Internal Audit finding leading to 'Punishment' (Disciplinary Action) - Your Thoughts?

[Myriam]

Although this is my first post, I am following the forums for quit some time.
I really need some input from outside our company at the moment. (sorry for my English, reading is no problem but writing is another thing)
The problem is as follows: last month we had a rather serious complaint from one of our customers. The cause of this was a human error (operator mistake) and his supervisor did not check the operators work as agreed.
Because of this some additional check’s have been added by the responsible management and the supervisors are told that ‘forgetting’ a check will have serious consequences. Also there is someone within the company appointed to check the supervisors.
Besides this top-management requested me to increase the audit frequency on this department and report findings of the audit immediately.
When auditing the department I found that one supervisor did not performe the requested checks and the person who should check the supervisors had not seen this.
When reporting this the department manager said that the supervisor will be ’punished’.
I do not agree with this, I pointed our internal audits are not to be used for this kind of action. When auditing there is some trust between auditor and auditee. When using audit results for punishment this trust is violated. Management does not agree with this and insists on using audit results for this purpose.
Does anyone have an idea how to convince management not to do this, or should I just accept this as I have been told?

Myriam

 

[wallen - 2008]

IMO an audit finding is not the basis of disiplinary action, you are auditing the system not the person.
First look at the root cause of the problem, which will be the basis of any discussion with management.Is the supervisor not carring out the checks just a symptom of an under lying issue. Are staff intentionly not performing these checks? Have staff been adequatly trained and understand the need to carry out these checks?
Is the process the problem not the person. What efforts can be implemented to prevent the error even occuring, thus removing the need for these checks.

 

[Cari Spears]

Because of this some additional check’s have been added by the responsible management and the supervisors are told that ‘forgetting’ a check will have serious consequences.
Also there is someone within the company appointed to check the supervisors.
Besides this top-management requested me to increase the audit frequency on this department and report findings of the audit immediately.

I agree with wallen - is there some way you could talk them into doing a little root cause analysis into the original problem - which is how did the SYSTEM allow the operator to err? All that checking and rechecking and then auditing to check if everyone is checking and rechecking so you can turn around and tattle on whoever missed the check so they can face "serious consequences"...ugh - that sounds like an ugly situation that could lead to alot of dissension in the ranks!

 

[Randy]

The beatings will continue until performance improves......Yeah, that always works.

 

[Howard Atkins]

The beatings will continue until performance improves......Yeah, that always works.

But seriously

When reporting this the department manager said that the supervisor will be ’punished’.

As already said

Try to explain that the purpose of the audit is to find problems with the system and improve the efficiency and effectiveness.
If there are non conformances then there MUST be root cause analysis and corrective actions on those NC's that are systematic. Punishment is not a corrective action and will not help prevent a similar occurrence. Try to solve the problem by removing the need for the check or some way of checking that is not dependent on memory.
Good luck with your correct attitude.

 

[Marc]

Maybe I'm missing something, but so far I don't see where the 'punishment' is defined. Disciplinary action is 'punishment', but the words do not sound so harsh. Why Randy brought in 'beatings' is beyond me - I guess to push the envelope, raise emotions and to confuse the issue.

As to 'punishment' (disciplinary action) as a result of an audit finding, I would say it depends upon whether this is a problem the person has been warned about before as well as the finding and its significance. Let's say it's a heart valve or a critical aircraft component and a part is left out. In addition the operator has done it several times before and there were resulting problems. When someone keeps repeating the same error time and time again it's time to move them or something (assuming retraining has been tried, etc.).

I see 'trust' is mentioned. In an audit, if you're going to go on 'trust', good luck. I have seen too many people hide too much. An auditor is there to audit, not for a tea party. I typically do trust people I'm auditing, but not entirely and not everyone. If we could trust everyone then everyone could do self-audits - There would not be a need for someone independent to audit.

I don't see enough information to comment much other than that. Heck - We don't even know what the product is, much less what the 'punishment' is...

 

[JRKH]

Myriam
You stated in your post that,
Quote:
"Because of this some additional check’s have been added by the responsible management and the supervisors are told that ‘forgetting’ a check will have serious consequences. "

Was this part of the origional corrective action? If so then the issue is not punishment, but rather "consequences" as previously stated by your company.

While I agree with most of what has been posted, I think that there has to be occasions out there when the problem really is a disciplinary issue. If the word used is "Punish" it still doesn't matter. If the supervisor knew that there were to be consequences for failing to perform the checks, then he/she should expect the consquences of that failure.
In the future, do not allow the threat of punishment to be part of a corrective action

Cheers
James

 

[Wes Bucey]

Welcome to the ranks of Cove posters, Myriam!

The low whirr you hear in the background is Deming spinning in his grave!

One of Deming's hallmarks was the idea we should remove FEAR from the workplace.

In my opinion, management needs to clarify the "serious consequences" by helping ALL employees understand the ramifications of continued errors in terms of downstream life, health, safety issues or merely economic issues of whether a customer may cancel an order for cause. Will such a cancellation result in a layoff of personnel?

Definitely, the organization should conduct a root cause investigation into the real reason for the error in creating the nonconformance, NOT the error in detecting the nonconformance.

Most energy should be directed at finding a preventive process to eliminate the nonconformance. In this regard, it may be helpful to review the concept of mistake proofing (sometimes called Poka Yoke.) Here is an interesting educational website to help in that review: ***DEAD LINK REMOVED***

Since Randy is big enough, as well as rough and tough enough to defend himself, I will only comment that I thought the remark was humorous and served to point out the absurdity of the mentality of punishing mistakes rather than preventing them.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Welcome among the posters, Myriam , and I have to say that your first post was an interesting one.

The problem is as follows: last month we had a rather serious complaint from one of our customers. The cause of this was a human error (operator mistake) and his supervisor did not check the operators work as agreed.

Well... As we all know, mistakes happen to all of us. Nothing unusual there, the real difference lies in how we handle it. Now: Operator mistake, you say? Can you provide us with any details?

Because of this some additional check’s have been added by the responsible management

Additional checks? I see. What about preventing the problem from occuring in the first place, or at least making certain that the ordinary checks were performed? Any action in that respect?

and the supervisors are told that ‘forgetting’ a check will have serious consequences.

Yes, I'll bet that will improve matters

Also there is someone within the company appointed to check the supervisors.

Ok... And who will check the person who checks the supervisors?

Besides this top-management requested me to increase the audit frequency on this department and report findings of the audit immediately.

Why? They already know they have a problem there. Why not fix it, and then audit the fix?

When auditing the department I found that one supervisor did not performe the requested checks and the person who should check the supervisors had not seen this.

Which suggests to me that the original problem persists. What is the problem..? I am talking about the root cause.

When reporting this the department manager said that the supervisor will be ’punished’.

This sounds like a never ending story... And who will punish the department manager? The area is after all, his responsibility.

I do not agree with this,

Nor do I. All that energy spent on checking, threatening and punishing could have been used in solving the problem instead.

/Claes

 

[Craig H.]

All that energy spent on checking, threatening and punishing could have been used in solving the problem instead.

Yes, but then there would be no fires to put out, and what would there be for managers to do? What would all of the supervisors and people checking the supervisors do? Gee, it sounds like we are asking them to change the way they think about business and processes or something.


(Note: I hope that, as you read this, you detect a slight twinge of sarcasm).