Anyone got any good ideas/experiences of broaching the subject of motivation in an internal audit report.

I personally think this is a huge factor in quality, yet one that is not normally considered in internal audit (maybe it will be more so in the 2000 version of the standard).

Or should we steer clear of mentioning motivation itself, and look for the reasons why people are not motivated ?

(I may have just answered my own question there - but do post any comments as we havent had a new thread in here for some time !)

Martin,

What do you mean? Lack of motivation by the auditors or the auditors noticing a lack of motivation by shop floor personnel? I can think of a great many reasons why people wouldn't be motivated... :confused:

Cheers!

M Greenaway said:

Anyone got any good ideas/experiences of broaching the subject of motivation in an internal audit report.

I personally think this is a huge factor in quality, yet one that is not normally considered in internal audit (maybe it will be more so in the 2000 version of the standard).

Or should we steer clear of mentioning motivation itself, and look for the reasons why people are not motivated ?

(I may have just answered my own question there - but do post any comments as we havent had a new thread in here for some time !)

Okay, I'll bite. Determination of motivation is like judging someone's appearance. They may look sloppy to you but the clothing is practical for their position. It's more about your "Mores". (I hope I spelled it right). Respectively, who are you or anybody else to judge my motivation? You can't read my mind and my actions may or not be motivated for different reasons. My motivation may be to get the badge only, to improve the QMS or just get through an audit so I can come back here and read your excellent posts. Motivation is in the eyes of the beholder and not something that you can rate with certainty. Obviously if I fall asleep while you are lecturing me on my lack of motivation, you may have something there. But, I could also just be hung over, like every Thursday. JMHO:ko: :smokin:

Mike

I was talking about motivation of the auditee's, not the auditors.

Motivation can be easily judged energy. I am thinking of a case in point where I was auditing the warehouse facility. Every employee I spoke to whined about the conditions they were working under, and such things like promised pay rises based on performance that never materialised, hence they no longer give a ****.

This is very real, how should it be broached in an audit report as it is very detrimental to quality ?

Not only do you think that motivation is important but
6.2.2.4 Employee motivation and empowerment

The organization shall have a process to motivate employees to achieve quality objectives, to make continual
improvements, and to create an environment to promote innovation. The process shall include the promotion of
quality and technological awareness throughout the whole organization.
The organization shall have a process to measure the extent to which its personnel are aware of the relevance and
importance of their activities and how they contribute to the achievement of the quality objectives [see 6.2.2 d)].


TS16949
This is from VDA 6.1 which is the original for this demand
04.6 Are there measures for the motivation and promotion of quality awareness?

Explanation of terms:
"Motivation" means the readiness of employees to perform well.
"Quality awareness" is shown by the attitude of individual employees to quality issues."
Requirements/Explanation:
The continuous improvement of quality awareness in all organizational units
may be achieved, for example, through:
- Improvement suggestions
- Quality circles
- Zero defect programs
- Poster campaigns, competitions
- Training, information meetings
- Awards
- Workshops.
The quality and performance capabilities of a company are not only dependent on the technical and organizational capabilities and the business resources, but far more so, on the qualification and readiness of employees to perform well.



Does this help?

Howard Atkins said:

6.2.2.4 Employee motivation and empowerment

The organization shall have a process to motivate employees to achieve quality objectives, to make continual
improvements, and to create an environment to promote innovation. The process shall include the promotion of
quality and technological awareness throughout the whole organization.
The organization shall have a process to measure the extent to which its personnel are aware of the relevance and
importance of their activities and how they contribute to the achievement of the quality objectives [see 6.2.2 d)].

Howard,

Where did this come from?

Thanks!

Thanks Howard.

We are actually intending to gain TS16949:2002 approval some day, so i'll get the buggers then, er I will help the organisation improve then.

Michael T said:



Howard,

Where did this come from?

Thanks!

VDA 6.1 4th edition

Thanks Howard! I couldn't tell which quote was from what and I don't have a copy of that standard. I am sometimes easily confused... :ko:

No Martin, I don't work in that type of organization. Wish I did. Just this morning an employee was grousing about not getting a raise this past year. In trying to cast his percieved problem in a different light, I asked him if he knew anyone who was laid off during this recession. He, of course, indicated that he knew quite a few people. I then asked him if he knew anyone who was about to be laid off. Again, he indicated he knew some people who were slated for the chopping block. I simply asked, "It's good not to be them, isn't it?"

While I don't believe that this motivated the employee in any way, shape or form, I hope it caused him to think about his situation with a little more global perspective.

Motivation is a difficult thing. There are a lot of seminars and workshops, etc. out there that try to say they can teach you how to motivate people. I don't buy it. I believe that management cannot motivate one single solitary individual. Not in the long-term. Sure, I can motivate someone to do something with the carrot & stick approach or the whip and chains approach. But that is purely short-term and has no lasting effect. IMO, motivation has to come from within the individual. The only way management can tap into that intrinsic motivation is to make sure the working environment is condusive to allow that motivation to work.

Can this work? Sure. I've seen it. The only problem is the environment was allowed to slide back to status-quo and motivation was worse than it ever was.

Now - to answer your original question - under ISO, motivation is not an auditable item. Can it be mentioned? I think it depends upon the rapport you have with the auditee. If you have good working relations - you might mention it off to the side, but not as an item in the exit briefing. As Energy said - employee motivation is subjective. What may appear to be "motivated" to one person may be apathy to another.

FWIW, I hope this helps.

Cheers!!

Interesting Michael.

I guess the organisation should discover what motivates an individual, and then ensure that the person is suitably motivated.

Difficult I would imagine if the motivation is purely money !!

M Greenaway said:

Interesting Michael.

I guess the organisation should discover what motivates an individual, and then ensure that the person is suitably motivated.

Difficult I would imagine if the motivation is purely money !!

But Martin - money isn't a motivator. Depending upon who you read (Maslow, Herzberg, etc.) money is pretty far down on the scale of external motivators. Initially, money is a motivator if you are not paying your employees what they are worth. However, above a certain level, no amount of money will make them work any harder or do anything extra for the company. Providing you are being paid what you think your are worth to your company, if your salary were doubled, would you work any harder than you do now? How about if it were tripled?

It's more like the organization (supervisors, managers, leaders, etc.) should provide the type of environment that allows employees to motivate themselves. I'm not saying give them free reign over everything - but address the social (belonging - being affiliated with something worth while), self-respect (self-esteem - the need for recognition, status, accomplishment) and self-fulfillment (self-actualization - the ability use one's talents and abilities to their fullest) needs every person has.

Anyway - that's my take on it.

Cheers!!

FWIW, I think most, but not all, motivation must come from within the person. However, it is infinitely easier for an organization/boss to stifle a person's intrinsic motivation than to generate new motivation in that person. I can think of some jobs I've had in retail years ago where the Manager of the Day was a different person every day. Same work, different manager. Some of those Managers really knew how to treat people and I (and many others) would work our butts off for those guys and gals. But other Managers were jerks and almost no one worked nearly as hard for those guys/gals as for the good Managers. I still see it all the time in my mfg. world.

If I noticed lots of employees griping and saying they didn't give a s**t during an internal audit I think it has to be mentioned. If it didn't clearly tie to a section of ISO, maybe it would not be in the audit report, but it would be in a suplemental report. If it could be tied to ISO (say the heaters were broken and the temp in the work area was very cold and the employees could not get Management to fix it so they were pi**ed, I think that would fall under 6.3 or 6.4, or 4.9 b in 1994). Does this make any sense?:bonk:

Mike S.

Lost of good stuff here. Lets see if we can break this down a little.
You are conducting an interanal audit. Is everything being done correctly?
If yes, is the output what you expected?
If yes then you probably don't have a way to bring this up in the context of the audit.

If everything is not being done correctly, or if the output is not what is expected, then you have non-conformances that need to be addressed. In that case you may be able to make an observation that motivation/attitude may be a factor.

It seems to me we are getting back to the old "Operator Error" bit again. If the operator doesn't care, then mistakes are going to happen. When they do the cause has to be addressed. Motivation certainly should be looked at as a possible factor, especially when other factors (training etc) are ruled out.

Since this is an internal audit, I would think you could still bring it up, just be more circumspect about it.

James

M Greenaway said:

Motivation can be easily judged energy. I am thinking of a case in point where I was auditing the warehouse facility. Every employee I spoke to whined about the conditions they were working under, and such things like promised pay rises based on performance that never materialised, hence they no longer give a ****.
This is very real, how should it be broached in an audit report as it is very detrimental to quality ?

What type of questions were asked that would allow the employee to bad mouth the company in regards to their working conditions and lack of promised pay raises? I think we talked about this yesterday in the thread about best audit practices. You call it lack of motivation. I call it disgruntled employees using you to embarass the company, as if you could do something about it.

And, using Howard's excellent defination of motivation as doing things promptly and well, you can not tell if I was motivated by your being there, motivated all the time or just faking it. Again, I suggest that your view of what is or not is motivation may be skewed by your own make up. If you were to come to me with claims of observed lack of motivation and I were a company Top Manager, I may just take your suggestion about how you would treat an Auditor who is just being a PIA. Remember that method?
:p :ko: :smokin:

I wonder if the issues you encountered couldn't be addressed under ISO/QS 4.1.2.2 - Resources.

The requirement is actually to supply whatever adequate resources are needed to ensure amoung other things the performance of work.

This opens a can of worms for management, but at least you have addressed it in the audit.

JMHO

Dave

Dave,

I agree with that. The auditor must also have objective evidence to back up his observation. That would make for an interesting closing meeting. Think about it. Lack of happiness displayed in the work place with derogatory remarks about the wages. They could probably drum up a like amount of personnel, on the spot, who would say just the opposite. And, heads would roll, I think. The only losers here would be the "unmotivated". I wouldn't want that responsibility on my shoulders. :ko: :smokin:

if there are no findings then the audit isn't the place to address it, perhaps a stop off in HR for a brief discussion?...or get HR involved in the audit process?


How abou picking 1 result of this lack of Motovation and tracking it on an SPC chart.....pitting one group against another.....contest style?

When people were leaving our company we would always make sure they filled out an exit survey. We realized we were asking the wrong people. We changed our thinking 180 deg. and started asking the employees in the company why they were staying. We choose various positions and various years of service. This was not an employye survey, we do that too, but a "just interested" question. We also included some of the "bad mouthers" in the group. It was quite an eye opener and helped many people refocus on the things that motivated our employees.

This then provided a forum to talk about what was important to the company and the care for quality issues.

You might be surprised too. :eek:

Many of you have mentioned obtaining objective evidence that lack of motivation was having a detrimental effect on quality - quite right, as with any audit finding.

Energy I got these people talking to me in this manner because they trusted and respected me and felt very happy to confide in me - now I think that is an excellant relationship to build with the auditee. Again its worth mentioning that I am looking to improve the business for everyone sake during internal audit, and I want the internal audit to be a value adding experience for both the auditee and the organisation. Now if an employee has serious problems with their conditions of employment, such that they are seriously depressed, and they tell me in such a manner that I know it is not just bellyaching, should I report it in the Internal Audit ?

I think I should if it is really significant it should be mentioned, and that is what I did in the opening summary paragraph of the report. It was just mentioned, and guess what no-one thought I was a pain in the arse, or a pin head, or anything like it.....in fact, believe it or not energy, they actually thanked me for an excellant and professional audit - again.

M,

I admire your concern for your fellow man. Really. Your correct in developing a relationship where auditees trust you rather than fear you. I just feel that something like you describe between the employees and yourself is, and your claim of lack of motivation, is meddling in internal company affairs. It's a dangerous position to be in and can be perceived by Management as collusion between their Auditor and some employees that has nothing to do with why you're there. That's all. I fear for your well being.:rolleyes: You know as well as I do that when the suits put their heads together they can make sugar out of s***. The owner can complain to your boss and you can find yourself defending your position with little or no support.

I like the post that suggested you visit the HR person. You can pretty well measure the type of response you will get by having a little chat about employees not appearing to be well motivated. If you get a scowl, grab your briefcase and screw.:ko: :smokin:

Oops. I glossed over the last sentence of your post and missed that they thanked you and you mentioned it. Fine. My post has more to do with a more "official" stance. So it's over now?

Is it really meddling ?

Arent I employed to assess the effectivenes of the QMS, and if I find it ineffective in some way then to report what or why it isnt working ?

I know this is a very sensitive area, and I did tread very carefully, I balanced the comment on the apparent lack of motivation with a 'but everything appeared generally to be in compliance' statement. This was somewhat tongue in cheek just to smooth the passage of a potentially contentious statement - but there you go, you have to be a bit of a politician some times ;)

Nothing came of it from my audit report, but had I been required to substantiate the claim I would have. Had they looked down their noses at me and told me to stop meddling I would have told them to stick the job up their arses.

Sorry but I have very high moral values when it comes to audits, and I do not compromise or pander to anyone. I tell it like it is, both good and bad, objectively - I cant be sacked for telling the truth can I ?

[QUOTE] energy said:
M,

I admire your concern for your fellow man. Really. Your correct in developing a relationship where auditees trust you rather than fear you. I just feel that something like you describe between the employees and yourself is, and your claim of lack of motivation, is meddling in internal company affairs. It's a dangerous position to be in and can be perceived by Management as collusion between their Auditor and some employees that has nothing to do with why you're there.
_________________
Hold on. I apologize for being dense but help me to understand something. Being a relative newcomer to The Cove and not knowing everyone well, and not being the brightest bulb on the tree besides, I'm a bit confused.

Wasn't this an internal audit? Is Martin a direct employee of the company or an outside consultant doing an internal audit? If he's a direct employee I cannot agree that his reporting this possible morale/motivation problem is in any way "meddling" -- it's his company and his job security/future on the line. If there is a possible problem -- of any type -- that effects or could effect the company's bottom line, I report it whether it has to do with Quality or T&M ("my" areas) or something else. As a Manager and "Senoir Staff" member, my boss expects that and I in turn expect it from my people as well. If it turns out to be nothing, great!!, but I'd rather be given the opportunity to decide for myself if it is nothing. I would want the report. In fact, I tell my people this and try to have very open communication with them. HOWEVER, if history shows the Big Boss doesn't want to hear bad news, that's a whole different story!!!

If Martin is an outside consultant who just shows a couple of days a year perhaps he has a little less perspective and hence his evaluations may be less accurate. He may be more easily "used" by the employees. In this case it's a judgement/gut call and I would support either talking or keeping quiet. I understand Energy's point that it could be seen as "collusion" and it may be dangerous for the auditor in this case. But, just my opinion, if I were the Big Boss, I'd want to hear it all in either case and then I can be the judge of what, if anything, to do about it.

Finally, Martin says: "I tell it like it is, both good and bad, objectively - I cant be sacked for telling the truth can I ?" Heck yes -- shoot the messenger is alive and well in some companies, unfortunately.

Mike S.

Mike

Yes this was an internal audit, and yes I was extremely careful.

As for collusion I wouldnt collude with either camp.

Can you imagine an employer at an industrial tribunal trying to defend the fact that they sacked an auditor for reporting that staff were apparently lacking motivation - dont think it would stand up in court.

I guess luckily the audit was undertaken at a company that had a very open and honest style. I knew the comment would be received OK - thats what building relationships with people does and working in a mostly progressive and positive environment (although the auditee didnt see it like that !).

Any company with the kloots to fire you for it would have the sense not to give that as the reason.

I have seen this happen all too many times and although I consider myself as having high moral values, there is a point when you have to recognize when something just isn't worth fighting over. If it is affecting quality, that is another story because it is already a nonconformance. If it "might" affect quality and you report it, you stand a chance of losing the respect and trust of the employees if management takes it out on them. On the other hand you risk management grumbling on an issue that will probably die right where it lays.

As an internal auditor and part of the company, there are a number of ways you could help bring about a change while not losing your moral high ground.

There is a fine line drawn at reality. As employees, we are hired to do a specific job but when that job bumps up against what is good for the company, we have to tightrope the line. Although it goes against the grain, sometimes a compromise has to be made.

I don't want to speak for Energy, but I feel he is saying just that. You have to know the company you work for. You have to weigh the situation with that knowledge and then use your best judgement. I have seen companies like your's where they would be glad to have the information. I have seen more where they SAID they were glad. The days that followed were usually not pretty. Everyone was trying to fix a "blame" on someone below them and the shop employees ended up taking the heat. Ultimately it was the internal audit system that was hurt because nobody would talk to an auditor after that.

Please don't think I am saying you are wrong, or that anyone should turn their back on a bonafide nonconformance. I am simply trying to add insight into the other side of this discussion.

Dave

I agree with JRKH. His comments are right on the mark.
We must focus on objective evidence and look for non-conformances.
In fact, if I could add anything, it would be the following:
Are we auditing the "system" as a whole, to determine it's effectiveness, or are we auditing the employees?
My thoughts are that one of the reasons a business would implement a Quality System, is to ensure consistent performance of it's processes. A strong Qs would be able to weather the storms of changes in management, lack of motivation, etc.
Actually, if I audited a plant and heard similar comments from it's employess, yet observed no non-conformances, it would tell me that the "System" is strong and effective.

Yes? No?
;)

Yup. yes. For sure! My integrity would not be impuned because I thought that morale was bad and said nothing. And I'm also not sure that Martin is auditing internally as we know it. If so, he would already know the problem exists because he sees these people everyday. What, you only talk to them during an audit? My guess is that it's between divisions of the same company which makes him the same as an External Auditor. Why in the world would they thank him for just doing his job? In that case, you are treading on dangerous ground, no matter who says thanks for telling us. You are right. No evidence of a weak QMS, no N/C. Motivation has never appeared on any checklist I have ever seen. JMHO

Just to re-affirm.

Yes it was an internal audit.

Yes I very carefully weighed up the situation, knowing the people and culture very well.

Yes it was reported objectively.

No it wasnt a non-conformance (as the 1994 standard said nothing on this subject, and I couldnt honestly relate it to anything seen during the audit).

....and dont worry cos nothing ever came of it (in fact the people in question shortly moved on - as I suspected they might).

Shannon - it appears from your post that you dont consider people as part of the system :bonk:

Would I do it again - yes in very strong circumstances as I appreciate this area is dangerous, also with ISO9001:2000 and TS16949:2002 I think I will have a clause to pin it on.

M Greenaway said:

Shannon - it appears from your post that you dont consider people as part of the system :bonk:

Would I do it again - yes in very strong circumstances as I appreciate this area is dangerous, also with ISO9001:2000 and TS16949:2002 I think I will have a clause to pin it on.

M,

From where I sit, 6.2 of 9004-2000 refers to the things you could use for continuous improvements in the people area. Without reciting them all, there are many, but this is key: As an aid to to achieving performance improvement objectives, the organization should encourage the involvement and development of its people.
But, when you go to the corresponding section of 9001:2000, it only talks about competency, training, reviewing the effective ness of training. This one though is probably where a connection can possibly made to motivation, it's a stretch, "Ensure that it's personnel are aware of the relevance and importance of their activities and how they contribute to achievement of the quality objectives". You can do this and still not have happy people. So, where you have hope with the new standard to address this issue, my guess is that's still arguable and difficult to obtain objective evidence.:agree: See how nice I am? :ko: :smokin:

I know I'm a little late getting into this thread but I would like to put my 2 cents in.

During an internal audit I asked what our Quality Policy statement was and received the reply "To Protect & Serve". I asked what the person meant and was told "To Protect my butt and Serve up the next guy"! I got a laugh out of it, but still made a mental note (he didn't know the correct answer). When I moved on to another member of the same department I was told "I'm too busy to listen to your s**t, leave me alone". I did make a note in my findings that we may have a problem in this area. I didn't come across any similar attitudes in the rest of the plant so I marked it up as this department having a bad day (under pressure to make delivery). Two months later we have our surveillance audit and go into the above mentioned department. To my surprise they treated the external auditor worse than they treated me. Basically dumped on her with their whole opinion of ISO, management, etc.. We didn't receive any write up but it did open my eyes.

This department became known as the Taliban with their fellow union brothers. There was a problem with morale and with the Supervisor (lack of management skills). I may have been able to disfuse a situation if I would have looked into it further, but because it didn't really fit into the ISO/QS scheme I passed over it.

I do agree with the new 9K2K requirement to monitor employee sat. I do believe it is in the internal auditors responsibility to bring issues up concerning morale and motivation. If the employee is that disgruntled to spout off or show visible evidence of lack of motivation, what stops them from taking it out on the product?
:ko:

[QUOTE] Shannon said:

A strong Qs would be able to weather the storms of changes in management, lack of motivation, etc.
Actually, if I audited a plant and heard similar comments from it's employess, yet observed no non-conformances, it would tell me that the "System" is strong and effective.
________________
Shannon,

Welcome to the Cove. A good one to jump in on, huh?

Remember, Martin was an internal auditor. It is his company, his livelihood is tied to its success -- at least for now. If you have very unhappy employees who still seemed to produce quality product and not generate any NC's (which is unlikely) it still doesn't mean this is not a problem. Unhappy employees can be responsible for problems outside the scope or visibility of the QMS. What about lost productivity? What about theft (proven to go up with unhappy employees)? What about accident rates (real and faked)? What about scrap that gets hidden instead of reported to cover one's butt (fudging QA records so everything looks good but is not)? What about the possibility that good employees will leave as soon as they can, costing the company perhaps 1-2x their salary in lost productivity?

As I said earlier, maybe there is not an ISO auditable NC here -- that's okay. And as Energy said, maybe this should have just as easily been seen outside of an audit if you are there every day. And as others have also said, you have to know the culture, employees in question, etc. -- I agree. But unless you are in a company where messengers get shot and others involved get tortured, I think you have a responsibility to the company to report it to someone you trust (HR, your boss, plant manager, etc.) to at least let them know about it.

I've seen two situations where 1 bad supervisor/manager was causing major problems for a company but he so intimidated his employees that HR and upper management never saw it until another manager brought it to a head. In the end, the job you protect may be your own.

In the end, like everything else, weigh the potential positives and negatives then decide, but don't just automatically say "it's not my job" -- or it might be your job at stake.

Nothing personal intended to Shannon or anyone else -- JMHO.:agree: :truce:

Mike S.

Wow, a lively thread to jump into for a first-timer!
As a "rookie", please forgive my inexperience.


As a I was writing my response, I expected some may mis-interpret my intentions.
Are people part of the System? You bet!
I just struggle with how we would measure "motivation".
I agree with Energy.
When I read 6.2.2.d "ensure that it's personnel are aware of the relevance and importance of their activities and how they contribute to the achievement of the quality objectives", or 6.4 "The organization shall determine and manage the work environment needed to achieve conformity to product requirements", I don't see any reference to a requirement regarding "motivation".

I agree with Mike S., in that these issues are responsible for problems outside the scope or visibility of the QMS, and that they are important. Important enough to comment on. But, I would opt for reporting them outside the scope of an audit. Managment does need to be aware of these issues, if they aren't so already.
Some of the examples, such as "fudging QA records", should be a non-conformance and reported as such within the audit.

When I first read the thread, I thought we were talking about an external auditor.

I'm in the infancy stages of implementation, and tend to focus on meeting the minimum requirements.
As our system matures, I will be looking at how can we build upon it. Expanding the scope of the audits to include "motivation" may be a good idea . . . . when the time and conditions are right.


;)

[QUOTE] Shannon said:

Quote: "Wow, a lively thread to jump into for a first-timer!
As a "rookie", please forgive my inexperience."

We're all "rookies" at something or other and we all can learn, no matter how much of a "vet" we are. No apologies needed. I'm not a "rookie" but nor am I a "vet" -- maybe a "tweener" with lots to learn.
__________
Quote: "Some of the examples, such as "fudging QA records", should be a non-conformance and reported as such within the audit."

If it is caught it should be a BIG deal NC. My point here is that often (most of the time?) a regular audit won't catch careful "fudging".

Mike S.
:bigwave:

True!
Careful fudging can be overlooked.

It sounds like we're beginning to discuss all the "other" responsibilities that make up our jobs as QS Champions/Managers/Change Agents (pick one).

Like many of you, I'm always in "audit" mode.
Daily, I make observations and have discussions with all associates on all levels, always on the lookout for barriers to a successful implementation, regardless if they fall under the QS "scope" or not.
Findings need to be shared with the key people that can have an impact on them. My point is that not all these "findings" should be reported through the formal auditing process.

As my boss would say . . . "I think we're in violent agreement".

:)

I must have been dreaming (As usual), I missed this thread and, It's such an interesting thread too.
I have indeed come across audits when it was an absolute asset to know how to assess the motivational positioning of the so called auditee's.
I came across this area when I first read Allan J Sayle's publication titled Management Audits. This book at first gave me a point of start regarding looking at auditing techniques that would allow me to measure namely, the Task elements, these elements are very well laid out and explaind in this book and, I would encourage any quality auditor to obtain this book for a very good read.
I also was pointed to a book by Shelle Rose Charvet called "Words that change minds", this book uses the techniques of Neuro Linguistic Programing (NLP), as the book title implies, words change minds and the psycholological aspect of auditing is a skill that is a must for any forward thinking auditor.
I found that using the techniques presented by Sayle and Charvet allowed me to become more proficient using communication skills that allow the auditee to express their motivational criteria (Values) in relation to a given context within an audit assessment. The LAB (Language and behaviour) profile that is found within Charvet's book is an excellent tool for an auditor, It allows you to ask key questions that allow an auditee to express their context values relating to the audit criteria, I found also that, I didn't really need to ask a specific question to get the information that I needed, The LAB profile allows me to just listen.
Wallace.

What is Motivation?

OH, Kevin you're scaring me.
Motivation My definition: Motivation is Influence.
Wallace.

Kevin Mader said:

What is Motivation?

It appears to be in the eye of the beholder. I can look at you and say "What a slacker. Where's his motivation?" On the other hand, he may just have been told that his services are no longer needed. You can't judge it, rate it or talk about anybody else's. You can, however, do those things with your own. It's a great topic to dwell on, but the only thing you can be certain of is your own motivation. You can justify having or lacking it. Just you. M is off base thinking he can make that call by his own observations. It's like judging art. JMHO :bonk: :ko: :smokin:

What scale would we use to measure another’s motivation? In my experience, when we say that others aren’t motivated we should be really saying that they aren’t motivated to do what we want them to do. Sure enough, they are motivated. They are motivated to do the opposite of what we want.

In Martin’s case, he heard accounts from folks that they were demoralized and unmotivated because promised pay increases never came about. I have these thoughts on that topic.

First, it would be difficult to substantiate this claim. For that reason, I would classify it as hearsay and not include it in the audit report unless I uncovered objective evidence to substantiate the claim.

Second, it is likely that the money aspect would not have created motivation in the first place. By Herzberg’s definition, it would likely only create movement. Kohn would agree with that claim and so would I. Maslow would consider whether such an increase is necessary to fulfill primary needs in his hierarchy. I would concede that some folks may have lost motivation because they in fact required such compensation to sustain basic needs. Otherwise, the loss of promised money leads to a demotivated state that is what Martin probably observed.

I think Herzberg does the best job in differentiating the hygienic factors from motivational factors. Keep in mind that hygienic factors do not lead to motivation. Instead, they range from a negative state to a neutral one. Motivational factors range from a neutral state to a positive one. The opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction. Money, oddly enough, crosses the divide that suggests to me that Maslow is probably right.

From the standards perspective, I pick up on some key words such as “achievement” and “work environment”, things so noted by Herzberg. Whether specifically stated or not, I believe that it is implied that auditors must observe for states of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. As such, it is reportable provided you uncover the objective evidence.

Management is obligated to provide adequate resources, training, and a good environment. The standard is littered with such comments. Auditors must look into the potential sources for such a negative state. Primarily, my focus would be on the management responsibility to the system. Do they understand their obligations? Are they committed to living up to them? Find the objective evidence to present. Doing so might help to improve the overall conditions and the likelihood that there will be a tomorrow.

Kevin

Could we define motivation as the drive to achieve an objective or purpose ?

I think you can clearly see when people are totally unmotivated. Yes we all have varying degrees of motivation, and I wouldnt go anywhere near stating that someones motivation appeared slightly lacking in some way or another. Yes who am I to judge !

But you can identify when people are grossly unmotivated, particularly when they say comments like they couldnt give a **** about the job, the organisation or the customer - and stated in no uncertain terms !!

Money itself was not the motivator/unmotivator in this case, it was more the promise of money on achievement of an objective that never materialised. I dont think the lack of motivation came from not getting the cash, I think it was more that the management had 'fooled' the staff, and they wouldnt get fooled again.

Clearly it was wrong in this instance to use money as a motivator, and what was more wrong was not to have given it when promised.

Kevin Mader said:

What is Motivation?

Cool move, Kev.... That's like pulling the pin, tossing the grenade, the closing the door.... :vfunny: :biglaugh: :smokin:

I love it!!!

How goes daddyhood? :bigwave:

Kevin Mader said:
*snip*
From the standards perspective, I pick up on some key words such as “achievement” and “work environment”, things so noted by Herzberg. Whether specifically stated or not, I believe that it is implied that auditors must observe for states of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. As such, it is reportable provided you uncover the objective evidence.

Management is obligated to provide adequate resources, training, and a good environment. The standard is littered with such comments. Auditors must look into the potential sources for such a negative state. Primarily, my focus would be on the management responsibility to the system. Do they understand their obligations? Are they committed to living up to them? Find the objective evidence to present. Doing so might help to improve the overall conditions and the likelihood that there will be a tomorrow.

Kevin

Hiya Kevin & all...

By and large I agree with you. The problem I have with the standard and measuring motivation is simply this: Unless management specifies somewhere in their Quality Objectives (or some other place) that employee motivation is important and a goal, I can't see how it can be audited. Lack of motivation can be something that might be discussed in a MRM, but not audited.

On the other hand - woe be to those who do say that employee motivation is a company goal. Then... this is a whole new ballgame. Motiviation will have to be defined, measured, monitored and steps taken to ensure that motivation is achieved, sustained and perhaps even enhanced or grown - depending upon managements wording.

I think this is why management needs to be very careful with the flowery, touchy-feely, sound good, buzz-word type of quality objectives and mission statements. They may just be biting off more than they can chew.

JMHO...

Cheers!!!

Mike,

I like your definition. I also agree that we can observe folks in motivated or unmotivated states. Our court system here in the USA relies on a jury’s observations/conclusions in determining if folks were motivated to commit crimes. Motivation is an inward-generated, outward self-expression. As you note, the folks may be less affected by the absence of the money and more upset with another hollow promise from management. In fact, it makes more sense to me that this might be the case. Hollow promises give the impression of being invisible. Lack of recognition leads to ‘no satisfaction’. Management has overlooked recognition as a Motivational factor. This is an example of an unmotivated state (neutral state).

Herzberg states that management must be diligent in working in both areas and their associated factors: hygiene and motivation. While there may be varying successes with the individual factors, unless management can manage the situation where folks sense more satisfaction than dissatisfaction, they will eventually leave. It is my belief that the ISO standard begins to address this factor, and for good reason. How do you provide a service or a product without the help of employees? What is management doing about creating the possibility that the product will ship? From a Customer perspective, does it look like the staff is eager to make Quality products?

Alfie Kohn asserts that motivation is a contributing factor to Quality. Motivation is a catalyst. I quite agree with this assertion. Movement is also a catalyst. Movement is also External in nature. Being external, it requires that you as a manager have an endless supply of rewards or punishments. If you run out, production and quality will suffer along with the workforce. The workforce will be demoralized and withdrawn, much like a junkie suffers while getting shut off from an addictive drug.

So back to the question: should we as auditors report that the workforce appears unmotivated? It comes back to the objective evidence we collect. Our personal observation of folks being unmotivated, as apparent as it might be, is subjective unless we provide credible evidence to corroborate our observation/finding. If we can find objective evidence, then we are obligated to include this in the Audit Report and notify the Auditee’s Senior Management of this condition. It is important to note that a few people making comments about being frustrated or angry does not mean that they lack motivation. Feelings of happiness or frustration can manifest themselves in outward behavior, and often do, but not always.

Did you observe other evidence beyond the comments of these folks that would lead you to believe that they were credible?

Regards,

Kevin

energy said:
It appears to be in the eye of the beholder. I can look at you and say "What a slacker. Where's his motivation?" On the other hand, he may just have been told that his services are no longer needed. You can't judge it, rate it or talk about anybody else's. You can, however, do those things with your own. It's a great topic to dwell on, but the only thing you can be certain of is your own motivation. You can justify having or lacking it. Just you. M is off base thinking he can make that call by his own observations. It's like judging art. JMHO :bonk: :ko: :smokin:
______________
First, Kevin asked (or "threw the grenade"), so I'll give my 2 cents worth. What is motivation? To keep it simple, to me it is most easily defined as "desire".

For awhile there, reading some of these posts, I thought I had made a mistake and landed in a Phychology Forum. Do we really have to make a discussion on employee motivation among quality professionals this complex and esoteric?

I also have to respectfully disagree with Energy that you can't judge or rate someone else's motivation (desire). Perhaps you cannot always do it with 100% accuracy and in all circumstances -- I concede that. But I would suggest that most humans do it all of the time and, IF it is done on people we know, in circumstances we are familiar with, I'd venture to say we can get pretty good at it. I've been proven correct much more often than I've been wrong when I've done this (judged motivation) on fellow employees and my family. Maybe I can't be 100% certain about motivation, but how many things in life are we 100% certain of before we act or make plans to act? Maybe you think there is a bearing lubrication problem with a certain problem machine based on your best observations, experience, etc. so you start there in your attempt to repair it. You have to start somewhere, so you start digging there. Did you know with 100% certainty what to do?

I agree that maybe there is not an NC according to ISO in the original post. But this was an INTERNAL audit by an EMPLOYEE of the company and he felt, based on his knowlegde and experience working with the people in that company, that some type of action was warranted based on his belief that there was a motivation problem. I believe that he is right in bringing it up with upper management in some format, if not in the audit.

Again, as others have mentioned, maybe in some companies this would not be a good idea. It is a case-by-case thing as to what you do with your observations.

Mike S.

Motivation is both a personal (singular) and a group or organizational (plural) positive or negative response to accumulated needs, desires, influences, goals, potential consequences, objectives, and outcomes.

Motivation has not been and cannot be measured as a "Tangible". Sometimes motivation drives you to accomplish a task that you don't even want to participate in.

To determine Motivation of individuals or organizations requires the ability to judge character, and many people lack that because "Character doesn't count".

People doing what needs to be done, when it needs to be done or whatever may not necessarily be motivated. They may be like Pavlov's dog and just conditioned.

Somewhere true Motivation has to be involved in exceeding expectations or goals, and not just accomplishing them.

Spoken by one who has been motivated many times in the past.

Hey Mike,

Being a Dad is a wonderful thing! I’m loving it!!

Here is my problem with the standard: too often, they use the “should” comment while explaining a “shall” statement. Talk about creating subjectivity.

In ISO9000, 3.3.4, the note states: “Conditions include physical, social, psychological and environmental factors (such as temperature, recognition schemes, ergonomics and atmospheric composition).”

In ISO9004, 6.4 explanations, it states: “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 the consideration of…(goes on to list mostly Hygienic factors).”

6.2 People, also bolster the need to create conditions that foster Motivation.

6.4 of the standard creates the only true “shall” statement in that management is required provide and manage a suitable environment to achieve organizational goals. This is a broad and loosely structured statement in the standard. However, by reading through the other guides (9000, 9004) it is implied and strongly recommended with a host of “should” comments that the goal be to create a motivated workforce to achieve higher levels of customer satisfaction and to attain organizational goals. It is written to support the workforce as much as any other component in the system.

From my perspective, it is an inescapable conclusion that management address motivation as part of 6.4 of the 9001 guidelines. As such, I am with Martin that we as auditors should be looking for evidence of that management has taken the necessary steps toward creating the environment conducive to fostering positive motivation within the workforce. If Martin is hearing from many folks that they are frustrated, the next step is to determine if this ‘feeling’ has manifested itself in an outward expression in the form of an unmotivated, demoralized, and unsatisfied group. Many folks feeling strongly about something generally lends to the fair assumption that something is wrong. This in itself is not enough to warrant a notation/comment in the Audit Report, although I would be tempted myself to put it in there. To cover our ***, we need to develop objective evidence that withstands the rebuttal of the Auditee who will surely want to make a case for themselves. As auditors, we are obligated to get this evidence, if it exists, to be as effective as we can be. Our aim is to help the Auditee and are obligated to more than the Client in this issue, at least on a moral and ethical level.

(about to project here)

Another thing about the standards that has always bugged me is the insistence on ‘measuring’ everything and ‘quantifying’ everything. It is often (mostly?) a waste of effort. Martin’s intuition is likely right on the money (pardon the pun). I see it, I know you have seen it, and anyone following this thread has seen it. Sadly, we have been a party of the ‘victim’. Our experience and theory tell govern our conclusions. What we often lack is and objective and impartial means to express ourselves. Who has the time? We need to fix this problem now? This is the type of conditioning that we grew/grow up on. It is almost natural to approach our conclusions in this fashion. We must try to break free of this habit. Perhaps the strongest, most valuable aspect of our court system is that we are innocent until being proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. While Martin or I are tempted to be the Judge, we must be the savvy investigator while auditing and poets when creating the audit report. Otherwise, we will contribute to the mess we are already finding ourselves in.

Regards,

Kevin

Mike S.,

Psychology is a complex topic. In addition, the subject of Motivation is a relatively newly explored area in the world of Social Psychology. As such, it isn’t as widely understood as other areas of study. I wouldn’t say that it is esoteric, but lesser understood is a fair label. I’m sorry if my sidebar on what Motivation is for me, and how it relates to Martin’s question, muddled up the works.

Comments made by participants in this thread lead me to believe that we have diverse opinions of what Motivation is or isn’t, hence my question. Answers thus far support that contention (no foul for that either). I was hoping to find ‘common ground’ or an operational definition that might be useful and allow us to explore whether a comment about “low morale or motivation” belongs in an audit report and if in fact ‘motivation’ is audit-able within the context of the guidelines.

My opinion: it is should be audited as part of 6.4 and if objective evidence is uncovered, reportable as well. I agree with your statement in regards using an alternate vehicle that might mitigate personal risk. Perhaps reporting something unpopular as part of an audit observation affords one some protection, perhaps not. On an individual basis, we must make this decision for ourselves. And can someone be fired for speaking to what they believe is the truth: absolutely. It ain’t right, but it has and will continue to happen.

Regards,

Kevin

It has been a while since my last post (for me anyway). I've been busy with doing the things that pay the bills (motivation).

In my organization I deal with motivation and morale this simple way. The beatings will continue until morale improves!

Motivation is our "guiding (or diving) force". Motivation may be internal, or external. It may be a result of our passion, or persecution. It may be affected by our circumstances (if I’m sick, I may be less motivated). It may be either affected by or may affect our morale. (Which is our current state of mind in respect to our contentment.)

Can motivation be measured? Only to the degree that we can observe an individual’s application of the driving force. It can also be confused with an individual’s inability to act on our motivation.

I think I’m confusing myself

[QUOTE] db said:

In my organization I deal with motivation and morale this simple way. The beatings will continue until morale improves!
____________
Small world, db. I think this is the official policy of my current employer!
:bonk:

Mike S.:(

Kevin Mader said:
Comments made by participants in this thread lead me to believe that we have diverse opinions of what Motivation is or isn’t, hence my question. Answers thus far support that contention (no foul for that either). I was hoping to find ‘common ground’ or an operational definition that might be useful and allow us to explore whether a comment about “low morale or motivation” belongs in an audit report and if in fact ‘motivation’ is audit-able within the context of the guidelines.

Regards,

Kevin

Kevin (or anybody)

Because this is a discussion forum, maybe we can consider the opposite of the employee satisfaction spectrum? Great posts, Kevin, as usual. I will not give you too may compliments though, lest I be seen as trying to kiss you or suck up. :rolleyes:

We have all seen the ads for a self-motivated individual, self-starter, etc..for a good position in a company. One would have to assume that they have a plan in their head as to how to get ahead and excel, surpass or match the achievements of those ordinary individuals already in the company’s employ. Now, they come on board and instinctively know what buttons to push to make them selves look good. They teach that in those higher institutions of learning. But, most times, that’s at the expense of someone else. Up until that time, that ordinary existing employee was motivated to do the best he/she could, given Management’s acceptance of them and their performance at the time.

Witnessing shameless behavior that no decent or honorable person would stoop to advance their positions, the displaced employee becomes a victim of the perception, by management or an anal auditor, that they lack motivation, because they cannot stoop that low or they know that it’s just a charade to impress Management. In the worst cases, it is termed “Disgruntled” as Management sees it. The news presents us, occasionally, with a story of a “disgruntled” employee that just went haywire and wasted his antagonists in the workplace. We cry for the slaughtered. Well, it least some of you do. You never see the charge that the employee was “unmotivated”. Where does that distinction lay? I used the term “disgruntled” in response to Martin G.’s post regarding lack of motivation. I’m thinking now that there must be a vast difference between the two terms. Does lack of motivation develop into a full-blown case of “disgruntlement”? Or, is disgruntled worker just a catch phrase for Management to excuse them selves from the responsibility of providing the tools for employees to become motivated? I’m really bummed over this. Some days, I feel unmotivated. Other days, I can definitely understand why some one would say I’m disgruntled. Could “disgruntled” possibly be applied to you because you display resentment against the reasons for your auditor’s or Management’s perception that you lack motivation? Huh? Huh? No, I do not own an Uzi!

:vfunny: :ko: :smokin:

Hey the reason for reporting a lack of motivation in an internal audit report is to bring it to the attention of the management, because it could well be managements fault that the person is unmotivated.

An internal audit doesnt point blame at the auditee, it is an audit of the management system, which is the responsibility of management.

Rest assured that the intent of the audit report was not to say 'hey look at him he's not motivated, sack him' it is to say 'hey management ask yourselves why your people are lacking in motivation, and do something to re-kindle their drive/sense of purpose'.

Dont worry energy, when I walk into your office to do an audit and I see you with your feet up, drinking coffee and surfing the net, and then you tell me all your woes I will be asking 'why is this person so unmotivated, what has caused this, what can we do to correct it'.

It may well be that the motivating factors external to the organisation are not that good (divorce, bereavement, etc) - obviously you cant do much about that !

[QUOTE] energy said:
We have all seen the ads for a self-motivated individual, self-starter, etc..for a good position in a company. One would have to assume that they have a plan in their head as to how to get ahead and excel, surpass or match the achievements of those ordinary individuals already in the company’s employ. Now, they come on board and instinctively know what buttons to push to make them selves look good. They teach that in those higher institutions of learning. But, most times, that’s at the expense of someone else. Up until that time, that ordinary existing employee was motivated to do the best he/she could, given Management’s acceptance of them and their performance at the time.

Witnessing shameless behavior that no decent or honorable person would stoop to advance their positions, the displaced employee becomes a victim of the perception, by management or an anal auditor, that they lack motivation, because they cannot stoop that low or they know that it’s just a charade to impress Management. In the worst cases, it is termed “Disgruntled” as Management sees it.
______________________________
Energy,

I’m not sure of your point here. Do you see it as an often-occurring problem that “motivated” people or “self-starters” come into a company and, throwing ethics to the wind, begin ascending the corporate ladder mainly by shamelessly stepping on others? Your phrase “most times” kinda scares me. I have seen this kind of behavior before, too many times, but I still don’t think it is more common than someone getting “higher on the ladder” by good old-fashioned hard work and perseverance. And I think no one should ever be ashamed of moving ahead over their peers, even if those peers were on the job longer, through hard work – that’s the only fair way. I never have and never will promote someone on seniority. Nor would I promote someone who is trying to look good by making others look bad – you get ahead in my world by making others look better. Perhaps I misunderstood your point.

And, as to not having an Uzi: It's too bad that only the bad guys do.
:thedeal:

Mike S.

Mike S. said:

Energy,

And I think no one should ever be ashamed of moving ahead over their peers, even if those peers were on the job longer, through hard work – that’s the only fair way. I never have and never will promote someone on seniority. Nor would I promote someone who is trying to look good by making others look bad – you get ahead in my world by making others look better. Perhaps I misunderstood your point.

Mike S.

Mike S.

No need to be ashamed ( I use the word "shameless") if it is determined that you are doing a better job and you know that it wasn't because you stole somebody elses idea, deliberately set about to undermine another individual or sucked up to the Boss telling him things you don't really mean just to endear yourself to him/her. I assume you, like me, have "climbed" up through the ranks by just being yourself with deception as not part of your arsenal. As one of 8 inspectors, I became the Supervisor because I did what was asked of me, did it fairly well and actually had a happy department. Seniority did play a role because they were coming to me anyway for guidance. I was there longer and seen most of the things that they were questioning. As I have mentioned before, I gave information willingly, without "hiding" it to make myself look good or them bad. This continued as the Supervisor. I would challenge them to "bring it on". Delegation was my goal so that I could pursue higher goals. 50% of what was considered "my job" became some body elses. Went on to QA Manager with additional responsibilities, never hurting anybody. That's not to say that someone may have felt better qualified and had some resentment. But, I know that I earned it fair and square so it wasn't my problem. You got the right idea, Mike. Having a conscience will not allow you to behave shamelessly at the expense of others. My post has more to do with those that do not. And yes, there are a lot of them. :vfunny: :ko: :smokin:

M Greenaway said:
Dont worry energy, when I walk into your office to do an audit and I see you with your feet up, drinking coffee and surfing the net, and then you tell me all your woes I will be asking 'why is this person so unmotivated, what has caused this, what can we do to correct it'.


Don't worry M about ever walking in this office, because you wouldn't fit through the front door because of the swelled head!:biglaugh: You know I'm just kidding. My response would be short an sweet, though. The cause of lack of motivation is reading your posts. The correction, skip your posts!:biglaugh:

You should be proud for starting this thread because it continues on and on and on:bigwave: :ko: :smokin:

I get busy for a few days and look what happens... wow!!

Energy, I believe the self-descriptive term you may be looking for is curmudgeon - not disgruntled... :biglaugh: :smokin: (I know... I'm a smart-@ss - I just can't help myself some days.)

Motivation is a difficult subject... one that very few individuals truly understand. Personally, I think we, as quality professionals, are closer to the regular "Joe" (or Jane - let's be PC here... ;) ) on the shop floor - and so are more attuned to the problems they face. Because we do tend to care more than the average individual (I know... I'm making a pretty broad generalization - go with me on this one) employee motivation/morale tends to become our problem too.

I think this is where Martin is coming from. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Martin). I think he feels that it is his duty to inform management that he perceives a problem on the shop floor. Whether or not it is an auditable item and something appropriate for an exit interview is another matter and not really germain to the issue. As quality folks, we're trained to fix things. It's in our genetic make-up. We can't help it. So, if we see a problem we bring it to the attention of those who can supposedly do somthing about it.

As for disreputable behavior being taught in higher education - I've not seen it. However, I've heard about it in MBA programs and just read and article (can't remember where right off the bat) about undergrads going into MBA programs with high ideals & expectations only to come out focused on the bottom line with cut-throat instincts. Perhaps it had to do with my professors... maybe the school... maybe the grad program... I don't know, but I can honestly say that it was not taught. I can also say that I don't teach that in my classes. I stress the humanistic approach to supervision and try to instill in my students the fact that every single person is a human being, with emotions and feelings and needs, dreams, wants, ups, downs... etc. You get the drift. Respect of one's fellow human beings.

So... motivation. Is it an art or a science? :confused: Beats me. I know what it isn't.... seen plenty of examples of that. Perhaps that's a step forward.

Cheers!!!

[QUOTE] energy said:
Mike S.

No need to be ashamed ( I use the word "shameless") if it is determined that you are doing a better job and you know that it wasn't because you stole somebody elses idea, deliberately set about to undermine another individual or sucked up to the Boss telling him things you don't really mean just to endear yourself to him/her.
_________________
I get it now. I was afraid you were saying something different, but it seems almost eerie how similarly our situations and philosophies are sometimes. I think I could work for you and be content.

As for the unethical butt-kissers, there is one in our company now who is indeed “shameless”. The owners are in another state, but he has firmly attached himself to the tookas of a new plant manager and back-stabs everyone else. He once wrote a letter to the owner praising the new PM and then gave a copy of the letter to the PM so he’d know he was getting praised! I'll bet he got a gold star for his lunchbox!!

In the end, butt-kissers do sometimes get to move up over the deserving, but I'll bet my money on the hard-working, ethical person every time. I'll win over 50% of the time. And, as for the others, well I see the destructive results of their ilk every day. And sometimes my motivation suffers. Same for many co-workers. The jury is out in what will happen in the end.

Mike S.

Mike S. said:

In the end, butt-kissers do sometimes get to move up over the deserving, but I'll bet my money on the hard-working, ethical person every time. I'll win over 50% of the time. And, as for the others, well I see the destructive results of their ilk every day. And sometimes my motivation suffers. Same for many co-workers. The jury is out in what will happen in the end.

Mike S.

Mike...

You are so right. Unfortunately, justice isn't guaranteed. When it happens, though - tis a thing of beauty. Where I used to work, we had an Assistant Manager (John) who was running a department in the place of the Manager (who was... asked to retire...) This guy had his stuff together - knew the job - did a darn good job - people liked and respected him. Plant Manager/VP didn't hire him to replace the Manager. Instead the PM hired some one of his buddies from another company. Assist. Mgr quit (actually he was lured away to help set up a Harley plant). His parting shot to his friends was, "The PM and I just didn't see nose to butt". It was a travesty.

To make a long story short - PM & new Mgr both quit within 3 weeks of each other to go to another company. New PM called John - offered him a manager's job and we got a very good person back. 3 months later we heard that both former PM & Mgr were out on their collective butts looking for a new jobs. Former PM ended up as a sales person for one of our vendors supplying product to John... :vfunny:

Some days your're the windshield - some days you're the bug...

Cheers!!!

[QUOTE] Michael T said:

To make a long story short - PM & new Mgr both quit within 3 weeks of each other to go to another company. New PM called John - offered him a manager's job and we got a very good person back. 3 months later we heard that both former PM & Mgr were out on their collective butts looking for a new jobs. Former PM ended up as a sales person for one of our vendors supplying product to John... :vfunny:

_______________________
MT,

Ahhhhh yes! That story was great. Sounds like in the end everyone got just what they deserved, though it was a painful process for poor John. I love it! Thanks for sharing it.

Mike S.

Mike S. said:

MT,

Ahhhhh yes! That story was great. Sounds like in the end everyone got just what they deserved, though it was a painful process for poor John. I love it! Thanks for sharing it.

Mike S.

MS,

My pleasure - - -

It was a little rough on my buddy - especially having to be away from home for weeks at a time. I really felt bad for him.

You should have seen it though.... first sales call - John comes running into my office like a kid at Christmas... "You're NEVER gonna believe who the new sales guy is for XXXXXX!!!" I wish I could have been a fly on the wall of THAT meeting... :biglaugh: Afterwards, I got all the gory details... Sweeeeeet. To John's credit - he was quite professional about the whole thing... the former PM had no idea John was back and was falling all over himself trying to figure out a way not to antagonize John.

Moral of the story: Fate is a fickle mistress and karma is real. Be good to everyone.

One problem I have with the motivation piece when talking about the employees is, who is judging the motivation?

When I see a guy who has been working on the line for 15 - 20 years and is doing his checks, IDing problem product and giving suggestions on how the line/product could be improved, I would consider him motivated.

However, this same guy is not considered motivated by the supervisor because the supervisor wants the him to take on a supervisory/lead role and the guy does not want the job. It isn't that he can't do the job, he just prefers to "work the line".

So I think we need to be very careful about what is considered "motivation". Of course I can't have a whole plant of these guys, but I'd rather have them motivated to do the job with product quality as one of the focal points instead of wondering if they will get $$$$$ to make an improvement.

We do spend a lot of time sharing the role quality plays in the big picture of things. Customer asks for a specific product. We make it for them and it's what they want, we get more business. We get more business, demand grows. Demand grows, ensures the company statys profitable. The company is profitable, jobs are there for them and us. Throw in poor product quality in the stream and the line goes the other way. So, it is in everyones interest that we ALL pay attention to quality.

:D

Nave said (wrote):
However, this same guy is not considered motivated by the supervisor because the supervisor wants the him to take on a supervisory/lead role and the guy does not want the job.

I know the feeling. One of my past employers placed in my yearly evaluation that I was "unmotivated" because I was content to remain a training consultant. I like working with companies and did not want to be promoted! I was probably one of the best producers because I kept my concentration on satisfying the customer, not on how to climb the corporate ladder. They eventually chased me out. Two “unmotivated” ratings in a row could result in “deselection”. My motivation was counter to the organizational culture. I think that is what they could not stand.

db/Nav

This is exactly what I was trying to say a hundred posts ago!:rolleyes: Who can really judge motivation? An auditor? You see something. Somebody tells you something. You cannot be absolutely sure what it is. Lack of motivation, someone having a bad day, a grouchy inspector, and finally, my favorite, a disgruntled worker (whatever that is)? I know people who exhibit all those traits. Dare I call them un-motivated. Not!:p
:ko: :smokin:

Hey energy, I just thought of you. Some may call you "unmotivated" because you sometimes seem a bit harsh in your posts. I just think you're grumpy. One can be motivated and grumpy at the same time can't they?:vfunny:


[Edited for spelling and to say.. sorry!]

db said:

Hey energy, I just thought of you. Some may call you "unmotivated" because you sometimes seem a bit harsh in your posts. I just think you're grumpy. One can be motivated and grumpy at the same time can't they?:vfunny:


[Edited for spelling and to say.. sorry!] \

There are PHD's out there with years of training and hundreds of troubled clients who may be able classify why I appear grumpy. I would bet the ranch that "lack of motivation" isn't one of their recognizable and treatable illnesses. More like low self esteem brought about by verbal jousting with the intellectual giants here in the Cove!:vfunny: Of course, that description doesn't apply to Auditors!:ko: :smokin:

Well I was talking lack of motivation to do the job they were currently employed to do, not lack of motivation to 'better' themselves.

M Greenaway said:

Well I was talking lack of motivation to do the job they were currently employed to do, not lack of motivation to 'better' themselves.

Are you working late?
Anyway, what's the difference? It's still too subjective. Now, take the weekend off without pay!:agree:
:ko: :smokin:

M Greenaway said:

Well I was talking lack of motivation to do the job they were currently employed to do, not lack of motivation to 'better' themselves.

If lack of motivation was the case then more than likly there would be a corresponding lack of quality product produced. If that is the case here then we start "working":frust: with the individual. This is what I would share with the auditor to explain how we take a quality factor and make improvements. Wala. The process. :thedeal:

Does it then get translated as a lack of motivation? That depends on how you want to characterize your company.

Yes energy I am so sad I even post from home, it is Saturday afternoon now. Normally I would be playing rugby but the season is over apart from a cup final tomorrow. So I thought I could get psyched up in the cove :vfunny:

I really dont think that the incident I was involved in was a subjective assessment, at least not my subjectivity. The warehouse staff were all venting their frustration (bordering on anger) at being duped by management. Now puting aside the rights and wrongs of the management tactic to reward performance for basically doing what they should do anyway with a pay rise, the staff were very clearly unmotivated and willing to tell anyone and everyone about it. Like I said I'm sure it was no news to their boss, but perhaps the more I think about it I should only have mentioned it if i could prove it was detremental to quality (note again this was only a comment in a report, not an NC or observation or anything).

Anyway enough of this, lets get back to the thread bashing LRQA !!

It is quite frustrating sometimes when motivation on internal auditors are dropping....:frust:

I have used the likert scale to measure motivation with good results, yet, You have to have willing subjects.
It all comes down to being able to read the characteristics of either, internaly or externaly motivated people.
The interview scenario is good when using the LAB (Language and Behaviour) profile.
Motivation is without a doubt linked to values and the values are the rules or criteria that we have formed based on our present understanding of a context, this is our view of reality, It can change of course as, we understand more of the context SO, in relation to quality management, I would say that, TRAINING has to be the motivator because, training transfers the required knowledge, skills and process methods of operation to an employee, allowing the employee to view the context of the training, which is organizational.
Wallace.
:bigwave:

I believe people need three things to perform a job:
1 - Knowledge
2 - Skill
3 - Will (desire)

Unlike Wallace, I don't believe training can be considered a motivator.
Training, in my opinion, is the vehicle for transferring knowledge.
On-the-job training, or experience, is the vehicle for developing skills.
Motivation lies in the "will" or the "desire" to perform the job.
So, how do we get at that?
Well, we first need to identify the top motivators and de-motivators of our workforce.
Yes, there are some common ones, but each culture has a unique set of motivators. We shouldn't assume we know them all.
Performing a social systems analysis is a great start.
Once we understand what "things" motivate and de-motivate our employees, we can better plan the changes we may need to make to improve motivation.
:rolleyes:

Personally I find the prospect of acquiring new knowledge, whether by formal training or not, a very motivational factor. Certainly a prime motivator when looking for a new job.

What! Me not having sufficient skills and knowledge! Never happen.;)
Just kidding.

But, you point out that all three are co-dependent. Each impacting the other.

Your example: I have the will and desire, but lack the skills and knowledge.
I have only one of the key three to perform my job effectively.

As I mentioned earlier, training will be the vehicle to get me the knowledge. Hands-on training, and time performing the tasks, will help develop my skills.
Now, I have all three covered.
All set to go.

You said:
"Maybe the right training would help complete your motivation"

I say:
"If I lack skills and knowledge, training helps close those gaps, and enables me to perform my job."

I also say:
"If I'm knowledgable, and have the right skills, but lack motivation, please don't assume that additional training will get me motivated. In fact, it may even de-motivate me".

As you so well pointed out earlier, these three are all intertwined.
Lack of proper training and follow-up could be considered a de-motivator.
Don't you just love the grey!
:frust: :lick:

Shannon said:

I believe people need three things to perform a job:
1 - Knowledge
2 - Skill
3 - Will (desire)


This may be true on the person's level, however we must also consider external to the person. Does the individual have the
1 - Equipment/Materials
2 - Management Support
3 - Time


I have seen in various cases where management has placed barriers to performance in front of employees then claim they are "unmotivated".

Excellent point!

These external factors are usually what comes out during the social systems anaylsis.
Not having the right tools, or the time to do it, can be serious de-motivators.:D

First, I don't believe anyone can motivate someone else. You may be able to remove barriers and coach, but people have to motivate themselves. Second, theres an old joke where the employee tells the boss he needs some "positive reinforcement". The boss asks the employee if he got paid last week and if so, that was his reinforcement. I have never in 25 years of visiting many, many manufacturing plants found a place where employees weren't griping about something. Anytime you get more than one person together, someone will have something to complain about. The art of management is determining which gripes are really serious, and which ones are human nature. We are basically an unsatisfiable(not sure that is a word) species. If we win the lottery we complain about the taxes. I believe to much of management has swung to the "touchy feely" side where we believe it is our job to make all our employees "self-acutalized" which is a crock. Won't ever happen, can't ever happen. Now, I must go flog some inspectors, if I don't do it every week, they feel neglected.

tarheel,
That is why Shannon's post about de-motivators should not be overlooked. Often we use pay as a motivator. When in actuality, it is often a de-motivator, not the other way around. If you put your post with Shannon's a very clear picture emerges.

If anyone is interested in the difference between Movement and Motivation, I encourage you to do a Search.

By Herzberg's definition, Training would be considered a Motivational Factor. Training is one mechanism to change Knowledge into Know-how. Advancement and Growth are dependent in part on Training received.

Tarheel's comments are unfortunately true. We rely too much on Movement (beatings and rewards) to get things done. We use them "to do things to people", as Kohn would say. Consequences if you don't, accolades if you do. Unfortunately, it changes the nature of the relationship between you and your work. Motivation is intrinsic. You cannot motivate me, but you could move me with a stick or a carrot. Should I pull the cart on my own, I might just be motivated to do so.

Another thing to keep in mind is that while someone might be motivated to do a good job, they may lack the resources to do it. Desire is a Catalyst in doing things, but not the reason why things necessarily happen for.

As for Maslow's Self Actualization: in a society with a predisposition to apply Skinnerian Thinking (pop behaviorism), I'm afraid tarheel is right in this time and place. However, we'd be wrong to think that this wasn't true in the past or that it can't/wont happen in the future. It will be dependent on our Value System (beliefs and paradigms) and how they change with time. The next steps after Knowledge>Know-how are Wisdom>Character. If we move up the curve, change will happen sooner and if you asked me, it would be change for improvement!

Regards,

Kevin

"Consequences if you don't, accolades if you do.

Kevin, Isn't this the basis for the whole christian work ethic.
I seem to remember a quote from one of the Japanese quality gurus back in the 80's that goes something like this:
"The reason that americans cannot produce (be motivated) quality products is because of their religion; they believe they are born evil and must struggle to do good, whereas the japanese believe they are born good and do good things."

And I like this one. This can relate to the merit raise or the incentive plan.

"Motivation is intrinsic. You cannot motivate me, but you could move me with a stick or a carrot. Should I pull the cart on my own, I might just be motivated to do so."

My only concern is to get the carrot. How I pull the cart (do the job) makes no difference.