I wanted to write and support Kevin’s point of view. In my experience the audit of standard work is the most important way to measure performance in terms of productivity and behavior. If management ensures that standards are in place and improved often then anyone who follows them will meet production. If they don’t follow standards then there is either a problem with the standard or they are just choosing not to follow them which is a choice and reflects on behavior.

I agree that there is a small % of people that will never be supportive of a team and they need to find other places to work, but it is a very small %. In my experience, when you focus on the procsss, implement standards and measure in the right way many of the people that would be considered “whiners” are suddenly stars. As the team starts to become more self-managed the performance issues work themselves out through peer pressure.

Thanks for the great discussion,

Lee

I don’t think we ever had any measurements at an individual level. In my opinion, the performance management system that we have is flawed. Most of us give a 4 or a 5 and there is no real way to track who delivers and who does not. I agree with you about measuring individuals on following standard work. It is not only standard work. It is also their behavior. I’m looking forward to the HPA performance measurement that is supposed to include behavior assessment of individuals.

You also mentioned “Hard on the process, not on the people”. I disagree to a certain extent. Management also needs to be hard on people as well. When change happens, 95% of the whiners will keep whining. Maybe 5% will change for the good. I think that performance needs to be checked regularly, perhaps every quarter, and the people who don’t deliver need to be let go. We are all working for money. We are not volunteers. The organization pays us to do our job well. Only by letting go of people who don’t deliver regularly we can build a high performing team. This way we can also avoid big layoffs and avoid having to lose good people just because their project is scrapped. In the end, it is all about the people. It is all about the RIGHT people. If you don’t have the right people on the bus, it is time to sell your stocks.

Anand

It seems key that most performance measurement takes place at the team level. Focusing on individual measurements is the way we used to do things. There is still a need to measure individuals, but that isn’t through productivity goals and measures.

I think the best way to measure individuals is to audit their use of standard work. We need to make sure they’re really using it and using it well, and modify the standard work (for everybody on the team) if problems are discovered.

Does that make sense?

Following up on that comment, if peer pressure becomes the primary driver of performance, then within a team, indivuduals need to be measured at an individual level rather than at a team level. I agree that the work would become more visible. What evidently becomes visible is who delivers and who does not. I’m a total believer in differentiation and the 20-70-10 principle and wish this is applied at all levels.

It is great to know about the contrasts in culture. It would help if you could also shed some light about contrasts related to measurements and incentives.

Should be an interesting read!