|
How do you ensure that, if you tie compensation to measures, that your staff doesn't end up gaming the measures or sandbagging the targets? I know it's human nature that we're trying to overcome, but it seems like a systems approach (quality vs throughput, etc.) could help address this problem. Looking for examples of success that people have implemented. Thanks. |
|
Two suggestions: One, during the measure development process, explicitly spend some time talking about how the measure could be gamed. Envision creative ways that people could impact the measure in ways you don't want. Then add measures or modify measures as appropriate to make it harder it game. Two, don't tie compensation to measures until you've reported on measures for a few cycles. People will start responding measurement even without compensation, but compensation does accelerate the process. |
|
You also need to set some ground rules in the beginning when thinking about targets. Like Sergio says, you need to ensure that you report for a few cycles before tying compensation to measures. During this time, the leadership team has a great opportunity to set the tone that measures are for learning and reacting to the strategy. They are not just for rewards and punishment, but they are for strategic learning. |
