JSW05 said:
A point that often gets overlooked is that blaming operators as a knee-jerk reaction makes it more difficult in the end to actually evaluate the performance of the operators. If they're not given consistent, reasonable expectations, there's no way to tell whether or not they're actually competent. The result is that incompetent managers are allowed to thrive, incompetent operators are never held responsible for their errors, and the competent people wind up bearing the brunt of supporting the dysfunctional system until they get sick of it and leave. This is the actual mechanism of the Peter Principle--it starts with managers blaming others for their own bungling--and the result is often buildings full of fear, loathing and incompetency.
Very true, and well said!
I think overall there is a poor understanding that people and behavior aren't self correcting, but must be attended to just as machines are. The problem gets worse, not better as for example a supervisor, who is apparently highly valued enough to be shipped around the organization after repeated failures to effectively perform, is not attentively monitored and allowed to do damage before being moved again.
The suggestions in response to behaviors described in this thread are like a performance lubricant. Organizing a means to ensure lubes are added and periodically refreshed as they need to be can ensure products remain acceptable, customers don't seek other sources and employees--who usually do care about their work's quality--stay content.
If there was some telltale sign such a lubricant's loss was happening, such as a machine smoking as it is about to grind itself to a halt from poor oil pressure, management might (key word,
might) place more attention on the personal dynamics that can support or subvert even well developed quality systems.
Given few people understand, or are willing to confront the problems' underlying sources (in this case, acceptance standards not established, agreeed upon and enforced among all personnel) the problems can continue until high turnover costs sinks that organization.
High turnover, especially among skilled and caring employees, means extensive costs organization wide. Repercussions can impact the strategic direction, as customers leave and an ineffective group finds market recovery difficult. Deming understood this and became frustrated at the difficulty in curing U.S. management of the adolescent Infallibility Fable (not understanding risks or thinking "Nothing bad will happen to me so I can take all these risks") that manifests itself in such absent minded thinking as we observe all the time.
