Re: How do you handle missing information? People seem to "forget" to enter informati
Hi everyone! It's almost the weekend...
I don't know if this has come up (actually, I'm sure it has and I just can't find it), but what do you do when people don't properly fill out documentation? I find problem is most prevalent in verifications. People seem to "forget" verification steps all the time. Forms come back unsigned, and there there are other "holes" in your documents, you send it back to the process owners and they fill it out, but for all you know they could be making it up.
Do you start initiating corrective actions on those employees who fail to sign in real time? Do you wait until you've had to reject too much paperwork?
What do you do with the guy who will just never sign off?
Well, there are all sorts of reasons that people do not fill out information.
First thing to remember is that the guy who will never sign off is always symptomatic... he's not the real problem. (The real problem is that you are not getting the information.)
He's trying to tell you that he sees no importance in signing off. (Maybe he's also trying to tell you that HR doesn't screen sociopaths well, either... but that's a different issue.)
I will enumerate several reasons, but there are many more.
1)
Oftentimes, management is not deeply committed to collecting the data.
Your colleagues will sense this much more accurately than you, because you look good (or have a purpose for existence) by collecting info but your colleagues have to expend extra effort to supply it to you. (If there is a request for needless expenditure of effort, rest assured that the effort will rarely be exerted.)
You can not fix that problem. Don't worry yourself about it. The data that you are collecting in a situation like this is simply managerial hocus pocus. For heaven's sakes, don't get flustered by your powerlessness... just accept that management wishes to look up-to-date, competent, ISO compliant, Sick Sigma, or whatever else is the fad that they've hooked onto this year.
2) Your information gathering procedure may not be engineered to insure that information is supplied to you. For example, if you have a paper checklist people will often tick the information that is easiest for them to remember, skipping around the sheet. Or if you have a fill-me-in on a terminal, they can do the same unless you specifically require that answers be given in order to advance to the next page.
3) Which implies: you have a good idea of the nature and breadth of information that you are trying to gather. If your colleague would like to tell you something that your choice of answers doesn't permit ("Are you still beating your wife? Please answer only Yes or No")... assume that you will not receive any serious coöperation.
4) Often, I have found that fear of repercussion drives non-response. If that is the case, you will not get information even with all the assurances in the world that "nothing will happen". This is a very important factor to bear in mind.
Some younger and idealistic information gatherers will find the CYA attitude a terrible affront to their dream-image of a peaceful, non-combative organization filled with chums. Most of us who have been in the workforce for more than 25 years have seen many instances of political havoc wreaked on some of the most capable people, simply because they (Candide-like) believed assurances that management was not going to bite off heads or that information would be treated with strict confidentiality.
5) If the situation warrants "corrective action" (whatever
that means: discipline, docking, firing?), well then... do it. Just remember that the information is probably not as important to you or your organization as your colleague's good will or the trust of others.
Bottom line, I believe that most (at least 90%) non-compliance is due to management weakness, incompetence, ineptness, or hypocrisy: Failing to explain why the information is valuable; failing to adequately design a communication channel; failing to insure that reporting the "wrong" kind of information is not going to harm the reporter; failing to "believe in the vision" that it says it does; etc.
So, I'd go along with what has been said previously, discuss it with the "culprit", gently ask an appropriate manager if s/he is aware of the problem and the probable cause, and then let go of it. Life is too short.