Ken, interesting, thinking of your observation.....
Is there a difference between 'naming and shaming' the 'poor bloody
infantry' (eg on production lines) and naming and shaming 'bosses' eg Chief
Executives of NHS hospitals....the latter receiving a lot of prominence in
the English NHS (more than the rest of the UK) a few years ago - and, now,
in the academic literature - as to whether 'targets' (and 'terror') worked
(eg work by Bevan; Propper...)
The boss (or Board) may after all be responsible for the 'whole
process'....at least on paper.....but a hospital is of course at the mercy
of the wider health polity (eg central control in the English NHS, whatever
the prevailing rhetoric) and also of the more local 'health economy' (ie
its local commissioners and meso-level regulators at area or regional
level)...
A few CEOs/ Executives sought to 'hide defects' (ie fiddle waiting
lists/times) but that was a dangerous game....
As to whether 'profit' (market) means faster corrective action than targets
(state), Max, the jury is so far out, so far, that we don't know, to be
fair...although the (limited) English NHS-specific evidence from the 2000s
suggests the latter, state action......and all sorts of questions arise as
to - eg- whtehr nursing homes are or are not similar to hospitals, let alone
the rest of the economy...
This one will run and run....
Happy Christmas everybody,
Calum
Calum Paton
Professor of Public Policy
School of Public Policy and Professional Practice
Keele University
Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Health Planning and Management
(Wiley Blackwell)
[log in to unmask]
See Calum Paton, 'NHS Confidential: Implementation, or...how great
expectations in Whitehall are dashed in Stoke-on-Trent', in M. Exworthy et
al., Shaping Health Policy: Case Study Methods and Analysis, Policy Press,
2011
See special issue of International Journal of Health Planning and
Management, 26.4, 2011
See Calum Paton, New Labour's State of Health: Political Economy, Public
Policy and the NHS, Ashgate, 2006
-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Thompson
Sent: 15 December 2011 11:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Performance management
Hi Adam
My understanding is that Demming had long ago discovered that shaming
actually impeded any efforts at quality improvement for two reasons
1) most problems in quality were in fact related to systematic problems in
process
2) the introduction of shame/fear actually encouraged people to hide defects
or created conflict as blame was assigned.
Have these ideas been stood on their head?
Ken
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 15, 2011, at 6:07 AM, Adam Oliver <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> There is a lot of talk/analysis etc at the moment on whether shaming
> people for bad performance can improve performance. It seems to, but
> could the improved performance of poor performers be at least in part
> explained by regression to the mean? We probably need to have some kind
> of controlled experiment, one arm that uses encouragement of bad
> performers, and another arm that uses shaming. We could then see which
> (if any) has differential effect. It would be an important thing to do,
> across all kinds of sectors and scenarios, I think.
>
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
> communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
|