Comments

Always a treat to hear Tom speak. The timing is impeccable as we start another year of pay for performance metrics at our company. It seems a necessary evil especially when you are leading the masses at a distance. M

Posted by Mike at January 28, 2007 2:49 PM

Hey Tom,
Try and put in titles for these audio snippets that are descriptive. Perhaps someone at your office or at Autioblog could help you. The current title is 5248aa0b-0d84-5e95-9242-c39c73be17b5

Warm regards,

Posted by Arun Sadhashivan at January 28, 2007 3:14 PM

Tom

Relationships!

Richard

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at January 28, 2007 3:42 PM

Metrics are useful when they help us determine whether we are profitably achieving the ambitions of the organization. They do have a way of taking on a life of their own. They tell us how well we are staying on the road, but too often we fail to ask where that road is taking us. They also give us a false sense of security. GM has done a fine job of heeding their metrics on cost and quality. And while cost and quality metrics improved, marketshare plunged dramatically. How does one measure exciting and compelling design? And how does one measure innovation? I recently asked an executive what they paid attention to expecting to hear about revenues and costs...instead, this exec learned in his days of supervising the dynamometer lab at Chrysler, that the operation hums a certain pitch when things were going well. Somehow I think there is magic in that metric. So set those spreadsheets aside, and go listen for the hum.....

Posted by Mike Neiss at January 28, 2007 8:09 PM

Perhaps: "Air New Zealand".

Posted by wmmbb at January 29, 2007 5:11 AM

Question - WHY the hell have we introduced the word ‘metric’ when ‘measurement’ is what we seem to be talking about? "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck" (Dave Thomas). Of course measuring is important BUT measuring EVERYTHING in the NHS has resulted in accountants running the joint and the human context has gone out of the window and thereby is the problem with measuring the 'wrong' stuff in my opinion. Measure outcomes with passion but please - not EVERY BORING INPUT. The problem I have with measuring (sorry I refuse to call it ‘metric’) is it takes all the 'people' stuff out of the equation. I like the way Arthur C Clarke sums up the FACT VERSUS PEOPLE debate; ‘The best MEASURE of a man's honesty isn't his income tax return. It's the zero adjust on his bathroom scale.’

Posted by Trevor Gay at January 29, 2007 6:16 AM

Metrics are a bit of a pet rant of mine. I am very much with Trevor and Tom on this - measurement is important but it is not THE thing. Personally I believe that any measure that you use to give you factual information should not be used to drive results. It skews the result - I have heard way to many converstaions along the lines of "we have too many cases listed at high priority therefore we need to change the definition of the priority in order to meet our goals".

To my mind the key role in this is the first level manager - one of the toughest jobs in the world. The main role for me is translation - from company direction to the behaviours and outcomes that you want to see with each individual. Being able to translate the great work that an individual does back up into the numbers so that snr management can make sense of it. Understanding the meaning behind the results. Values based leadership - what is the right thing to do in each situation.

Posted by PaulH at January 29, 2007 6:41 AM

By the way I am with Tom on Air New Zealand too. I flew with them about 30 years ago (children on flights were treated like royalty then!). All this time later I still have a soft spot for the company. Despite people telling me bad things about the airline I still remember the experience.

Talk about irrational, emotional connection to a brand based on virtually no recent evidence at all!

Posted by PaulH at January 29, 2007 6:44 AM

Air New Zealand it is. thanks wmmbb

Posted by Erik Hansen at January 29, 2007 7:49 AM

The very word 'metric' contains a sort of built-in incomprehensibility that tends to lead to non-compliance. The word, as Trevor states, is 'measure'. You can measure activity. Staff can measure activity. We can talk about measurements of performance, and what they mean for us in our daily business lives.

You can't 'metric' activity. Metric is a word cloaked in pseudo-science. Here in the UK at least, for the baby-boomer generation 'metric' is also a word that recalls the loss of feet and inches, ounces and pounds and their replacement, apparently by edict from EU headquarters in Brussels, with a new, alien set of 'metrics'.

I'm ashamed to say that today I have no concept of how much fuel my car holds in litres; I mourn the passing of the gallon. (I hasten to say that I do know my environmentally friendly LPG costs half as much as petrol and diesel, however!)

So I heartily endorse what Tom is saying - and I would add, identifying/measuring those intangibles that actually lead to the performance to be measured, is really about finding/celebrating them at/with the front line, where the outcomes are made!

Posted by Stephen Spencer at January 29, 2007 8:55 AM

1. Beatings & metric measures of front-liners shall cease ONLY when morale improves

2. Stop watches MUST be used to metric measure time taken by slacker front-liners for their watery gruel lunch break

3. Air New Zealand employees MUST at all times wear a 'roo picture T-shirt ... so that they are easily identified

Posted by sean_six_sigma at January 29, 2007 9:14 AM

Tom, if I may quote at length Peter Fisk, author of Marketing Genius (http://marketinggeniuslive.com/): 'In recent years business has favoured a highly analytical, logical, measured approach. Indeed our obsession with left-brain precision, has perhaps led us to forget our right-brain imagination – to see the bigger picture, to make connections and instinctive judgements.

We need both – wider vision and disciplined focus, radical creativity and rigorous metrics – recognising that creating exceptional value for customers is the only sustainable way of delivering superior returns to shareholders.'

I believe that too! (Apart from the use of the word 'metrics'!)

Posted by Stephen Spencer at January 29, 2007 11:31 AM

Are you guys crazy? Susan said no technology. Stop it - tell him to get a life and have a vacation in Godzone. Phone messages do count. Nothing is so important that the boss gets overruled. Again, Susan said no technology!

Posted by Helen at January 29, 2007 9:00 PM

As almost everything, abusing is a bad habit.

And I think metrics are useful when the WHY you are measuring is clear. Define a goal, define WHEN youll say this goal is achieved and then start measuring.

So for example measuring the distribution of my speeches all over the globe can be completely useless if it's not clear which is the goal.

Posted by PierG at January 30, 2007 3:58 AM

Omigod - you're right! And I even said that in a previous post. I guess I assumed Tom wouldn't be reading the blog while he was away - if he (you) is (are) - Helen is right! Go on holiday!!

Posted by Stephen Spencer at January 30, 2007 4:19 AM

Tom get these audios in podcast so we can carry you with us on our mp3 player.

Posted by jim odell at February 1, 2007 10:38 PM generic viagra pills

Tom,
Great to hear you're having a good holiday! I realy like the MP3 thing. I sent this MP3 on metrics to a client of mine as it is EXACTLY the debate we have been having about - TRUST. Thanks ...

I see metrics as a guage of progress not something that will drive it. Obsess on them a la Nardelli and expect trouble at t' mill. The real "issue' around metrics is that some managers don't trust their people and metrics are used as a control mechanism. Nardelli faced the revolt because he transmitted distrust.

I don't believe we should ditch the measurement of our enterprises but we should get better at balancing an appropriate degree of measurement with trusting our people to deliver great things without our 'help'.

How about imposing an artificial constraint on ourselves that we're only allowed to measure three aspects of our business at a time. What would they be for you now?

Mine would be Repeat business, project profitability and meeting duration...

What would your top three be?

Posted by Chris Nel at February 7, 2007 1:47 PM

I think that Alignment is essential for any business aiming to lead its field. I think in particular mis-alignment of team with vision and values is one of the major factors holding back small to medium sized businesses. The positive side of this of course is that such a business can be taken through an alignment process which can be a catalyst for change in a positive direction. However, be warned that there are likely to be some casualities along the way. A particularly effective tool for completing this process is Verne Hamishes one page strategic plan outlined in his book 'The Rockerfeller Habits'

Posted by Rob Marr at February 12, 2007 3:47 AM

Metrics are very alluring because they can transcend an organization easily. You may say metrics are not THE thing, but I would answer that they could be and should be, if they measured teh execution of the strategy. Unfortunately, all of the bad examples brought up are not bad metrics - just the wrong ones:
- GM focused on cost and quality solely not because of the metrics, but because they did not have any metrics that rated the quality of their car designs. The metrics weren't bad - they just had the wrong ones.
- Eckerd's had a sole metric as well (Good 2 Great, Collins) and it was profit per store. Walgreen's took all their market share with profit per customer instead and therefore focused on offering services of convenience.
Metrics themselves aren't bad, but the wrong metrics are. Too many of the wrong metrics can even bring a Home Depot to its knees. But focusing a set of metrics on the strategy has given companies like JC Penney, BNSF and Anthem a huge boost in productivity.

Posted by Tim Miner at February 22, 2007 10:54 PM

PS quote from Rick Wagoner, CEO at GM:
"I think we'll probably pass Toyota in the U.S. on the workers-per-vehicle metric."

Posted by Tim Miner at February 23, 2007 9:35 AM