A Lean Guy Reads USA Today – NBA Unis and Teacher Merit Pay
It’s time for a Lean Blog feature I haven’t done in a while…. “A Lean Guy Reads _______”. I’ve done this before with the WSJ, Fortune, and USA Today (click here for past editions). This time, it’s Tuesday’s USA Today with articles that caught my lean eye.
In the paper, I saw articles about the NBA’s new uniforms and merit pay for teachers, so that’s today’s random combination of topics.
NBA Has Learned Its Lesson?
Back in 2006, the NBA foolishly forced a new synthetic basketball on the players without getting their input. I wrote about it here: “The NBA Not Involving Its Employees?”
It seemed like a classic case of bad “change management” practices — if you force a major change on people without doing small pilots and without getting their input, they are going to be upset (especially if they are millionaire athletes with a lot of power). The NBA quickly backpedaled and scrapped the new ball, with the commissioner admitting his blew it (redeeming himself as a leader).
Well, now the NBA has introduced new uniform fabrics for all 30 teams. They were sure, this time, to 1) test early and 2) get player input.
From Tuesday’s article:
To sidestep problems such as the player revolt over Spalding’s synthetic game ball in 2006, Adidas tested uniforms with more than 200 NBA and Development League players over the past four years.
The NBA’s biggest stars wore prototypes at the 2009 All-Star Game, then the final version at the 2010 All-Star Game.
Sal LaRocca, the NBA’s executive vice president of global merchandising, says feedback from players such as Amar’e Stoudemire of the New York Knicks has been positive.
“We haven’t come across a single player who’s said, ‘I’d prefer to wear something that isn’t as comfortable, that’s heavier and doesn’t dry as quickly,’ ” LaRocca says.
Smart move on the NBA’s part (or on the part of Adidas). I bet David Stern learned his lesson, he’s a smart man.
Think about your workplace — it’s so easy to say “people resist change” but that seems to be an excuse. When you want to point the finger at others for “not accepting change,” look in the mirror and think if you’ve really truly involved them and gotten their input or not…
Merit Pay Not Working for Teachers
I’m a big believer in Dr. Deming’s philosophy that merit pay based on individuals is more harmful than helpful, as it can breed dysfunctional internal competition or it’s just not fair at times. Alfie Kohn (who I interviewed here) makes the case in his book Punished By Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes.
I usually roll my eyes when politicians (of either party) say that merit pay or incentives are the key, that by bribing teachers we’ll magically get better test scores. My mother, sister, and brother-in-law are all teachers and I know that sometimes, regardless of how good you are or how high you try, you might be put in a bad situation. My mom was an elementary school teacher (now retired) in inner-city Detroit, with high poverty levels. You think the test results are mostly the result of my mom’s ability and effort? Ha.
Now the USA Today had an article, “Merit pay study: Teacher bonuses don’t raise student test scores.” Even if you believe merit pay is a good idea, this study and evidence suggests otherwise. From the article:
Offering middle-school math teachers bonuses up to $15,000 did not produce gains in student test scores, Vanderbilt University researchers reported Tuesday in what they said was the first scientifically rigorous test of merit pay.
The results (pdf) could amount to a cautionary flag about paying teachers for the performance of their students, a reform strategy the Obama administration and many states and school districts have favored despite lukewarm support or outright opposition from teachers’ unions.
I’m shocked that I agree with the teachers’ unions!
In any PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle, you need to look at feedback (“check”) before deciding to continue moving ahead or going back to try something different. If we have “evidence-based government” (similar to the phrase “evidence-based management,” that I first heard from author Daniel Pink, author of the outstanding Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us), we’d do well to not be stubborn about what we previously tried (what I call a PDRJ cycle or Plan-Do-Rationaize-Justify).
The Obama administration seems unfazed (it is only one study, I guess):
The study did not shake the faith of U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan in merit pay.
“While this is a good study, it only looked at the narrow question of whether more pay motivates teachers to try harder,” said Sandra Abrevaya, a spokeswoman for Duncan. It did not address the Obama administration’s push to “change the culture of teaching by giving all educators the feedback they need to get better.”
“Feedback to get better” is a better motivation for merit pay than would be firing the bottom 10% of teachers each year…
This is, like lean healthcare, a pretty non-partisan issue as you have those on the right who believe in merit pay as well, from the article:
Frederick M. Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., said he does not believe the study says much of value and worries it will only confuse the issue.
“The fact that that teachers don’t respond to cash bonuses like rats do to food-pellets does nothing to diminish my confidence that it’s good for schooling if teacher pay better reflects the contributions that teachers make,” Hess said. “Serious proponents of merit pay believe the point is not any kind of short-term test-score bump but making the profession more attractive to talented candidates.”
I don’t understand his point at all. He’s right that teachers aren’t rats (nor are they donkeys responding to a carrot), but he draws a surprising conclusion that merit pay is OK, even though it doesn’t work? How does “merit pay” attract better teachers? Just paying people a higher flat paycheck would have the same effect, so I think Mr. Hess is even more confused than the others (and don’t confuse the American Enterprise Institute with the Lean Enterprise Institute!).
What do you think?