RE: Fighting The Merit Cycle- Help!

["Kurt Schoch" <KSCHOCH@indianapolis.olivellp.com>]

Neal Mowrey wrote: 

	"The Red Bead Experiment seems so clear to some, but not to all.  I
once observed an associate who demonstrated the red beads and common cause
variation, only to follow it with another scenario:  "Suppose instead of red
beads drawn, these were cars sold in a month.  Who is the best saleperson?"
Most in the room believed that somehow sales numbers or accident rates or
other "real" things had reasons behind them, despite the clear map (to us)
provided by the Red Beads.  "That is different," they would tell us,
although they weren't sure why it was different.

	Even with the evidence before them, most people have trouble
overcoming the cause-and-effect paradigm that we use in evaluating
performance.  We sometimes seem to believe that if people would see the Red
Bead Experiment, they would change.  They seldom do in the short term.  Be
prepared to raise the hard questions and get them out in the open.  Only
then can they be addressed.  And be ready to answer them.  The point will
need to be hammered home that on an analytical level, the two processes
(drawing beads and selling cars) are exactly the same.  Even then it won't
take with many in the audience."

=================

I appreciate Neal's thoughts and agree that it doesn't always "take" at first.  Happened to me as well.   Question for Neal or other:  What are those "hard questions" Neal refers to?  Can you give some examples?

As a consultant, does anyone have suggestions for getting a client to try the Red Bead (or at least watch a Deming tape of it) to introduce the idea of variation?

Thanks.

Kurt Schoch
kurt_schoch@olivellp.com 
=======================================================================