While boarding a plane in Atlanta a few years ago, I noticed a familiar face in the row in front of me. The distinctive beard and steel-rimmed glasses, even the signature bow tie: C. Everett Koop, former US Surgeon General, Mr. Anti-Smoking and Eat Clean.
It was a big plane and my seat was a good distance from his, so I didn’t see him again after boarding. When the food was served, it was a steak dinner (you can tell this was some time ago!). As I loaded up on cholesterol, along with the patented artificial greens, simulated sour cream, preservative-laden salad, and chemical cheesecake, I couldn’t help but wonder what C. Everett was doing. Did he eat what the rest of us ate? Or did he have the foresight to order a low-cholesterol meal or a vegetarian dish? When faced with the choice of eating recklessly or not eating at all, what is the preferred alternative?
In Koop’s case, he was the champion of healthy practices in the country. When he eats, there are probably people watching to see if he practices what he preaches. There’s no way he can light up a Camel after his meal and retain credibility. But what about us? Do we practice what we preach?
We are not under close scrutiny like a public figure is. We can talk all we want about best practices and green resource management, and few will know if we have achieved success in that area. Nor should they. The improvement programs you undertake are geared towards better performance, lower costs and being more competitive, and as long as the result is worth the effort and expense, it doesn’t matter what you call it or who knows it.
So the real issue is whether you do what you should be doing, even if no one is looking. How serious are you anyway? It’s always the little things that trip you up. First on the list is procedural discipline. Take inventory accuracy, for example. Let’s say the accuracy of your inventory record is 40 percent. If you spend half a million dollars to automate your inventory records but do nothing to adjust procedures, what you get is a half-million dollar automated inventory system with 40 percent accuracy. We sometimes forget that systems are only as good as the information we provide them. Even if we remember, it’s easy to fall into old habits when no one is looking and destroy the benefits we worked so hard to achieve.
At the beginning of an implementation project there is a lot of visibility. Top management wants to see the results of that big investment. We pay attention, adjust and act together to get an accuracy of around 90 percent. However, after a few months, when attention has shifted to another project, it’s easy to lose the discipline that brought success during implementation. That level of accuracy will quietly return to 40 percent. We started eating steak and fries again.
What we really need is a spotlight that won’t go away after the implementation effort is over. Successful businesses post inventory accuracy measurements where everyone can see them. Make it public so there are witnesses to your success or lack of it. No one likes to air out dirty laundry, so what better way to maintain pressure and ensure results? The visibility rule applies at all levels. Any individual who has a responsibility associated with the success of the company (which I assume includes everyone in the company) must have a proper focus on directing it.
There is a system of job incentives in every situation, whether it is a formal performance system such as incentive pay or performance-by-objective evaluations or as informal as “do well or lose your job.” The key is to make sure that the incentive is specific enough to encourage the desired behavior and that the encouraged behavior achieves the desired results.
People respond to their motivation system whether the motivation is well directed or not. If a production foreman is paid a bonus based on the amount of product produced, he will do his best to produce the maximum amount per month, regardless of whether that is the best result for the business. When implementing a priority-based planning system, the maximum production quantity per month will likely conflict with system-developed priorities, which are directly tied to shipping schedules or finished goods targets.
For example, it is the last day of the month and there are three jobs in the queue. The production figures for the month (total quantity) are a bit below average. Of the three jobs, one is high priority but low, the second is high but long running (medium priority), and the third is fast, high, and early (low priority). Guess which one will run today? Of course, the high-quantity, low-priority work; this produces the highest reward for the foreman. As a result, high-priority work is deferred and the customer’s ship date is likely to be missed while unneeded parts are left to inflate inventory.
It’s not the foreman’s fault. You can’t blame him for responding to an incentive system. Instead, blame the incentive system for not adequately reflecting that company’s goals. The spotlight is there, but it’s shining on the wrong target.
The challenge is threefold:
1. You must identify what the true objectives are for each employee, in line with the general objectives of the company (to make a profit by sending efficiently produced quality products on time)
2. Find a way to properly motivate employees in line with these goals
3. Institute and monitor the incentive system and adjust it as necessary to reflect changes in company goals, procedures, and environment.
So, did Dr. Koop eat the steak? I’d like to think he ordered a special meal and didn’t address the problem in the first place. I’m sure he didn’t smoke a cigarette afterwards.
We have to put our own lights as a motto to motivate ourselves and our employees to do what is best for the health of the company. The incentive is necessary. Commit and reinforce it with a measurement system that maintains pressure. Doctor’s orders. It’s for your own good.