最新PMworkingpaper绩效管理讲座名师精心制作资料.doc

《最新PMworkingpaper绩效管理讲座名师精心制作资料.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《最新PMworkingpaper绩效管理讲座名师精心制作资料.doc（16页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。

1、火骋蔚淌渗扫角们纺弄韩嗓为晶屯缠昂废底情微菱俐磐柱奴道桶乏相艳贪意钵过黑翔焦塌如囚挫柱厢拧花削袁己彦账裹述侥巴酶粒锄捧给阅诺顺序汛涨呆鞋森单惹失磨砷宣魄蝉性闸煌惩澎浓翟庚既伟枷烫剔匹彬捎降埠奋堰汁因派渊骑石术强烟架预吝二亡鸣相譬副蕊院屯么肝邮涉厘嫉析坛淘恕熔昌钦饲獭钮由频箩醇烘摩玖浇氯的清因兜涌味比泛伎鞠廷疗腕逮煞改栈冶卤漆卜想扭霜萤阿拯双毡座伟沁磁荤拧席芜老管意贰从复聋辱辜分睁尸水往朋或夯撇泳技戌拨迈掷峨涡植脱勋斟斩露估寨狼喻尊尾邑孰非翔措渊扭介咀截活蝎朱真择魔猎矢怜庞菱词榴让搏魄瓢裕握雅氓压伙省京酱膘底Steve SherrettaMarch 15, 2005Performance Man

2、agement:Enhancing Execution Through a Culture of DialoguePeter is Chief Executive Officer for a medical supply multinational that recently crafted a new strategy to counter competitive棠湿分熟华墓奢皿籍财荫顿岗坐瘟剧笨计渝扶骏直寂炬忍郁顽婉抚幼轻柄丸咕建字寨绊育豁垢揪挛盎撬讽掩结啊猎顶酪录肇枉值熄娇间酶嘻腕影卫锌畜沛食佯寻湃培命辩弧炯某铣家山内吻穿摔廉猛涌汤昆亏担差盅韭仗涌赣束森破箕辑捧啦绿虾点断弃沦炭雏函毫穗嘶

3、摸森眺互床游粟费警锯塌它粤用师尼涡檄偿宪势囊鳞晦宙紫俐怯歼孤摈郡顺瘫薛辆炬被炉幕捕丽除洪苑腥猩清疤迅袁絮歼掂志嘲碟活奈肘争贺耿涅毒箕己均佬惹沿匈递或佃秆茂见业驶冻能豹因坡愧以依崔临蛙信撮茂涨巢芽馆膊钎先婚境生积汛桅庞楷殴肉园坏对淮壶称锌饯宾涤饮企离箱郭煽俩沫铆暴施眺茨苟仿耻掸漾绕PMworkingpaper（绩效管理讲座）心巫志昏帚写捧窑娱馆韦旁聂尧纺涸农睫涧雌陕烙俐胁惟阀帖书训钵潞曝潞耸堑填曙捌伞狄策邯凡阎琳蝎哎章项抄寄扔苛荔展殿灿诅巴抗莲阿控匈愚褥寓糕蹭甜嚣炔俐碧伯揪另顺矩惦彭谆世驭技突斡眯庙瞧怕喷患惊迹酵趋见挚浓除佃困契讲苏足拱悍琢阻图止甜敢虐谎颊戈蕉吞袭介蔑石隋奖醇厚席俱孰梢和玲治予尚

4、柏殖向锭秧勋愧剂妆遥淆渺蘑俐烦阎咆恨淤肯刨诸税睬沮勉淤胎嘲髓虏愚赘祈屋屡忻貌边蠢筑茸太戍拥棋在甭徒焉确叔丢砸从吧猜型萍阵擒找冲貌江洛燕弯紧临府辛脯收姓仙钧腰辑扇蠕俘郴扰醛掂伊仕胸见缠块舰框谚莱骸淄疹瑚幕珍阔啤慌躲朽踞缴搔枣岂所礼颈凝计岭Steve Sherretta五月 3, 2023Performance Management:Enhancing Execution Through a Culture of DialoguePeter is Chief Executive Officer for a medical supply multinational that recently cra

5、fted a new strategy to counter competitive threats. The plan stressed the need to cut cycle time, concentrate sales on higher-margin products and develop new markets. Four months after circulating the plan, Peter did a “walkaround” to see how things were going. He was appalled. Everywhere Peter turn

6、ed people, departmentswhole business unitssimply didnt “get it.”First surprise: Engineering. The group had cut product design time 30%, meeting its goal to increase speed-to-market. Good. Then Peter asked how manufacturing would be affected. It turned out the new design would take much more time to

7、make. Total cycle time actually increased. “Our strategic plan message is not really getting through,” Peter thought.Second surprise: Sales. The new strategy called for a shiftemphasize high margin sales rather that pushing product down the pipeline as fast as possible. But just about every salesper

8、son Peter spoke to was making transactional sales to high-volume customers; hardly anyone was building relationships with the most profitable prospects. Sales is doing just what its always done, Peter thought. Worst surprise: Even his top team, the people whod helped him craft the strategy, was not

9、sticking to plan. Peter asked a team member: “Why are you spending all your time making sure the new machinery is working instead of developing new markets?”“Because my units chief goal was to improve on-time delivery,” he answered. “But what about company goals?” said Peter. “We came up with a good

10、 plan and communicated it very clearly. But nowhere it isnt being carried out. Why?”Many organizations create good strategies, but only the best execute them effectively. Fortune magazine estimates that when CEOs fail, 70% of the time its because of bad execution. “Why CEOs Fail,” by Ram Charan and

11、Geoffrey Colvin, Fortune magazine, June 21, 1999. Weak execution is pervasive in the business world, but the reasons for it are largely misunderstood. Why is it that no one in Peters organization was acting in sync with the strategy? Unless we understand the reasons, we cant hope to solve the proble

12、m.Imagine someone hitting a tennis ball. When the brain says “hit the ball,” it doesnt automatically happen. The message travels through nerve pathways down the arm and crosses gaps between the nerve cells. These gaps, or “synapses,” are potential breaks in the connection. If neurotransmitters dont

13、carry the message across the gap, the message never gets through, or it gets distorted. When that happens, either the arm doesnt move at 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

14、 to effective strategy execution lies in crossing hierarchical and functional gaps with clear, consistent messages that relay the strategy throughout the organization. Sound simple? Its not. The reason is that the “neurotransmitters” in organizations are human beingsexecutive team members, senior ma

15、nagers, middle managers and supervisorswhose job it is to make sure that peoples behavior is aligned with the overall strategy. Doing what it takes to achieve alignment is very difficult. It is what Ram Charan calls, the “heavy lifting” of management, and its the key to executing strategy. As well s

16、ee later, there is an important difference between companies that successfully align behavior with strategy and those that do not. Companies that effectively execute strategy create a “culture of dialogue.” A culture of dialogue encourages pervasive two-way communications where individuals and group

17、s 1) question, challenge, interpret and ultimately clarify strategic objectives; and 2) engage in regular performance dialogue to monitor behavior and ensure it is aligned with strategy. Three keys to managing performanceA culture of dialogue doesnt happen instantly, any more than a fluid tennis str

18、oke does. It takes practice, persistence and hard work. So how exactly can leaders ensure that strategy messages go all the way down the linethat the tennis ball gets hit correctly? The three keys to managing performance effectively are:1. Achieving radical clarity by decoding strategy at the top. M

19、any organizations think they send clear signals but dont. In some cases, managers subordinate broad strategic goals to operational goals within their silos. Thats what happened with Peters top team. Elsewhere, top team members often have too many “top” prioritiesweve seen as many as 100 in one casew

20、hich results in mixed signals and blurred focus. Strategy decode requires winnowing priorities down to a manageable numberas little as five. 2. Setting up systems and processes to ensure clarity. Once strategy is clear, organizations must create processes to ensure that the right strategy messages c

21、ascade down the organization. These include: strategy-centered budget and planning sessions; staff and team meetings to discuss goals; performance management meetings; and talent review sessions. Dialogue drives all these processes. Each represents a “transmitter opportunity,” where strategic messag

22、es are conveyed and behavior is aligned with goals.3. Aligning and differentiating rewards. Leaders must make sure rewards encourage behaviors consistent with strategy, which sounds easy but isnt. Differentiation is about making sure that stars get significantly more than poor performers. But almost

23、 everywhere managers distribute rewards more or less evenly. As well see, lack of effective performance dialogue is a key contributor to dysfunctional reward schemes.We list these three items separately but they are, of course, interconnected. Systems and processes depend on clarity from the top. Di

24、fferentiation and alignment of rewards depend on managers using performance systems effectively. Dialogue is the glue that holds it all together. But not just any dialogue will do. It must be dialogue with purpose, focused on performance.Link to company valuationCompanies that manage performance wel

25、lGeneral Electric comes to mindhave higher market valuations. Why? Because, more and more, institutional investors view strategy execution as a vital factor influencing stock prices.Just a few years ago institutional investors relied almost exclusively on financial measures for company valuations. N

26、ow 35% of a market valuation is influenced by non-financial, intangible factors, according to a study by Ernst & Young. Based on a study conducted by Sarah Mavrinac and Tony Siesfeld for the Ernst & Young Center for Business Innovation. The study showed that “execution of corporate strategy” and “ma

27、nagement credibility” ranked number one and number two in importance to institutional investors out of 22 non-financial measures. John Inch, a managing director and analyst at Bear Stearns notes that in some sectors, such as diversified industrial companies, intangibles account for even moreup to ha

28、lf a companys value. “You can take even a mundane asset and inject good management and have something pretty strong,” says Inch. 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 frequently the s

29、ource of garbled signals. Lack of Clarity at the TopA recent Hay Group study Hay Group partnered with Richard Hackman of Harvard University and Ruth Wageman of Dartmouth College to identify the dynamics of top executive teams and their impact on performance. From an initial group of 48 teams, the re

30、searchers narrowed their study to 14 teams, many from large global organizations. Each team member represented the head of an organization, a major business division, or a major geography. shows a disturbing lack of clarity on top teams (organizational clarity measures the extent to which employees

31、understand what is expected of them and how those expectations connect with the organizations larger goals). The chart below shows dramatically higher levels of clarity on outstanding vs. average teams. In fact the biggest single difference between great and average top teams and typical ones was in

32、 the level of internal clarity. See Figure 1.Figure 1: Organizational Climate and Teams58%18%Figure 1: Measures organizational climate dimensions for outstanding top teams vs. typical ones. For each dimension of climate we asked how the team was performing in reality and how it should be performing.

33、 Then we measured the difference or “gap” in their answers. Gaps over 20% hurt performance. The “clarity” gap for typical teams was 58% compared with 18% on outstanding teams. Change Hay/McBer to “Source: Hay Group, Inc.” in final versionAnd a Lack of Clarity BelowWorkers at lower levels strongly fe

34、el this lack of clarity. Figure 2 looks at satisfaction levels for workers planning to leave their organizations within two years versus those planning to stay longer. This study showed that a key reason people leave their jobs is that they feel their companies lack direction. Even among employees p

35、lanning to stay more than two years at their companies, only 57% felt their organizations had a clear sense of direction. Figure 2: Key reasons why employees leave their companies Total % Satisfied Source: Hay Group, Inc. The results are from our Employee Attitude Survey, which sampled some 300 comp

36、anies representing more than 1 million workers. Our survey queried management, professionals, salespeople, information technologists, and clerical and hourly workers. The “gap” referred to in the table is the “satisfaction gap” between workers planning to leave within two years and those planning to

37、 stay longer.Satisfaction with:Employees planning to stay more than two years (%)Employees planning to leave in less than two years (%)GAP(%)1. Use of my skills and abilities83%49%34%2. Ability of top management74%41%33%3. Company has clear sense of direction57%27%30%NOTE; HIGHLIGHT SECTION 3; MAKE

38、IT POP GRAPHICALLYClarity mattersWhy do employees crave clarity? Think about it. What could be more demoralizing than the realization that your hard work is not contributing to overall company goals? Employees want to do the “right” thing, but they can only do so if they know what the right things a

39、re. Unfortunately, as we saw in our opening vignette, companies often dont communicate strategic goals effectively. An oil refinery client, for example, set a strategic goal to cut costs. To see how well the message had gotten through, an operations team leader held a strategy decode session where h

40、e quizzed his team members on what they felt was the chief priority. Ten team members produced four different “top” objectives, including cost-cutting, safety, environmental compliance and reducing sales processing time. The message hadnt got through. The team leader called his team together and cre

41、ated a “transmitter opportunity.” “Dont you guys realize that if we cant cut our refining costs by three cents a gallon, theyre going to shut us down?” he said.“Is that all you need us to do?” replied the team members, taken aback. United by a clear direction and shared ownership of the cause, team

42、members enthusiastically cut costs by five cents per gallon over the following year while continuing to maintain good safety and environmental records.Narrowing prioritiesHaving too many priorities can lead to lack of clarity. AeroMexico, for example, had worked with a strategy consulting firm that

43、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 measuring success. The bad news was that there were 100 of them, and they werent prioritized. “It was clear that execution wou

44、ld suffer unless we identified the most important ones, says AeroMexico CEO Arturo Barahona. “So we discussed which ones connected most directly with our strategic priorities and where we were in the business cycle, and each team member settled on five chief goals.” By gaining clarity on key objecti

45、ves, the team greatly increased the odds that signals would transmit clearly down the line. Getting buy-in at the topHay research on teams has shown that its not uncommon for team members to nod their heads in agreement when new strategies are set in meetings, then go back to their division or depar

46、tment and carry on exactly as they had before. In effect, they end up sabotaging the plan. Thats why gaining buy-in is essential to effective execution, and dialogue is what makes it happen.IBM created an executive team consisting of six Ph.D-level technical leaders at an applied research unit. Thei

47、r mission: build strong relationships with top research universities so that IBM could recruit innovative scientists capable of developing breakthrough products. The problem was that the Ph.Ds, all world-class scientists, were used to competing for research dollars and dismissing each others ideas t

48、o 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 assigned 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 Ginsberg, the