Comments on: Why Do Employees Underperform?

By: Umgang mit Problemen der Mitarbeiter « Zahlenpeter’s Weblog

Umgang mit Problemen der Mitarbeiter « Zahlenpeter’s Weblog — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:09:13 +0000

[...] mit Problemen der Mitarbeiter In einem Beitrag der Lean Six Sigma Academy wird eine Umfrage unter Arbeitnehmern erwähnt. Die näheren [...]

By: Curious Cat Management Improvement Blog » Management Improvement Carnival #35

Thu, 15 May 2008 14:51:23 +0000

[...] Why Do Employees Underperform? from the Lean Six Sigma Academy. “Muri means to overburden equipment or operators. In many cases, muri can be avoided by the implementation of some basic forms of standard work.” [...]

By: Morelli

Morelli — Wed, 14 May 2008 23:09:54 +0000

Treat others the way you like to be treated…..this is one of the traits of leadership and a guide for employee excellent performance
A. Morelli
searchtec

By: Lester Sutherland

Lester Sutherland — Sun, 11 May 2008 15:40:55 +0000

Dr P.
I appreciate your response. One issue is that many workers do not feel enabled, so we need to understand their hesitancy to accept responsibility. Once they know they can make a difference as you said, they dig in and contribute. I also find the surveys and charts suspect unless I have the details of all the questions and the analysis.

By: Chris Akins

Chris Akins — Sun, 11 May 2008 02:46:03 +0000

Dr P.

I’m sorry, I must respectfully disagree with the notion that people are hard wired to deflect responsibility for failure. I think that such behavior is driven more by a work environment that rewards that sort of behavior, and does not tolerate mistakes or afford employees the opportunity to grow and learn from their mistakes. I’ve found that when the propoer environment exists, people will accept responsibility for failures as long as their are opportunities to improve. A significant part of being a leader is creating such an environment.

Chris

By: Chris Akins

Chris Akins — Sun, 11 May 2008 02:39:19 +0000

Hi Ron,

I’ve always felt that the primary role of a leader is that of a motivator and enabler. If you want the most efficiency from your employees you not only have to give them a reason (beyond the threat of losing something, like a job or bonus) to work, but also provide them with the tools and environment that is conducive to their success. All too often I think managers fail to do either, and jsut take the “get er done” attitude towards their workers without providing the inspiration, tools or processes to set them up for success. This invariably leeds to low morale, low efficiency and high rates of failure.

Just my 3 pennies worth…

Chris

By: John

John — Sun, 11 May 2008 01:37:28 +0000

I have some experience from both the production worker side and the support worker side.

I have seen great productivity results when a pull system is used. Each piece is passed to the next station. When 1 station holds up production the other stations are quick to address the station and insist on improvement. This happens between coworkers.

Support workers, such as in the quality and maintenance functions, work most effectively when they are required to make progress on measurable goals for each of them individually. This ‘goal’ work is above the regular daily duties which much be maintained.

2-hr rotation of jobs is also effective in improving output; by reducing boredom.

Overall I feel it is the responsibility of management to provide leadership by informing each employee of the daily goals and needs of the company. This is not to hand-hold, but to help employees know the importance of their contribution to the organization. Daily, weekly and monthly feedback is very important.

By: Peter Patterson, MD

Peter Patterson, MD — Sat, 10 May 2008 16:15:09 +0000

Lester/
Your comment is much appreciated. My particular example of hard-wiring applies only to the situation where people will avoid taking responsibility for their results when the objective is not reached.
People are also hard-wired to contribute their best and this is what we tap into when problem-solving in a team.
Both ‘wirings’ are at work and to me the game is to focus on the contribution side but not be gulled by the shuffle and weave side.
/Dr. P

By: Lester Sutherland

Lester Sutherland — Sat, 10 May 2008 00:54:11 +0000

“Humans are hard-wired at the factory to respond in whatever ways do not make them look bad or deflect any criticism, etc.” Wow Dr. P. you must really have good luck with your problem solving work teams….

By: Peter Patterson, MD

Peter Patterson, MD — Fri, 09 May 2008 22:43:57 +0000

Ron/
It’s always puzzled me why people seem so gullible about these “surveys” where ‘workers’ are asked to self-report reasons for failure to perform. Humans are hard-wired at the factory to respond in whatever ways do not make them look bad or deflect any criticism, etc.

In anything worth doing that requires groups or teams to produce an intended outcome, you can have either ‘Results’ or ‘Reasons’. These types of surveys glorify and sanctify reasons – read excuses – and tend to make a sincere ‘Reason’ essentially as good as a real ‘Result’.

Even multiple grains of salt don’t work … to me, these sorts of ‘surveys’ are just a lot of bovine excreta.
/Dr. P