The PIP used the same reasoning that Willmore (2017) described the meaning of performance improvement to be focusing on the business goals and to include the outcomes of that performance (p. 56). The performance improvement project at GE, in this case, was very well prepared as suggested by all of the professionals in that field in Willmore (2017). A strong point to succeed in performance improvement was described by Seidman and Mccauley (2012), where they used motivation to help the project (p. 17). The project at GE had the motivation as suggested by including all of the employees and managers that would be supporting the new layout in the shop. The overall group was supportive of the change, and the process was in the middle of finishing up and starting production, and it stopped. The reason for the cancellation of the project was the time it was taking to complete, however, from experience on other projects at GE it is not uncommon for projects to take an extended amount of time to get all of the approvals needed for the cost. The cost may be the actual reason for the cancellation, and it is explained more by Seidman and Mccauley (2012), where companies cannot justify performance improvements that use a lot of money to accomplish when they are already very profitable (pp. …show more content…
Programs such as Six Sigma, Continuous Improvement and Kaizen are used routinely to improve the performance. Individuals, from my experience, are not measured in this process to justify if they may be the cause of any defects in the process. Hourly employees that cause a delay in the process by routinely having quality issues are overlooked and not punished. Managers depending on who they are can get the same favoritism. In most cases, the person gets relocated to another department if it becomes extreme. This type of performance improvement shows the weakness that we as humans have for disciplining other individuals. Improving performance will not happen if the faults found in the measurement of individuals get