绩效管理－绩效衡量的七个神话

Seven Greatest Myths of Measurement

By William A. Schiemann & John H. Lingle

Companies that use a balanced set of strategic

measures – both financial and nonfinancial – out-perform

their less disciplined rivals in performance

and management. A recent national survey of 203

executives on measurement found that not many

companies report being "measurement managed,"

with clearly defined and updated measures in place

for assessing employees, suppliers and customers as

well as key attributes such as levels of adaptability

and innovativeness. It's not surprising. Until recent-ly,

with the exception of financial results,

measurement has not exactly been a burning issue

in the boardroom.

Why have so few executives paid attention to mea-suring

the range of results that are vital to strategic

success? In our research and consulting experience,

we have found seven myths that impair manage-ment's

effective use of measurement.

MYTH I : Measure Hard Results

and the Soft Stuff Will Follow

You can learn a lot from an organization by pay-ing

attention to the goals it sets. In our national

survey, two-thirds of the organizations reported set-ting

financial and operational goals, but less than

half the organizations set goals for the "soft" issues

relating to managing people, suppliers, customers

and innovation. Despite all the windy rhetoric

about loving customers, empowerment and learn-ing

organizations, not many executives are willing

to put measures where their mouths are.

There are, of course, exceptions. Johnson &

Johnson, for example, realized years ago that finan-cial

results are essentially driven by how well

executives managed key stakeholders such as cus-tomers,

employees and the communities in which

they operate. Johnson & Johnson carefully measures

performance related to these stakeholders and edu-cates

managers and employees about the

connection among delighted customers, satisfied

and productive employees, good community rela-tionships

and profit.

It is dangerous for top management to focus on

hard results and then empower lower level man-agers

to take care of the rest. If top management

doesn't provide discipline for the soft areas, why

should managers down the line?

Contrary to this myth, financial success is an out-come

largely dependent on soft employee attitudes

and behaviors. As the measurement-managed com-panies

in our survey have discovered, business

success comes from paying attention to the hard

and soft areas of performance, knowing how to link

both and installing measurement systems in all

areas of the organization.

MYTH II : Measurement Is

For Bean Counters

Back in the salad days when top manage-ment

could spend time at the corporate

retreat opining on strategic matters, mea-surement

was left to the bean counters in

finance and the production and quality-control

folks on the plant floor. This

was a common but big mistake.

Seven Greatest Myths of Measurement

12

"When measurement isn't ignored or

focused on past performance, it can be

a bellwether of success."

"Forget quantity and focus instead on

linking measures to strategic capabilities,

customer expectations and financial indicators.".Seven Greatest Myths of Measurement

While leaders at senior levels need not bury them-selves

in statistical process control charts, they can

benefit by paying attention to strategic performance

measures.

In our work with the Balanced Scorecard – those

top-level measures that reflect the long- and short-term

goals of an organization and its key

stakeholders – we have identified key questions in

five areas, in addition to financial performance,

which should capture the measurement interest of

senior executives:

? Markets: Are we meeting customer or market-place

expectations?

? People: Are we deploying our human resources

effectively, including employees, partners and

suppliers?

? Operations: How efficiently are we running the

enterprise?

? Adaptability: Are we responsive and innovative

in our approach to changing requirements both

internally and externally?

? Environment: Are we dealing with community,

environmental or regulatory forces that define

our playing field?

Senior executives need to set these top-line mea-sures

of performance and lead the effort to translate

these measures into operational criteria.

MYTH III : Measurement Is

Too Rearview Oriented

Remember Lot's wife, who turned into a

pillar of salt because she looked backward?

It's a hell of a price to pay for not looking

ahead, and it may be one reason that many

senior executives avoid the subject of mea-surement.

Too often, measurement is used

to record the past, not anticipate the future.

This is especially true of most financial

measures, and yet, they continue to be used

as the primary vehicle for meeting share-holder

and regulatory demands.

One way to make measurement more for-ward-

looking is for top managers to review their

strategic scorecard and ask: Do we have measures

that can serve as early-warning indicators of future

problems? Or better yet, and less defensive in think-ing,

do we have measures that can signal future

opportunity?

In one large supplier of medical services to hospi-tals,

senior executives consolidated the company's

two sales forces that serviced large and small hospi-tals

respectively. Measures from a survey of the sales

force indicated mounting customer dissatisfaction.

In addition, complaints surfaced from customers

about late product delivery and unresponsiveness.

Subsequently, we were asked to survey the hospitals

to determine levels of satisfaction and

loyalty, and we found serious concerns.

Within months, customers began switching to com-petitors.

Had senior executives used the right

information from its employee measures as a bell-wether

of trouble with its customers, it could have

taken action early-on to stem customer defection.

MYTH IV :

Measurement Creates Reality

This myth usually surfaces when senior executives

are in the process of deciding whether to gather

information on a problem area. Take employee-atti-tude

surveys as an example. Many executives

implicitly ascribe almost magical powers to surveys.

They believe that by asking employees how they feel,

you risk creating negative feelings. Never mind that

these feelings may have been there all along. More

than likely, management was simply unaware or

unable to deal with them. At one global pharmaceu-tical

company, a prior survey revealed deep seated

morale problems in the workforce. Managers turned

skittish and refused another round of surveys one

year later. They didn't want to rock the boat. While

ignorance may be bliss, it usually creates trouble. In

this case, senior managers' reluctance only rein-forced

their image as being aloof and uncaring.

Smart companies know that information is the

foundation for understanding and effective prob-lem

solving. A paper manufacturer held its breath as

it conducted a company-wide employee survey.

Executives were afraid that a potentially divisive pay

issue would rear its ugly head. When the survey

results were examined, pay issues were ranked fifth

or lower in importance by the majority of workers.

Safety and long-term job creation took priority.

These findings helped management and the union

avoid the usual contract gridlock and focus instead

on finding common ground for the pressing issues.

MYTH V :

Measurement Stifles Creativity

For proof of the controlling power of this myth,

just check the vision statement of the average com-pany.

We worked with a pharmaceutical company

on a strategy that was studded with the usual pieties

about its humanitarian mission, quality, innovative

products, commitment to its customers and the

great value placed on its people. (The fact that the

company recently downsized by cutting people and

slashing R&D budget is quite another matter.)

When we asked one senior executive about what

guidance the strategy provided, his answer did not

inspire great confidence. "Trying to get a handle on

13

"Smart companies know that information

is the foundation for understanding and

effective problem solving.".the strategy," he remarked, "was like sculpting fog."

Had the top team thought through specific mea-surement

criteria for its product and established a

strategic framework for market categories, required

capabilities, and revenue and profit expectations,

the strategic fog would have cleared, making way for

creative planning and implementation.

MYTH VI :

Measurement Is Anti-Humanistic

Many managers believe that measurement is just

not people-friendly. Measurement often conjures

up visions of number crunchers in green-colored

glasses who suffer from a kind of "anthrophobia," as

they pursue time and motion studies and operating

efficiency. Real managers, so this line of reasoning

goes, get paid to produce results through people,

and people don't lend themselves to the rigors of

metrics and quantitative analysis.

Few would argue with the notion that the man-agerial

process is more art than science, but while it

may be unpredictable, it should never be imprecise.

Take an essential task of every manager, setting goals

and providing a context for achieving them. Surely

this is a uniquely human endeavor, but it is one in

which measurement can play a vital role by helping

to specify goals and motivating people to attain

them by providing feedback on progress.

Years ago a study of fundraising efforts was con-ducted

in small towns. The study compared those

towns that had a visible display of the money col-lected

- we've all seen those poster board

thermometers indicating progress - with those

without a visible measure of success. Not surpris-ingly,

those towns that measured progress and

shared it with the community exceeded the perfor-mance

of others. Indeed, measurement enhances –

not stymies – human activity.

MYTH VII :

The More Measurement The Better

This myth is a polar opposite of the others, and

usually leads to measurement running amok. A

large financial and brokerage institution developed

150 different performance measures at the corpo-rate

level. Few understood them, and no attempt

was made to set priorities. Many of the measures

were never effectively put in place, and the data col-lected

from many of the others remained in the desk

drawers of managers.

In another case, a multibillion-dollar division of a

Fortune 100 chemical company initiated a quality-assessment

process. Reams of data were collected

from an array of internal and external measures, but

the data were never integrated, never effectively ana-lyzed

for strategic implications and never used to set

division priorities.

The number of metrics is less important than the

process used to arrive at them. Forget quantity and

focus instead on linking measures to strategic

capabilities, customer expectations and financial

indicators. And remember, involve those closest to

the action in defining the measures and setting the

targets.

William A. Schiemann is president of, and John H.

Lingle is principal consultant with, the Metrus Group.

The Somerville, N.J., management-consulting firm

specializes in measurement and organizational

change.

Seven Greatest Myths of Measurement

"Contrary to myth, methods of measurement

are as important as performance reviews and

annual reports. They could also, if used properly,

spot problems in time to correct them or

indicate perfect opportunities when they arise."