May Feature

The Fallacy of People Problems, and How to Solve Them - continued

After finding the cause, ask why Once it has been determined that a person has caused a problem, one should ask why. In other words, one should ask, “What is the root cause that explains the person’s undesirable behavior?” Even what are commonly considered to be “people problems”—employees skipping a step in a standard operating procedure (SOP), touching the wrong surface and not re-gloving immediately, or not entering batch-yield information at the right time or in the right format—should be examined for root cause. The standards of problem analysis demand that we state mechanical problems with enough specificity to be actionable. Why should the analysis of a people problem be any less specific? If someone skipped a step, then who skipped it, and which step was it? If someone touched the wrong surface, then who touched it, and which surface was it? Does this happen often? What are the trends? Why is it always this surface? Why just at this time? If someone failed to document batch yield, who, where, and when? Precisely stating the defect or deviation and who or what was involved clarifies exactly what happened: “Operator JW skipped step 3.2.5.4 in procedure 34-B.” “Maintenance Technician AR, in the process of adjusting belt speed on line 3, brushed up against the fill-nozzle at station 15.” “Supervisor JT entered the batch-yield data for batch 040315B in kilograms instead of pounds.” Such statements provide a concise starting point for analysis and follow a path that leads toward eliminating the deviation at its source. A clear picture of the undesirable behavior is the starting point, but one needs more than classic problem analysis to find the root cause of problematic behavior. One must examine all factors that affect employees’ behaviors. This can be done using a model that we call the “human performance system” (see Figure 1). This model reviews various sources of performance problems. Let us start with the performer and admit that some people are assigned tasks they are not qualified to perform. The test question is, Could this person perform this task if his or her job depended on it? If the answer is yes, then there is no deficiency in the performer. For each of us, however, some tasks are simply outside our capabilities, and no amount of training will improve our performance. In such cases, retraining is not the solution; replacing is. People cannot be expected to do what is impossible for them to learn. Next, consider the response. One should ask, How clear is the desired behavior that we want from the performer? Are we asking for a quantum leap in performance or a slight tweak? The response often exposes problems caused by changing an SOP. Perhaps the standards are unclear, the changes too drastic, or the expectations unreasonable. It is common to encounter 57-step SOPs that require dexterity equivalent to patting your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time. Such tasks cannot be accomplished easily or consistently—if at all. In these cases, the SOP must be changed. If the SOP cannot be changed, training will be required on a continuing basis. To examine the situation, one should ask whether the signal to the performer to carry out a certain task in the desired way is clear and unambiguous, or muddled with other priorities and expectations. In pharmaceutical manufacturing, knowing when to call something a deviation and to begin an analysis can be unclear. Employees may be told that quality matters, that precision is important, and that documenting every deviation is necessary. Sometimes, however, this message is delivered at half the volume of the message that says, “keep the line running.” The “situation” step in the model includes analyzing how well the environment supports the desired behavior. Are people expected to do a lot of writing in a room with no flat surfaces and little light? Is a problem-solving meeting working as well as it might when it is held in a space that requires goggles and earplugs? Perhaps the most significant factor in the performance system model is that of consequences. This factor reminds us that people do what they do because they get rewarded for doing it and punished for not doing it. A truism in management states: “To see what you have been rewarding, look at what results you are getting.” But using consequences to motivate employees requires a more subtle approach. Short-term and long-term consequences must be balanced for both the individual and the organization. For example, if the individual views the desired performance as negative or punishing, he or she can be motivated to do it anyway, if there is a reasonable expectation of positive consequences in the longer term. This is a classic tradeoff. The employee may think, “It’s a pain to do this, and it’s going to make my life crazy for a while, but if I do it without complaint it will be good for my career down the road.” The same applies to organizational consequences. A serious problem in the first month of a multiyear production campaign can justify shutting down the line for a time if it will result in a 10% increase in overall productivity for the manufacturing campaign. On the other hand, no long-term benefit will be gained from shutting down the line for a complete revalidation on the last day of a multimonth run. Individual and organizational consequences also must be balanced. If the corporation always sacrifices meeting its objectives so that individual workers can feel better, it will not stay in business long. On the other hand, if employees suffer constant negative consequences so that the organization can prosper, they will seek employment in a place where more of their individual goals will be met. (continued)