Lack of Training vs. Laziness: Failure to Complete Forms and Tags AFTER Training

[Mustang]

I have a problem: Myself and others have trained the same employees several times on the same subject (completing a nonconformance tag). There are a few employees who still do not complete the tags correctly (if at all). These employees have also, numerous times been instructed individually on completing the tag. 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.

[Mike S.]

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?

[David Hartman]

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".

[ralphsulser]

Originally Posted by ddhartma

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.

[mshell]

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.

[Rob Nix]

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 .

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.

[Greg B]

Originally Posted by Mustang

I have a problem: Myself and others have trained the same employees several times on the same subject (completing a nonconformance tag). There are a few employees who still do not complete the tags correctly (if at all). These employees have also, numerous times been instructed individually on completing the tag. 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.

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

[WALLACE]

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.