績效管理講座

1、Performa nee Man ageme nt:Enhancing Exeeuti on Through a Culture of DialoguePeter is Chief Executive Officer for a medical supply mult in ati onal that rece ntly crafted a new strategy to coun ter competitive threats. The pla n stressed the n eed to cut cycle time, concen trate sales on higher-marg

2、in products and develop new markets.Four mon ths after circulati ng the pla n, Peter did a“ walkaro und ” to see how thwere going. He was appalled. Everywhere Peter turned people, departments whole bus in ess un it simply did n t “get it. ”First surprise: Engineering. The group had cut product desig

3、n time 30%, meeting its goal to in crease speed-to-market. Good. Then Peter asked how manu facturi ng would be affected. It turned out the new design would take much more time to make. Total cycle time actually in creased. “ Our strategic pla n message is not really gett ing through, Peter thought.S

4、econd surprise: Sales. The new strategy called for a shtemphasize high margi n sales rather that push ing product dow n the pipeli ne as fast as possible.But just about every salespers on Peter spoke to was making tran sacti onal sales to high-volume customers; hardly anyone was buildi ng relatio ns

5、hips with the most profitable prospects. Sales is doing just what it s alPeyer doughtWorst surprise: Even his top team, the people who d helped him craft the strategy,was not stick ing to pla n. Peter asked a team member:“ Why are you spe nding allyour time making sure the new mach inery is work ing

6、 in stead of develop ing new markets? ”“ Because my unit s chief goal was to improtvm eidelivery,” he answered.“ But what aboulompanygoals? ” said Peter. “ We came up with a good plan andcom muni cated it very clearly. But no where it isn t being carried out. Why?Many orga ni zati ons create good st

7、rategies, but only the best execute them effectively.Fortune magazine estimates that when CEOs fail, 70% of the time it s because of badWhy CEOs Fail,executi on.by Ram Charan and Geoffrey ColvFortune magazine, June 21, 1999. Weak executi on is pervasive in the bus in ess world, but the reas ons for

8、it arelargely misunderstood. Why is it that no one in Peters organization was acting in syncwith the strategy? Unless we understand the reasons, we cant hope to solve the problemImagine someone hitting a tennis ball. When the brain saysit doe“snhit thet ball,”automatically happen. The message travel

9、s through nerve pathways down the arm and crosses gaps between the nerve cells. These gaps, or“ synapses, ” are potential breaksthe connection. If neurotransmitters don t carry the message acroses gthap, the message never gets through, or it gets distorted. When that happens, either the arm doesnat

10、all, or it moves the wrong way.Creating a “ culture of dialogue ”Just like a nervous system, organizations also have gaps that block and distort messages.The secret to effective strategy execution lies in crossing hierarchical and functional gaps with clear, consistent messages that relay the strate

11、gy throughout the organization.Sound simple? Its not. The reason is that the“ neurotransmitters ” in organizatiohuman beingsexecutive team members, senior managers, middle managers and supervisors whose job it is to make sure that peoples behavior is aligned with theoverall strategy. Doing what it t

12、akes to achieve alignment is very difficult. It is whatRam Charan calls, the“ heavy lifting” of management, and its the key to executingstrategy.As well see later, there is an important difference between companies that successfully align behavior with strategy and those that do not. Companies that

13、effectively execute strategy create a“ culture of dialogue.” A culture of dialogue encourag-es pervasive twoway communications where individuals and groups 1) question, challenge, interpret and ultimately clarify strategic objectives; and 2) engage in regular performance dialogue to monitor behavior

14、 and ensure it is aligned with strategy.Three keys to managing performanceA culture of dialogue doesnt happen instantly, any more than a fluid tennis stroke does.It takes practice, persistence and hard work. So how exactly can leaders ensure that strategy messages go all the way down the line that t

15、he tennis ball gets hit correctly?The three keys to managing performance effectively are:1. Achieving radical clarity by decoding strategy at the top. Many organizationsthink they send clear signals but dont. In some cases, managers subordinate broadstrategic goals to operational goals within their

16、silos. Thats what happened wiPeter s top team. Elsewhere, top team members often have too many“top ”priorities we ve seen as many as 100 in one caswehich results in mixed signals and blurred focus. Strategy decode requires winnowing priorities down to a manageable number as little as five.2. Setting

17、 up systems and processes to ensure clarity. Once strategy is clear, organizations must create processes to ensure that the right strategy messages cascade down the organization. These include: strategy-centered budget and planning sessions; staff and team meetings to discuss goals; performance mana

18、gement meetings; and talent review sessions. Dialogue drives all these processes. Eachrepresents a“ transmitter opportunity,” where strategic messages are conveyed andbehavior is alig ned with goals.3. Aligning and differentiating rewards.Leaders must make sure rewards encouragebehaviors consistent

19、with strategy, which sounds easy but isn t. Differentiation isabout maki ng sure that stars get sig ni fica ntly more tha n poor performers. But almost everywhere managers distribute rewards more or less/enly. As we II see, lack of effective performa nee dialogue is a key con tributor to dysf un cti

20、 onal reward schemes.We list these three items separately but they are, of course, in terc onn ected. Systems and processes depe nd on clarity from the top. Differe ntiatio n and alig nment of rewards depe nd on man agers using performa nee systems effectively. Dialogue is the glue that holds it all

21、 together. But not just any dialogue will do. It must be dialogue with purpose, focused on performa nee.Link to compa ny valuati onCompa nies that man age performa nee weGe neral Electric comes to mi nd have higher market valuati ons. Why? Because, more and more, i nstitutio nal inv estors view stra

22、tegy executi on as a vital factor in flue ncing stock prices.Just a few years ago institutional investors relied almost exclusively on financial measures for compa ny valuati ons. Now 35% of a market valuati on is in flue need byo n- finan cial, i ntan gible factors, accordi ng to a study by Ernst &

23、 YoungBased on a study con ducted by Sarah Mavri nac and Tony Siesfeld for the Ernst & You ng Cen ter for Busin ess Inno vati on. The study showed that “ execution of corporate strategyand “ management credibility ranked number one and number two in importanee to institutional investors out of 22 no

24、n-financial measures. Joh n In ch, a man agi ng director and an alyst at Bear Stear ns no tes that in some sectors, such as diversified in dustrial compa ni es, in tan gibles acco unt for eve n mo-up to half a compa ny s value.“ You can take eve n a mundane asset and inject good man ageme nt andhave

25、 someth ing pretty strong,” says In ch.1. Achieve Radical Clarity by decoding strategy at the topThe first step in successfully executing strategy is achieving clarity on the top team, which is freque ntly the source of garbled sig nals.Lack of Clarity at the TopA rece nt Hay Group study shows a dis

26、turb ing lack of clarity on top teams(orga ni zati onal clarity measures the exte nt to which employees un dersta nd what is expected of them and how those expectations connect with the organization s largergoals). The chart below shows dramatically higher levels of clarity on outstanding vs.average

27、 teams. In fact the biggest sin gle differe nee betwee n great and average top teams and typical ones was in the level of internal clarity. See Figure 1.Figure 1: Organizational Climate and TeamsOrganizational cl ini ate and teamsao706050403020OuUtndlngFlexibilityStandardsClarityTotalResponsibilityR

28、ewardsTamCommitmentF igure 1: Measures orga ni zati onal climate dime nsions for outsta nding top teams vs. typical on es. For each dime nsion of climate we asked how the team wasperformi ng in reality and how it should be perform ing.The n we measured the differenee or“ gap” in theiran swers. Gaps

29、over 20% hurt performanee. The “ clarity gap for typical teams was 58% compared with 18% onoutsta nding teams.Hay/McBerSource: Hay Group, Inc.in final versi onCha nge Hay/McBer toAnd a Lack of Clarity BelowWorkers at lower levels stro ngly feel this lack of clarity. Figure 2 looks at satisfact ion l

30、evels for workers pla nning to leave their orga ni zati ons within two years versus those pla nning to stay Ion ger. This study showed that a key reas on people leave their jobs is that they feel their compa nies lack direct ion. Eve n among employees pla nning to stay Hay Group part nered with Rich

31、ard Hackma n of Harvard Un iversity and Ruth Wagema n of Dartmouth College to ide ntify the dyn amics of top executive teams and their impact on performa nee. From an in itial group of 48 teams, the researchers n arrowed their study to 14 teams, many from large global orga ni zati ons. Each team mem

32、ber represe nted the head of an orga ni zati on, a major bus in ess divisio n, or a major geography. more than two years at their companiesonly 57% felt their organizations had a clear sense of directi on.Figure 2: Key reas ons why employees leave their compa niesTotal % Satisfied Source: Hay Group,

33、 Inc. The results are from our Employee Attitude Survey, which sampled some 300 companies representing more than 1 million workers. Our survey queried management, professionals, salespeople, information tech nologists, and clerical and hourly workers. Theble gap ” referred to in the tis the “ satisf

34、acti on gap ” betwee n workers pla nning to leave with in two years and those pla nning to stay lon ger.Satisfacti on with:Employees pla nning to stay more tha n two years (%)Employees pla nning to leave in less tha n two years (%)GAP(%)1. Use of my skills and abilities83%49%34%2. Ability of top man

35、 ageme nt74%41%33%3. Compa ny has clear sense of directi on57%27%30%NOTE; HIGHLIGHT SECTION 3; MAKE IT POP GRAPHICALLYClarity mattersWhy do employees crave clarity? Think about it. What could be more demoraliz ing tha n the realization that your hard work is not contributing to overall company goals

36、?Employees want to do the “right ” thing, but they can only do so if they know what the right things are.Unfortun ately, as we saw in our qoening vig nette, compa nies ofte n don t com muni catestrategic goals effectively. An oil refinery client, for example, set a strategic goal to cut costs. To se

37、e how well the message had gotten through, an operations team leader held a strategy decode sessi on where he quizzed his team members on what they felt was the chief priority. Ten team members produced four different“ top ” objectives, includingcost-cutt ing, safety, environmen tal complia nee and

38、reduci ng sales process ing time. The message hadn t gtotatugh. The team leader called his team together and created a“ tran smitter opport un ity.”“ Don t you guys realize that if we can t cut our refining costs by three cents a gallon,they re going to shut us down?” he said.“Is that all you need u

39、s to do?” replied the team members, taken aback. United by a cleardirecti on and shared own ership of the cause, team members en thusiastically cut costs by five cents per gallo no ver the follow ing year while continuing to maintain good safety and en vir onmen tal records.Narrow ing prioritiesHavi

40、ng too many priorities can lead to lack of clarity. AeroMexico, for example, had worked with a strategy consulting firm that delivered a 249-page report listing key performance indicators (KPIs) for measuring progress by the enterprise. The good news was that the KPIs gave the top team metrics for m

41、easuring success. The bad news was that there were 100 of them, and they weren t prioritized.“ It was clear that execution would suffer unless we identified the most importaonnt es, says AeroMexico CEO Arturo Barahona.“ So we discussed which ones connected mostdirectly with our strategic priorities

42、and where we were in the business cycle, and each team member settled on five chief goals.” By gaining clarity on ketyhoebtejeacmtives,greatly increased the odds that signals would transmit clearly down the line.Getting buy-in at the topHay research on teams has shown that it s not uncommon for team

43、 members to nod theirheads in agreement when new strategies are set in meetings, then go back to their division or department and carry on exactly as they had before. In effect, they end up sabotaging the plan. That s why gainin-ignbisuyessential to effective execution, anddialogue is what makes it

44、happen.IBM created an executive team consisting of six Ph.D-level technical leaders at an applied research unit. Their mission: build strong relationships with top research universities so that IBM could recruit innovative scientists capable of developing breakthrough products. The problem was that

45、the Ph.Ds, all world-class scientists, were used to competing for research dollars and dismissing each others ideas to advance their own. Getting them to work jointly and be held accountable for business results was going to be very difficult.In the first group meeting, the vice president simply ass

46、igned accountabilities to the various team members. I could see the scientists digging in their heels, says Harris Ginsberg, an internal leadership consultant who attended the meeting. No one was going to dictate to them what they should do. Even if theyd said yes to the VPs directives, adds Ginsber

47、g, they would never have followed through.Ginsberg, who helps IBM business units clarify and execute strategy, knew the key was to get the scientists talking to each other. So he coached the vice president to change her behaviors. Rather than hand out directives, he suggested ways she could stimulat

48、e team dialogue about how to meet objectives. Ginsberg also counseled other team members about the need for a consensus process on an interdependent team.They all got it. At the next meeting the VP said, Our mandate is to create breakthrough products. Without access to talent at the top universities

49、, we wont succeed. How are we going to get it? At first, Ginsberg recalls, she met silence. Finally one team member raised her hand. She was willing to get out there to the universities, and be more visible, go out with the recruiter and the senior human resources people, said Ginsberg. She also agr

50、eed to help some up-and-coming scientists learn how to develop relationships with universities.A second team member said he would help her make some calls. The ice was broken and all the team members eventually took on group responsibilities. It was all about dialogue, says Ginsberg. Until the indiv

51、idual leaders embraced the unifying elements of the strategy for the good of the enterprise, they only attended to their own mission. The dialogue helped them buy-in, agree to some shared activities, and begin to work more collaboratively.2. Set up systems and processes to create clarityWhy is execu

52、ting strategy so difficult, even when the plan is clear? Because good execution only happens when employee behavior is aligned with strategy. And many managerscan t, won t or dcorenatethte “ transmitter opportunities” required to getpeople to do the right things. Managers:canbtecause they don t know

53、 how to talk with their subordinates about change and/or poor performancew;on tb, ecause they find it uncomfortable to give candid feedback; or, simplydonrtealize that successful strategy execution will never happen without ongoing performance dialogue.Part of the solution to this problem is creatin

54、g systems and processes thfaotrce performance dialogue. General Dynamics Defense Systems (GDDS) in Pittsfield, MA, is one company where creating such systems has contributed to dramatic results. From 1999 to 2001, attrition among its valued software engineers dropped from 20 percent to 2.4 percent.

55、Union grievances dropped from 57 to zero, saving hundreds of thousands of dollars. And, best of all, earnings and profit margins doubled.What GDDS didIn 1999 the $200 million plus defense contractor challenged its employees to improve the company s negotiating leverage on bids, and thereby increase

56、margins and profitability. To accomplish this goal, senior management directed all departments to chase out costs, and created numerousprocessesto transmit the cost-cutting strategy down the managerial ranks right to the shop floor, which is where they felt many of the best cost-cutting ideas would

57、come fromCarmen Simonelli, director of facilities and security, says his department s goal wpush labor costs 5 percent below budget, witha “ stretch ” goal of 6 percent. That was ambitious given that direct applied labor costs had been running 10-15 percenotver budget. But Simonelli s team slashed a

58、pplied labor hours to an un2th0inpkearcbelentbelow budget. Annual savings amounted to about $440,000 on a $2 million budget, or nearly $10,000 per worker.How did they do it? The key, Simonelli says, was the processes the company put in place to enhance dialogue and carry the message to the shop floor. For example:The Learning MapThe company made it easy for employees to understand its broad goals by creating a “ learning map, ” which graphically outli