While in Chicago I was asked, “Do you have any incentives for production workers?” Well, yes but I asked, “What are you trying to achieve?” To boil it down – the owner said errors drove him crazy. “I just go ballistic when they happen!” … My thought is the real issue is his reaction to the error; not the error itself. And, in his reaction, I can easily see him doing more harm than good.”
Now, I didn’t get the sense that his calling the workers together and going over the errors was done in a spirit of quality improvement; rather it seemed to me like the boss was throwing a tantrum and everyone else was ducking and covering their assets, if you know what I mean.
I was about ready to launch into some quality management concepts when he said, “Now, I want an incentive plan where I can take away money from them when they screw up.” So, I put away my fish-bone diagram ideas and asked how often this happened?
He said, “Well, not often, but anytime they happen they drive me nuts. And this was one of our largest accounts and further, it just drives me nuts!”
Hmm. I’m getting the picture that this is a punitive approach to errors, how about you?
I glanced at his financials and they didn’t show any serious waste problem. Okay, I described a production incentive, but then said that I wouldn’t recommend it for that won’t solve his problem.
That’s because his problem isn’t the occasional error. Even in a well run shop with the highest of quality management focuses, things happen because randomness and errors are a state of nature – that’s a basic premise.
But his issue wasn’t major errors. It was the smallest of error for his view was that no errors should occur. Let’s see, errors are a state of nature even in a well-run operation. But anytime they happen, he goes ballistic.
My thought is that the real issue is his reaction to the error; not the error itself. And in his reaction, I can easily see him doing more permanent damage than good.
What should he do?
He should maintain his balance.
If our emotions were put on a scale of 0 to 100, he described himself as being a 100 when things were going good and a 0 when errors happen.
Ah, ha! That’s the problem.
We should NEVER be a 100 or NEVER be a 0.
We should always try to maintain a 60 to 80 on the scale, or at least a 40 to 80. No matter how well things are going, they aren’t going perfectly and we shouldn’t allow our emotions to run away with us in thinking how great we are. Conversely, when things go bad, they’re never as bad as they seem, so we shouldn’t be a 0 either.
A leader who goes from 0 to 100 is seen as erratic, and no matter how they act other times, everyone knows it could blow at any time.
So, the simple answer is to stop it. The problem is with the reaction, in this case, and not the error itself.
And that’s the point. Leaders should maintain an emotional balance in dealing with others. When we do so, the whole team will perform much better for longer.
And that’s what I have to say about that.
