🚀 go-pugleaf

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I've seen alot of discussion about par for performance versus pay
>for longevity.  I don't think Deming was totally against pay for
>performance nor was he for pay for senority.
>
>My interpretation was that he viewed most pay-for-performance systems
>as arbitrary.  In fact, most of the problems with productivity was
>placed on management, not the worker.  While I'm not aware of any
>specific proposals by Deming on pay, I interpret his statements to
>mean that people should be rewarded for the performance OF THE TEAM.
>That way cooperation is encouraged and competition within the team in
>minimized. The contribution of the individual is recognized to the extent
>that it helps the team. In short, reward team performance and foster
>cooperation within the team.
>

I SUSPECT THAT THE VOCABULARY, "PERFORMANCE" TENDS TO RANKLE THE SENSES
WHEN YOU BELIEVE IN DEMING.  PERFORMANCE CAN IMPLY RANKING THUS
BECOME COUNTER PRODUCTIVE.  PERHAPS "PAY FOR SKILLS" WOULD BE A BETTER
APPROACH SINCE THE PERFORMANCE OF AN INDIVIDUAL CAN BE EFFECTED BY
THE SYSTEM REGARDLESS OF THE SKILLS.  HOWEVER, IF THE MARKET REQUIRES
ENHANCED SKILLS, THEN THE PROMOTION, MERIT, RANK, PAY OF AN INDIVIDUAL
SHOULD BE IMPROVED AS THE PERSON BECOMES CERTIFIED AND RECERTIFIED
COMPETENT.

A PROCESS OF PAY IMPROVEMENT THAT INCORPORATED BOTH EXPERIENCE (NOT
SENIORITY) AND CERTIFIED SKILLS/KNOWLEDGE WOULD SEEM TO MEET THE
DEMING PHILOSOPHY (WHICH I BELIEVE IS ON TARGET).  "EXPERIENCE PLUS"