iSixSigma

cost of poor quality

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General cost of poor quality

Viewing 36 posts - 1 through 36 (of 36 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #31815

    Srinath Samaranayake
    Member

    can somebody tell me how to calculate cost of poor quality (COPQ)for a sigma project identified for a call center process (complaint & helpdesk)to measure customer satisfaction?

    0
    #84844

    Justin Kenny
    Participant

    One method is to engage the Quality Loss Function (QLF) as advocated by Taguchi.
    The QLF reflects the characteristic of performance to loss, expessed in financial terms, such as gross margin deviation of indeed cash.
    The QLF is explained practically in many ‘Quality’ publications.
     

    0
    #84848

    Jai Bhasin.
    Participant

    The total loss on effective time for which the system was linked should also reflect as COPQ due to poor planning and delayed reaction times in case of minor operational fluctuations.
    Comparison between different conversion ratios Vs standards set  also acts as a scale for training efficacy which can be converted into COPQ.
     

    0
    #84856

    Iggy Gottesdiener
    Participant

    Check out some of Phil Crosby’s writings from the 1980’s..especially “Quality Is Free”.  Methodology might not be six sigma sanctioned, but Crosby started the thought process…

    0
    #84858

    sl
    Member

    I am very familiar with the Crosby methodolgy and I agree that the 4 aboslutes and implemenations steps are a forefather of  6 sigma.  In fact, the Crosby application might be easier to implement, easier to apply and easy for Price of Non Conformance measurement.
     
    In fact I know of a wonderful Crosby on line measurment tool.  If you have an interest, please e mail me with your e address

    0
    #84869

    SM
    Member

    Cost of Poor Quality has is reflected in the following:
    1. Time Value: Longer time consumed in creation of  poor quality goods/services. Includes cost of human/non human resources  linked to time;
    2. Market Value: Loss in Market Share (meaured in terms of  resulting loss of profits – measured in terms of  aggregate loss of  market share as  percent of  increase in competitors’ market share  ) due to poor quality;
    All are welcome to add other components of  COPQ.
     
     

    0
    #84875

    Mikel
    Member

    The COPQ is a customer focus issue.  The problem is where is the breakdown.  6 SIg primarily focuses upon the process to customer link.  That too narrow.
    Poor quality of management at all levels, inadequate training, aged or lackluster strategy, lack of customer information, non motivated employees, barriers due to culture issues, those, plus process represent COPQ.
    6 Sig, along with any of the other quality tools will lower the cost of doing business in the production sector, but will it drive increased sales?
    I think not!

    0
    #84880

    Fed up
    Participant

    >6 Sig, along with any of the other quality tools will lower the cost of doing business in the production sector, but will it drive increased sales?
    I think not!<
    To the Notorious Stan:
    You think wrong and you are clueless.  Your view is myopic, limited in scope, and absolutely absurd.  To assert that improved quality and reduced costs do not aid in achieving increased sales is preposterous.  Where is your data?  Please provide some, rather than the baseless opinions of one.
    Since you think Toyota is the end-all be-all, maybe you should try to actually think about their levels of quality and the sales they enjoy in the market (I know this will be hard for you, but give it a shot anyway).  Better, faster, less expensive?  Nope, you’re absolutely right Stan.  They have no impact on sales at all. 
    I have read through your 300+ posts on the forum since January 2001.  Of those, I found 168 negative responses wherein you used name-calling and in-your-face responses. 47 posts were neutral: both positive and negative contained within them.  107 were actually helpful and/or courteous in the response. 
    You often talk about “data.” You make judgments and put forth posts that border on slander.  Your accusations against prominent consulting firms and consultants are nothing more than your personal opinion, which you present as fact, and your opinion as the “data.”  Yet you present nothing by way of actual data from the customers that you assert are “not satisfied” by these consulting firms.  This is nothing more than Stan using Stan to validate Stan.  You may be well read, but you are not well learned.  Real learning comes from the application and modeling what you have read.  You must have missed the part of Deming that talks about psychology.  You may want to do some further study on the topic and apply it to your perspective life.
    Maybe your hit them in the side of the head approach works in your business, but it doubt that it sells very well here in this community.  With responses like the ones we see here, maybe we should change your name from “Stan” to InfoFool?
    Since you hide behind the moniker of “Stan” and you will not disclose your true identity, I will not do you the courtesy of disclosing who I am.  Please either lighten your approach and truly come from a perspective of helping others to understand and educate them, or get gone from the forum.  Our jobs are difficult enough without idiots like you shoving your fist in our faces when we seek knowledge and support.This was done in an effort to give you what you give to others.  I eagerly await your tirade against me.  Please come armed with data.

    0
    #84881

    Mikel
    Member

    I think you have the wrong Stan.
    I have only responded to maybe 2-3 threads in the last 2 months and have never engaged in name calling.
     To say “Your view is myopic, limited in scope, and absolutely absurd.  To assert that improved quality and reduced costs do not aid in achieving increased sales is preposterous” is a comment that I do not agree with. Improved quality and cost reduction DO aid in uptick in sales.
    I have been saying that theer are other factors, including leadership, people motivations, culture and behavoir issues, etc.   contribute to customer satisfaction, leading to cutomer loyalty.
     
    I am very happy to give you my tel # at 508-616-5552 as I am not hiding behind any moniker.  I think you have mistaken me for another.

    0
    #84882

    Fed up
    Participant

    To The “Other Stan”:
    You have my sincerest apologies. 
    If you do a name search for all the posts from “Stan”, I think you will see why I am fed up with “Stan.”  To associate you with him is a gross injustice to you and all I can do is say I am sorry.  I hope you can understand how this happened and accept my apology. To avoid future confusion, could you maybe modify your posting name so we don’t get you mixed up with the other one?  After reading his posts, you will will see why this may be a good thing to do.
    To the “Infamous Stan,” my post still stands and I eagerly await your tirade.

    0
    #84883

    Chatikobo
    Participant

    Hello fed up:
    Whoops – talk about mistaken identity.
    As for the intended target of your message, many of the posts contain valuable info or raise pointed questions (and yes, some just slam people).
    His approach can be caustic, but he does play a role in this forum. Relax……………………..
    Lance
     
     
     

    0
    #84886

    Fed Up but learning
    Participant

    Lance:
    You know, crow isn’t very tasty, but I will eat it when appropriate – such as now.  All I can say is that “Nice” Stan is just that – a very nice, gracious and forgiving man.  Something I should work on, obviously.  I won’t try to justify what I did with reasoning, etc.  When I’m wrong, I’m wrong.  I was wrong.  My apologies to the forum and to both Stans for my tirade.

    0
    #84887

    Chatikobo
    Participant

    Eat no crow:
    The forum is populated by people with a common interest with a WIDE variety of skill sets and personalities. If you are like me, my personality’s x-bar is somewhere in the gracious area, but if you go a couple of sigmas to the left, my tirade zone can be found.
    Stay connected – learn, but “no crow for you!
    Lance
     
     

    0
    #84889

    Steven
    Member

    Team:
    One way I teach COPQ to my belts is to discuss the following, although not particularly practical or normative, but it does get their respective brains asking, what if we did it right first time and how would that affect the bottom line.
     
    The COPQ is basically the difference from between the bottom line from the current state of today to the state tomorrow that the firm delivers Right First Time (RFT) goods or services exceeding the critical to satisfaction criteria (Cost, Delivery and Quality).  Just imagine not having to employ a quality department, and how bout them increased sales because we demonstrated a bullet proof product or service.
     
    Darn right quality drives sales!  Wake up and smell the Toyota’s, Wallmart’s and how about McDonalds or even Lowes.
     
     

    0
    #84890

    Fed up AND learning
    Participant

    Lance:
    Right again.  Thanks for your support.  I definitely went beyond +/- 3 std deviations and will do some “special cause” introspection.  Now – back to business and having fun!  :-)

    0
    #84892

    Mikel
    Member

    Sorry Fed up, you have to say something dumber than attacking me to get a tirade.
    Please try again.

    0
    #84894

    no longer fed up
    Participant

    Stan – you made me laugh and brought a smile to my face.  Thanks, I needed that.  I will, however, not go on another tirade nor try to elicit one from you.  Lesson learned.

    0
    #84911

    Infamous Stan
    Participant

    Fed Up,
    A couple of thoughts –
    1) You have a right to your opinion of my posts, I am not trying to defend myself as I make a concious decision everytime I post. You may want to note the lead ins to what you think are negative – wrong, harmful information or promoting of services for themselves or friends (one of the firms being promoted is also dishonest). I know of two posts I felt I was wrong about – one from Jackie and one from a Rod Howes.
    2) Most of what the folks on this forum have been taught about six sigma is wrong. In that I mean that most have six sigma touted to them as the end all be all replacement for all tools and all systems. This is just flat wrong. Six Sigma is powerful but only one small component of running an enterprise.
    3) Everyone thinks everyone has to be polite and kind – this does not reflect reality of the differences in people. The people who don’t think I can be blunt, direct, and sarcastic don’t understand differences in human behavior. Most people who are true change agents possess similar characteristics. Companies that try to get change agents to act different than their nature instead of understanding and working with their nature are losing a valuable resource.
    And yes, when I post I think I am right. Also the nature of most people who are the drivers of change.

    0
    #84918

    Fed
    Participant

    Stan,
    Thanks for your response.  I’ll address your points.
    >1) You have a right to your opinion of my posts, I am not trying to defend myself as I make a conscious decision every time I post. You may want to note the lead ins to what you think are negative – wrong, harmful information or promoting of services for themselves or friends (one of the firms being promoted is also dishonest). I know of two posts I felt I was wrong about – one from Jackie and one from a Rod Howes.<
    My belief is, and I’m sure you know this, that your message may get lost in the way it is presented.  You do often make good and valid points.  Sometimes, I think you are way off base and present some information that is downright wrong, as we all do.  Does this mean you have bad intent?  I think not.  Should I beat you about your head and shoulders for it?  No.  We may just be misinformed or we may have missed something in the integration.  The ways in which our message is presented may cause those that most need our advice to tune us out, thus the benefit of our knowledge and experience is lost to those we are trying to reach and educate.
    >2) Most of what the folks on this forum have been taught about six sigma is wrong. In that I mean that most have six sigma touted to them as the end all be all replacement for all tools and all systems. This is just flat wrong. Six Sigma is powerful but only one small component of running an enterprise.<
    No argument from me on this. There is truly nothing new under the sun as far as the tools go.  Maybe they are wrong from your perspective, but does that necessarily make it wrong for all (statistical aspects aside, of course)?  Learning is a progressive and endless process.  We are all at different places on that journey.  And the roads we travel to get there are varied.  Just because you’re on a different path than mine does not make you “wrong.”
    >3) Everyone thinks everyone has to be polite and kind – this does not reflect reality of the differences in people. The people who don’t think I can be blunt, direct, and sarcastic don’t understand differences in human behavior. Most people who are true change agents possess similar characteristics. Companies that try to get change agents to act different than their nature instead of understanding and working with their nature are losing a valuable resource.<
    If being kind and nice is the most effective way to communicate, then it is the right thing to do, inherent personality traits aside.  And, some people should not be change agents due to their inability to adapt and use situational leadership styles.  Even the most famous “gurus” have lost credibility due to the manner in which they present their message.  I know one that will come to most people’s minds without having to mention the name.  He talked about the need to apply human psychology – it was one of his four pillars.  He did not walk his own talk in this area and it cost him, probably more than we will ever know.
    I am amazed at how often we keep having to re-learn our lessons about the social aspects that allow the tools to be most effective.  We all give nodding agreement to this aspect, and then go back to our individual efforts and trashing one another in our agenda to move forward.  It’s not all about the Tools and the Methods. I agree with you on that.   It’s about people.  Treating other with dignity and respect, though we may disagree (something I forgot yesterday).  Skip Lafeauve, the “creator” of Saturn, once said, “You really have to care about people.”  This doesn’t mean we have to hold hands and sing songs.  Far from it. But I think that we must, in most cases, assume the good intent of others.  I know you have good intentions, and I do question your approach.  I agree that sometimes people need to get whacked upside their head to get their attention (typically middle and upper management), but this should not be a default approach to leading, coaching and teaching others.  First and foremost, we are educators and marketers of the knowledge.  I don’t believe that many people respond well to confrontational approaches. It creates defensive responses that do not lead to learning and application.
    The in-your-face approach may feel good to the sender, but the receiver is not generally impressed.  If we talk about being change agents and that the social aspects are important, then people will gauge our sincerity by what we do.  If we talk about teamwork and consensus building, yet they see nothing different in the way we treat people compared to the old model of doing business, we lose our constituency and we tend to have “false starts.”  I have seen this too many times to count them.  People quickly see the old and tired “Do as I say, not as I do” and they bail out on us.
    Stan, you are right in that the tools are just that and nothing more.  We become too focused on them and forget completely about the way in which we sell ideas and propel the learning experience forward. The question then becomes, by what means can we best get our message across so that they are used in an effective way?  Sometimes we need to bite our lip and reframe the way we present our position in order that the greater good can be achieved.  We all have our inherent personality styles and traits.  Some are not made for this business.  I suggest that the in-your-face style tends to be one of those that do not fit as a regular entree in the team-based improvement smorgasbord.  Especially with those, like many on this forum, who are new, and yes, a little bit fragile in their learning.  I guess it all comes down to the vinegar and honey analogy.  Call it the “Golden Rule” or whatever you like.  Most people do not learn in a threatening, demeaning environment.  You have a lot of knowledge that you can pass along to us all.  I want that message to be heard.  If your responses are well thought out and considered in your approach, then I ask you to examine the real aim of our system and how that can best be achieved.
    As for dealing with those who post ads, we have the forum to handle this for us.  They are here to be our “forum police” and they do a good job at it.
    I thank you for your response and the way in which it was presented.  It is an example of the way our discourse on the forum should be.  We think we can disagree without creating significant emotional events.
    Good luck

    0
    #84923

    Mikel
    Member

    You are absolutely right. I am truly sorry.

    0
    #84924

    Mikel
    Member

    Fed,
    Thanks for the thought out, considered response. I appreciate it.
    The conflict in my mind is that the most successful six sigma companies – GE, Motorola, AlliedSignal – are in your face management styles. My take is that six sigma works best in a culture wher the message and the facts are much more important than the judgement of how they are delivered. It’s a Joe Friday culture – Just the facts.

    0
    #84927

    Helper
    Participant

    Srinath,
    Do you want to measure cost in terms of call center effecieiencies?
    Do you want to measure cost of providing ill suited solutions and the impact that has on call center effeciencies?
    Would you like to ascertain the impact to the customer and the opportunity cost the call center suffers?
    One may need a little more information.  But the cost can be easily calcuated…

    0
    #84930

    Charles H
    Participant

    Raytheon may also be classified as one of those “successful” Six Sigma companies by some and they got caught a few years ago (in the middle of their Lean Six Sigma rollout) cooking the books on aircraft delivery in order to make their numbers.  Each BB had to return a savings $1M per project, or else.  Get enough BBs and we can get our $8B in savings!  Nothing more than simple math.  I guess I would question the numbers related to any projects in this kind of environment. 
    An internal culture of fear is never a good thing.  High pressure and demanding environments can be handled without fear and intimidation.  And again, I refer you to Saturn under Skip Lafeauve.
    Many times, I think the real success stories aren’t the one’s that hit the Wall Street Journal.  They are the companies that just quietly and efficiently go about their business, doing “their thing,” satisfying employees and customers alike.  They set stretch goals, but understand the true nature of “stretch.”  They allow and learn from their mistakes, not killing anyone in the process, but never repeating them, either.  And they realize that the average employee is powerless to change the system without an active, supportive culture established by the  management team.
    And please, don’t get me wrong: team based initiatives are not for every company nor for every problem.  Some can and do make good money and good product without it and some people do thrive in those kinds of environments.  But I generally find these companies to have suboptimal processes and results.  And improvement comes slowly, if ever.  The competitive world is chewing them up and spitting them out, one by one.  I actually had one manager tell me, quit seriously, that “This is a good team.  They do everything I tell them to.”
    Our airline industry is learning a very hard lesson right now (and again), with ineffective systems, entrenched unions, and manufacturers that refuse to give an inch. Or they do so with very watchful eyes and heavy skepticism, feeling they have no choice (which they don’t).  However, there is one that continuously does well because they have efficient and lean systems, they treat their employees with dignity and respect overall, and they are fierce competitors in the market: Southwest Airlines.  Many have tried to copy them, but they just don’t get it.  And I hear no rumblings about “Six Sigma” over there, though they are tracking the numbers and very well may be doing it.  Why give it a name?  These are our values, it’s what we believe and this is what we do, every day.  It’s everone’s job.
    Unfortunately, with many companies, it’s like the early days of SPC and Lean: “Let’s all go to Japan and find the ‘Japanese Secret.’  We found the secret!  We have the Silver Bullet!” Next thing you know, they want us to do exercises in the morning and wear colorful little bump caps and coats, and take lots of data on everything. So we had directors of major, mutli billion dollar programs tracking pencil utilization and would personally control it, allowing only two pencils per person per week.  All to no end result. 
    “Well, that didn’t work, let’s try something else!  Hey, let’s do Six Sigma and be like Jack!”  One company I worked with modeled everything they did after GE.  Completely different culture, products, everything.  It didn’t work.  It isn’t working.
    When it’s all said and done, there is nothing left but the hard work of aligning what we do with where we want to be and developing the best methods for us to achieve it.  Each case is differnet.  It truly does take “profound knowledge,” of our company, our people, our markets, our benchmarks and our competition.  If we are really in this for the long haul, we have to realize that “beating the horse” will make it run faster, but not farther.  We may be in a race to get the results ahead of the competition and for the Board of Directors, but we want the horse to be able to survive to race again another day.
    Thanks for a good – and necessary – discussion. I look forward to any and all responses.  Take care, all.
    Charles H.
     

    0
    #85052

    Jackie
    Participant

    Stan,
    This has been a great dialog.  Fed Up has said very eloquently what I have been getting at all along (and which I firmly believe).  Messages get lost when the dignity of the receiver is not considered.  Part of effective team leadership (which is necessary for successful Six Sigma projects and programs) is protecting the esteem of those on the team.  Nothing will shut someone down faster than an attack, regardless of whether their information is accurate or not.  There are just better ways ot handle that than a confrontations.
    I agree that GE, Allied, etc have somewhat of an “in your face” style.  Remember the first rule of correlation…don’t assume causation.   There are other successful companies (Six Sigma and otherwise) that don’t manage that way.  Have you ever read “Built to Last” by Collins and Porras?  I believe the latest update was released this year.  The subtitle is: “Successful Habits of Visionary Companies.”  The companies profiled have proven successful over time (decades).  Many of them (but not all) had highly visible dynamic leaders.  They certainly were not all “in your face”. 
    Leadership books abound these days.  The ones I have read recently (“The Female Advantage” by Helgesen, “Leading from the Inside Out ” by Cashman, “Leadership and Self-Deception” by THe Arbinger Institute, “The Leadership Challenge” by Kouzes and Posner)…they all have a common thread.  It is that leadership is based on values, integrity, vision and being the kind of balanced person that people will want to follow.  I haven’t read one word about the value of insults, sarcasm or “in your face” styles. 
    I am as guilty as the next person of sarcasm with a little cynicism thrown in. I am very passionate about what I believe is right, whether is be in my personal life or my work life (Six Sigma), but everything I have learned about leadership, teams and personality dynamics have taught me that if I want to truly succeed, people need to be first, being right second.
    I (like Fed Up) believe you have a lot to offer this community.  I firmly believe that your message would be heard by more of the ill-informed if you brought more respect to your posts.
    I appreciate your being open minded in this discussion with Fed Up.  I feel a little proud that you mentioned me by name. :)
    Jackie

    0
    #85054

    Mikel
    Member

    In your face is not the same as fear.
    PS – the stan that said he was sorry wasn’t me.

    0
    #85055

    Mikel
    Member

    In your face is not the same as fear.
    PS – the stan that said he was sorry wasn’t me.

    0
    #85056

    Charles H
    Participant

    Stan,
    To be honest, I was a little stunned and somewhat doubtful that it was you that posted the apology.  I do appreciate your honesty.  I was about to think we were going to have a breakthrough, hold hands and sing songs!  :-)  But, what the heck.  The weather in San Diego is gorgeous and you’re always welcome to come over if you’re in town and we’ll sit by the pool, have a cold drink and we’ll tell stories.
    As for your assertion.  Fear and in-your-face styles are not the same? Would you agree that the in-your-face is a style is a form of intimidation?
    I say absolutely! And what is the benefit of an intimidation style if not to get compliance based upon fear? Compliance through fear is the value that one derives from such styles.  It’s all about the exercise of power. 
    Let me present to different perspectives to power: that which is taken against one’s will, and that which is given freely and willingly.
    Some guy wrote a book way back about  . . .   20 years ago?  Called “Winning Through Fear and Intimidation.”  The two are linked in the book as they are in life.  Inextricably so. Intimidation (in-your-face) is fear by definition, as shown in the following:
    Main Entry: in·tim·i·dateEtymology: Medieval Latin intimidatus, past participle of intimidare, from Latin in- + timidus timidDate: 1646: to make timid or fearful (my emphasis) : FRIGHTEN; especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats – in·tim·i·dat·ing·ly adverb- in·tim·i·da·tion /-“ti-m&-‘dA-sh&n/ noun- in·tim·i·da·tor /-‘ti-m&-“dA-t&r/ noun
    I have always thought of the in-your-face, intimidation, and fear based styles to be like a well with a finite amount of water in it.  Everytime we use these kinds of power based styles, we “drain the well” – sometimes a little, sometimes a lot.  After a while, it’s empty.  And so is our “power.”  And if a little water should trickle back into the well from some crack or seam, it is never back to its full measure.  People “give” grudgingly if at all.  They withdraw from active participation and dread the experience.  They are sapped of their energy and creativity.  And like someone just said in another thread, just when you need their helping hand, they’ll be waving goodbye to you.
    On the other side, the cooperative, collaborative leadership styles tend to have a infinite amount of “power” that isn’t taken, but earned.  It is given willingly by those who are lead. 
    I was given a wonderful book a while back.  It’s called “The Servant: A Simple Story About The True Essence of Leadership.,” by James C. Hunter.  It is a short and good read, if you’re open to the message.  The main premise of the book being that the truly effective leaders, like Skip LaFeauve at Saturn (again), come from a perspective of love and service to those they lead. 
    Skip presented a Keynote Address at the “TQM Seminar For Aerospace and Defense back in 1992.”  A bunch of us from General Dynamics put it together.  I wish we could have taped it.  600 people were ready to go buy a Saturn after he was done – and many did.  It was truly something.  And he wasn’t dynamic and running around the stage like some hyped-up gurus we know.  He was very calm and resolute.  And very powerful in his message: “You really have to care about people,” he said. 
    The story of how Saturn came into being is truly amazing, when you consider the social issues that had to be solved so that the people could focus on designing and building a high quality vehicle.  Skip also said – to the best of my long term memory – but this is very close if not exact: “As leaders, we have 1,000 opportunites every day to do ‘the right thing.’  And believe me, the people are watching.  All we have to do is screw it up one time, and all our talk about quality will be for nothing.”
    The interesting thing is, my experience has been that those who tend towards the fear based styles are within their own world of fear, for a myriad of reasons.  And utlimately, in my analysis, it always comes down to our individual values and beliefs and the old saying of “we are who we were when . . “. 
    Stan, I think we all want to leave a legacy of growth and prosperity for our families, friends, communities and companies.  And again I would ask, by what means can we best achieve our objectives?  As leaders, we must always examine if our methodology matches the intended aim and if it is true to our objective?  It really does come down to a personal choice.
    Take care,
    Charles H

    0
    #85057

    Mikel
    Member

    Charles,
    The most fear I’ve ever seen in an organization is in one where no confrontation was taking place at all. It was all behind closed doors with a good old boy network. Long story short on this on – the organization was once seen as one to be admired – they no longer exist.
    The stories about Saturn I’m sure are true, but look at Saturn today – in disarray, with a GM metality, and a shadow of what they could have been.
    Go read Good to Great and tell if you think the companies described there were an in your face culture. I do. If you don’t, we need to clarify terms.
    I would much rather work with blunt open people with no hidden agendas. I call that in your face.

    0
    #85058

    Mikel
    Member

    Charles,
    The most fear I’ve ever seen in an organization is in one where no confrontation was taking place at all. It was all behind closed doors with a good old boy network. Long story short on this on – the organization was once seen as one to be admired – they no longer exist.
    The stories about Saturn I’m sure are true, but look at Saturn today – in disarray, with a GM metality, and a shadow of what they could have been.
    Go read Good to Great and tell if you think the companies described there were an in your face culture. I do. If you don’t, we need to clarify terms.
    I would much rather work with blunt open people with no hidden agendas. I call that in your face.

    0
    #85060

    Charles H
    Participant

    Stan:
    Never said there isn’t conflict.  Conflict is a good thing.  It moves the organization forward.  We just don’t have to be nasty about it and be confrontational in dealing with it.  If you’re not struggling and having some issues of conflict, you aren’t changing.  Put it on the table and deal with it, openly and honestly.  I have seen more back stabbing in your so called  “open and in your face” environment than in the ones that don’t.  Hidden agendas?  They exist everywhere.  There are always those who will try to manipulate, self-promote, and “play the games” in any organization.  No system is perfect.
    I also believe that when there’s a “fire,” it isn’t the time to hold a team meeting and reach consensus on which door we’re going to go out.  It’s time for a directive, not in your face, style.
    As for Skip?  He was “killed” by the internal political agenda and the in-your-face types that still existed at GM and saw him as a threat.  Kill the “maverick” that isn’t like the rest of us back in good ole Detroit. Gee – wonder why Saturn isn’t what it used to be?  They have your kind of environment, Stan, not Skip’s.
    And, I think this all ties back to the thread where some were saying you don’t need the senior management to be involved.  Hopefully, some are seeing the integrations of all this.  Even tremendous success stories that no one could argue with, get killed when there is no alignment from the top to the bottom of the organization.  Even being located in Spring Hill, Tennessee – far from the environment of Detroit, couldn’t save the “great experiment” of Saturn in the ’90s
    I’ve told you the benefit of the environment I prefer to work in.  Please, what is the list of benefits you gain from yours?  And it is interesting how you don’t like “Keith K’s world,” but then you basically defend it, here.  It is, after all, the same kind of environment as the one you support for yourself.
    If you’re truly interested, a 360 review would probably show you some interesting things from those that are on the receiving end of your preferred style.  But . . . we’ll probably just have to agree to disagree.  You have chosen your preferred environment to work in and I have chosen mine.
    Best of luck to you

    0
    #85061

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Fed,
    I’m not exactly sure where to jump into this discussion (or if I really want to).
    Just as a point. GE is famous for an aggressive culture but people don’t walk around screaming at each other either. They are famous for the “make your numbers.” It is aggressive but focused. By the same token they don’t walk on egg shells trying not to hurt each others feelings. I am not sure if that is an in your face stle or not but it is honest. If someone gets hurt feelings it is probably less damaging than letting a business tank because nobody would step up and tell someone they were wrong. The people who lose their jobs have feelings also.
    The most aggressive VP I ever ran into was at Motorola which is a rather benign culture. I was thrown out of his office repeatedly. The test was if you came back. If you got hurt feeling and didn’t come back your time in his group were numbered. The upside was you always knew where you stood. The fun part was he always stood behind you. You may have gotten hammered later but that was between you and him. He was also a risk taker. If you wanted to go out on a limb and he backed you – he backed you all the way. That eliminates fear.
    In terms of implementing change – Motorola sent us through a school called MMI. The change consultant that taught that portion gave us lots of advice. In the end he said if you can’t make it work you are left with COW. Comply Or Walk. It is still a business not a democracy.
    The other side of the deal is the self-deluded pygmy potentate that started this string with his autistic view of himself. No room for those either.
    Time to head south.
    Just my opinion.
    Good luck.

    0
    #85062

    Charles H
    Participant

    Mike:
    We are in “violent” agreement!  You hit it on the head.  I’m not creating a “Kumbaya” singing songs environment.  And behind closed doors is where the “in your face” belongs.  Responsibility and accountability still must be maintained. Like I said previously, in your face should not be a default style, but it does have it’s place.  Going to either extreme for a regular diet will generally get you into trouble.  Some people respond better to the in your face approach.  I just find them to be few in numbers.  It is up to the leaders to know which works best for whom.  One size does not fit all.
    When in the Navy we were told to always praise in public, rebuke in private.  It made sense to me then – it makes sense to me now.
    Hard driving for numbers –  absolutely.  Kill you if you don’t get 200% return, but only 175% . . . I think not.
    Like I said, I think we’re in “violent” agreement.
    Take care.
    Charles H

    0
    #85064

    V HARIHARAN IYER
    Member

    Dear Sir,
      I am interested to know the measurment tool.
      Thanking you in advance/hari
     
     

    0
    #85066

    sl
    Member

    Mr. Iyer:
    Please visit http://www.infotool-online.com.  I will share with you an employee climate demo from the library of 15 different survey tools.
    LOGIN: employee results
    PASSWORD: results
    Please call me at 1-508-616-5552 if I can be of any assistance with explaination or navigation.
    Stanley Labovitz
     

    0
    #85097

    Mikel
    Member

    Charles,
    Just a couple of points –
    – Saturn has never made any money.
    – You assume you know my environment to the point of equating me with a GM or Ford culture. You either have misjudged me of misjudged them. There is no honest discussion going on there and I have seen both of them in the last six months.

    0
    #85101

    Mikel
    Member

    Srinath Samaranayake probably does not like being called a pygmy potentate.

    0
Viewing 36 posts - 1 through 36 (of 36 total)

The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.