Why Not Just Have Someone Do a
Baldrige Evaluation?
Pat Townsend & Joan Gebhardt
ptownsend@qualitydigest.com
Often, when a company has someone
on its payroll who has done all the work (usually on company
time and at company expense) to become a Baldrige Examiner,
the question is raised, “Why don’t we just have
our person do a Baldrige evaluation of the company?”
It’s a valid question because that’s the approach
that most all other management systems have employed over
the years. Usually, the sequence is that someone publishes
a book proposing a new approach, forms a consulting company
and offers appraisals of any company that wants to try this
“bold new approach.” The results of the appraisal
are inevitably that the company is pretty good, but if they
want to become “world class,” they need to hire
the author/consultant’s company.
That’s not how the Baldrige criteria work. The first
step is the self-assessment that makes it possible to complete
the application. Note the use of the word “self”:
This can only be done by the leadership of the organization.
The common model has the senior leadership team dissecting
the Baldrige (or, perhaps a state quality award if it’s
a Baldrige clone) line-by-line and sketching an outline
filled with lots of “things we need to know for sure.”
Each member of the senior leadership team then works with
a team made up of his or her immediate subordinates to spell
out detailed answers.
The role of the company’s quality folks in all this?
It’s to take part in the conversations, help everyone
understand what’s being asked, identify answers and
coordinate the writing of the actual application—in
other words, to facilitate.
The overwhelming majority of the companies that attempt
such a self-assessment never submit an application. Why
not? Because they so quickly compile lists of things to
do that those efforts become the focus of their improvement
endeavors.
Of those that actually do submit applications, the large
majority never win--but that’s fine because the feedback
reports are agreed to be the most valuable result gained
from submitting an application. When Pat (one of the authors
of this column) was a Baldrige Examiner, he scored one applicant
who, in answer to some points, wrote, “We don’t
do this yet.” They knew they didn’t have a chance
at winning; they simply wanted the feedback report.
The feedback report is, quite simply, the least expensive
high-impact consulting available. Between the “things
to do” list generated during the self-assessment effort
and the feedback report, a company has at its fingertips
the means for extensive improvement.
How is this better than having someone else do an appraisal?
All company executives come complete with at least moderately
strong egos. If someone else says, “You should fix
this, this and that,” it is easy to say to yourself,
“The consultant doesn’t actually understand
what we do or, at the least, he or she didn’t do a
very good job of studying my department,” and then
file the report under “things to do someday…
maybe.”
If, however, we’re partners in the assessment--if,
in fact, we’re in charge of it--it’s tougher
to blow off the results. It’s the same with the feedback
report because that assessment is based solely on what the
company leadership chose to say.
The trick is making the commitment up front to invest
the time needed to conduct the self-assessment and complete
the application. The paradox is that the best time to conduct
a Baldrige self-assessment is when a company is doing well,
and the toughest time to do a Baldrige self-assessment is
when a company is really busy… which is normally the
case when the company is doing well.
If the Baldrige examiner on the payroll can’t conduct
a Baldrige evaluation while senior management gets on with
real work, why invest the time and money to send her or
him off to training, fill out an application critique and
possibly even go on a site visit? There are two good reasons:
one immediately pragmatic and one theoretical and idealistic.
The theoretical/idealistic reason is that it helps to keep
alive a system that has been a major reason why America’s
economy remains the strongest in the world.
The pragmatic reason for wanting to have a Baldrige examiner--or
an examiner for any of the state awards that are Baldrige
clones--on your payroll is to have the expertise in-house
to help the leadership team understand the criteria and
to suggest alternative ways to tackle the many challenges
that will be identified.
Once the company decides to submit an application, the
in-house examiner will be invaluable in helping the application
authors explain the company’s achievements in ways
that are true while presenting the organizational case to
the examiners assigned to read the application.
Dale Crownover, president and CEO of Baldrige winner Texas
Nameplate Company--and a Baldrige examiner--says that his
company is already preparing to apply again as soon as it
can (the rules require five years between winning an award
and re-applying). Does he want another trophy? No, he wants
a feedback report.
Pat Townsend and Joan Gebhardt have written more than
200 articles and six books, including Commit to Quality
(John Wiley & Sons, 1986); Quality in Action: 93
Lessons in Leadership, Participation, and Measurement
(John Wiley & Sons, 1992); Five-Star Leadership:
The Art and Strategy of Creating Leaders at Every Level
(John Wiley & Sons, 1997); Recognition, Gratitude
& Celebration (Crisp Publications, 1997); How
Organizations Learn: Investigate, Identify, Institutionalize
(Crisp Publications, 1999); and Quality Is Everybody's
Business (CRC Press, 1999). Pat Townsend has recently
re-entered the corporate world and is now dealing with “leadership.com”
issues as a practitioner as well as an observer, writer
and speaker. He is now chief quality officer for UICI, a
diverse financial services corporation headquartered in
the Dallas area. Letters to the editor regarding this column
can be sent to letters@qualitydigest.com.
|
