Wrong tool, wrong nail

[Rip Stauffer <rstauffer@bluefirepartners.com>]

I just completed a one-day workshop for the Minnesota ASQ yearly conference.
The topic for most of the day was "Fundamentals of Quality." We talked about
the System of Profound Knowledge, conducted the Red Bead and the Funnel, did
some other exercises around operational definitions, systems thinking and
statistical thinking. During the discussion, I happened to mention that, "if
executives could learn to think this way, they would NOT fire the bottom ten
percent (as one CEO who is often touted for Six Sigma did)."

On a break, two people came up to talk to me offline. Each worked for a
major company (3M, Guidant). Each talked about the new system instituted in
the last year or so at their companies; the "70-20-10" system. Apparently,
you identify your top 20% (good for you - hope you get all you deserve!),
and fire the bottom 10 percent (at least some companies give you a year to
"get better"). I'm not sure what happens to the other 70 percent. I guess
they are like Johnathan Edwards' soul, dangling like a spider on a thread
over a firey pit. It seems that Welch's model has been accepted as good
practice in industry.

These people were both appalled at the results of this system in their
companies. It seems that some of the most innovative scientists had already
left for other organizations and nobody was happy with it (what a surprize,
eh?).  

I referred them to OOTC, TNE and "Abolishing Performance Appraisals." I wish
I had had their CEOs in the session. They obviously don't know. How could
they know?

We are seeing a lack of profound knowledge at work. At GE, they "motivated"
people into Green Belt and Black Belt training using carrot-and-stick
methods. Some of these folks were excellent marketers, engineers, etc. Many
had never wanted to get into Quality (in the words of one career
ex-GE-engineer, "I always felt that it was better to have a sister in a
cathouse than a brother in Quality Control"). Now they have had some
training in quality tools and methods. Now, however, some of them have drawn
16 Red Beads, were in the bottom 10 percent, and are on the job market.
Guess what's one of the most marketable bullets in their resumes...that's
right! "GE Black Belt."

I have sat in a classroom and listened to one of them instruct potential
quality leaders in the use of Q1 and Q3 as measures of central tendency when
the distribution is skewed. I have heard them advise people, "Oh, I'm not
sure why they use d2, c4...just use the standard deviation of the data set
times three if it's easier for you." I have heard them argue vehemently that
hidden factory is "just all the bad stuff the line workers hide and don't
tell you about." 

Some good people have been involved in training statistical methods at GE.
Jerry Hahn and Roger Hoerl come immediately to mind. However, by filling
classrooms through fear, not providing any underlying quality philosophy
except "strive for bottom line results,"  and then subjecting them to "you
have to fire the bottom 10 percent, and you know who they are" management,
GE (and others) have created a rule four nightmare. The market is becoming
flooded with "credible" hacks.

Sorry I've been so quiet lately. There have been some wonderful discussions,
but my attention has been forced elsewhere for a while. Hopefully, I'll get
a chance to scribble a note every now and then.

Best regards to all,

Rip

Rip Stauffer, Senior Consultant
BlueFire Partners
1300 Fifth St. Towers, 150 So. Fifth St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
612-344-1027
mailto:rstauffer@bluefirepartners.com
http://www.bluefirepartners.com/