Standards and Expectations Warning Flag 3 – Changing Standards Based on One-time Arbitrary Errors

Humans make mistakes, whether the result of carelessness or unintended misfortune. And no set of performance standards can fully alleviate all errors and their associated adverse outcomes. Additionally, rare and individual-driven events do not necessarily warrant a change in the organization’s performance standards as doing so may offer very little to the prevention of future mistakes. Simply adding new behavior standards for the sake of doing ultimately leads to an unwieldy administrative burden as organization members try to adhere to obscure rules and managers struggle to enforce them. A collection of one-off rules also tends to dilute the importance of the entire body of behavioral guidelines thereby diminishing those truly important to achieving organizations vision, mission, and values.

When an error occurs, finding fault with a policy or procedure is usually easier than the uncomfortable confrontation that results from holding an individual accountable for his or her actions. Doing so, however, often fails to address the real problem – particularly in the case of carelessness – and unnecessarily adds low value administrative and mechanical error prevention barriers; diminishing the overall error prevention program’s effectiveness. While not all inclusive, the four lists below, Process-Based Warning Flags, Process Execution Warning Flags – Behaviors, Potential, Observable Results, and Potential Causes, are designed to help organization leaders to recognize whether they have created collections of unnecessary and low-value adding performance standards. Only after a problem is recognized and its causes identified can the needed action be taken to move the organization toward improved performance.

Process-Based Warning Flags

• Root, apparent and direct cause analysis processes preferentially drive the identification of procedure and policy gaps
• Numerous management reviews required prior to the approval of a particular activity
• Highly detailed procedures, more so than what would be expected given the organization’s average experience level
• Lack of personnel performance-based organizational performance measures
• Individual goals generally lack direct relationship to behavior performance

Process Execution Warning Flags – Behaviors

• A tendency of executives, managers, and supervisors to avoid uncomfortable personnel confrontations when errors are made
• Lack of direct observation of fieldwork by managers and supervisors
• Infrequent provision of observational feedback by executives, managers, and supervisors
• Lack of behavioral commentary provided within individual performance evaluations

Potential, Observable Results

• Voluminous standards and expectations manuals
• Performance expectation for every circumstance and activity
• Frequent confusion among managers, supervisors, and workers as to which behavior expectations apply to a given circumstance or activity
• Managers, supervisors, and workers have difficulty reciting performance expectations related to a particular job
• Reduced productivity often without an accompanying increase in quality or error reduction

Potential Causes

• Philosophy that individuals don’t make errors, rather, that errors are the result of a failure of preventive barriers
• Executives, managers, and supervisors are unfamiliar with the performance requirements associated with field activities
• Feeling of inadequacy younger managers and supervisors have when dealing with older subordinates

Final Thought…

Identifying and eliminating low-value performance rules should be a management priority. Doing so not only reduces administrative burdens but signals to the workforce those behavioral standards truly important for superior performance. The following questions can aid in the identification of extraneous performance guidelines:

• How often is a performance standard applied?
• Is the behavioral standard routinely reinforced?
• To how many people does the standard apply?
• Does the expectation significantly contribute to the quality of the product created or service provided?
• Is the operational risk avoided materially relevant (personnel safety, equipment safety, reputationally and/or financially significant) to the organization?

Remember that some infrequently applied standards help prevent costly outcomes and so no one of the above questions should be used in isolation to identify unnecessary expectations. It is important to always consider both frequency and impact – risk – when evaluating a standard’s importance.