Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:57:00 GMT
From:         Dag Forssell <0004742580@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Commercial error signal?
X-To:         csg <CSG-L@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>

[From Dag Forssell (920830-2)
((920827) was begun 8/27 but posted earlier today).

A prospective customer asked for an explanation of our view of
Performance Reviews.

Any comments? Gets mailed Monday pm.

                                                          August 30, 1992
Dear Mr. :

It was a pleasure to meet you last Monday. Our flight to Los Angeles was
pleasantly uneventful, and we enjoyed reading the Inspiring Quality
Employee Guide. Your receptionist also gave us the 1991 Annual Report.

The past week has been hectic. I am pleased to report that we now have
received our first booking for a complete presentation of our programs.

You asked us to provide a proposal on our alternative to the employee
development / performance review program.

Our approach to performance reviews is built into our programs as one of
the "Leadership applications" on the second day. I will attempt here to
provide a thumbnail sketch of our basic approach and then show the
carryover to Performance Reviews.

You will recognize the following diagram from page two of the separate
summary: Control: What it is; where it applies:

                  (Control Diagram)

Taken as a simplistic summary of a person, this diagram shows that what
a person wants is of major importance, along with how a person perceives
things. The arrows represent signals and influences between the elements
labeled in this diagram. The arrow going from the comparison between Want
and Perception is called "error signal" in engineering language (error
= difference). This is a measure of satisfaction, where  error = zero is
satisfaction, and anything else a degree of dissatisfaction.

You have heard the old saying: "Necessity is the mother of invention".
It is more accurate to say that: "Dissatisfaction is the mother of
invention".

This measure of satisfaction is central to control. It drives everything,
large and small. Hunger and thirst are physical examples of this "error"
signal. They drive us to action, don't they?

Respect for a person, as we teach it, means to encourage and actively
support the exercise of well-informed, effective and satisfying
individual control. This applies to your family, associates, employees,
vendors, customers and friends.

A challenge for management is to direct and coordinate the activities of
many employees while allowing them to direct themselves. When you
accomplish this, the company can indeed run itself, as you suggested you
want your company to do.

From a PCT perspective, the name of the game is associate satisfaction
at all levels in the organization. Satisfaction by definition is present
when there is no difference (or only a small difference) between what the
associate wants and what the associate perceives.

What then does the associate want, and what does the associate perceive?
Both of these are subjective, unique to each individual, and subject to
re-consideration by the associate. They are far from simplistic, but can
be understood. You will find interesting parallels between your
"Corporate goals waterfalling" and the PCT model's hierarchical structure
in this regard.

If the associate wants the customer to be satisfied, and perceives the
customer to be unhappy, then the associate will not be satisfied but will
take action. If the associate wants the shareholder........   Associate
satisfaction is all there is. Associates is all you have to work with.
Associates must want and perceive many things and take effective action
for the company to function well.

Our application in the first day program "Management Application" is
called "Teaching Effectiveness." The thrust  of our approach is to have
the manager/coach (given a conflict situation) assist the associate in
a re-consideration of wants and perceptions so that the associate is
capable of functioning effectively = with satisfaction.

This is accomplished by asking the associate to spell out:

     1) what the associate wants and

     2) what the associate thinks the company wants.

     The manager can gently question the wisdom of some of the personal
     wants and clarify the company's wants.

     3) The associate must want to resolve any incompatibility, but again
        can get support and counsel on how to do that from the more
        experienced manager.

     4) The associate develops a plan with the manager's help and

     5) both follow up.

To reiterate: The associates are in complete control (self-direction) and
are given every opportunity to align in their mind their wants with the
company's wants.

By respecting the individual associate's self-direction so completely,
and coaching the associate openly in the associate's own best interest,
trust is developed. This results in personal and professional growth.
Traditional performance reviews have the best of intentions. They are
designed to provide feedback and help associates improve and develop.
That is like motherhood and apple pie. You cannot argue with it. Everyone
will agree that performance reviews are desirable. But everyone hates
them. Why?

Please look again at the chart. At the bottom is an element in the
environment labeled: Disturbance. Disturbances affect the things
(Variable) we care about (Perceive, pay attention to) all the time. We
counteract their effect on the variable. A disturbance so strong that we
cannot overcome it overwhelms our control capability. We are unable to
counteract it effectively.  This is violence. It is not satisfying. We
cannot eliminate the error signal. A chronic error signal is chronic
stress.

When an associate or (as planned) supervisor is presented with a
judgement as a fait accompli, the person is presented with a disturbance
(of some aspect of self-concept) that cannot be countered in any
effective way. At the same time the judgement does not give you
meaningful detail on how to improve. It does little to enhance the
person's capability to perceive or choose wants effectively. It does
little to make the person more effective and capable of satisfying
him/her self. It will not in any way create trust to have the judgement
be an anonymous, supposedly objective compilation of many judgements.
That will just make it that much more impossible to counter.

An approach to performance reviews follows naturally as an extension of
the "Teaching Effectiveness" methodology.

While I have told you that the Purposeful LeadershipTM programs are new,
(my contribution is in the clarity of illustrations and a unified
methodology), the approach has been tried before and has worked well
wherever it has been implemented. It accomplishes the following:

     1) On the job satisfaction for associates

     2) Supervisors get a thorough and realistic picture of what the
        associate is doing, is capable of doing, and where assistance is
        needed.

     3) It teaches the associate how to perform better. - To be more
        satisfied.

This requires an interactive process and must of course be respectful,
leaving the associate in control.

This process should be as continuous as possible. This review should
ideally be conducted once a week, at least once a month.

The suggested process goes as follows:

Schedule a regular, undisturbed meeting.

   1) The associate initiates the review by submitting a (hand) written
      description of one or two projects, challenges, situations s/he
      has dealt with since the last meeting. S/he can orally embellish
      any details.

   This leads to a supportive and appreciative discussion, focusing on
   current job issues of whatever kind.

   2) The associate describes one or two areas where s/he believes
      improvement would help improve performance.

   3) Committment to resolve is not an issue where there is no
      conflict.

   4) The supervisor works with the associate to formulate a plan for
      improvement.

   5) The associate and supervisor both commit to carry out the plan.

When reviews are perceived as normal, non-threatening, commonplace
events,  people will relax. They will talk freely about their
expectations, goals and disturbances (problems). The focus is on
assisting one another to be more effective and satisfied. This is a very
personal interaction with mutual respect. This is not institutionalized.
This does develop trust.

You will note that when it comes time to consider a promotion, there is
an excellent and very personal record of the associate's capabilities and
progress.

In our meeting, you noted that the basic values we have expressed seem
in alignment with yours. I can certainly see why when I read your
Corporate Statement of Values.

I really appreciate the detail and spirit expressed here.

We will be pleased to present an overview of our program in four hours
as you mentioned. If you allow us to present the whole program as a pilot
presentation to a representative group from the Quality Council and/or
Team-on-teams, some lively review of the employee guide will result as
they consider their new insight and relate it to the programs.

Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying: "People are best convinced by that
which they themselves discover." Your quality group will stay satisfied
and in control while they voluntarily incorporate new information that
allows them to perceive better and select wants better in their effort
to improve the Inspiring Quality Employee Guide.

Thank you for this opportunity to explain a bit more of how the PCT
paradigm sheds light on the thorny issue of performance reviews.

Please let us know if this commentary meets your Valid Requirement and
ask us for any other supportive information you may require.

Sincerely,

Dag Forssell
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU