As a Christmas present to myself I got a whiteboard video based on my post “Overcoming Subjectivity in Risk Management and Decision Making Requires a Culture of Quality and Excellence” from Lavinder through Fiverr. I want to experiment in the new year with more engaging ways of presenting some of my content, and I’m a huge fan of this style of video.
Time after time, internal documents and interviews with company insiders show, Amazon officials have ignored or overlooked signs that the company was overloading its fast-growing delivery network while eschewing the expansive sort of training and oversight provided by a legacy carrier like UPS.“Inside Documents Show How Amazon Chose Speed Over Safety in Building Its Delivery Network” by James Bandler, Patricia Callahan and Doris Burke, ProPublica, Ken Bensinger and Caroline O’Donovan, BuzzFeed News
Dec. 23, 3 p.m. EST
Great reporting on the purposeful decisions that led to an unsafe culture. I recommend everyone reading this.
“Those interviews, as well as internal documents, reveal how executives at a company that prides itself on starting every meeting with a safety tip repeatedly quashed or delayed safety initiatives out of concern that they could jeopardize its mission of satisfying customers with ever-faster delivery.”
It all starts with leaders walking-the-walk and paying more than lip service to principles. “delighting the customer” is a great goal, but there are other stakeholders, and employee safety is a higher principle.
This article really reinforces my opinion that while there may be useful tools we can learn from FAANG companies, by-and-large their cultures do not appear ones truly dedicated to safety, quality and excellence.
It bears repeating. If we made pharmaceuticals the same way Amazon or Facebook operated, we’d all be dead. Every-time I read about Alphabet getting involved in healthcare I become petrified. One only has to look at the safety record of Tesla (both in the factory and the safety of it’s automobile) to start feeling worried on what happens when you take the bad culture from Silicon Valley and apply it to other endeavors..
Theresa Mullin, FDA’s Associate Director for Strategic Initiatives for the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research recently gave a presentation “Update from FDA CDER” at GMP by the Sea (I need to go to that that some-year).
As in other FDA presentations this presentation summarized the Quality Metrics Research Final Report by the University of St. Gallen as the appropriate steps to ensure quality maturity:
- Optimized set-up and cleaning procedures are documented as best practice process and rolled out throughout the whole plant.
- A large percentage of equipment on the shop floor is currently under statistical process control.
- For root cause analysis, the firm has standardized tools to get a deeper understanding of the influencing factors for problems.
- Goals and objectives of the manufacturing unit are closely linked and consistent with corporate objectives and the site has a clear focus.
- Manufacturers have joint improvement programs with suppliers to increase performance.
- All potential bottleneck machines are identified and supplied with additional spare parts.
- For product and process transfers between different units or sites,standardized procedures exist that ensure a fast, stable and compliant knowledge transfer.
- Charts showing the current performance status such as current scrap rates and current up times are posted on the shop floor and visible for everyone.
- The firm regularly surveys customers’ requirements.
- The firm ranks its suppliers and conducts supplier qualifications and audits.
This are some pretty low hanging fruit. They are also the pretty necessary in any organization, not just pharmaceuticals.
There was also a little discussion on the use of Q10 that really makes me wish I had been there to hear exactly what was said. I hope it was “Just freaking implement it already.”
In general, useful slides, I recommend going and checking them out.
Risk assessments, problem solving and making good decisions need teams, but any team has challenges in group think it must overcome. Ensuring your facilitators, team leaders and sponsors are aware and trained on these biases will help lead to deal with subjectivity, understand uncertainty and drive to better outcomes. But no matter how much work you do there, it won’t make enough of a difference until you’ve built a culture of quality and excellence.
Bias Toward Fitting In
We have a natural desire to want to fit in. This tendency leads to two challenges:
Challenge #1: Believing we need to conform. Early in life, we realize that there are tangible benefits to be gained from following social and organizational norms and rules. As a result, we make a significant effort to learn and adhere to written and unwritten codes of behavior at work. But here’s the catch: Doing so limits what we bring to the organization.
Challenge #2: Failure to use one’s strengths. When employees conform to what they think the organization wants, they are less likely to be themselves and to draw on their strengths. When people feel free to stand apart from the crowd, they can exercise their signature strengths (such as curiosity, love for learning, and perseverance), identify opportunities for improvement, and suggest ways to exploit them. But all too often, individuals are afraid of rocking the boat.
We need to use several methods to combat the bias toward fitting in. These need to start at the cultural level. Risk management, problem solving and decision making only overcome biases when embedded in a wider, effective culture.
Encourage people to cultivate their strengths. To motivate and support employees, some companies allow them to spend a certain portion of their time doing work of their own choosing. Although this is a great idea, we need to build our organization to help individuals apply their strengths every day as a normal part of their jobs.
Managers need to help individuals identify and develop their fortes—and not just by discussing them in annual performance reviews. Annual performance reviews are horribly ineffective. Just by using “appreciation jolt”, positive feedback., can start to improve the culture. It’s particularly potent when friends, family, mentors, and coworkers share stories about how the person excels. These stories trigger positive emotions, cause us to realize the impact that we have on others, and make us more likely to continue capitalizing on our signature strengths rather than just trying to fit in.
Managers should ask themselves the following questions: Do I know what my employees’ talents and passions are? Am I talking to them about what they do well and where they can improve? Do our goals and objectives include making maximum use of employees’ strengths?
Increase awareness and engage workers. If people don’t see an issue, you can’t expect them to speak up about it.
Model good behavior. Employees take their cues from the managers who lead them.
Bias Toward Experts
Challenge #1: An overly narrow view of expertise. Organizations tend to define “expert” too narrowly, relying on indicators such as titles, degrees, and years of experience. However, experience is a multidimensional construct. Different types of experience—including time spent on the front line, with a customer or working with particular people—contribute to understanding a problem in detail and creating a solution.
A bias toward experts can also lead people to misunderstand the potential drawbacks that come with increased time and practice in the job. Though experience improves efficiency and effectiveness, it can also make people more resistant to change and more likely to dismiss information that conflicts with their views.
Challenge #2: Inadequate frontline involvement. Frontline employees—the people directly involved in creating, selling, delivering, and servicing offerings and interacting with customers—are frequently in the best position to spot and solve problems. Too often, though, they aren’t empowered to do so.
The following tactics can help organizations overcome weaknesses of the expert bias.
Encourage workers to own problems that affect them. Make sure that your organization is adhering to the principle that the person who experiences a problem should fix it when and where it occurs. This prevents workers from relying too heavily on experts and helps them avoid making the same mistakes again. Tackling the problem immediately, when the relevant information is still fresh, increases the chances that it will be successfully resolved. Build a culture rich with problem-solving and risk management skills and behaviors.
Give workers different kinds of experience. Recognize that both doing the same task repeatedly (“specialized experience”) and switching between different tasks (“varied experience”) have benefits. Yes, Over the course of a single day, a specialized approach is usually fastest. But over time, switching activities across days promotes learning and kept workers more engaged. Both specialization and variety are important to continuous learning.
Empower employees to use their experience. Organizations should aggressively seek to identify and remove barriers that prevent individuals from using their expertise. Solving the customer’s problems in innovative, value-creating ways—not navigating organizational impediments— should be the challenging part of one’s job.
In short we need to build the capability to leverage all level of experts, and not just a few in their ivory tower.
These two biases can be overcome and through that we can start building the mindsets to deal effectively with subjectivity and uncertainty. Going further, build the following as part of our team activities as sort of a quality control checklist:
- Check for self-interest bias
- Check for the affect heuristic. Has the team fallen in love with its own output?
- Check for group think. Were dissenting views explored adequately?
- Check for saliency bias. Is this routed in past successes?
- Check for confirmation bias.
- Check for availability bias
- Check for anchoring bias
- Check for halo effect
- Check for sunk cost fallacy and endowment effect
- Check for overconfidence, planning fallacy, optimistic biases, competitor neglect
- Check for disaster neglect. Have the team conduct a post-mortem: Imagine that the worst has happened and develop a story about its causes.
- Check for loss aversion
It is more like being involved in a complicated love affair. One minute it’s thrilling, passionate, engaging. The next, it’s exhausting and overwhelming, and I feel like I need a break.Jennifer Moss, When Passion Leads to Burnout. HBR
— Read on hbr.org/2019/07/when-passion-leads-to-burnout
It is the responsibility of leaders “to keep an eye on the well-being of their staff.” Organizations whose staff feel unmotivated due to stress and burnout cannot aspire to achieve a culture of excellence. Our systems need to be designed to eliminate the root cause for stress and burnout.
Five mechanisms can be leveraged to improve organizational system design: 1) Eliminate organizational issues related to roles, responsibilities and authorities of employees, 2) establish a policy of transparency and effective “bottom-up” internal communication channel to permit employee contribution and recognition, 3) establish criteria for resource distribution, 4) establish a commitment to identify needed training and provide resources for the purpose and 5) establish a systemic feedback loop for analysis and improvement of employee motivation based on periodic measurement of employee motivational levels.
If employees know exactly what their tasks are, without sustained overload, with necessary resources and competence, and recognition for the task well performed, there will be no major system-induced reason for demotivation.
This gets to the heart of Deming’s use of psychology in his System of Profound Knowledge. Lean calls it Respect-for-People. This is all about ensuring our organizations are healthy places to work and thrive.