I recently had a discussion with one of my coworkers who was sharing a story of seriously bad attitudes in our company. Coworker asks me, "Is there anything YOU can do with your internal audits to identify the sources of all this negativity?"

My short answer was "no" but I am still thinking about the idea.

Attitude isn't in the standard, per se, but does anyone try to gauge the overall feelings of morale while doing internal audits? I was thinking of encouraging auditors to ask a general question about the 'mood' of the shop but that's so subjective...I guess I'm stumped and wondered if anyone else has a method for dealing with this.

My longer answer to coworker was that some people are just negative and will always have a bad attitude about SOMETHING and no there's really nothing built into the internal audit process that would help with those people. Gee, that sounded negative, didn't it?:rolleyes:

Add a section for general awareness and attitude - could tie in with communication, I suppose.

But be my audit for safety, environment or quality I ask the following:

On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being the worst and 10 being the best, how would rank us on S/E/Q?
Do you feel that, over the past few years, we've been improving, getting worse, or staying the same?
Why?
If you could do it, what one thing would you do to improve S/E/Q in your area/the entire company?

I recently had a discussion with one of my coworkers who was sharing a story of seriously bad attitudes in our company. Coworker asks me, "Is there anything YOU can do with your internal audits to identify the sources of all this negativity?"

My short answer was "no" but I am still thinking about the idea.

Attitude isn't in the standard, per se, but does anyone try to gauge the overall feelings of morale while doing internal audits? I was thinking of encouraging auditors to ask a general question about the 'mood' of the shop but that's so subjective...I guess I'm stumped and wondered if anyone else has a method for dealing with this.

My longer answer to coworker was that some people are just negative and will always have a bad attitude about SOMETHING and no there's really nothing built into the internal audit process that would help with those people. Gee, that sounded negative, didn't it?:rolleyes:


I may be way off base with citing the following paragraph from ISO9001:2000 as the requirement.

The organization shall determine and manage the work environment needed to achieve conformity to product requirements

If the negative attitude from the employees or management (work environment) could ultimately affect the conformity to product requirements, then that might fall under Paragraph 6.4 of ISO9001:2000, in my opinion.

If attitude (bad attitude) is rampant, it definitely could and probably will impact product quality. Something needs to be done to find the cause. Often times it falls squarely in management or perceived management style. There are numerous classes for controlling conflict available, some are quite good. But, everyone, including management has to be willing to try to change.

Attitude isn't in the standard, per se, but does anyone try to gauge the overall feelings of morale while doing internal audits? I was thinking of encouraging auditors to ask a general question about the 'mood' of the shop but that's so subjective...I guess I'm stumped and wondered if anyone else has a method for dealing with this.
I don’t think that you would effectively audit for attitude, but definitely you can assess how you management system works in terms of promoting and assessing employee satisfaction.
As we all know, very few people know of ISO 9004. Fewer people realize that ISO 9004 has a self assessment tool. One of the questions that ISO 9004 asks, in the self assessment is :

Question 12: Work environment (6.4)
a) How does management ensure that the work environment promotes motivation, satisfaction, development and performance of people in the organization?

Other assessment protocols include questions related to employee’s well being. For example, from DNV’s isrs7 ™


3.8.2.
The organization measures and reports on the following as indicators of employee well-being, morale and satisfaction: (2 /14)

1. Sickness rate.____
2. Absence rate.____
3. Personnel turnover.____
4. Grievances.____
5. Strikes.____
6. Worker compensation.____
7. Other.____

3.8.3.
Exit-interviews are held with employees leaving the organization and data used on a continuous basis to improve HR policies. (PJ-10)

3.8.4.
A recognition program is in place supported with active senior management involvement. (PJ-15)

3.8.5.
The organization has a teamwork development program in place. (XO-5)

Thanks for your interpretation, Coury.

I like the idea - just trying to find a way to justify adding it to the audit function. I am not doing it "just to do it" or to please the registrar - I just want to try and determine as best as possible what is really going on.

I've heard stories - but they're just stories, that's the problem. Trying to find out if dept. A held up Supervisor X's order on purpose due to retaliating against X is a different matter...and I've got my work cut out for me on this project.

I'd welcome as many ideas as possible and am really hoping for a success story on this issue (more than one would be very encouraging!!!)

Sidney : Amusingly enough, the questions I ask are just part of what I learned during my ISRS audit (6th edition) of a sister mill with a DNV auditor.

Sidney,

I really like ISO9004 and too bad most corporations don't see the advantage of implementing a system within the guidelines of ISO9004.

I have to ask this question Sidney:

After reviewing ISO9004, if the company's business is built around the guidelines, could their Business system meet the Requirements of ISO9001:2000, since you can only register to ISO9001:2000?

I believe they would.

Some quick thoughts are that if you approach this incorrectly it could be very dangerous...you are wading into a very emotional issue for all concerned. And with a relatively small sample you may just pick the bad apple who hates ISO.

Given that a coworker is asking you to find the "source" of attitudes thru your audit program. does this mean you simply "measure" attitude and leave it to the manager to determine the cause? Do you simply record your observations and hope the manager makes a connection that he has a problem? Do you detect bad attitude and then probe for the likely casue of it and write up the cause as an item requiring corrective action? (perhaps the cause is a nonconformity to the standard, such as inadequate staffing, competency or effective training)

then we must ask the question: attitude about what? ISO? Management? work place safety? Training? promotions? pay? hours?
The 'survey' approach works for objective/annonymous surveyors but only if you ask very specific questions and you ask them of many people to understand measurement variation...

Let's think this thru a bit more:

How would you 'write up' a bad attitude?
what evidence would you cite?
what corrective action response would you expect?
How will management likely respond to an "attitude" finding?


anyway just a few thoughts...

I have to ask this question Sidney:

After reviewing ISO9004, if the company's business is built around the guidelines, could their Business system meet the Requirements of ISO9001:2000, since you can only register to ISO9001:2000?Yes, I agree for the 2000 Edition of the documents.

As already mentioned in another thread, the ISO 9004:2009 document will no longer be a companion document of ISO 9001:2009. So, that will change.

Let's think this thru a bit more:

How would you 'write up' a bad attitude?
what evidence would you cite?
what corrective action response would you expect?
How will management likely respond to an "attitude" finding?
anyway just a few thoughts...
I am not certain that a registrar would, or would want to write up a company for bad attitude, but it certainly could fall within the realm of management commitment and customer satisfaction. I think that this is mainly useful to companies as an internal measure IF they truly think that there are problems and truly want to change the company culture. In this day and age, it seems self defeating to not look at your internal satisfaction levels.

In this day and age, it seems self defeating to not look at your internal satisfaction levels.That is true, but like the saying goes, be careful what you wish for, because if the organization is not prepared to change the fundamental causes for low employee morale, it is actually worse to probe it.

Will the corrective action be
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/GAL/SPSP5~The-Beatings-Will-Continue-Until-Morale-Improves-Posters.jpg

Sydney, so true, that is why I said that management must be willing to change the culture.

My short answer was "no" but I am still thinking about the idea.Keep thinking about it, because you can. This may be one of those times when an indirect approach is preferrable, however. The cause of the dissent may be easier to tag as a finding than the dissent itself.

If the negative attitude from the employees or management (work environment) could ultimately affect the conformity to product requirements, then that might fall under Paragraph 6.4 of ISO9001:2000, in my opinion.My point exactly.

I really like ISO9004 and too bad most corporations don't see the advantage of implementing a system within the guidelines of ISO9004.And there we have it:

Management should ensure that the work environment has a positive influence on motivation, satisfaction and performance of people in order to enhance the performance of the organization. Creation of a suitable work environment, as a combination of human and physical factors, should include consideration of

— creative work methods and opportunities for greater involvement to realize the potential of people in the organization,
— safety rules and guidance, including the use of protective equipment,
— ergonomics,
— workplace location,
— social interaction,
— facilities for people in the organization,
— heat, humidity, light, airflow, and
— hygiene, cleanliness, noise, vibration and pollution.

/Claes

Thanks for your interpretation, Coury.

I like the idea - just trying to find a way to justify adding it to the audit function. I am not doing it "just to do it" or to please the registrar - I just want to try and determine as best as possible what is really going on.

I've heard stories - but they're just stories, that's the problem. Trying to find out if dept. A held up Supervisor X's order on purpose due to retaliating against X is a different matter...and I've got my work cut out for me on this project.

I'd welcome as many ideas as possible and am really hoping for a success story on this issue (more than one would be very encouraging!!!)

Since you have a "shall" in the paragraph, it is auditable. The determination of the affect and compliance, can be done via Interviews with personnel (Work Environment). Simply ask questions that get answers (open ended questions). not just the "Yes or No" response.

For example: How do you feel about...? What do you feel the impact is...? Why do you feel...? What do you think could...? and so on.

These are just some of the questions than can be asked when performing the internal audit. In general, you want to ask the open questions similar to the above during all of the process reviews (internal audit).

Since you have a "shall" in the paragraph, it is auditable. The determination of the affect and compliance, can be done via Interviews with personnel (Work Environment). Simply ask questions that get answers (open ended questions). not just the "Yes or No" response.

For example: How do you feel about...? What do you feel the impact is...? Why do you feel...? What do you think could...? and so on.

These are just some of the questions than can be asked when performing the internal audit. In general, you want to ask the open questions similar to the above during all of the process reviews (internal audit).

What do you do with the information? If there are significant morale and attitude issues, auditing isn't going to tell you anything you don't already know. Furthermore, poor morale and attitude are always the product of defective leadership, so how do you propose to fix that with audit data?

What do you do with the information? If there are significant morale and attitude issues, auditing isn't going to tell you anything you don't already know. Furthermore, poor morale and attitude are always the product of defective leadership, so how do you propose to fix that with audit data?

I was pointing out how to develop data and ask the questions.

What do you do with the information? If there are significant morale and attitude issues, auditing isn't going to tell you anything you don't already know.

The information would be presented in the review sessions with the Top Management. Maybe, Top management isn't aware of these issues. There is no documented evidence of the Work Environment issues. The questions and interviews would produce the "objective (hard)" evidence of the issues.

Furthermore, poor morale and attitude are always the product of defective leadership, so how do you propose to fix that with audit data?

That is most likely true. As I said in the reply, maybe Top Management isn't aware of these issues. How can someone try to improve if they are not aware that these issues exist?

Unless a workforce has a high degree of discipline and/or a great work ethic (which I have seen to replace morale) I very much agree that morale can affect product quality, and in tangible enough ways if you look at it in effects like absenteeism, presenteeism, turnover and other versions of unreadiness including a lack of attention to detail. Management should be interested in this but a paternalistic management team may be unwilling to see itself through its employees' eyes.

It's possible for the auditor to ask personnel if he/she thinks this-or-that motivational program is effective, and why. If the auditor gets a blank look or hesitation, the auditor could say something like "I was wondering if the results could routinely favor some group or another, and I wanted to get an idea of why that is."

Beware the can of worms this could open up. Objectivity is key. But, given the hope that the auditor him/herself is seen as neutral, who is is better prepared to ask such open ended questions?

Responses to open ended questions are qualitative data. The frequency with which they collect into groups can be quantified.

Dr. Phil might say to find the currency that works with the target of change, and use that currency to leverage change.

If management believes it is a benevolent dictatorship but that its children appreciate the relationship, the emotional contradiction may be difficult to resolve.

But unless the place is a sandbox money should still communicate in the failure of all else. You can use a quality cost calculator to communicate the business interests of reducing turnover and absenteeism, project the dollar value of even a 10% reduction of even just one kind of failure, and help them to connect the dots between their employees' interests and their interests.

With the calculator you can factor in the costs of incentives that you can identify if you choose to operate as internal consultant. What would matter to the people--something intangible, like respect (that can be hard) or something tangible, like a day off with pay for the best performing team or on a rotating basis (when teams are bound to perform unequally).

In the end, money tends to talk loudest but it's up to you to help them understand the links between unhappiness and profit because they probably haven't been trained in that.

Attitude isn't in the standard, per se, but does anyone try to gauge the overall feelings of morale while doing internal audits?

I'm currently working on a set of internal audits. With some people, but not with all, their answers to my general questions plus their emotions and details of going into the process being audited send some clear signals.

This information could be used at two levels:
1) If it's truly a personnel problem, most likely it would have to be dealt with at a HR or management level.
2) It also could be a process problem, where one group has to deal with problems further down stream due to no initial handling further upstream. (Make sense, kind of? The coffee hasn't totally jump started my brain yet.)

Thanks for all responses.

Top Management had outside consultants administer an anonymous survey which touched on some morale issues and the results were grouped into categories (sorry, don't have them available right now) and I was thinking I could present general audit findings to Top Management (possibly during management review?) in terms of those categories generated from the surveys.

One thought.....

"Attitude" is highly subjective, at best.....

In the early to mid 1970s, the USAF included in their annual performance review a catagory for "Attitude".....

I actually received an Article 15 for having a "bad attitude".....

What did I discover? Auditing for attitude is nebulus.....and can very easily be misleading.....if the "attitude" is truly that bad, chances are there is some CONCRETE indicator that can be looked at and documented.....don't waste time on nebulus things.

Just my thoughts.....

Hershal

One thought.....

"Attitude" is highly subjective, at best.....

In the early to mid 1970s, the USAF included in their annual performance review a catagory for "Attitude".....

I actually received an Article 15 for having a "bad attitude".....

What did I discover? Auditing for attitude is nebulus.....and can very easily be misleading.....if the "attitude" is truly that bad, chances are there is some CONCRETE indicator that can be looked at and documented.....don't waste time on nebulus things.

Just my thoughts.....

Hershal

Sounds to me like you have a poor attitude. :biglaugh:

Thanks for all responses.

Top Management had outside consultants administer an anonymous survey which touched on some morale issues and the results were grouped into categories (sorry, don't have them available right now) and I was thinking I could present general audit findings to Top Management (possibly during management review?) in terms of those categories generated from the surveys.If the fact finding is to be tied to this group's survey, then I would try to find and quantify actionable contributors to the survey's findings by subject.

In doing so it's possible to quantify and weigh those counts by shifts or management groups, but I urge caution because a culture that allowed such disease to fester might well be prone to shooting the messenger bringing truthful sources of the disease, such as particular managers or pet policies by one influential person or another.

FWIW:
Over my career, I have noted organizations with generally good morale and those with terrible morale.

In my unscientific recollection, the organizations with the best morale were those where top management practiced "management by walking around" and who were "approachable" by any employee during those walkarounds.

The employees felt they could make a comment or suggestion and it would receive serious consideration to the point the boss would get back to the individual (personally, by memo, or passed along by middle managers) regarding the action or inaction on the suggestion. It wasn't necessary for there to be a bonus or reward involved, just the idea of two-way communication.

My understanding is that when they were alive, both James Cash Penney (Penney's) and Sam Walton (Walmart) often walked their stores, talking to the workers ("associates") and morale was very high. I'm not sure if it added to the aura, but both men wore clothes off the rack from their own stores. Today, despite "spin ads" to the contrary, both store chains are experiencing morale problems, exacerbated by skeleton staffing, lack of benefits, limited promotion routes, distant management (I've heard some of the Walton heirs haven't been inside a Walmart for years.)

When morale is really bad, there is an atmosphere of FEAR and employees are very guarded in how they talk to outsiders or "company men," making it very difficult to conduct an honest survey. I'd be very interested in learning questioning techniques for auditors that would sidestep the aversion for sticking one's head in the lion's jaws. (It's not really paranoia if the bosses really are looking to squelch dissent.)

Obviously, if there is good morale, the data collection is easy.

When morale is really bad, there is an atmosphere of FEAR and employees are very guarded in how they talk to outsiders or "company men," making it very difficult to conduct an honest survey. I'd be very interested in learning questioning techniques for auditors that would sidestep the aversion for sticking one's head in the lion's jaws. (It's not really paranoia if the bosses really are looking to squelch dissent.)

Obviously, if there is good morale, the data collection is easy.Quite right. On the flip side of the coin, those who will talk may inflate or skew the information.

So it's hard to turn around an organization motivated by fear, or even apathy. A good auditor can probably still pick up on things, but generally if people shake the idea the auditor is a lap dog.

I realize that I mentioned our survey categories but never posted them. To provide closure, I'll do that now.

Our employee survey answers were placed into the following seven categories (no particular order):

Overall attitude & morale
Supervisory effectiveness
Extension of Mgt. & Co. philosophy into organization
Confidence in leadership/owners
Mgt's tendencies to listen, respond, & communicate
Enforcement/application of policy/favortism
Teamwork & trust issues


Looking at this list, I'd guess that most places have complaints that would fall into these broad categories. My temporary decision is to continue doing audits as is, not necessarily probing for morale related input but IF I receive anything unsolicited that falls into these categories, I'll note it. Right now if it is not directly related to the process I'm auditing then I don't include it in the report.

Thanks for all of your thoughts on this subject.