Appraising boardroom performance.

Rare is the company that does not periodically review the performance of its staff, business units, and suppliers. But rare, as well, is the company that does such a review of one of its most important contributors--its board of directors. Reviewing a board's performance is not an easy proposition: it has to be done by the members themselves, people who generally have many other responsibilities and whose time is always at a premium. But done properly, appraisals can help boards become more effective by clarifying individual and collective responsibilities. They can help improve the working relationship between a company's board and its senior management. They can help ensure a healthy balance of power between the board and the CEO. And, once in place, an appraisal process is difficult to dismantle, making it harder for a new CEO to dominate a board or avoid being held accountable for poor performance. Done properly is the key here, though. Done incorrectly, board appraisals can degenerate into self-serving evaluations or unpleasant, time-wasting exercises. Worse, they can evolve into rigid mechanical processes that discourage innovation. In fact, all of the approaches the authors observed in two years of research were incomplete. The authors have therefore drawn on the strengths of several different approaches to synthesize a best-practice process that is both rigorous and comprehensive.

The empowerment of service workers: what, why, how, and when.

In recent years, businesses have rushed to adopt an empowerment approach to service delivery in which employees face customers "free of rulebooks," encouraged to do whatever is necessary to satisfy them. But that approach may not be right for everyone. Bowen and Lawler look at the benefits and costs of empowering employees, the range of management practices that empower employees to varying degrees, and key business characteristics that affect the choice of approaches. Managers need to make sure that there is a good fit between their organizational needs and their approach to frontline employees.

Quality circles after the fad.

On the face of it, it makes sense, If you want to involve your employees more in decision making and shift the organization toward a more participative culture, starting suggestion groups called quality circles seems to be a risk-free way to begin. Having studied many quality circles in different organizations, the authors of this article conclude that quality circles have their distinct advantages but that they have inherent in their design numbers of factors that often lead them to self-destruct. Quality circles are also said to be a poor forerunner for more participative approaches to management. Changing a quality circle into an institutionalized participative structure involves making many changes in important features of the organization that do not naturally flow from the implementation of a circle program. The authors describe the stages that quality circles go through, discuss the various threats they must survive, and then outline the most effective uses that managers can make of them.

Gainsharing: a few questions, and fewer answers.

Gainsharing is an important organization development intervention, yet many of the basic questions have not been answered. This paper addresses these questions by developing a conceptual model and using the model to review the case study literature on gainsharing . The plans varied in terms of structural factors, implementation factors, and situational factors, and a majority were successful. Gainsharing impact was found in five key areas: organizational effectiveness, individual quality of work life, ideas and innovation, labor-management cooperation, and pay. Relevant research is briefly reviewed and several unanswered questions are identified for future research.

Quality of work life: perspectives and directions.

The values that quality of work life (QWL) has brought to the workplace are in danger of being lost, say authors Nadler and Lawler; to avert this danger, they debunk several "definitions" of the concept that miss the point, give it a precise definition, and spell out ways to use it successfully. They delineate six factors that they believe separate more successful from less successful QWL efforts. The first success factor is a perception of need--that is, in successful efforts organization members actually perceive a problem. Second, the problem is salient to the organization. Third, a structure for participation is created. Fourth, rewards are provided both for the processes and for the outcomes of QWL activities. Fifth, multiple levels of management are involved. And, finally, QWL involves all organization members in a way that avoids "we-they" rivalries. With these factors in mind, the authors conclude that three major components of QWL efforts must be managed well if they are to succeed: (1) development of projects at different levels; (2) changes in management systems and structure; and (3) changes in senior management behavior--that is, if the QWL effort is to be credible to organization members, there must be some specific, tangible QWL activity in which senior managers participate.