Incentives for blowing the whistle on bad quality?

[flyin01]

I recently spoked to someone who worked in an organization where the new ruling paradigm is that success is measured with a scoreboard and the performance of each department of the organization is evaluated with a number of key performance indicators, including the quality department. Basically the greener the KPI´s the better!

This way of measuring performance may be common in financial sectors and other non technical industries etc who lack quality engineers and quality assurance departments. But I get confused when I hear for example in manufacturing, quality departments are striving to minimize defects by giving incentives to quality engineers to hide problems instead of bringing them up! When performance measurement systems are defined so that goals can be achieved, not by working pro actively and doing real quality work, instead they invite to manipulate and prevent real improvement work, I get confused. Basically the scoreboard can be such that there are actually no incentives for quality people to highlight problems because this will cause unfulfilled goals for them selves and others, since achievements are measured according to certain targets. Not surprisingly then the initially really tough targets can be achieved one by one giving the false indication that everything is great. But since the indicators are intended as indicators (of quality) and these are not showing the true picture the true quality is not in line with what is shown on the scoreboard. All this because there are no reward for someone who blows the whistle on issues others are trying to hide because this person would get flamed instead of saluted.

This thus leads to the question how do you create incentives for someone to bring up problems instead of hiding them in such an organization.

Anyone heard of this kind of problem?
Please share some light on this issue!

 

[Jen Kirley]

The only confusion you need to feel is about how, and why such companies last for long.

It can happen, but I have never worked in an organization that would, metaphorically speaking, shoot the piano player as you describe. Instead, most are smart enough to know that producing bad product usually costs more in the long run, and chances are that someone will eventually figure out who was hiding stuff. The more critical the item, the more likely this will happen. Probably not for Q-Tips, but I would hope the blink so for fuel regulators.

But incentive is set internally, and the tendency is usually developed as a defense mechanism against higher-ups whose inability/disinclination to address problems properly leads to departments adopting a protective stance.

But the problem can also be occurring from the middle layer, where a mid level manager is just trying to look good until it doesn't matter anymore.

 

[DrM2u]

(...) This thus leads to the question how do you create incentives for someone to bring up problems instead of hiding them in such an organization.

Allow me to quote some Deming here for a start:

“Whenever there is fear, you will get wrong figures.”
"Management by results is confusing special causes with common causes."
“Confusing common causes with special causes will only make things worse.”
"Eliminate numerical goals, numerical quotas and management by objectives. Substitute leadership."
"Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets asking for zero defects or new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the work force."
"Monetary rewards are not a substitute for intrinsic motivation."
"The emphasis should be on why we do a job."
"What we need to do is learn to work in the system, by which I mean that everybody, every team, every platform, every division, every component is there not for individual competitive profit or recognition, but for contribution to the system as a whole on a win-win basis."

I am not sure how to continue from here. Need I say more?!?:mybad:

 

[reynald]

I would love to get more from this discussion, so please allow me to play Devil's Advocate:

Allow me to quote some Deming here for a start:
"Eliminate numerical goals, numerical quotas and management by objectives. Substitute leadership."

-->But you can not improve what don't measure, and how do you measure success without having pre-set goals? Surely we just don't go around aimlessly? We are guided by objectives...

 

[NoyJDC]

i think whistleblower incentive is applicable in the government institution.

 

[DrM2u]

This is as it has nothing or little to do with the OP's question, but for the sake of discussion ...

First, I think that you misinterpreted the meaning of the quotes. The key is the very last quote: understanding that we (individuals, departments, divisions, even companies) are part of a system. My understanding is that we need to focus on common/universal optimization instead of individual/departamental optimization. Deming never implied not to measure but, when possible, to measure what is relevant.

But you can not improve what don't measure(...)

Yes you can. Measurement helps quantify the existing situation and/or identify/validate causes and effects (a.k.a. failures). However, measurement is not always necessary as often times failures or opportunities are obvious and/or cannot be easily quantified. In a final role, measurement is just a quantification of improvement.

(...) and how do you measure success without having pre-set goals?(...)

Success has different meanings for different people/organizations. To some, success means achieving a pre-set goal. To others, success has a more vague definition. For example, how do you quantify/measure personal satisfaction or employee motivation? The source(s) for my motivation might not be the same like yours, so how do you quantify our motivation if we were to work together? How about when you have a company of 1000 employees or more?!? Then how do you know when the company is successful in motivating its employees?!?

Surely we just don't go around aimlessly?

We better not! How will you know if you reached your destination if you don't know where you're going?!? However, the aim (or destination) is the aim of the system not of the individuals in the system.

We are guided by objectives...

The key is what objectives!!! If the objectives that guide my actions are not tied to the system's (company's) objectives, then there is a good chance that I am missing the boat.

 

[DrM2u]

i think whistleblower incentive is applicable in the government institution.

Blowing the wistle will bring a symptom to surface but will never highlight the underlying root cause. Like in OP's example, blowing the whistle will shine light on the practice of 'fudging' indicators so they look green but it does not shine the light on executive management's shortcomings that led to this effect.

To get back to Flyin01's question, creating an incentives system for 'whistle blowers' will never solve the core problem. The best approach is to conduct a thorough root cause analysis to identify what led to this undesired effect. It takes some courage and risk (the potential for loosing a job) to present the findings to the management since the management is the culprit. Like Deming used to say, "manage the cause not the result" and "quality starts int he boardroom". Best of luck, Flyin01!!!

 

[somashekar]

Blowing the whistle amounts to finger pointing, which is not a good practice being within the organization. Certainly the manager who encourages such behaviour or takes actions based on reported events will lose the trust of his people. No incentive here, rather a good manager must curb such tendencies which are with some characters who feel they get into good books with such a behaviour. Such acts do not fit into the principles of quality management or the PDCA and process approach.

 

[flyin01]

The only confusion you need to feel is about how, and why such companies last for long.

It can happen, but I have never worked in an organization that would, metaphorically speaking, shoot the piano player as you describe. Instead, most are smart enough to know that producing bad product usually costs more in the long run, and chances are that someone will eventually figure out who was hiding stuff. The more critical the item, the more likely this will happen. Probably not for Q-Tips, but I would hope the blink so for fuel regulators.

But incentive is set internally, and the tendency is usually developed as a defense mechanism against higher-ups whose inability/disinclination to address problems properly leads to departments adopting a protective stance.

But the problem can also be occurring from the middle layer, where a mid level manager is just trying to look good until it doesn't matter anymore.

Good points!

There are companies that are in such a lucrative business that they continue to make profits even though the management team is incompetent. But in the long run you are of course right, they do not last.

The last part of middle layer mgmt problems. Especially big companies with complex organizations that are hard to grasp seem to be created for building a management culture with lot of nodes in the organization tree and populated by layers of middle management. There is nothing easier than to build a complex system of hierachies within an organization to hide the abscense of any underlying logic or real thoughts behind the structure.

Thanks!

 

[flyin01]

Allow me to quote some Deming here for a start:

“Whenever there is fear, you will get wrong figures.”
"Management by results is confusing special causes with common causes."
“Confusing common causes with special causes will only make things worse.”
"Eliminate numerical goals, numerical quotas and management by objectives. Substitute leadership."
"Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets asking for zero defects or new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the work force."
"Monetary rewards are not a substitute for intrinsic motivation."
"The emphasis should be on why we do a job."
"What we need to do is learn to work in the system, by which I mean that everybody, every team, every platform, every division, every component is there not for individual competitive profit or recognition, but for contribution to the system as a whole on a win-win basis."

I am not sure how to continue from here. Need I say more?!?:mybad:

It is easy to agree with Daming but I have not worked in any company that does not have numerical targets and give out monetary rewards according to them. Why is this? Just follow the money!