with the idea, she says it's "likely we'll end up still having ratings."
At Accenture, the change away from both ratings and a single annual discussion will begin this September. The concept has been in the works for about a year, after the firm crowdsourced feedback from its workforce about what it could do to boost employees' desire to work at Accenture, and thus their productivity.
"The most important thing was improving employees' performance," said Accenture's HR chief Ellyn Shook. "What we realized was, there was nothing about what we were doing that helped us achieve that. Our managers were unhappy, our employees were unhappy."
While Shook says she's not sure yet whether the new system will save the firm money, she says she is confident that it will give Accenture a better return on its investment. Last year, it spent $787 million on training for its staff.
Read also:
Like On Leadership? Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and subscribe to our podcast on iTunes.
Lillian Cunningham is the editor and feature writer for The Washington Post's 'On Leadership' section.

20世紀最強「威爾許式經營」,如今被說害慘美國 Jack Welch: GE & The Corporate Practice Of Public Hangings


2022

傳奇CEO變病毒?20世紀最強「威爾許式經營」,如今被說害慘美國

【陳良榕專欄】最近有3本新書,不約而同清算威爾許。他的經營模式曾大受崇拜,子弟兵掌管很多企業,如今被形容成病毒,這是落井下石或典範轉移?



" 當前美國的種種問題,製造業外移、貧富差距擴大、企業重視股東勝於員工、工會式微等,相當程度都可歸咎到奇異的「威爾許式經營」,甚至將之稱為「病毒」..."
學長 陳良榕好文 ! 很諷刺吧,財經媒體昨日捧上天的經營之神,今天看起來卻像是經營之毒?這讓我想起最近關站的某媒體集團創辦人,當年高薪誘之搖蘋果樹棄之,亦曾被捧為報業破壞式創新典範,而今安在哉的事例。
可能是到了大叔年紀,愈來愈常提醒自己,很多事情也對也錯,善未易明、理未易察。

2012
Leadership
|
4/26/2012 @ 2:35下午 |2,889 views

Jack Welch: GE & The Corporate Practice Of Public Hangings

“At GE, the only things that move the culture are ones that show up in our income statement. It’s just the way we were raised.”
Jeff Immelt,  “The Process of Growth”,  HBR 2006
In my article yesterday, David Brooks: Competitiveness vs Creativity: GE vs Apple, I discussed how GE’s culture of competitiveness is proving to be much less successful than Apple’s [AAPL] culture of creativity aimed at continuously adding new value for customers.
Thus GE’s CEO Jeff Immelt indicated in 2006 that GE’s approach of running the company by what affects the bottom line is a permanent part of the GE culture: “It’s just the way we were raised.”
And how were the managers of GE raised? Some light was shed on this issue on March 29, 2012, when Jack Welch, who was CEO of GE from 1981 to 2001, appeared on CNBC’s Squawkbox.

Goldman Sachs & Greg Smith: hold a public hanging

The conversation began with a discussion as to what Goldman Sachs [GS] should do in the light of the Op.Ed. piece written by Greg Smith about the culture at Goldman where clients were said to be treated like “muppets”.
Welch said: “This isn’t about Greg Smith. It’s about Greg Smith’s manager and that manager’s manager. You go in and you look at how Greg Smith was appraised. Was Greg Smith told of his shortcomings? Or was he getting check-marked, ‘Fully satisfactory’? And then you get on with the business of making them accountable.”
In other words, find one or two managers to blame and hold a public hanging.
Welch went on:
“If you don’t have public hangings for bad culture in a company, if you don’t take people out and let them say, they went home to spend more time with the family. It’s crazy.”
“Public hangings are teaching moments. Every company has to do it. A teaching moment is worth a thousand CEO speeches. CEOs can talk and blab each day about culture, but the employees all know who the jerks are. They could name the jerks for you. It’s just cultural. People just don’t want to do it.
“If you lay out, ‘This is why Mary left. Mary left because she was not gender-blind. She wouldn’t globalize the company. She’s a good person, but she didn’t fit our values.’ Whenever someone goes, there’s got to be a reason why they go. If you want to build a culture, culture really counts. “Culture drives great results. You talk about it all the time. You measure your people and you take action on those that don’t measure up. There are people who did bad things there. Greg Smith didn’t make it up. So some people got away with doing bad things. So you go in and you hang those people. They have to be hanged publicly. Public hanging is an awful expression, but it is what leadership is all about. It teaches others what you will tolerate and what you won’t tolerate. There’s no other way around that. You have three or four people who are horse’s asses and you get them out of the place and the game changes. I’ll guarantee it.”

Strengthening the culture by public hangings

Welch waxed lyrical about the importance of corporate culture.
“Everybody in America,” Welch said, “not just Goldman Sachs, has got to pay attention to the culture as much as the numbers. Great cultures deliver great numbers. Great numbers don’t deliver great cultures. So when you’re measuring people, you’ve got to have a set of behaviors, whether they be, like, treat people like the way you’d like to be treated yourself, treat customers the way you would want to be treated, whether it be speed, whether it be trying your best to promote them. You measure performance against that, against your performance in numbers. You put people on quadrants.
  • One quadrant is great culture/great numbers. Onward and upward for these people.
  • Another quadrant is bad numbers/bad culture. Bad news. Easy. Get them out.
  • The third quadrant is good culture/tough numbers. Give them another chance. They buy into what you’re doing. They might have a family problem. Give them a shot.
  • The one the kills companies is the fourth quadrant—the horse’s ass, the one who has cultural problems and good numbers. The CEO says, given them one more quarter and the problem will be fixed.”
The problem with Welch’s approach to culture? What Welch says is not what GE’s managers heard. As Immelt observed in his 2006 interview: “At GE, the only things that move the culture are ones that show up in our income statement.”

In other words, the good culture/bad culture part of Welch’s quadrants somehow got lost. The message that got through and that stuck was the overriding focus on “making the numbers.”

The case of Robert Nardelli at Home Depot

The stars and the survivors at GE were those who had good numbers. This became obvious when one of the GE’s top managers, Robert Nardelli, who was the runner-up to Immelt to be CEO at GE, became the CEO of Home Depot [HD]. Nardelli’s blunt, autocratic command-and-control management style turned off employees and the public alike. Nardelli cut back on experienced full-time employees and replaced them with inexperienced part-time help. In the short run, this move helped Nardelli make his numbers by reducing costs, but undermined customer service at the very time when competitors were making inroads into Home Depot’s business nationwide. In due course, Nardelli was forced out of Home Depot: he became the CEO of Chrysler until its bankruptcy.

The practice of routine public hangings

The focus on ‘making the numbers’ is also reinforced by GE’s widely emulated practice of culling the bottom 15 percent of its staff on a systematic basis. Regardless of absolute merit in these firms, if you are at the bottom of your cohort, you are on your way out.
The impact of such practices at Microsoft [MSFT] has been described thus:
“Manager favoritism runs rampant in the company, it can have a direct impact on how well you do regardless of metrics. HR has covered themselves with a clause in the rating system, “In relation to your peers.” Let’s say that you have a team of rock stars, not uncommon at Microsoft, of a pool of 50 people approximately 3-4 people will need to be placed into the lowest rating which means they will be on a program that will be difficult to get out of and likely asked to leave the company… If you are reporting to a manager that you don’t get along with, your days will potentially be numbered.”

NFL and the practice of public hangings

One might contrast the practice of routine public hangings practice at GE and Microsoft with the more selective approach of the National Football League (NFL).
In 1962 some NFL players were found to be involved betting small sums of money on the outcome of football games. In that season, Paul Hornung, the Green Bay Packers halfback and the league’s most valuable player (MVP), and Alex Karras, a star defensive tackle for the Detroit Lions, were accused of betting on NFL games, including games in which they played. Pete Rozelle, the NFL Commissioner, responded swiftly. Hornung and Karras were suspended for a season. As a result, the NFL has remained quite separate from gambling. The coaches and players spend all of their time trying to win games, not gaming the games.
A similar approach was adopted by the NFL when it discovered recently the practice of paying players bounties for injuring other players. The NFL suspended one of the most successful and widely admired coaches for a year without pay, sending a clear signal that such practices would not be tolerated.
The NFL’s punishments are highly focused on specific offenses and aimed at rooting out those practices permanently. Imagine how ineffective the NFL’s actions would be if they routinely punished “the bottom 15 percent of coaches” for no particular reason. The punishments would create a climate of fear, and distract from the playing of the game.
Similarly at Apple [AAPL], there were public hangings but they were in response to the specific offense of being unresponsive to customers. The following incident, reported in a recent article by Adam Lashinsky in Fortune captures the essence:
Shortly after the launch event, he summoned the MobileMe team, gathering them in the Town Hall auditorium in Building 4 of Apple’s campus, the venue the company uses for intimate product unveilings for journalists. According to a participant in the meeting, Jobs walked in, clad in his trademark black mock turtleneck and blue jeans, clasped his hands together, and asked a simple question:
“Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?” Having received a satisfactory answer, he continued, “So why the f*ck doesn’t it do that?” …
On the spot, Jobs named a new executive to run the group.
It wasn’t that Steve Jobs was kind and gentle with his employees. He wasn’t. What he brought to Apple was a fierce commitment to see the world honestly through the eyes of the customer and to do whatever was necessary to delight them.

Creativity is incompatible with climate of fear

The problem with Jack Welch’s practice of public hangings is not that they occurred, but rather that they occurred routinely, and so create a culture of competitiveness that undermines the openness needed for innovation. It encourages a workplace where people are focused on ‘making the numbers’, cultivating their boss and staying out of trouble.
The practice of routine public hangings sounds tough, but is in fact weak. As David Brooks’ column suggests, it celebrates competitiveness over creativity. It ignores W. Edwards Deming’s dictum to drive fear out of the workplace. By doing the opposite and instilling fear throughout the workforce, it eliminates the possibility of a culture of continuous improvement.
In the 20th Century, big organizations could get by with such practices. But times have changed. Continuous improvement, which was once an option, is now a necessity. The antiquated 20th Century management practices at GE and Microsoft need to be replaced with a radically different workplace, focused on delighting customers, where managers become enablers rather than controllers, where the work is coordinated by dynamic linking rather than bureaucratic practices like routine public hangings, where the values of continuous improvement and transparent and communications are horizontal rather than top-down commands.
Read also:

網誌存檔