1. The Impact of the Baldrige Award . . . 15+ Years Later

    February 1, 2017 by ahmed


    Originally posted on Blogrige by Christine Schaefer

    Earlier this month, 2001 Baldrige Award-winning University of Wisconsin–Stout hosted a lively campus engagement session. (See for yourself via this video of the livestreamed event, which kicked off with dancing.) The university holds the so-called “You Said… We Did” sessions each January to demonstrate its responsiveness to the input of its employees and students.The same week, UW–Stout released news highlighting the ongoing impact of the Baldrige Award and excellence framework on its values and practices.

    Following is a recent conversation on that impact with Meridith Drzakowski, a senior Baldrige examiner and the assistant chancellor at UW–Stout who oversees the university’s office of Planning, Assessment, Research and Quality.

    1- Tell us about your university’s ongoing use of the Baldrige Excellence Framework (which includes the Education Criteria for Performance Excellence)?

    Since the 2001 Baldrige Award, nearly all of the people who were part of the team that led us through that process have left UW–Stout. However, within the past several years, we’ve started an informal Baldrige team. Membership is open to the entire campus, and we meet several times throughout the year to discuss ways in which we are following the Baldrige Criteria and addressing our opportunities for improvement. The focus isn’t about writing a new Baldrige Award application; instead, it’s about how we can continue to grow and learn using the Baldrige Criteria.

    We also send teams to various Baldrige professional development offerings through the state-level Baldrige programs in Wisconsin and Minnesota, as well as to the Baldrige regional conferences and occasionally to the Quest for Excellence® Conference. And we encourage them to become examiners through the state-level Baldrige programs.

    In addition, we use a Baldrige-based approach to meet our regional accreditation requirements through the Higher Learning Commission (HLC). At the HLC’s 2017 conference, I’ll be co-presenting with Jan Garfield, another Baldrige examiner and HLC peer reviewer, about how to integrate HLC requirements into daily operations. We’ll be talking about how understanding and using ADLI (i.e., Approach/Deployment/
    Learning/Integration, which are process evaluation factors in the Baldrige Criteria) can reduce the burden associated with preparing for comprehensive visits, quality initiatives, and required reports associated with meeting HLC requirements.

    Incidentally, UW–Stout had its comprehensive review in March 2016. The review team leader said it was the best portfolio he had ever seen.

    2- Would you please describe a few examples of how Baldrige-based practices have contributed to your organization’s success?

    One of the most significant processes that has been impacted by the Baldrige Criteria is our planning process. The planning process aligns feedback we receive from the campus with data we collect on key performance indicators and with our budget. Our student jobs program and “You Said…We Did” events are great examples of initiatives/actions implemented through this process.



    To encourage innovation, one principle that is important to us in planning is starting with the idea first, and identifying resource needs second. It’s easy to start by saying, “We only have $X dollars,” and then let that limit your thinking. However, starting by thinking big has helped us to implement new initiatives in innovative ways.

    One example is our e-Stout (laptop) program. Students pay a per-credit fee to receive a laptop that is refreshed every two years and that they keep after graduation. The fee also provides for a number of support services, software programs, etc. This idea would never have come forward if we started by looking at the amount of money we had available.

    Other examples of innovative ways we have funded initiatives include partnerships with our foundation office, forming grant-writing teams to apply for external funding, and increasing efforts for fundraising. (We have a university priority on fundraising and are starting the process of implementing a comprehensive campaign.)

    Baldrige has also helped us to focus on a smaller number of metrics that are most important to us. Every five years, we update the list of our key performance indicators that we use to assess the success of our strategic plan. Although we collect data on hundreds of metrics campus-wide, the Baldrige framework helps us prioritize to focus on those metrics that are most important to our success and that align with our strategic plan—which keeps them to a small number.

    3- What are your top tips for using the Baldrige framework to support improvement and innovation?

    -Trust the process. When new faculty and staff members are hired at UW–Stout, it’s common for them to look at our planning process and say that it’s too time-intensive or complex or impossible to reach consensus with so many stakeholders. We tell them to trust the process, to give it a year and then decide whether they think it works or not. After the year is over, most people understand and buy in to the importance of the process.
    -You can start small. You don’t have to begin by deciding to write an entire Baldrige Award application or implementing all of the Baldrige Criteria. Start with the Organizational Profile, and then pick a specific item or core value to start with. The way we engage people in the process is by involving them in aspects of the Criteria that impact them directly or that they are interested in learning more about, or about which they have ideas or concerns. It’s not about receiving the award; it’s about learning and growing as an organization.

    4- Would you please outline what participants may learn at your university’s session, “From Crisis to Confidence,” at the Baldrige Program’s Quest for Excellence® Conference in Baltimore in early April?

    During difficult budget times, the easy thing to do is to stop or cut back on new, innovative ideas that emerge through the strategic planning process or to administer across-the-board cuts.

    However, despite the significant and ongoing budget cuts that UW–Stout has experienced over many years—including the most significant cuts we’ve ever received within the last biennium—we have always continued to focus on what’s important and never stopped planning, listening, and making decisions based on the data. We’ve had to cut back and be more selective about what is funded, but we’ve never stopped putting our time and resources into these processes.

    Our presenters, Maria Alm and David Ding, will also discuss how visionary leadership at UW–Stout has helped support our focus on what’s important. And we will discuss the critical role that the leadership has in building and maintaining trust, as well as some of the processes we use to build trust.

    [Added Alm, “Participants will learn how UW-Stout’s commitment to the Baldrige Criteria helped us navigate the most recent round of state budget cuts. While the cuts were significant, we never lost sight of the importance of (and our values related to) planning, innovation, and people. For that reason, after what was a very difficult year, we were still able to celebrate our accomplishments and to dance!”]

    5- What are a few key reasons that organizations in your sector can benefit from using the Baldrige framework?

    The framework can help [universities] meet regional accreditation requirements. We have one process for planning, one process for accountability, one process for assessment, etc., and requirements for the HLC are integrated within those processes.

    At the same time, Baldrige helps us put our primary focus on taking action because it will benefit the organization. In other words, the framework can help organizations focus on taking action not because an external organization told them they had to do something but because it’s important to them. When an organization is trying to encourage buy-in on processes related to planning and assessment, the last thing that people want to hear is, “We are doing this because it’s required by our accrediting body.”

    Also, the Baldrige framework provides guidance in making resource decisions—in good times and in bad.

  2. Interim results on the first global assessment on the current state of organizational excellence

    January 29, 2017 by ahmed

    The aim of the research is to identify the extent to which organizations are characterized by the principles and have deployed the best management practices.In the Teaser Assessment, There have been 129 organizations that have completed the teaser assessment representing 21 industry sectors and 29 countries. In the Full Assessment, there have been 51 organizations that have completed the full assessment representing 13 industry sectors and 15 countries. Mostly leaders and management have responded from the business sector followed by the government and non-profit sectors.The Research

    The assessment was launched in 2015 by the Organizational Excellence Technical Committee (QMD, ASQ) and conducted voluntarily by Organizational Excellence Specialists. Following the preliminary update on March 22, 2016, this is the second report on the interim results.
    Using the Organizational Excellence Framework automated assessment and reporting tool that integrates global leading excellence models, the aim of the research is to identify the extent to which organizations are characterized by the principles and have deployed the best management practices.
    Two rating scales are used in the assessment to provide a subjective rating on the principles (e.g. observation, experience) and an objective rating on the best management practices (i.e. approach, deployment, results):


    61%- 80%


    PracticeJust Beginning
    Good Start
    Doing Well
    High Performance

    While individual results will be confidential, aggregate results will be shared by organization size, industry sector and country to provide a snap shot of strengths and opportunities for improvement.


    Figure 1. Organizational Excellence Framework and Automated Assessment & Reporting Tool

    To participate in the research, respondents can choose to complete either the teaser assessment or the full assessment:

    1. Teaser assessment – self-assessment against the principles, takes about 5 minutes, delivers a confidential feedback report to the respondent’s inbox http://www.qlbs.com/QimonoVBA/assessment/OrgExFrameworkTeaser
    2. Full assessment – self-assessment against the principles and best management practices, takes between 15 and 30 minutes depending on organization size, aggregate results shared on the open LinkedIn site for the OETC http://www.qlbs.com/QimonoVBA/Assessment/OrgExFramework

    Sharing the aggregate findings of this research is anticipated to provide benefits for all stakeholders including:

    • Contribute to the Organizational Excellence Technical Committee mandate “to support and promote the use of international excellence models and to help all organizations attain higher levels of performance”
    • Contribute to the GBN vision to be recognized as a global hub for benchmarking and the mission ‘focused on promoting and facilitating the use of benchmarking and sharing of best practices’
    • Create awareness with leaders and managers about the principles and best management practices that are common to high performing organizations and encourage them to use such
    • Encourage organizations to benchmark their performance with others
    • Encourage eligible organizations to apply for a national excellence award or an international best practice or benchmarking award
    • Share aggregate results on the open OETC LinkedIn site and the Global Benchmarking Network website

    Interim Results

    This is the second report on the interim results. To date, there has been an encouraging response to the global assessment. However, there has been a tendency for some respondents to access the assessment and not complete it (i.e. teaser 25%, full 70%). This tendency is likely related to the time required to complete the assessment.

    Teaser Assessment
    There have been 129 organizations that have completed the teaser assessment representing 21 industry sectors and 29 countries. Mostly leaders and management have responded from the business sector followed by the government and non-profit sectors. Most of these organizations are small size (26 to 100 employees) followed by medium size (100-999), micro size (1-25) and large size (1000+).


    Overall the aggregate results would suggest these organizations have a culture committed to excellence with positive ratings (6.0 to 10.0) across most principles with the exception of three principles that received lower ratings (people involvement, data-based decision making, societal commitment).


    Full Assessment
    There have been 51 organizations that have completed the full assessment representing 13 industry sectors and 15 countries. Mostly leaders and management have responded from the business sector followed by the government and non-profit sectors. Most of these organizations are micro size followed by small, large and medium size.


    Overall the aggregate results would suggest these organizations have a culture committed to excellence with positive ratings (6.0 to 10.0) for all principles and greatest opportunity for improvement in two areas (prevention-based process management, data-based decision making).


    The aggregate results on the Key Management Areas that represent related best management practices showed relatively positive ratings for governance and leadership and opportunities for improvement across the remaining areas particularly work processes, planning and suppliers & partners.


    Next Steps
    Those organizations that have not participated in the global assessment are encouraged to do so. The global assessment research will provide a baseline for organizations to self-assess the degree to which they are characterized by the principles and have deployed the best management practices that are defined in excellence models and have been validated by 25 years of research.

    Such research has revealed that organizations earning national recognition for implementing an excellence model (e.g. EFQM, Baldrige, Canadian Framework for Excellence, Australian Business Excellence Framework) have experienced exceptional results – good governance, trust in leadership, customer delight, employee engagement, continually improving work processes, strong supplier and partner relationships, better utilization of resources, balanced system of measurement, and financial results.

    While the foregoing research has been valuable, this is the first study that has used an integrated excellence model to provide a baseline for all organizations to benchmark their performance with others regardless of the excellence approach used. Thus, the results will inform different sizes and types of organizations and countries around the globe where they fall along the continuum of organizational excellence and how they can use benchmarking to track their performance and learn from others.

    About the author:

    Dawn Ringrose MBA, FCMC is Principal of Organizational Excellence Specialists and Author of the Organizational Excellence Framework and related toolkit. Her qualifications include: Certified Organizational Excellence Specialist (OES, 2011), Certified Excellence Professional (NQI, 2004), Registered ISO 9000 Specialist (ICMCC, 1996), Assessor of Quality Systems (IQA IRCA, 1996). She has worked in the area of organizational excellence since 1990 and is currently the representative for Canada on the Organizational Excellence Technical Committee (QMD, ASQ) and Global Benchmarking Network.

  3. Baldridge Excellence Framework – 2017 Criteria emphasises 2 areas that no business can ignore

    by ahmed


    The Baldrige Excellence Framework or the Criteria for Performance Excellence, has for the past 30 years, captured the essence of what excellent performing organisations do. It describes what it takes for an organisation to be sustainably successful in the long term. Reviewed every two years the Criteria changes are made to reflect the current business environment. The changes in the Criteria provide a useful indication of today’s business environment and what will drive the competitive advantage of leading organisations in the future.

    ‘Today the 2017–2018 Baldrige Excellence Framework offers organizations of all kinds the world’s most valuable, nonprescriptive guide for leadership and management that facilitates a systems approach to achieving organization-wide excellence.’, Robert Fangmeyer, Director of the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program

    Whether or not you subscribe to the Baldrige framework or one of other Performance Excellence frameworks in use across 85 countries today, there are many thousands of organisations that use the Criteria to improve. Some of these organisations may be your competitors. The changes in the Criteria will be areas they will be focussing on right now to gain an edge in your market.

    So, what changes have been made in the Baldrige Excellence Framework for 2017?

    In making changes, the authors of the 2017-2018 Criteria for Performance Excellence, note the following:

    “The Criteria must balance two important considerations. On the one hand, the Criteria need to reflect a national standard for performance excellence, educating organizations in all aspects of establishing an integrated performance manage¬ment system. On the other hand, the Criteria need to be accessible and user-friendly for a variety of organizations at varying levels of maturity.”

    Two key areas

    There are two key areas that underpin the Criteria revision for 2017.
    The first is cybersecurity.
    In a recent blog posting ‘Has the dark side captured Yahoo!’, I described Yahoo!’s security problems in which thieves stole the private information from over 1 billion user accounts. Experts describe this as the largest known breach of its kind on the Internet.

    Yahoo! are not alone in not being able to keep their information systems secure. Some would say they were lucky because at least they knew their systems had been hacked. There were an estimated 300 million cyberattacks during 2015. Of those only 90 million were detected. This means 70% of cyberattacks go unnoticed. And such attacks are increasing at an annual rate of approximately 40 percent.

    For businesses and organisa¬tions of all kinds, managing and reducing cyber risks to data, information, and systems have become a necessity.

    The second key area is in enterprise risk management.

    Who would have thought that an earthquake, could cause a tsunami big enough to destroy emergency generators that were cooling a nuclear power plant, which in turn would cause a meltdown and radiation leakage, that would cause the evacuation of the only plant in the world that made Xirallic pigments, and prevent Ford customers from buying their favourite metallic black motor vehicles. See ‘Enterprise risk management and tuxedo black’. And yet that is exactly what happened to Merck at their Onahama factory when the magnitude 9.0 Tohoku earthquake hit off the coast of Japan in March 2011.

    It is essential that businesses or enterprises manage risk. The international standard ISO 31000: Risk Management—Principles and Guidelines, provides a framework from which all enterprise risks including those from events like the Tohoku earthquake may be identified, analysed, evaluated, and treated in a systematic manner.

    All organisations need to take risks to be successful. Deciding which risks are intelligent and worth taking needs to be carefully considered and can mean the difference between extinction, survival, or role-model performance.

    2017 Revision Criteria category changes

    For those familiar with the Baldrige framework, the following summarises where changes have been made for 2017.

    Category 1 (Leadership) has been re-organised, and duplication removed to clarify that senior leadership involves taking action in three key areas:

    1. vision and values,
    2. communication, and
    3. mission and organi¬sational performance

    Category 2 (Strategy) now emphasises the importance of considering the many questions about strategy as elements of managing strategic risk in your organisation. Questions on work systems have been reorganised to assist making decisions on work processes and effective work systems.

    Category 4 (Measurement, Analysis and Knowledge Management) has undergone change to improve clarity:
    The area on Best Practices has been moved to item 4.2 as part of manag¬ing organizational knowledge.
    Item 4.2, now renamed ‘Information and Knowledge Management’, has been reordered and realigned to focus on the quality and availability of data and information and on organisa¬tional knowledge, including the sharing of best practices.

    Data and Information security and emergency availability have been moved to Operations.

    Category 5 (Workforce) includes two new requirements:

    1. The need to ensure new workforce members fit your organizational culture
    2. To consider the learning and development desires of workforce members in your learning and development system

    Category 6 (Operations) is where key work processes have been introduced as an overall requirement) to recognise the importance of being clear about these processes:

    The risks associated with product and process design also now need to be considered.
    Supply-chain management has been moved to reflect its importance as a key work process.
    The 6.2 (Operational Effectiveness) item, includes how information systems are managed during both normal operations and during disasters or emergencies.
    Information systems reliability, security, and cybersecurity need to be assured.

    Category 7 (Results)
    Item 7.1 Product and Process Results, now include results for security and cybersecurity processes and your safety system.
    Items 7.2 and 7.3 have had name changes.
    Item 7.4, Leadership and Governance Results, includes results for managing risk and taking intelligent risks.

    Using the Criteria
    There is no question about the value that any type of organisation of any size, in any industry, or at any stage of its maturity will benefit from the Criteria for Performance Excellence. For over 30 years the Criteria has provided leaders with answers to three fundamental questions;

    1. How can I tell if my organisation is doing as well as it could?
    2. How do I know?
    3. What should I improve or change?

    The Criteria tell you WHAT. They are non-prescriptive and will not tell you HOW.

    For the HOW, you need to learn what other successful organisations have done to improve, realise sustainable results, and get to the top of their chosen niche. This is best practice benchmarking, where you can learn from the best to apply even better practices to your own organisation. Best practice benchmarking saves us from starting with a ‘blank sheet of paper’, and increasingly this is available online. For example, the bpir.com, described as ‘the complete resource for improvement and business excellence’ provides thousands of benchmarks, best practices, tools, including networking with best practice leaders.

    Before you rush off to commission your best practice benchmarking project just remember to make sure that you have assessed your organisation against the very latest 2017 – 2018 Criteria so you know that you are working on the most important area you need to fix right now for 2017.

    Wishing you all the best for coming year,

    This article has been provided by Michael Voss, Owner of PYXIS & Associate Consultant of COER (Centre for Organisational Excellence Research, NZ)

  4. Future uncertain? Focus on efficiency, stewardship

    January 22, 2017 by ahmed


    Posted on Blogrige by Dawn Marie Bailey

    With new policies and directions from an incoming Presidential administration, and the news media theorizing about uncertain futures for organizations across the economic spectrum, U.S. organizations, more than ever, need to ensure that they are efficient and effective with their resources and, most importantly, are providing real value to their customers.For example, in a recent Becker’s Hospital Review article, Cleveland Clinic CEO Dr. Toby Cosgrove warned U.S. hospitals that they must focus on efficiency in order to prevent hospital closures, especially as a potential new health care delivery system may cause changes and consolidations in the insurance industry.

    The Baldrige Excellence Framework’s focus on results provides a natural guide for organizations on how to be efficient and effective. The framework and its Criteria lead an organization to examine itself from three viewpoints: the external view (How do your customers and other stakeholders view you?), the internal view (How efficient and effective are your operations?), and the future view (Is your organization learning and growing?).

    This blog focuses on that internal view and how Baldrige and its resources can help—and have helped—organizations ensure that they are efficient and effective with their resources. And along those lines of being efficient and effective with resources, is being a good steward of those resources.

    Stewardship can be defined as the care, conservancy, planning, attention, upkeep, and management of resources, whether they be financial, labor, or other type. And any organization that is not a good steward of its resources—including the resource of taxpayer dollars for government agencies—may find that those resources may not be there much longer. According to the Baldrige framework, for nonprofit organizations that serve as stewards of public funds, stewardship of those funds and transparency in operations are especially important areas of emphasis.

    This blog compiles stories of ways that the Baldrige Excellence Framework and its Criteria have helped U.S. organizations to be aligned, agile, and good stewards of their resources by listening to the voices of their customers and by taking intelligent risks to ensure future success. All of this leads not only to sustainability but, most importantly, creates value for customers, patients, students, and other stakeholders.

    Could Baldrige Help Detroit?” explores how the Baldrige Criteria focused Award recipients on treating their city governments as businesses—forcing them to consider financial stewardship, strategic priorities, customer engagement, and all the other considerations that must be addressed to keep a business sustainable.

    In “Orchestra Faces Bankruptcy, Meets Baldrige, Brings Beautiful Music Back to Life,” the New Mexico Philharmonic was able to consolidate its resources by using Baldrige guidelines to become process-based and bring effective business management to the endeavor. Along the way, the orchestra even became a good steward of its gift of music and education, which was shared with economically challenged public school students.

    Baldrige and Strategic Planning/Budgeting” explains how a town used the Baldrige Criteria to conduct its strategic planning and budgeting processes, adopting a balanced scorecard to improve its performance measurement and management. For this achievement, the town was honored by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada.

    In “How a Charity is Using Baldrige to Serve the Blind,” the Blind Foundation of India has used the Baldrige Criteria as a way to ensure optimum efficiency and effectiveness—serving over 15 million blind people and raising over $4 million.

    For Manufacturers, Baldrige Could be the ‘Cure’ for Focusing on the Future” tells the stories of how small and large manufacturers used the Baldrige Criteria to weather multiple recessions and come out stronger than competitors.

    Creating an Organizational Scorecard for the United States Golf Association” outlines how the USGA was inspired from the Baldrige Executive Fellows program to create an organizational scorecard to align metrics to key customers and the strategic plan.

    One Way to Carve Your Values—and Culture—in Stone” tells the story of how one Baldrige Award winner literally cemented the values of its employees in the culture in order to be a good steward of its internal resources.

  5. Building employee trust: Tips validated by the Baldrige excellence framework

    January 19, 2017 by ahmed


    Originally posted on Blogrige by Christine Schaefer

    In an online Harvard Business Review article this month, Sue Bingham, an expert on creating high-performing workplaces, addresses a growing concern among business leaders today that employees don’t trust their organizations. She then describes four practices to build employee trust. Those who have already read the latest edition (2017–2018) of the Baldrige Excellence Framework will see that Bingham’s four tips align with the Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence (part of the framework).

    Following are examples of the connections.

    1. “Hire for Trust.”

    In elaborating on this guidance, Bingham cautions, “Don’t assume that technical skills and knowledge trump character.”

    The workforce-focused section of the Baldrige Criteria (known as category 5) begins with this assessment question as a basic requirement: How do you build an effective and supportive workforce environment? An organization being evaluated against the Baldrige Criteria is expected to describe systematic processes in response to that question and to the more specific question How do you recruit, hire, place, and retain new workforce members?

    Baldrige evaluation factors include whether (and the degree to which) an organization’s process is deployed, improved, and integrated. In regard to hiring practices, organizations scoring high in this area of a Baldrige assessment often describe hiring processes that use behavioral-based and team interview practices, among others (though the Criteria do not prescribe particular approaches), as means to aligning hiring outcomes with the organization’s identified values and related organizational culture.

    In her HBR article, Bingham makes clear that in high-performing organizations, trust is a key part of the culture. Also emphasizing the importance of the values that define the organizational culture, the leadership section (category 1) of the Baldrige Criteria begins with questions that ask leaders how they set and deploy the organization’s vision and values.

    2. “Make Positive Assumptions about People.”

    Bingham points out that negative assumptions by leaders about employees lead to micromanaging, which conveys distrust. She counsels leaders to “give challenging assignments with the clear and confident belief that your expectations will be met” and also recommends that they “promote transparency.”

    In the “Workforce Engagement” section (item 5.2), the Criteria ask about fostering an organizational culture characterized by open communication. The Criteria also ask, How do you empower your workforce?, stressing that leaders should give people the authority and responsibility to make decisions and take actions. When this happens, decisions are made closest to the front line, by people who have knowledge and understanding related to the work to be done.

    At a more fundamental level, the 11 core values and concepts of the Baldrige framework (and Criteria) include visionary leadership, valuing people, and ethics and transparency. In describing the valuing people concept, the Baldrige Excellence Framework booklet states (on page 41 of the 2017–2018 edition), “Valuing the people in your workforce means committing to their engagement, development, and well-being.”

    In addition, in describing visionary leadership, the Baldrige Excellence Framework booklet states (on page 40 in the 2017–2018 edition), “Senior leaders should serve as role models through their ethical behavior and their personal involvement in planning, providing a supportive environment for innovation, communicating, coaching and motivating the workforce, developing future leaders, reviewing organizational performance, and recognizing workforce members.”

    3. “Treat Employees Fairly, Not Equally.”

    According to Bingham, a disciplinary policy that treats everyone the same “strips people of their individuality and unique abilities to contribute.” She advocates that leaders instead have supportive discussions with individual employees when there are concerns about performance, given that being treated with respect and support can make people feel safe enough to accept responsibility and motivate them to determine solutions to effectively address their problems.

    Again, in describing the valuing people concept, the Baldrige Excellence Framework booklet states (on page 41 of the 2017–2018 edition), “Valuing the people in your workforce means committing to their engagement, development, and well-being. Increasingly, this may involve offering flexible work practices that are tailored to varying workplace and life needs. Major challenges in valuing your workforce members include demonstrating your leaders’ commitment to their success, providing motivation and recognition that go beyond the regular compensation system …”

    4. “Create a Zero-Tolerance Policy for Deceitfulness.”

    Bingham states, “High-performance companies value trust so much that they implement and enforce zero-tolerance policies for betraying it.”

    Of course, to build trust leaders must be held accountable to the same values and policies. The Baldrige Criteria requirements in the leadership section (category 1) emphasize leaders’ personal actions reflecting the organization’s values and legal and ethical behavior. In the “Senior Leadership” section (item 1.1), Criteria questions include these: How do senior leaders’ personal actions reflect a commitment to [the organization’s] values? How do senior leaders’ actions demonstrate their commitment to legal and ethical behavior?

    What’s more, the Baldrige framework booklet’s description of visionary leadership states, “As role models, [senior leaders] can reinforce ethics, values, and expectations while building leadership, commitment, and initiative throughout your organization.”

    I’ve drawn out but a few of the ways the Baldrige framework aligns with Bingham’s expert guidance on building trust with employees. But from this sampling of material, I hope it’s clear that using the Baldrige framework to lead and manage an organization will put one on the right track to cultivating employee trust and high performance.