Re: den.list-d Digest V00 #30

["Jerry Mairani" <quality1@inreach.com>]

Eugene Taurman wrote:  IN particular I ma referring to pay reward for quality
feature
that was added a few years ago. Most of those ideas I have seen are down
right destructive yet they count positive in Baldrige criteria.

Baldrige has many myths about what is truly required and the advice that is
given.  I believe that Eugene is referring to Category 5.1 Work Systems.
Baldrige has never, let me reemphasize that, NEVER REQUIRED a pay reward system
of any kind.  5.1(4) does say, "How do your compensation, recognition, and
related reward/incentive practices reinforce high performance."  Read, as it
should, a great case can be put forth by an organization that a lack of
extrinsic reward practices is used because the best incentives for the
organization has been found to be intrinsic and that they produce the best
results.  In fact, an organization could even explain how they arrived at this
conclusion and how extrinsic rewards have proven to be harmful.  If this
APPROACH is well DEPLOYED, and organizational OUTCOME RESULTS can be presented
in Category 7,specifically and most likely Category 7.5 Organizational
Effectiveness Results, the above could provide a great deal of credit for the
approach.

With that said, let me say where I feel the dangers are.  First, Baldrige is a
results oriented assessment.  If standing one ones head is shown (including a
site visit) as a systematic approach, well deployed, and it can be proven that
the organization is achieving stated AIMs as outlined in its Business Overview,
Category 2: Strategic Planning, and Category 3: Customer and Market Focus, and
that the approach is consistent with the Baldrige Core Values and Concepts
(often not read), the organization may do well.  Second, poorly prepared or
biased examiners that examine based on the myths and not the criteria and/or
interject their own biases into the assessment can lead an organization in a
poor direction.  That is why I recommend that any serious organization have an
outside "true" expert and that at least one internal professional become an
examiner.  To do otherwise is to go forward blindly and WED's statement of "How
could they know" may become an unfortunate reality.

Jerry J. Mairani
quality1@inreach.com
=================================================================