Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor From: taylor@hplabsc.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.comp-soc Subject: Re: Performance Monitoring Message-ID: <731@hplabsc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 8-Oct-86 17:57:14 EDT Article-I.D.: hplabsc.731 Posted: Wed Oct 8 17:57:14 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 9-Oct-86 04:12:27 EDT Reply-To: hplabs!seismo!mcvax!tucos!hunt@hplabs.HP.COM Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Lines: 33 Approved: taylor@hplabs Reference: <681@hplabsc.UUCP> This article is from Jim Hunt and was received on Tue Oct 7 16:30:49 1986 Murray at Xerox wrote; > I think the main reason for the performance monitoring debate is that > the workers and management involved are in an adversary role... > [comments anyone? I think this is a bit of an overgeneralization. There > are a lot of subtle issues involved in places where there isn't an > adverserial role at all... -- Dave] As an American working in Europe, I must add that the adversarial relationship between management and workers is largely an American phenomenon. I see almost none of it here in Finland, perhaps because they use a different source of performance improvement. At this plant, a small electronics manufacturer with ~100 employees, they are payed salary for the general jobs, and have the option of taking jobs that pay directly on how many widgets get schnozzled in a day. I am prepared to defend the statement that this results in moral improvement and in higher productivity on the general jobs through a carry over effect. And, of course, lots of widgets are getting schnozzled every day. Granted, this is still adding stress to some, but it is optional. Any response on American job stress vs. European? Does anyone know of a place in America ( >= 100 emp. only) where this is being done? Is it working? Jim Hunt mcvax!tucos!hunt@seismo.css.gov A student from Berkeley teaching CS to the faculty in Finland.