[Search for users]
[Overall Top Noters]
[List of all Conferences]
[Download this site]
| Title: | The Digital way of working |
|
| Moderator: | QUARK::LIONEL ON |
|
| Created: | Fri Feb 14 1986 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 5321 |
| Total number of notes: | 139771 |
1268.0. "Employee feedback - it works in DIGITAL!" by ODIXIE::SILVERS (Sales Support Ninja...) Mon Nov 12 1990 08:46
What follows is in the nature of response to Paul Kinzelman's memo to
Jack Smith (note 1212?), my manager (Southeast District Sales Support
manager) has implemented in his former job 'employee review of
management' - received favorable results, and is attempting to do so here
in the SED - having heard of Kinzelman's memo to Jack, he also has sent
one, and has asked that I post it here.....
Enjoy, David Silvers
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< POSTED WITH PERMISSION >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 01-Nov-1990 11:03am EST
From: John Welch @BHO
WELCH.JOHN
Dept:
Tel No:
TO: See Below
Subject: EMPLOYEE FEEDBACK
November 1, 1990
Mr. Jack Smith
Digital Equipment Corporation
Senior Vice President of Operations
Dear Mr. Smith:
I am sending some information relevant to Your October
30 memo to Paul Kinzelman. You indicate that it would
be desirable for Digital to develop a program of
providing employee feedback to supervisors. I was
involved with a very successful program in our
Mid-America District in 1987 that included employee
feedback as one of the significant components.
We felt employee feedback was critical, and we asked
employees to rate their supervisors in 15 areas such as
work planning, delegation, expertise, etc. However, we
felt employee feedback would be even more useful if
combined with several other activities.
I have enclosed a description of the program and the
results, but here is a brief summary.
We called the program EMS - (Employee Management
System). Its primary purpose was to enhance
productivity through improvement of supervisor and
employee performance. We utilized five methods to
improve performance:
* Feedback to Supervisors from their employees
* Supervisor Training
* Analysis of employees jobs to determine the critical
behaviors of successful performers
* Goal Setting
* Frequent employee coaching
A very detailed evaluation of the program was done with
the assistance of an outside organizational
psychologist. The results showed that over a 6 month
period, using the five methods mentioned above, employee
ratings of supervisors increased in 14 of 15 areas.
Numerous other improvements were shown, such as in the
number of proposals made during the study period, as
well as solutions actually sold. Overall, the results
of the study were extremely positive. Of the five
elements of the program, the employee feedback was
possibly the best received component.
I have been in touch with the organizational
psychologist we worked with on the program. We have
spoken about utilizing a feedback tool tailored
specifically to Digital, and some progress has been made
in this regard. We are hoping to proceed with this.
I have enclosed a few pages from the final report of the
project. I would be happy to send the complete report
if that would be helpful or to provide any other
assistance.
Yours truly,
John Welch
SWS Sales Support Manager
EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STUDY
Digital Equipment Corporation
Central Area Software Services
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (EMS) STUDY
EMS was implemented in 6 Units in DEC's Mid-America District,
Central Area, of Software Services from February through April,
1987. The impact of the program was studied for the period from
May, 1987 through October, 1987.
EMS is made up of a number of components that together improve
productivity. Critical Activity Analysis, Goal Setting,
frequent Coaching Meetings, Managerial Training, and Feedback
to Managers by subordinates are all equally important elements.
Numerous measures of the program's success were made, and
virtually all results were positive.
I. MANAGEMENT SKILLS
- Mid-America Unit Managers improved in a 6 month period in 14
of 15 management areas and showed no change in the 15th as
measured by anonymous subordinate ratings. Gains ranged from
4-20 percentile points. The manager's improvement was
statistically significant
- Mid-America Unit Manager scores were significantly higher
than the scores of the control group districts. Prior to
EMS, Mid-American Unit scores were lower than the control
group
II. SALES PROPOSALS AND RESULTS
- Mid-America Units tripled the number of proposals they made
during the study period compared to the prior year. Their
proposal rate was double that of the control group
- Dollar amount proposed was nearly triple the dollar amount
proposed per unit in the control group
- Mid-America Units increased by 20% the number of solutions
sold compared to their performance the prior year
- Dollar amount sold by Mid-America units was about 30%
higher than the control districts
III. Project Delivery
- Mid-America Units came much closer to meeting their
estimated hours for projects (23% overage) than prior
to EMS, when actual hours averaged 81% more than
estimated. However, the control districts at 18% were
still better
- Software rework time went from an average of 1 hour for
every 10 hours of estimated project time (prior to EMS) to a
much more favorable ratio of 1 hour for every 73 hours of
estimated project time. The ratio of the Mid-America
Districts was clearly much better than the average of 1 hour
districts
IV SUPPORT OF SALES ORGANIZATION
- Software Support and Delivery Units were evaluated by Sales
Units. Mid-America Districts showed improvements in all 18
areas measured (11 differences were statistically
significant)
- Mid-America scored higher than the control districts in all
18 areas, and all differences were statistically significant
V INTERVIEWS WITH MANAGERS USING THE PROGRAM
- Employees are comfortable with the EMS process and seem to
look forward to their sessions with their managers
- Managers say they are giving much more feedback and more
positive reinforcement. The program seems to work well
when "constructive criticism" is required
- Managers say they are receiving more suggestions than before
for improving their units
Despite the very favorable results determined by this study,
Unit Managers have identified a number of ways EMS can and
should be improved. These are discussed in the Unit Manager
comments at the end of this report.
1
EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (EMS): DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM
EMS is a productivity enhancement program. It incorporates a
number of methods proven to be effective for increasing employee
performance in the short and the long term.
Five different methodologies are at the core of the program:
* Critical Activity Analysis
* Goals Setting
* Coaching
* Managerial Training
* Manager Feedback
Critical Activity Analysis is done by a group of job experts
(employees and managers) in a particular functional area (e.g.
sales support). Working with a group facilitator, questions such
as the following are asked:
"Think of the best person you have ever seen at presentations or
demos. Specifically, what did they do to make them so
ourtstanding?
"If you were training someone in DEC presentations and demos,
what would you emphasize?"
"What does it mean to go the extra mile in presentations and
demos?"
The group of job experts develop a first draft of critical
activities and behaviors. Next, all employees responsible for
performing the critical activities participate in a structured
process to clarify, revise, and make necessary additions to the
critical activities list. Productivity is improved because, by
identifying effective methods in writing, all employees can
benefit from the collective wisdom and much higher percentage
will engage in the desired activities.
The Goal Setting process is closely related to the Critical
Activity Analysis in that it continues the process of specifying
expectations. However, it adds expected results to the critical
activities and behaviors that have been identified.
Critical Activity Analysis and Goal Setting cover all important
daily responsibilities as well as special priorities for the
coming year. Taken together, they provide a detailed road map
(also called a performance plan or coaching guide) for employees
as well as a valid yardstick for measurement and evaluation
purposes.
Supervisors receive Training in coaching and management.
2
The training includes practical hints on motivating employees,
analyzing performance problems, and conducting coaching sessions.
Each employee receives Coaching on a monthly basis. The relevant
performance plan serves as the agenda for the session.
Manager Feedback is an additional component of EMS. Subordinates
complete an anonymous questionnaire on the management practices
of their manager. Managers receive detailed feedback on 15
different aspects of their management practices. Based on this
feedback, managers select areas which they wish to strengthen,
and they set specific goals.
In sum, EMS is multifaceted, systematic approach designed in
accordance with behavioral and management science. It focuses on
improving manager and employee performance.
Distribution:
TO: Remote Addressee ( JACK.SMITH @CORE )
CC: Remote Addressee ( BRENDAN.COYLE @ACI )
CC: Remote Addressee ( JOHN CARROLL @ ATO )
CC: Bobby Thomas ( THOMAS.BOBBY )
CC: Ray Shaw @BHO ( SHAW.RAY )
CC: Len Strickler ( STRICKLER.LEN )
CC: Ann Benson @MBO ( BENSON.ANN )
CC: Bill Davis @HVO ( DAVIS.WILLIAM )
CC: Gregory A. Frazier @BHO ( FRAZIER.GREGORY )
CC: John Long @BHO ( LONG.JOHN )
CC: Drew McMillon ( MCMILLON.DREW )
CC: Gregory Middleton @HVO ( MIDDLETON.GREGORY )
CC: David Silvers ( SILVERS.DAVID )
CC: Ted A. Solomon ( SOLOMON.TED )
CC: Remote Addressee ( JACK COLE @ATO )
CC: Remote Addressee ( LINDA JOHNSON @ATO )
CC: Remote Addressee ( ECAD2::KINZELMAN @VMSMAIL )
CC: Larry Jones @BHO ( JONES.LARRY )
| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1268.1 | where is the focus in every Digital group? | SAHQ::CARNELLD | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Mon Nov 26 1990 12:31 | 44 |
|
Okay. We have here an idea "piloted" by Mr. Welch that proved
successful. Not unlike "other ideas" that have also proven successful,
both outside of Digital, ala the division manager in Kodak who
decentralized authority to groups (all employees) and demonstrated
positive results; and within, most notably techniques and programs
espoused under Digital's Total Quality Management approach and Quality
organization.
What good are all these good ideas if "the system" in Digital nurtures
more a feudal system rather than a cooperative, interdependent
harmonious system? Jack Smith in his recent DVN said he asked several
managers about employee involvement and they all said "the right
things" about it. But when Jack pressed about what they were DOING
about it, the answers were NOTHING.
Too busy getting results. And, of course, no attention to improving
methodically THE PROCESSES, the cornerstone of Dr. Deming's and Japan's
philosophy to improvement, doing it via total employee involvement.
What good is all the effort to PROVE the validity of new appoaches and
original thinking IF LITERALLY EVERY MANAGER, operating his or her own
fiefdom, says, "That's nice. But NOT for "MY" business, MY group."
A feudal system of 15,000 fiefdom chiefs "doing their own thing" IS
anarchy, especially when the focus of a good many groups has NOTHING to
do with improvement ultimately leading to getting and keeping more
customers, generating desired levels of revenue and margin and profit.
Is not the missing component top down "demonstrable accountability" to
LEAD in constructive, continuous CHANGE to improve all processes, all
activities and efforts, which THEN leads to increased results?
Think about this:
With all the attention on CUTTING EXPENSE, why is it NOT A FACT that
every group in Digital is holding a weekly "quality circle" type
meeting where the manager is leading the discussion to nurture and
uncover original thinking that will accomplish this.
The only meeting I've been to was where management wanted volunteers to
resign; they did not ask for original thinking to cut costs and to get
more customers, revenue, margin and NEW profit from the marketplace.
|