Greetings!
I've made no secret that my articles are not so much about the tools and mechanics of quality, which are very important (although I do plan on writing an article on FMEA next month - and I hope that we all don't become deer in the headlights in the process), but I really do like to explore the underlying, and in many cases root cause of problems that stem from an organization's culture, teams, or just the plain ol' everyday rut that creates such a funk from the executive team right on down to the really important people.
I read a fascinating article recently in the September edition of the Harvard Business Review written by Robert Schaffer. And, before you snicker at my reading material, try it - you may like it. Great writers, current topics and they are usually frank in their assessments. Good stuff.
His article is entitled ' Mistakes Leaders Keep Making'. He discusses what he calls the '7 Deadly Sins of Setting Demands'. I love that he creates that analogy in the title - alluding to the fact that these mistakes can be as harmful to the corporate body as the original 7 deadly sins can be to the human body - and mind.
These 'sins' are:
1. Establishing to0 many goals
2. Not establishing a plan on how/when these goals will be achieved
3. Failing to push (I prefer coach) for improvement for fear folks are overwhelmed
4. Not assigning 1-person accountability for goal achievement
5. Ask ' if you possibly can' at the end of a statement of expectation
6. Accepting reverse assignments (trading one task for another)
7. Stating goals that may not be definable or achievable
The bulk of Mr. Schaffer's article is around behavioral 'traps' that managers consistently get caught in - and just can't seem to break the cycle of repeating over and over and over again.
Where do I begin ........ so much to say and so little time .....
I had made a promise to shorten my articles but write more often, so I'll select a couple of points he made in the article to make my point.
Mr. Schaffer's point #1: Establishing too many goals (paraphrased below):
Managers are afraid to set specifics goals - so they think quantity is better. It requires considerable thought and planning and is much more difficult that issuing a general order. And, if they set specific goals and they are not achieved, THEY look like failures.
My take: Can you say S.M.A.R.T goal setting. Nice tool. And management, as a team, and with input from employees (amazing what employees can offer) can actually develop goals that have been thought through and in all likelihood can be accomplished. Remember, these goals reside in a living document and must be cared for and watched over like a beloved pet if it is to survive.
When managers walk the talk on teamwork, surprising things can happen!
Mr. Schaffer's point #2: Failing to push for improvement for fear folks are overwhelmed already (paraphrased below):
Managers, when striving for improvements in processes, products, services or any area deemed to have value to the organization seem to be under the opinion that the way to improve performance is by finding new programs to produce these gains. They almost never think about improving a current program. Why? To say that they would like to improve a current process or program means that they weren't doing a good job already on current programs.
My take: P-L-E-A-S-E ..... set the egos aside. I have found managers, on whole, to be an intelligent lot that want the best for the company - and are working hard to achieve it After all, they work there too. They need to obtain a mindset of continuous improvement. And, I can't let the Quality profession off the hook on this one. If a manager is thinking of a new project to 'improve' something, this is ideal - a willing sponsor that needs help. The challenge in quality (me included) is helping the manager determine an ROI on the new program (to support the manager's vision), and/or to determine efficiencies yet to be achieved in the current program via use of quality tools in practice today (DMAIC, fishbone diagrams, team brainstorming, various evaluation metric tools, etc.). The point here is to think (and sell) continuous improvement as an option rather than a default reaction to reinvent the wheel. Exploring CI initiatives may prove to be less costly and with better gains than getting the organization sidetracked on another program with a dubious payoff.
Thank you Mr. Schaffer for bringing these issues to light. They can provide an 'opportunity launch pad' for a company's quality organization.
Next article: Method to The Madness
