Very often when exceptions arise there is a tendency to limit the investigation and resultant action taken to those who directly caused the exception. This is not appropriate because whenever Means, Ability or Accountability factors are at issue for the person directly impacting on the result, there are command issues up the line which also need to be addressed.
Ensuring that a person has the Means, Ability or Accountability to do what is required of them is the job of those in leadership positions. Being appropriate therefore means to not only determine why whoever caused the exception did so but, in addition, to unpack the command issues which also had a bearing on the exception. Two actual incidents, a safety incident and a quality incident at a major chemical manufacturer in South Africa are cases in point.
|
|
Management’s response to the incident was to hold the relevant individuals accountable for their deliberate malevolence and to put in place additional means to prevent a reoccurance of the problem. The operator, his colleague and the Shift Manager were all disciplined for willfully doing what was wrong (Accountability actions). Clothes lockers were moved closer to the extruder area, the standard for the wearing of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was made more stringent and a system was put in place to ensure that PPE was not removed from the Plant (Means actions).
In fact what was most instructive about the Safety incident was the command issues that it highlighted for those higher up in the line.
Firstly, what the exception revealed was that Shift Managers, across all four shifts, were generally not sufficiently in touch with what was taking place on their shift. What was needed therefore was a clear standard regarding the amount of time Shift Managers should be out on their Plant rather than in the control room. The Process Manager (whom the four Shift Managers reported to) needed to take accountability for ensuring that all his Shift Managers adhered to the new behavioural standard.
Secondly, the exception pointed to a need for Senior Management to review the efficacy of the Hazops System on Site. Despite a number of Hazard Studies being conducted on the Plant over the last 15 years no recommendations had been made to redesign the system for deblocking the dewatering screen. A redesign, if it had been made, would have eliminated the possibility of an accident taking place during extruder trips and start ups by removing the hazardous condition in the first place.
|
|
The Chairperson at the enquiry quite correctly recommended a two week suspension without pay in lieu of dismissal for the gross negligence of the operator in this instance.
More important than the specific action meted out to the operator however was the opportunity, created by the exception, to examine whether the means and ability provided by management to panel operators was adequate.
What emerged from the exploration of the leadership issues behind the exception was the following. The manning on the plant (Means issue) was enough to ensure safe operations, quality production and the training / coaching of people. The training process was thorough and the pass out procedure rigorous enough to ensure that operators were not passed out when they were not fully competent (Ability Issue).
The competency process, however, was heavily reliant on the use of coaches who were technically well qualified but lacked the skills to adequately transfer their technical experience to those they were coaching. The key leadership action, which was highlighted by the exception, was the need to develop the coaching skills of those with technical expertise in the process, so that they could effectively enable others to run the plant independently of themselves.
Tags: Care and Growth Leadership, Employee Accountability, Employee Exceptions, Schuitema, Wendy Lambourne
