I have a problem: Myself and others have trained the same employees several times on the same subject (completing a nonconformance tag). :frust: There are a few employees who still do not complete the tags correctly (if at all). :frust: These employees have also, numerous times been instructed individually on completing the tag. :frust: Also, the tag is pretty simple, and labeled clearly for what goes where. At this point, it is not a lack in the training that is an issue, but a problem with the employee.

Here's the question: How is a situation like this handled at other companies?

Thanks in advance for the help. I am really getting to my wits' end with this. I think I may go back to teaching preschool, at least they have an excuse for their ignorance.
:thanx:

Well, IMO there could be several reasons for why these people refuse to do what they are told. Without knowing more details, I'll give a generic answer. Since it does not seem to be a capability issue or lack-of-knowledge issue, I will assume it is a disciplinary issue and so I would apply the same disciplinary procedures used for any discipline problem in the company.

Couple things I wonder:

What does their direct supervisor say about this issue? Maybe he/she is not supporting you?

Have you asked the people directly why they won't do what you ask? What do they say?

I'm not sure about how they handle this type of disciplinary problem here, but at previous employer's there were defined steps to take for disciplinary problems (verbal warning, written letter of discipline, termination). With employment opportunities being few and far between, this type of program strictly enforced works extremely well.

But keep in mind that you may have to get to the termination phase at least once before others recognize that it's for real. I would hate to think that someone lost their job due to their unwillingness to complete a tag, but what you're describing is NOT someone "accidently" not performing the task correctly, but someone that is challenging the system (and your authority).

I would also suggest that before you go to the extreme of implementing disciplinary action, try setting down with those that are "noncompliant" and LISTEN to their "real" reasons for being noncompliant (perhaps they have a "better" way). But if they offer no solutions, then I would become the authoritarian and "lay down the law".

I'm not sure about how they handle this type of disciplinary problem here, but at previous employer's there were defined steps to take for disciplinary problems (verbal warning, written letter of discipline, termination). With employment opportunities being few and far between, this type of program strictly enforced works extremely well.

But keep in mind that you may have to get to the termination phase at least once before others recognize that it's for real. I would hate to think that someone lost their job due to their unwillingness to complete a tag, but what you're describing is NOT someone "accidently" not performing the task correctly, but someone that is challenging the system (and your authority).

I would also suggest that before you go to the extreme of implementing disciplinary action, try setting down with those that are "noncompliant" and LISTEN to their "real" reasons for being noncompliant (perhaps they have a "better" way). But if they offer no solutions, then I would become the authoritarian and "lay down the law".

I agree with this, but maybe the Dept. manager has not reinforced the necessity of their employees to follow the systems. Maybe that is where you should start, if the manager doesn't have a buy in then the people in the dept. will not see any need to comply. The old axiom is "at least 80% of the issues are caused by top management not providing the proper training, tools, equipment, motivation, etc." Discipline is as always must be consistent, and used if to be taken seriously.

If your system requires the completion of the tag and they are not completing it, then you have a nonconformance situation that could be addressed with a Corrective Action Request. This could be issued against the department head and/or the responsible employee. Maybe if they have to identify the root cause for failure to follow procedure, they will help to identify and implement an effective Corrective Action. If that does not work, I would use the discipline system. Just thinking out loud. :bigwave:

Mustang,

The following is something I put together recently for an internal issue, but may have some bearing on your concern. Please keep in mind that I wrote this for another issue - so it in no way implies anything on your part :bigwave: .

HOW TO MAKE SURE PROCEDURES ARE FOLLOWED

In order to make tasks happen properly, that currently are not, three factors must be considered:

1) Training: People need to be informed of the proper way to complete tasks. This requires instruction and feedback. Too often, a supervisor will tell the employee, “do this, this, and that”, and then walk away. That is not training. When people demonstrate their comprehension of the procedure and their ability to do it, then they are trained.

2) Facilitation: The methods and tools used to complete tasks must be constructed in such a way that it is easier to do the task properly than it is to do it wrong. The process must make it difficult to do things the wrong way, e.g. mistake-proofed.

3) Enforcement: There must be clearly communicated consequences for doing things improperly. There must be past evidence of what negative things happen personally when an individual fails to comply with procedures. And this must take place consistently, without bias.

A fourth factor for ensuring the proper completion of tasks is only effective if the first three exist. This factor is described below.

4) Internalization by Repetition: When people begin to follow the process properly, and then do it over and over again (the right way), it becomes natural for them to correctly complete the necessary tasks.

CAUTION: Conversely, if they begin doing things incorrectly (i.e. because the first three factors are not in place or they begin repeating a predecessor’s incorrect practices) then their ‘natural’ pattern will be flawed and they will always do things incorrectly.

For each problem resulting from a failure to follow procedures, analyze the factors above to determine how best to resolve the problem.

Disclaimer: Since the Cove is where I do a lot of my research, some of the above may be taken from others. If so, I apologize and at the same time, thank you.

I have a problem: Myself and others have trained the same employees several times on the same subject (completing a nonconformance tag). :frust: There are a few employees who still do not complete the tags correctly (if at all). :frust: These employees have also, numerous times been instructed individually on completing the tag. :frust: Also, the tag is pretty simple, and labeled clearly for what goes where. At this point, it is not a lack in the training that is an issue, but a problem with the employee.

Here's the question: How is a situation like this handled at other companies?

Thanks in advance for the help. I am really getting to my wits' end with this. I think I may go back to teaching preschool, at least they have an excuse for their ignorance.
:thanx:

Hi Mustang and welcome to the cove.

A few years ago we had a similar problem of people failing to properly quarantine product and then we had a guy put QA Inspection stickers on final product that had not been inspected. Anyway, prior to the product being loaded one of the supervisors checked the product and found it was incorrect and thankfully saved the day. We had just trained everyone over the previous three days on the procedure for final inspection of product, the new QA stickers and Quarantine procedures. So we raised a CAR and investigated the issue. Training was good and everyone was competent as they had a performed a written test and a practical test. The GM got involved and the end stage of the investigation and asked what we were going to do with the rogue QA Inspector. Everyone mumbled responses and he asked 'What if it was YOUR Business? What would YOU do?' Everyone agreed that the inspector should be sacked. However, we decided to suspend him for a period of four weeks with no pay. Noone has ever done this again ad they have seen the repercussions. It is the only time we have had to resort to this type of measure in the history of the company (although we did let a supervisor go that had breached lock out procedrues). It is written into the company agreement that a person can be dismissed for failing to adequaetly protect the product (or something along those lines). It is a bit like your kids if they see that nothing untoward is going to happen to them if the misbehave then they WILL misbehave. We are embarking on a Behaviour Based Safety System this year and we are hoping that many of the thought processes involved in this will lead to an imporvement in the culture of the company. i.e People will think a bit more about the protection methods in the company. Safety protects PEOPLE, Environement protects the PLANET and Quality protects the PRODUCT. I hope this helps.

Greg B

Mustang,
How many employees have been trained to perform this task and how many of the trained employees have shown a lack of compliance?
Have all of the trained employees been re-trained several times?
Have all of the trained employees been canvassed for feed-back regarding the acceptability of the information exchanged with the trained employees?
Is your work place unionized?

There may indeed be a group of employees who have discussed, agreed and formed a core of resistance to this task.
I've experienced a similar situation in a unionized and non-unionized environment.
You may want to include a role play part of the training to enforce and encourage confidence for the trained employees. I percieve that the non-compliant employees may be victims of their own core values.
Wallace.

I, too, have experienced uncooperation from certain employees. How about this for an answer when I complained to upper management? "Oh c'mon now. You know these guys don't have time for this ISO crap, (keeping in lines with posting guidelines, I changed the word.) They're here to build product, on time, correctly and really don't have time or the ability to absorb what you are trying to teach them. So, cut them some slack and keep doing what you're doing." What was that? Well, they are still there, and I'm not! Who was right? Me, of course. Who's still employed there? Them. A lesson in priorities, for me. :bonk:

Anytime there is a lack of performance, it can be attributed to one of two things. Either a deficiency in knowledge (DK), or a deficiency in execution (DE). Unfortunately we tend to think training will solve all lacking performance. Training will only address the DK.

DE is a managerial issue, and the reasons vary. It is possible the reward structure actually encourages nonperformance. The punishment for performing (taking the extra time/hassle needed to fill out the tag) is greater than the punishment (getting yelled at again) for not filling it in. Or perhaps it could be an act of deliberate defiance.

If we attempt to use training to answer a DE issue, all it will do is to minimize the effectiveness of the overall training program. Training becomes a form of discipline: “You screwed up, now you have to go to training.”

What it sounds to me is that you have to find the real reason for the lack of performance.

Good Luck and keep us informed.

Mustang:

A question:

How are the nonconforming numbers handled? Are there repercussions for exceeding, say, a certain percentage nonconforming?

In other words, does another part of the system encourage the hiding of nonconforming product?

If so, it is the system that is causing the problem, and hiding bad product must be seen as having dire consequences, much worse than making the bad stuff in the first place.


Craig

I, too, have experienced uncooperation from certain employees. How about this for an answer when I complained to upper management? "Oh c'mon now. You know these guys don't have time for this ISO crap, (keeping in lines with posting guidelines, I changed the word.) They're here to build product, on time, correctly and really don't have time or the ability to absorb what you are trying to teach them. So, cut them some slack and keep doing what you're doing." What was that? Well, they are still there, and I'm not! Who was right? Me, of course. Who's still employed there? Them. A lesson in priorities, for me. :bonk:
Energy:

I agree. You were right. Right out of a job. Just like driving a car. You can be right, dead right. Being right in business is finding out what your boss wants and doing it unless you can convince him otherwise and bring him over to your side. If you can't find common ground you have to find other ground.


Here's the question: How is a situation like this handled at other companies?
Mustang:

If you don't get support from above, all the training and cajoling will not work. You can't push a rope no matter how hard you try. So you might try showing the boss the importance of filling in the NC tag in a language he can understand, $$$$. Once he understands he will take care of the rest and the others will fall in line.

You can't push a rope no matter how hard you try.

Try freezing it first! :vfunny:



If you don't get support from above, all the training and cajoling will not work. You can't push a rope no matter how hard you try. So you might try showing the boss the importance of filling in the NC tag in a language he can understand, $$$$. Once he understands he will take care of the rest and the others will fall in line.

Good Point! :agree: DE issues (See my above post) can only be handled through management involvement. Until management wants the behavior to change, it will not.

...Until management wants the behavior to change, it will not.

I believe this to be the gist of it - in my experience anyway. If there is no repercussion...

I've seen too many people drive themselves crazy trying to enforce something that management put in place - only to not have management support when it is not followed. I personally don't play - I keep documenting it internally somehow, usually internal audits or even interoffice memos - I don't allow myself to become angry or frustrated if they are ignored, I won't argue with anyone - but I won't be the scapegoat at audit time or when a customer complains.

Mustang - I'm not trying to dissuade you in your particular situation. I've worked for some really difficult people in the past who just wanted the cert on the wall.

My two cents:

How many of us out there have seen the Corrective Action on a CAR/CAPA/whatever state: Retrained the employee…an overused response in most instances, right on the money for others.

Fishbone the issue (people, machine, material, method): what’s wrong?

I’m from the school of thought that problems come from two sources: systems issues or value issues. Many here have posted to this affect (systems issue belong to management 80+% of the time, values issues are individual/culturally owned and tied to rewards/consequences). If you have a systems issue related to People that are inadequately trained, Training might be the solution. If you have a values issue, Training is not the solution.

Diagnose the source, treat the issue from the right perspective. My guess is that you have a values issue there and for this reason, you might need to gather the group and reach an agreement with them (as a whole or individually). This agreement is binding and as such, if broken, they are subject to disciplinarian action.

Regards,

Kevin

Kevin, I agree with your comments. Train and re train again, then use the proper, appropriate discipline, However, for some reason ther seems to be a reluctance to apply discipline for poor workmanship, or following quality requirements on the partof manufacturing senior management. I have noticed this in my current, and last employer. Until this in reinforced by disciplinary actions there will be a constant repeat nonconformances. That being said, I have noticed no lack of discipline for attendance, tardiness issues. What does this tell us quality types...be here, and on time to make your quota of parts, but not so concerned about the necessity of meeting all the quality requirements. This must be driven and reinforced continously by top management.

Kevin, I agree with your comments. Train and re train again, then use the proper, appropriate discipline, However, for some reason ther seems to be a reluctance to apply discipline for poor workmanship, or following quality requirements on the partof manufacturing senior management. I have noticed this in my current, and last employer. Until this in reinforced by disciplinary actions there will be a constant repeat nonconformances. That being said, I have noticed no lack of discipline for attendance, tardiness issues. What does this tell us quality types...be here, and on time to make your quota of parts, but not so concerned about the necessity of meeting all the quality requirements. This must be driven and reinforced continously by top management.

Years ago, when I was a young pup and still full of rebellious youth, I got so fed up with the lack of support from all areas of the organization that I wrote a letter to the president of the company. In the letter I proceded to let the president know that it was quite apparent to me as his internal Quality Systems Auditor that there was far more concern for shipping product than there was for making sure that what was sent actually worked/met quality requirements. Although he did send me a written response expressing that his reason for having a quality department was so that they could "kick butt and take names", he also ensured that a note was added to my personnel file to the effect that I was a "rebelious troublemaker" and needed to be watched.

Well the end of this story is that within 3 years he was let go by the Corporate office, and the new president began pushing for an increased concern/concentration on quality of processes, product, and services - and I spent the next 12 years proceding to advance and gain greater responsibility for QMS development and improvement corporate wide.

My intent with telling this is to depict the fact that sometimes when you tell the Emperor that he has no clothes, it doen't end up being a negative thing (as in Energy's case). But either way, doesn't someone at some point in time have to take the stand and let them know where the real problems are coming from?

To my regret my experience of top management is generally closer to Energy's, especially in smaller companies!

You just have to do what your are paid for and if possible show how the managers pockets will be eventually get targeted. Sometimes seems to be the only way some understand.

However as we will probably only work for 40-50 years and generally only live 70, spending that percentage of time getting angry seems an awful waste.


Martin Elliott

To my regret my experience of top management is generally closer to Energy's, especially in smaller companies!

You just have to do what your are paid for and if possible show how the managers pockets will be eventually get targeted. Sometimes seems to be the only way some understand.

However as we will probably only work for 40-50 years and generally only live 70, spending that percentage of time getting angry seems an awful waste.


Martin Elliott

Dave's situation was and is a rare exception. It's not every employee with a "record" that is fortunate enough to outlast the man in charge. "The stone in your shoe." Dave rolled the dice and survived. Dave, while it worked out well for you, I don't recommend it for the up and coming Professionals. It can be extremely hazardous to your financial health. :vfunny: :agree:

energy,

I agree, financial health might be thwarted.

But this lends to the thought about values and principles, I think in keeping with my earlier post. When should these take over and guide our decision making? The earlier the better it seems to me. But to your point, this is easier said than done, and when in a subordinate position, it might be even more hazardous. Hence why I like to term the return to basics a 'revolution'.

Still, in this situation, what are we looking at? Is this a Values Issue or a Systems Issue? Both require a different action to resolve it.

Back to the group...

Kev,
Did I mention that Financial Health issues become Physical Health issues for some? :vfunny: I vote "Values". The Company culture is to blame for allowing hard working employees to ignore those issues so important to us. That doesn't mean that our issues wouldn't benefit the company in the long term. No system will make those top dogs willing to damage their relationship with their Premier employees who have a learning disability or a bad attitude. After all, everybody gets paid on the backs of their labor! ;) Another truck leaves the dock! No product returns. That's what counts to many. :agree:

Kevin, As always you've posed a great question, and one which I find myself struggling to come to a conclusive response.

On one hand I immediately agreed with Energy that we are talking "Values" here (i.e. Upper Management's value system that may appear to be based on greed).

But on the other hand perhaps if we step back another step or two it may be revealed that there is a "System" issue with a root found in our Business Management schools - What values are being stressed in our Management schools, and are the management personnel in many of our businesses merely reflecting those learned values?

Or, are our Upper Management personnel merely reacting to the pressures placed on them by shareholders, owners, etc. and their shared values.

More than likely we'll find that to a degee all of the above may be contributing factors (and in-fact there are probably many more that I have overlooked). But once again, if we step back far enough... :confused:

This could be both system and values deprnding on who is in charge at the top, and if the organization is profitable, and how much. If consistently turning a good profit then system and values reflect the support of attempting to improve. If not profitable, or marginally, then the pressure is on to get there by means of increasing output to absorb costs. Does this make sense? I have seen this in real world situations.

Dave's situation was and is a rare exception. It's not every employee with a "record" that is fortunate enough to outlast the man in charge. "The stone in your shoe." Dave rolled the dice and survived. Dave, while it worked out well for you, I don't recommend it for the up and coming Professionals. It can be extremely hazardous to your financial health. :vfunny: :agree:

Rare exception? Hmmm.... don't know that I agree with that. Okay, maybe it turns out bad a bit more often than it turns out good, but I'm not prepared to agree with "rare exception". I'll bet that reasonably often (how's that for specifics!) it is a neutral thing. I just don't want others who may be newbies to think they have no shot at all if they act on their conscience and raise a red flag.

Here's one story FWIW: In my earlier days, after being with a company about a year, I went the route of telling my boss (the QM) and a few VP's that there were some Big Problems with the overall quality, measurements, and with the new product being hyped by the new hotshot VP of Marketing. This put quite a spotlight on the New Kid in QA, but I felt I had to be honest. I did not realize quite how much of a ripple this sent through a company loaded with long-timers who never before had seemed to notice such things. :rolleyes: But the VP of Engineering was more interested in getting things right, had some faith in me for some reason, and more than once had wondered about the kinda things I was bringing up, so he calls a Senior Staff meeting for the New Kid to make a presentation. Gulp! I spent a day or two putting my data together (all by hand, with tables, sketches, and one cartoon drawn by a lab mate -- computers were not ubiquitous then) and went before the Senoir Staff. I tried to act confident, which I was in my data, but this was my first such presentation and inside I was scared. I presented my data as best I knew how. The VP of Marketing started ripping into me, questioning everything I said, trying to find a flaw somewhere in my data to save his project. This went on about 10 -15 minutes. Finally the Prez slammed his hand down on the table, scaring the crap out of me, and then to my great relief proceeded to put the VP of Marketing in his place and said mine was some of the best work he had seen in awhile and thanked me for bringing it up. I began to breathe again. We as a company addressed most of the issues in my report and became a much better company for it. The hotshot VP of Marketing eventually became the new Prez when the old Prez retired. And we got along quite well, his respect having grown for me after that meeting, and worked together well for a few years after until he left the company.

Yep, I took a risk. It could have resulted in me being shown the door. But, especially at that age, I felt the risk was worth it and I did not want to work somewhere where I had to hide problems. Since then there are several times I took risks -- some just as great -- with me coming out better for it most of the time, and there have been times when I decided to just shut-up as I was pretty sure I would not be listened-to, so the risk/reward ratio was bad for me. Every situation is different, each of us must do our own potential risk/reward analysis based on the circumstances at the time. Of course, make sure you're right and you have reems of data to prove it. But don't think you've lost before you try, that's not always the case. JMO.

Rare exception? Hmmm.... don't know that I agree with that. Okay, maybe it turns out bad a bit more often than it turns out good, but I'm not prepared to agree with "rare exception". I'll bet that reasonably often (how's that for specifics!) it is a neutral thing. I just don't want others who may be newbies to think they have no shot at all if they act on their conscience and raise a red flag.

Every situation is different, each of us must do our own potential risk/reward analysis based on the circumstances at the time.

Nobody is suggesting they compromise their principles. There are many instances where members have stood their ground because it was expected of them. Comes with the territory. I'm talking about telling the top dogs how to run their business. If you want to fire off a letter of protest to Management because you feel not enough is being done to satisfy requirements, you do so at your own risk. And, how many times do you think one can do this? If you want to post success stories about winning the big one, make it big. Pick your battles, wisely. "I fought the Law and the Law won" comes to mind. ;)

It all comes down to risk vs. benefits. Forethought must be put into all of the possible outcomes to, 1) reporting a problem, and 2) failing to report a problem (e.g. telling a friend he needs to cut back on his drinking, or telling a boss one of his processes is not working).

Sometimes, though, we have to consider whether OUR rationale is sound. For example, in the original question about tags not being completed properly (obviously for some extended time period), two questions about CONSEQUENCES arise.

1) What are the consequences to the EMPLOYEE who fails to complete tags properly? If, none, why waste your time. Let it go until something serious enough happens to attract top management's attention.

2) What are the consequences to PRODUCT QUALITY if tags are not completed properly? If, none, maybe WE have to adjust our thinking as to the procedure's usefulness. If significant problems arise, present the facts (in $ loss).

See, risk vs, benefit.

It all comes down to risk vs. benefits. Forethought must be put into all of the possible outcomes to, 1) reporting a problem, and 2) failing to report a problem (e.g. telling a friend he needs to cut back on his drinking, or telling a boss one of his processes is not working).

Sometimes, though, we have to consider whether OUR rationale is sound. For example, in the original question about tags not being completed properly (obviously for some extended time period), two questions about CONSEQUENCES arise.

1) What are the consequences to the EMPLOYEE who fails to complete tags properly? If, none, why waste your time. Let it go until something serious enough happens to attract top management's attention.

2) What are the consequences to PRODUCT QUALITY if tags are not completed properly? If, none, maybe WE have to adjust our thinking as to the procedure's usefulness. If significant problems arise, present to facts (in $ loss).

See, risk vs, benefit.

Rob, There may even be a third question posed:

3) Do we really require a tag that needs to be filled out? What about using a basic red Reject tag with no further info required on it? Could the objection to completing the tag be due to not wanting to duplicate efforts (i.e. perhaps the nonconformity has already been documented via some other media, such as an on-line record or a traveller, etc.)?

If you want to post success stories about winning the big one, make it big.

Please explain.

Please explain.

Sure thing. If someone wants to be around long enough to tell the story about standing up to the Company President, CEO, etc., they should proceed cautiously and be prepared to go out the door if it is received by those in authority as overstepping their bounds. Simple. What do you think it is? ;)

add in: Rob's post is an example of something one might want to reconsider as worth risking one's whatever. Dave's latest post is probably right. Redundancy. If it's already written somewhere, why do it again?

What do you think it is? ;)

Could be taken several ways. I was not sure what way you intended, so I asked. That's all. :bigwave:

Thanks, everyone for your responses. I found lots of good input.

Here is my plan of action (so far, anyway):
1. Retrain all employees on completing the task
2. Institute disciplinary action policy for those who ignore the process

I am sure part of it is lack of support from the supervisor (and for the supervisor, interestingly enough). He is the type that pushes # of pieces made only, and quality just gets in his way. I'm biding my time on that one, as I don't think he will be around much longer.

My main focus for this is trying to get some of the pressure off my floor inspector, as she winds up being the one who has to fill out the missing tags. This is the only data collection we have for this particular process (I then take the tags and input the info into a database).

Thanks again for all of your help!

Ahhh, so now we have the rest of the story. You have an enabler on staff. We don't have to fill out the tags because the floor inspector does it (for us). So now it comes down to question of who has the perceived time to fill them out.

It might be time, not to re-re-re-retrain the operators, but to get an operator or two, the supervisor, his supervisor, the floor inspector, and you (Mustang) together to determine, from scratch, the best way to get the information needed to the computer database. It may not be a "tagging" system at all; brainstorm some alternatives. It seems quite obvious that anything close to the current method will not work - no matter how much training and discipline is given. IMO.

My main focus for this is trying to get some of the pressure off my floor inspector, as she winds up being the one who has to fill out the missing tags. This is the only data collection we have for this particular process (I then take the tags and input the info into a database).



I'm curious. How does she gather the required information to fill out the "tag"? Talking to people? Say it's over night before she detects a blank tag. The next day she goes around asking what's the problem? No other paperwork for reference? :bonk:

I think I might need to put out some additional information on Value Issues and System Issues. To do this, I need to give proper credit to Wally Hauck of Supertraining, Inc. who compiled a variables list for each (I’m only putting parts of it here). He’s given me permission to promote his material provided I make this clear.

A Value Issue is a break in integrity, an intentional mistake, an intentional break in policy, excuses, or not taking responsibility when it is clearly yours.

A System Issue is a genuine mistake, an oversight, poor attitude, poor motivation, or inadequate training.

Wally lists more for each type of issue.

Returning to the issue at hand (nonconformance tags not filled out by some or in instances when they should), where are we with regards these partial lists? In fairness, it may not be a cut-and-dry answer. Both System and Value variables might be in play. How would you tailor a solution to the problem if you can diagnose the type variables in play? Based on the situation as it was presented, it might be safe to assume that the numbers of training sessions held did not improve the situation because this System Issue variable is not causal. To address this issue, other/another variable needs to be identified. Cause and Effect might help us decide.

Having said this, what are you thinking about now??

Great contributions, everyone! I love the synergy!!


Kevin

I am sure part of it is lack of support from the supervisor (and for the supervisor, interestingly enough). He is the type that pushes # of pieces made only, and quality just gets in his way. I'm biding my time on that one, as I don't think he will be around much longer.

My main focus for this is trying to get some of the pressure off my floor inspector, as she winds up being the one who has to fill out the missing tags.

Mustang, You might give consideration to not only providing "training" to the offenders, but open the floor to discussion around any problems that they might be having with completing the task. It's pretty amazing what allowing a little time to vent can accomplish. I have found that in some cases a sympathetic ear will accomplish more than a beating.

Additionally, if it comes out that the root of the issue is their supervisor, then the next time there is a noncompliance address a request for corrective action to their supervisor (and you might even copy the supervisor's boss/manager - just as a head's up). I know that you stated your intent to bide your time with the supervisor, but how long are you willing to allow your inspector to take responsibility for completing the tags?

"A Value Issue is a break in integrity, an intentional mistake, an intentional break in policy, excuses, or not taking responsibility when it is clearly yours.

A System Issue is a genuine mistake, an oversight, poor attitude, poor motivation, or inadequate training."

Kevin,
Value Issue: paraphrase an "intentional" break in integrity" may include a System Issue of "Poor attitude" may it not?
If top management is contunually asking themselvs, and others "what can we get away with", and "will this be good enough", then how will the basic impementation of good management practices be possible. If these issues are not resolved, then ISO/TS systems are efforts in futility. Even though support may be spoken by top management, the actions speak volumes to the employees who are suppopsed to be trained to follow the systems requirements. There is, I think, a mentality among top management to look at the month to month bottom lines, and if there is a bad month, then the quality systems are just frosting on the cake, when they really want the meat and potatoes. So, what am I saying here...the manufacturing sectors still have along way to go to achieving a new paradigm, and letting go of the old ones. Until we get CEOs, and Boards that recognize and support this, then it will be business as usual.

By "biding my time" with the supervisor I mean I am not going to confront him directly on this issue (for the millionth time). He will simply be given enough rope. As well as giving his boss a heads-up, as dhartma suggested.

I do plan on an "open floor" discussion as part of the training in order to get input on how to make the system better. I guess I should have been clearer, but I always make that part of my trainings. It does help with getting buy-in.

Energy: the floor auditor doesn't find the blank tag or material lying around, the people in question hand everything off to her directly ("here, I don't know how to do this... do it for me"). I do agree that she is an enabler, and once the training takes place that will stop.

Kevin: I agree, great discussions and synergy! You people are great help!

Energy: the floor auditor doesn't find the blank tag or material lying around, the people in question hand everything off to her directly ("here, I don't know how to do this... do it for me").


Don't mind me...I'm that way! :bonk: What gets handed off to her, besides the blank tag? You can see I'm still looking at the "other" documentation that could replace the tag, making it a non-issue. Dave's idea. Blame him. :vfunny: :agree:

Our nonconforming parts are recorded on the traveler (which is returned to planning) and entered into the manufacturing software. The physical parts are placed in the designated nonconforming area (no identification required) until the end of the shift.

Production planning tracks all of the nonconforming product, raw material usage, downtime and operations cost for the nonconformances. If they exceed a pre-defined acceptable limit, the operator/supervisor is issued a corrective action.

Ralph, neat observation!!

I believe that you’re right. It lends to the culture endorsed by management. Now the trick is to dig further to see if this was born out of a subversive tactic or emerged over time without the intent of malice.

The more we dig at this it appears to be more apparent that we have targeted a couple folks supporting or causing the infraction. Where subversive tactics can be proven, discipline might be the answer. If it can’t, then the problem is probably owned by the system. What are we looking at? Common Cause or Special Cause? I might think that a Common Cause is related to redundant paperwork leading to missed redundancy (completed Noncon tag). If it is a Common Cause, the solution will be more difficult to determine and it might be a case of living with a managed problem.

Back to the group…

Kevin

Looking at the big picture here, I would suggest that you develop a portion of your course of training for your production folk that would allow them to express their skills as performing an internal audit of their production area.
I'm not talking about developing a full internal audit training strategy and, my suggestion certainly wouldn't allow for objectivity yet, this is an option to be considered.
Your production employees could walk the process and view for themselves the issues that affect thier particular process.
I personally endorse the SQDCME infusion into a production workforce. Regardless of an employees knowledge or acceptance of the Business management system, walking the process may yield dividends for employee realization of active involvement in the internal production system.
Attached is a version of the SQDCME map that I use at Ford, feel free to use it and, if you have any requests for additions or deletions to the map, I would be pleased to customize it to your environment.
Wallace.

Unfortunately, the nonconformance tag is the only documentation we have for nonconforming items. You would not believe our material variances that accounting tries to track down on a monthly basis due to stuff getting thrown out without tracking. The "additional items" I referred to can be packing slips from suppliers/customers or inventory tags.

Wallace: We are working on something similar to what you suggested, though our outside trainer rearranged the letters. We call it "QCDSM" (no "E", however). Each department is working on a measurable (chart form) for each of those 5 areas that will be posted on a "Team Board" for all to see. I really like the document you provided for assessing their own areas. Thanks! Did you come up with this? Wonderful work. Thanks for letting me use it, I think it will be greatly beneficial. It should help personalize the processes.

Kevin: I really like to think it was your second option, as it did emerge over time. Most people will take the path of least resistance (or work) if they can get away with it, and there haven't been any consequences for doing it wrong for awhile (I just got responsibility for the process in October when our lab guy left, and he WAS lazy). I would think that once the training/ownership issue is resolved, if there is anyone out there being subversive they will then stick out like a sore thumb and will be dealt with accordingly.

I will say this, I do have a good relationship with everyone at my company (we only have 62 employees), so I think I should get some good response. It's just difficult to overcome the apathy/morale issues that arose due to several corporate changes that have taken place here lately. It's just frustrating to have to deal with problems created by other people's attitudes.

Hi Mustang,
The SQDCME model belongs to the Ford Production Sytem (FPS) as measurables and, yes, I developed the mapped internal interpretation that applies to production employees.
Attached are zipped image files that have been customized to suit your arrangements. Feel free to use them. If you have additions to the map, let me know and I'll make the changes for you and send them to you. Just send me your E-mail address?
Wallace.

Hey Mustang,

A friend of mine used this word often to describe your circumstance: Devolution. Currently in my facility, we have had a similar discussion with regards folks abandoning practices because of apparent non-interest. It seems the bean-counters there are quite interested, but perhaps the folks filling out the tags have yet to make the connection.

Wallace offers a good suggestion: have them walk a mile in your shoes, so to speak. Nothing formal, but be sure to have the endorsement of upper management. Help folks learn why the tags are not only important to the bean-counters and management, but how these tags ultimately connect to them.

Folks become lazy because they become uninterested. While you might not make them overly enthusiastic about filling out the tags, you might be able to get them to understand the importance.

Regards,

Kevin

I would suggest that you also apply to your training agenda an overview and interpretation of "Hidden factory".
There seems to be IMO, a correlation with employee realization of workplace and product quality when, an understanding of the importance of revealing hidden factory within work processes allows employees to see, "the big picture" regarding customer impact and workplace security.
Attached is a map that may be customized for your own training needs.
Let me know what you think?
Wallace

We had a similar issue here. I ended up re-writing my corrective action procedure to make my point - "failure to follow a documented procedure to which an employee has been trained is subject to disciplinary action." It took more time for management to get consistent in applying this, but ultimately, if you simply refuse to do what is required of you, you're not doing your job and that is subject to disciplinary action.

... if it were those preschoolers, they'd be in time out!

Karen,
I like the wording, but I think I am going to incorporate it into our training procedure. I just forwarded it to the manager in charge of that area. Maybe that will be an eye-opener to the masses. It's much subtler than the email they just sent out about absences, at least! (We get 5 absences per rolling year, period. It doesn't matter if the are excused or unexcused. Then the disciplinary process begins. We don't get personal days.).

I know this is changing the subject, but what do most companies do for Personal Days or something like that?

We had a similar issue here. I ended up re-writing my corrective action procedure to make my point - "failure to follow a documented procedure to which an employee has been trained is subject to disciplinary action." It took more time for management to get consistent in applying this, but ultimately, if you simply refuse to do what is required of you, you're not doing your job and that is subject to disciplinary action.

... if it were those preschoolers, they'd be in time out!
Did management support this? Did this fix the problem? If not, was disciplinary action taken. If the failure to follow the procedure continued and disciplinary action was not taken, it might be worse. Deming would just love this approach. :biglaugh:

Did management support this? Did this fix the problem? If not, was disciplinary action taken. If the failure to follow the procedure continued and disciplinary action was not taken, it might be worse. Deming would just love this approach. :biglaugh:

Let's try this again -- tried to reply a few minutes ago and got a "database error".

So what would Deming do? Say there is no such thing as employees willfully disobeying a procedure? Deming was a great Q guru, I agree, but no one is perfect. IMO one of his flaws was little personal "real-world" experience as a Manager of many people in a typical workplace setting. I believe he only ever had one direct report employee -- a secretary. There in no question that a few people will be the pain-in-the-butt type who, through no fault of "the system", can't play by the rules and need some discipline, and sometimes eventually need to be fired. JMO.

Let's try this again -- tried to reply a few minutes ago and got a "database error".

So what would Deming do? Say there is no such thing as employees willfully disobeying a procedure? Deming was a great Q guru, I agree, but no one is perfect. IMO one of his flaws was little personal "real-world" experience as a Manager of many people in a typical workplace setting. I believe he only ever had one direct report employee -- a secretary. There in no question that a few people will be the pain-in-the-butt type who, through no fault of "the system", can't play by the rules and need some discipline, and sometimes eventually need to be fired. JMO.
Mike:

I still believe the problem is management, and untill they see the value in something the problem will remain. Show management the value in $$$ and they will support the effort and everyone will follow. If they don't see the value, they will not support the effort whatever it might be. I think idle threats do not work and disciplinary measures tend to cause resentment, animosity and morale problems. Just my opinion.

Mike:

I still believe the problem is management, and until they see the value in something the problem will remain. Show management the value in $$$ and they will support the effort and everyone will follow. If they don't see the value, they will not support the effort whatever it might be. I think idle threats do not work and disciplinary measures tend to cause resentment, animosity and morale problems. Just my opinion.


Indeed I agree that "idle threats" are bad. Whether dealing with kids in the home or adults in the workplace, if you threaten consequences for misbehavior and then don't follow-through you have done more damage than if you had kept your mouth shut.

Sure, disciplinary measures should be a last resort, not a first resort, but IMO there are times when, if disciplinary measures are not used, the damage will be far greater than any negatives associated with them. For example, say you have an employee who is chronically late for work, clearly in willful violation of a policy that they are keenly aware of, and this is causing problems in the production schedule as well as moral of the others in the group. You have talked it over with the employee once off the record, once given a verbal warning. Still the problem exists. What do you do? Throw your hands in the air and give up out of fear of causing resentment or morale problems? Consider that the problem is still "Management's" and go after them? IMO the resentment and morale problems will be much greater among the rest of the employees if you don't address the issue with (consistent and fair) discipline aimed squarely at the problem employee.

Indeed I agree that "idle threats" are bad. Whether dealing with kids in the home or adults in the workplace, if you threaten consequences for misbehavior and then don't follow-through you have done more damage than if you had kept your mouth shut.

Sure, disciplinary measures should be a last resort, not a first resort, but IMO there are times when, if disciplinary measures are not used, the damage will be far greater than any negatives associated with them. For example, say you have an employee who is chronically late for work, clearly in willful violation of a policy that they are keenly aware of, and this is causing problems in the production schedule as well as moral of the others in the group. You have talked it over with the employee once off the record, once given a verbal warning. Still the problem exists. What do you do? Throw your hands in the air and give up out of fear of causing resentment or morale problems? Consider that the problem is still "Management's" and go after them? IMO the resentment and morale problems will be much greater among the rest of the employees if you don't address the issue with (consistent and fair) discipline aimed squarely at the problem employee.


Mike, if I may add a little to your answer:

Something we have missed here is what the other employees in the group think about having to "take up" for the slacker. Sure, they will hate to see their "friend" get 3 days without pay (or whatever), but if the slacker has (or hasn't) done whatever it is enough to get into trouble, often his coworkers have had enough, as well, IMO. In a way, this problem employee may serve as a barrier to pride in workmanship for the other employees, and as such should be dealt with or removed.

I can remember from my days as an hourly employee that having to work more/harder because someone was not pulling their part of the load was very frustrating, especially the time when the leaker was actually better compensated than I (bye-bye, eventually I left).

A morale issue? Indeed!


Just my 2 cents.


Craig H.

Mike, if I may add a little to your answer:

Something we have missed here is what the other employees in the group think about having to "take up" for the slacker.

Craig H.

That was part of my "moral" (sic - I meant "morale") point, you just said it better than I did. :agree:

From Deming’s perspective, most problems are attributable to the system. The percentage varied over time, from 93% to 98%, the latter coming late in his life. I’ve used a rule of thumb of 94/6 in illustrating System/Individual born issues here and elsewhere, the point being that most issues are System related. Deming acknowledged that there are folks who act outside the system, and dependent on values held by these folks, good or bad things happened because of them. But people should seldom be the starting point for finding why things went other than planned, good or bad.

We’ve spent many hours debating whether or not people, the creators of a system (a bold statement), have ultimate responsibility, so I don’t wish to revisit this discussion if it can be helped. The fact, as I see it, is that most problems are System problems. Holding people accountable for things controlled by the System (the responsibility of management) will hurt them more and more often than the disciplinary actions being loosely tossed around in this thread. For the record, tardiness and absenteeism are largely a result of a poor work environment, again mostly under management’s control. I know that this isn’t what you meant, Mike, in your example. Discipline will be necessary when a Values Issue exists. I’m only asking folks contributing to this thread to seriously think about this point, especially before presenting this as a solution to a mostly ignorant management group, or worse, before doling this out to your family. The person doing the most damage will ultimately be you!

I’m not a sage trying to tell anyone what to do, but I firmly believe that we create “the dead wood” Dr. Deming talked often about. If folks aren’t doing what they’ve been trained to do, it’s probably because someone taught them something contrary, only more effectively than you. Organizational culture has plenty to do with it.

I think that the good Dr. was right in his estimation of what contributes mostly to the problems we face. What is frustrating is watching folks repeatedly try to stuff a majority of the problems in the basket with the “6%” label. Some have become very good at it too. Nonetheless, I don’t see this as being very effective or useful. It only makes matters worse. Dr. Deming had a term for this. He called it “Recycled Ignorance”.

Just more fodder…

Kevin

Kevin,
As usual, you put your points across in a very clear and unambiguous manner.
We are reading the words "System Thinking" a lot more these days at the Cove, thanks to you and others.
I don't get the impression though that, Systems thinking is very evident, known of, understood and practiced within the Cove and business management in general.
I certainly got the distinct impression that the SoPK information that was posted by myself and others throughout various posts at the Cove, generated very little interest. The interest that was generated made the threads look almost esoteric by the general lack of systems thinking feedback.
Would you agree Kevin?
I'm almost convinced that it would be advantageous to the Cove to allow a portion of the Cove to be dedicated to SoPK education.
Wallace.

Kevin and Wallace are right on about lack of systems thinking in most organizations, and those charged with improving their organizations. After 30 years in the quality profession, I don't see much improvement in systems thinking, or application. I was fortunate enough to spend a week with Dr. Juran in 1975 going through his Handbook for Quality. Dr. Juran alluded many times to the need and value of systems thinking. I agree that maybe there should be some dedicated vehilce to promote this activity for discussion and education for future implementation into the general work environment by current, and future quality and management professionals to champion the cause.

Kevin,
As usual, you put your points across in a very clear and unambiguous manner.
We are reading the words "System Thinking" a lot more these days at the Cove, thanks to you and others.
I don't get the impression though that, Systems thinking is very evident, known of, understood and practiced within the Cove and business management in general.
I certainly got the distinct impression that the SoPK information that was posted by myself and others throughout various posts at the Cove, generated very little interest. The interest that was generated made the threads look almost esoteric by the general lack of systems thinking feedback.
Would you agree Kevin?
I'm almost convinced that it would be advantageous to the Cove to allow a portion of the Cove to be dedicated to SoPK education.
Wallace.Sometimes, Wallace, we all run into the phenomenon known as "preaching to the choir."

Kevin's statement above is typical of this. Since I agree with everything Kevin said and couldn't rephrase it any better, I let it go. It doesn't mean I'm not interested or ignorant.

From time to time, I come across some little tidbit that hadn't occurred to me before among all the familiar stuff I agree with. On those occasions, I speak up and say how nice it was to read that.

We who are Demingites (not because we love the man, but because we recognize the "rightness" of his philosophy) often sense a "profound ignorance" in others when we talk or write about a System of Profound Knowledge. Does it make Deming's 14 points any less valid? Should we go off in our own little corner and whisper among ourselves?

Some of us rail against the tyranny of OEMs and Registrars and their seeming conspiracy of sloth and greed when it comes to forcing suppliers to pay for expensive third party registration. Does that make the basics of ISO9k2k any less valid? Should we stop considering how to please customer and registrar while keeping our business alive?

Six Sigma is often treated as an expensive joke on clueless executives. Does it make the concept of considering costs and profits as integral parts of a QMS any less valid? Can we dismiss a burgeoning 6S movement within business and industry out of hand just because "it doesn't offer anything new"?

As I see it, we put out the food [for thought] for anyone to partake. If some go away hungry, we can't blame ourselves.

Yeah Wes,
I agree with your sentiments.
I would rather preach to the choir than, preach to the converted, it's always easier (How's that for an esoteric statement).
I am a self confessed Demingite yet, I have to look beyond Demings SoPK.
Systems thinking is a great start to seeing the big picture as I always put it.
Deming would be the first to admit that his interpretation of a SoPK would indeed by nature develop (Evolve) as knowledge and infusion succeeded.
Wallace.

Deming acknowledged that there are folks who act outside the system, and dependent on values held by these folks, good or bad things happened because of them. But people should seldom be the starting point for finding why things went other than planned, good or bad.

The fact, as I see it, is that most problems are System problems.

Holding people accountable for things controlled by the System (the responsibility of management) will hurt them more and more often than the disciplinary actions being loosely tossed around in this thread. For the record, tardiness and absenteeism are largely a result of a poor work environment, again mostly under management’s control. I know that this isn’t what you meant, Mike, in your example. Discipline will be necessary when a Values Issue exists.

I’m not a sage trying to tell anyone what to do, but I firmly believe that we create “the dead wood” Dr. Deming talked often about.


Kevin
Kevin,

The first 2 points I agree with -- and I think I mentioned them (in my own words) in previous posts.

Regarding the third, I did not see anyone IMO loosely tossing around disciplinary actions. Did I miss it?

What strikes me is some Deming devotees (not you) seem to think every problem is the system, and if you mention something else they just don't believe you or cite ignorance on your part. That, IMHO, is crap. You and Deming both admit some percentage (8%, 4%, whatever) are not system problems. I mentioned tardiness because the last guy I had to fire (rather, who effectively fired himself), after repeated attempts at correcting his behavior including warnings, talks, and suspensions, actually liked his work, liked me, liked the company, and has several times begged to come back. But he was lazy, period. No one will convince me that I or "the system" here at work was the problem or "created" him.

IMO something that some Demingites could learn is how not to treat others who aren't as Deming-crazy as they are like clueless idiots who are always chasing the wrong cause. Such condecending attitudes do not help the cause, nor, I imagine, would Dr. Deming support it. JMO.

Kevin,

The first 2 points I agree with -- and I think I mentioned them (in my own words) in previous posts.

Regarding the third, I did not see anyone IMO loosely tossing around disciplinary actions. Did I miss it?

What strikes me is some Deming devotees (not you) seem to think every problem is the system, and if you mention something else they just don't believe you or cite ignorance on your part. That, IMHO, is crap. You and Deming both admit some percentage (8%, 4%, whatever) are not system problems. I mentioned tardiness because the last guy I had to fire (rather, who effectively fired himself), after repeated attempts at correcting his behavior including warnings, talks, and suspensions, actually liked his work, liked me, liked the company, and has several times begged to come back. But he was lazy, period. No one will convince me that I or "the system" here at work was the problem or "created" him.

IMO something that some Demingites could learn is how not to treat others who aren't as Deming-crazy as they are like clueless idiots who are always chasing the wrong cause. Such condecending attitudes do not help the cause, nor, I imagine, would Dr. Deming support it. JMO.Yep. Even some of us Demingites fall into that small percentage that aren't the System's fault. What's that phrase? "The exceptions prove the rule?"

Condescending attitudes are NOT good. Sometimes that seeming condescension is just poorly expressed "good intentions."

Thanks for the thoughts everyone. This continues to be an interesting thread.

I appreciate the thought, Wallace, to create a thread dedicated to Systems Thinking. I suppose many of us Demingites would like to have a little haven from time-to-time to go to. But I’ve long held the belief that the opportunities to promote Systems Thinking are endless is we find these opportunities. Like Wes, I like stumbling on a thread that is seemingly devoid of Systems Thinking to present a systems view for consideration. I can’t force anyone to learn Systems Thinking, moreover I wouldn’t want to force anyone to learn it if they didn’t want to. Learning is intrinsic.

Mike, I believe that your former associate probably had it coming. Based on your comments, I’d have likely done the same thing. I hope you didn’t think I was questioning your actions or the merit of your posting. Not my aim at all. I’m more concerned with the idea that we have to formalize the potential use of discipline if folks don’t follow procedures. My experience has shown me over the years that folks don’t follow procedures to be spiteful: they don’t follow them because often times management short-circuits the program on a whim thus promoting the idea that they “aren’t all that important anyway, especially if we need to get this thing done now!” Facts of life will happen and rules will be broken. As Deming stated, “…you had better if it means staying in business!” However, this has to be done with a good measure of ethics and morals (don’t break a law or step on someone’s neck to save your own). I believe folks in general rush to judgment and when things go seemingly wrong because of a willfull disregard of policy, they’re almost as quick to dispense with the discipline. More of the Skinnerian pop behaviorism.

It’s sort of ironic, folks: Mustang can’t get some folks to use the nonconformance tags and Demingites can’t get others to use SoPK. There’s no greater enemy to promoting an idea than forcing someone to accept it beyond their will. Make a bad taste for folks, they’ll do all they can to avoid it. I might like it if all folks would adopt Deming’s SoPK at the snap of my fingers, but I would like it better if they discovered it for themselves and made it their own. How long would my spell last anyway? I’d rather they adopt the SoPK through their own understanding and go out to propagate it in turn. I don’t like being told what to think or do anymore than the next person. Do I believe I’m ‘enlightened’ because I believe in the SoPK? I suppose yes. But I’m very careful not promote this thought. I keep it to myself and constantly remind myself that I’m no better than anyone else. I don’t wish to be the bad taste in anyone’s mouth. In fact, I feel awkward admitting this to the group right now. But what is to be ‘enlightened’ anyway? Does it mean the same thing to anyone/everyone else? Anyone can be enlightened about anything, to that point. So perhaps I’m safe in making my guarded thought known.

I worry about how Demingites are perceived to the point that I’ve expressed this concern to a few of Deming’s Disciples and members of his family. No doubt there are those out there that make for a bad taste. But I’ve come to learn about some of the faults in thinking, particularly, the problem with ‘perception’. We are often trapped in perception, never even getting to the point of processing thought. I think that if we learned this, we might come to the conclusion that when folks present contrary thoughts, they aren’t always trying to take us down a notch while promoting themselves. Sometimes they are just trying to give you something to think about. Nothing more. I’m not sure labels like Deming-lemming are justified: I really believe that they are born out of ignorance and a rush to judgment. I try not to take them personal, but yes, I am human and they sometimes affect me. And I try to be careful not commit this same mistake. I think Wes already made this point, so I’ll leave it here.

Back to the group…

Kevin,
As usual, you put your points across in a very clear and unambiguous manner.
We are reading the words "System Thinking" a lot more these days at the Cove, thanks to you and others.
I don't get the impression though that, Systems thinking is very evident, known of, understood and practiced within the Cove and business management in general.
I certainly got the distinct impression that the SoPK information that was posted by myself and others throughout various posts at the Cove, generated very little interest. The interest that was generated made the threads look almost esoteric by the general lack of systems thinking feedback.
Would you agree Kevin?
I'm almost convinced that it would be advantageous to the Cove to allow a portion of the Cove to be dedicated to SoPK education.
Wallace.
Even though you are talking to Kevin, I think it's a great idea. The Philosophy Forum just might be the place to begin that "education". There might already be a thread there that went dormant due to LOI. :rolleyes: ;)

... The fact, as I see it, is that most problems are System problems. Holding people accountable for things controlled by the System (the responsibility of management) will hurt them more and more often than the disciplinary actions being loosely tossed around in this thread. ...

Since I seemed to start this debate, let me jump back in (sorry I didn't do so sooner - net problems).

First, someone asked me if when we added the discipline statement to our procedure did management support it? The answer is yes, after much discussion, management agreed to the principal. Balancing out the action took much longer.

For the record, I am a huge Deming fan and avid promotor of systems thinking. But I also believe that the "98% system problem" answer may be a bit of an over-simplication. You simply can't leave out the 'people' factor. People build, operate, maintain and change the system. And in our team-based plant those people are both management and production employees. They do have responsibility to change the system too.

I also agree with the comment "you can't force learning" (in addition to my day job, I teach). BUT, sometimes you do have to add 'incentive' to the process. Management does have to demonstrate a commitment to the things that are important, and they have to follow through (like the comment on disciplining kids). One of the weak areas of our system, prior to including discipline was that there was no real consequence attached to operating outside the system. Our original QS system had no meat, was taken seriously by no one (but an occasional outside auditor). Now we have a living, breathing system that our management STRONGLY SUPPORTS and our employees own (really :-).

Now they know that the answer is not to simply do what you please. As a team, we determine what we believe is the best practice. Everyone is responsible for supporting/following that practice. We use fact-based decision making to verify the practice, and we're always open to improvements and suggestions. But - you have to work within the system... unless, as was also mentioned, you have a VERY GOOD JUSTIFACTION to go outside the system (and even that should only be a short-term answer).

Sooo, my long answer to my originally short statement - we really don't just carry a big stick and beat people for failing to follow procedures. But we DO hold people accountable for their actions, and sometimes that means discipline. If I show you and show you and show you, and you will neither do what you've been shown or provide a solid reason why the process should be changed... then it's time for discipline. It's part of the learning process.

Karen

Hello Karen,

I was hoping that I didn’t ruffle your feathers too much. Please understand that I’m directing my attention to what you said and not at you. If I offended you, I apologize.

Are ‘incentives’ and ‘discipline’ necessary for learning? You being relatively new here, you may not be very familiar with me (or my viewpoints), so for the record, I don’t support the “carrot and stick” approach in business, in school, or in the home. I agree that the learning process benefits from discipline, but not of the external variety. A disciplined approach to things is a useful thing most of the time. As I’ve stated, when the issue is ‘Values’ related I’m not opposed to using discipline. If we want to declare a company policy that “violations of written protocols/procedures/etc.”, I think the better place might be in the Employee Handbook, not a QMS procedure. My feeling is that if I read a procedure that states that if I deviate from the standard I might be subject to discipline, it gives me a very negative feel about the management and leadership. Folks unfairly get the stick often enough for management errors. Having to see it in print only adds insult to injury, IMO. For the record, I don’t have images of mass beatings going on in your organization, no more so than any other business. I just think that there’s too much of it to begin with.

I’m happy to hear that you are a huge fan of Dr. Deming and a promoter of Systems Thinking. I encourage you to participate in the SoPK thread started by Wallace.

Regards,

Kevin

...If we want to declare a company policy that “violations of written protocols/procedures/etc.”, I think the better place might be in the Employee Handbook, not a QMS procedure...

I agree. :agree:

I worry about how Demingites are perceived to the point that I’ve expressed this concern to a few of Deming’s Disciples and members of his family. No doubt there are those out there that make for a bad taste. But I’ve come to learn about some of the faults in thinking, particularly, the problem with ‘perception’. We are often trapped in perception, never even getting to the point of processing thought. I think that if we learned this, we might come to the conclusion that when folks present contrary thoughts, they aren’t always trying to take us down a notch while promoting themselves. Sometimes they are just trying to give you something to think about. Nothing more. I’m not sure labels like Deming-lemming are justified: I really believe that they are born out of ignorance and a rush to judgment. I try not to take them personal, but yes, I am human and they sometimes affect me. And I try to be careful not commit this same mistake. I think Wes already made this point, so I’ll leave it here.

Back to the group…

Wes and Kevin,
I really enjoy reading your posts and am learning alot from both of you. I don't know beans about Deming or SoPK, but you have inspired me to look into finding out more. So any thoughts from you on how to begin from a newbie standpoint would be greatly appreciated!
:thanx: Paula

Hello Paula,

I'm glad that we rubbed off on you. Send me a private mail message with your email. I'd be glad to give you a list of reading materials and sites you might like to browse.

Regards,

Kevin

Kevin - no offense taken (I'm pretty hard to offend!). I imagine we have more philosophy in commom than has come to light so far, but that's what makes this fun! Don't disagree with your comment about the handbook per se, tho for us it comes from corporate, generally two years late! So we use our SOPs for everything we want to control and share with our folks. And we really do have a system that works well, on the floor, with the 'guys' - where it belongs :-)

The point of putting the "failure to follow" clause into an SOP was to incorporate it into the Corrective Action SOP, which in general is directed more towards management than the floor. Our issue at the time was managers who wanted to use the corrective action process instead of dealing with discipline issues head on - basically wanting me to use the system to manage a few "problem children".

I guess that was a good a sign - we had gotten very adept at driving systems based change. But we had instances where managers wanted the corrective action process to become the discipline process. They didn't want to confront employees who were simply not performing. (Again, we had already addressed the process several times).

From an employee morale standpoint, it actually turned out to be a very positive move. Employees are the first to know when a co-worker is slacking, and are usually the least skilled in dealing with it. That's where (IMO) management needs to step in, sort out the issue and respond accordingly. And it does not motivate or empower a team to see 'the slacker' continually getting away with bucking the system.

Personally, I believe that discipline is the least effective form of motivation (does that line up with your 'values problem' comments?). However, failing to apply discipline, where discipline is warranted, is worse. No one wants to live with the spoiled child!

Thanks for the great dialog - it has really helped me to see that, without the proper understanding of how and why we did what we did, someone could end up doing exactly what we worked so hard to avoid! In my brevity, I really failed to communicate my true message :-)

See you on the SoPK thread soon!

I agree with Karen: "I guess that was a good a sign - we had gotten very adept at driving systems based change. But we had instances where managers wanted the corrective action process to become the discipline process. They didn't want to confront employees who were simply not performing. (Again, we had already addressed the process several times).

From an employee morale standpoint, it actually turned out to be a very positive move. Employees are the first to know when a co-worker is slacking, and are usually the least skilled in dealing with it. That's where (IMO) management needs to step in, sort out the issue and respond accordingly. And it does not motivate or empower a team to see 'the slacker' continually getting away with bucking the system."

Our schools, from Kindergarten on up, have been training little people to respond to extrinsic motivation for a very long time: "Do the right thing, and you will be rewarded. Step outside of the line, and A, B, C will happen." This is apparent in every classroom that has the board describing results of unacceptable behavior, colored cards to pull, etc. I have been subbing in an elementary school that is using this extrinsic system in all classrooms. The kids are generally good kids, but they have pushed me to distraction by pressing against this system until I send them to the Principal's office. Only then do they figure out not to keep testng my limits.

Little people who grow into big people see that our legal system is also set up this way, and the workplace also responds to behavior after it has become apparent. Many people train animals this way. Management By Exception is often the rule: "You'll know you are doing well until I say otherwise." Evaluations are often set up this way.

Then I subbed in a different elementary school where the 1st and 2nd graders were repeatedly brought to examine their own behavior against known, stepped guidelines: a rubric. They had a card system too, as I recall, but I did not see it used by the other teacher (it was a mixed-classroom arrangement, the other class was 1st grade) and I will confess that I deferred to her the entire day. I was in awe.

The kids positively responded to the invitations to examine their behavior and adjust it without reward or "punishment". At the end of the day I thanked these little people for being such a great class, (while at the other school I have left with a new patch of gray, I've been certain of it) which surprised them but they were pleased to hear how happy I was. I also wrote a happygram for the Principal, the only time I have ever done that.

When I subbed for 7th and 8th grade classes I noted that the students were being asked to care more about their studies and behavior, as preparation for "later, when you will need that" but I saw no programmic method for steering them into this intrinsic (an innate wanting to do well) concept and the assessment system still responds to their behaving "well", turning in their work and doing it "well" etc.

I have subbed rather extensively in the Special Ed classrooms where I remember a particular 6th grage student who moped constantly and would not try to do his work. We teachers (both of us subs, the other was a long-term sub) generally believed could do better if he believed in himself and tried harder, but she just exhorted him to perform by reminding him that next year, as a 7th grader, he would simply be expected to work at higher levels.

I later got a chance to directly work with this student while subbing in his regular classroom, where I noted his inertia and pointed him to a resource he could use to take away the confusing nature of what colors he should assign to his map: I gave him his own Atlas and opened it to the page showing the standard colors we use to show elevations. In short, I nudged and conveyed my confidence in his abilities, and gave him the tools he needed to perform. Darned if I didn't find that he responded by stopping his moping, and working with a fellow student together as they colored their assignments. He finished it, and acted happy.

This is just an ancedotal insight, I grant you, but I think it offers a clue about how people are being shaped during the years that are presumably preparing them for becoming caring, loyal, thinking workers. Managers and supervisors, many of whom receive little or no training in leadership but were also raised in the extrinsic system, are being asked to turn the tides without clear direction or, in many cases, validation when doing so.

So I liked reading how Karen's group has made progress in diverting cause-and-effect (extrinsic) behavior into aspiring-for-greatness (intrinsic) behavior because I do not know of a programmic method to teach managers how to do this redirecting with adults. Deming's 14 Points are correct, but I think a progression from the current methods into such "new" thinking is practical.

Let's also consider the fact that this society, on the whole, attaches achievement value with reward, usually financial. The fact that top executive pay has launched into orbit while lineworker wages stay almost flat is not a mystery to even the least educated. The fact that their property taxes and rents have risen faster than their wages tends to fuel an urgency to a wish for tangible reward. It makes this reward a practical matter, not just a personal one.

So, when the workers' performance improves profits I am all for a blanket reward such as profit sharing, hopefully with money because the financial aspect really does concern most that I know about. If this happens through a slowing or halting in their rising contributions to health insurance, very well so long as it is made clear. Workers can be encouraged to find all possible ways to improve, including helping their neighbors; peer pressure (exerted sideways) can work where management pressure (exerted top-down) fails.

My longwinded point is that we are well trained to expect tangible, personal results from our efforts and trying to alter the dark aspects of that should be done methodically, taking behavioral origins in mind so people don't get separated into behavioral classes. Phew. Hope I didn't bore you...

:thanx:

Jennifer