Raising the Performance Bar

RAISING THE PERFORMANCE BAR 4

Raisingthe Performance Bar

Raisingthe Performance Bar: Lavern Wilson Case

Question1

LavernWilson is the new executive housekeeper in a department that ispoorly performing at Melrose Hotel. It is obvious that the approachthat Lavern took to consult with the supervisors did not work out. Inthis case, while the laundry supervisor seemed ready to look for thesolutions that her department was facing, the public room and theroom inspector supervisors seemed hostile in the meeting. Therefore,the most effective approach method that could have been adopted byLavern was to approach the three supervisors individually (Kelly &ampTaffer, 2013). This approach is ideal as it could have averted anypossibility of teaming up against any changes and against the newexecutive housekeeper as evidenced.

Question2

Lavernshould give the supervisors a chance of explaining the challengesthat they were facing, especially after visiting each supervisorindividually at their specific place of work, (Kelly &amp Taffer,2013). This ensures that the supervisors are given attention and thisavoids the possibility of self-protection and avoidance. The nextstep was for Lavern to give a feedback concerning the specificchallenges that each supervisor would detail. In this regard, Lavernwould have taken an opportunity of going through specific negativecustomer feedbacks to respective supervisors (Kelly &amp Taffer,2013). The next step is developing new changes or strategies thatcould help improve the performance of each department. At this point,it was important for Lavern to have individual contribution andproposals from each supervisor as they have better understanding andexperience of their particular work station.

Eachsupervisor would have clearly laid out the challenges that they arefacing in their department. This is an important part of consultationthat Lavern could have written down the key points to respondpromptly. The last important part of this management process isdeveloping a strategy of monitoring and evaluating the performance ofeach department (Kelly &amp Taffer, 2013).

Reference

Kelly,K., &amp Taffer, J. (2013). Raisethe Bar: An Action-Based Method for Maximum Customer Reactions.Boston. New Harvest

Raisingthe Performance Bar

Raisingthe performance bar is hard, especially when relaying the changes tothe employees. It is even more difficult when a new member tries toinitiate the changes like shown in the case study. Laverne made ahuge mistake in her approach. She went right in and shot theirself-esteem down to the ground. In her first meeting, she tore themapart with things they were doing wrong. In some places, the approachcould have worked. For instance, if the boss had been working therefor an extended period. It is, therefore, important to use a cautiousapproach that suits all the people involved.

However,in this case, Laverne was new. In her first meeting, she should haveinteracted with the supervisors to understand why things werehappening in that manner. Get to know the system of operation, whyemployees were getting high ratings, and the evaluation criteria usedamong others. For instance, as pointed out by Clarence, thesupervisor, some issues could be traced back to management. Thehotel’s top management was not up to the task of acquiring modernequipment.

Thecurrent tools were lousy, the pay was little, yet better results wererequired. Laverne should have taken her time to consult with thepeople on the ground rather than top management. It is better to hearthe workers’ ideas, how they feel things are going, what could bealtered, before giving your views. Most employees do not appreciateyelling. Apart from killing their self-esteem, it demoralizes themsignificantly. They probably felt their work was excellentconsidering the available equipment. Yet, Laverne comes in and startsyelling. The employees who were loyal to the hotel for more than tenyears could consider this as an act of disrespect. In that regard,Laverne could have incorporated the supervisors in drawing a map toimprove the hotel’s situation, rather than seeing herself as theelement of change.

Laverneshould bring the supervisors on board by first apologizing. She wouldthen get their views on why things were running that way, and howimprovements could be made. Laverne could then give her ideologies ofhow she expects the departments to run. Communication should be moreof horizontal rather than top down. In other words, the discussionshould not reflect communication from senior management, which ismostly instructions to employees. The ideologies from the supervisorsas well as Laverne should be viewed equally. The four could thenassist each other in designing the goals and objectives. Since thesupervisors have been there long enough, they know what is achievablein the short and long term.

Afterthat, they could develop standards applicable to all employees withinthe department. Laverne could then ask the supervisors to come upwith better evaluation mechanisms based on the set standards. Once amap is designed, then all the employees could be trained as per therequired standards. Instead of complaining about things that are donewrongly, Laverne should dwell on effective measures of improving thehotel’s housekeeping department. Apart from training and educatingemployees, grounds should be provided for them to air their views.

Ithelps to boost their morale. Rewards could also be promised to themost improved worker. Applying this criterion will promote healthycompetition among the employees. The entire department should work asa team. In addition to that, better compensation and incentives couldbe developed to motivate the workers. A motivated workforce booststhe organization’s productivity levels. Laverne could instigate thechanges using this model, instead of imposing her authority over thesupervisors as well as other employees.