Why Don’t We Follow the Procedures?
Wow! That’s a loaded question without a direct answer because it all depends on your particular organization. I can point to one reason for this: organizational culture.
There is an age-old argument on “nature vs. nurture” and it’s like arguing about if the chicken or the egg came first. Those who lean toward the “nature” side believe we are brought into this world pre-programmed. Those who lean toward the nurture side say we are born with a clean slate. In either case, the environment either enhances or suppresses what is there (nature) or imprints on the void (nurture). The environment is the commonality and the defining factor that shapes who we are. This is true for the collective as well as for the individual. We may join an organization with a preconceived notion of the culture or we may join blindly — but in either case, we are eventually going to form our opinion and attitude through our experiences within the organization.
What culture is prevalent within your organization? If you are a moderate to large organization, and truthful, you will see that culture is stratified and not unified. In other words, the culture at the floor level is vastly different than at the executive level. If you don’t believe me, ask any upper-level executive of a relatively-large organization if cutting corners to get a plane out is acceptable. The answer is going to be an emphatic “NO.” Ask the same question at the floor level and you will get a “well, it depends” or “maybe, sometimes.” There is a communication breakdown somewhere along the managerial hierarchy.
This communication breakdown is not uncommon as the information will get interpreted differently as it goes down the hierarchy and filtered as it goes up the hierarchy. Going down, everyone wants to personalize the information to claim partial ownership — so they modify the communication. Going up, you don’t want to be the one who has to deliver bad news — so it gets smoothed over and desensitized. On the flip side, you want to be noticed as the one who delivers good news, so that gets embellished. In any case, the information is distorted from its genesis.
The word from upper management
The only way to overcome this is to get the information directly from the originator. Upper management has to support those who are going to be directly impacted, abide by the communication sent, and not shoot the messenger if the information delivered is not as expected. This is the beginning of setting the tone for the organizational culture, one voice.
In large organizations, upper management has sent directives that sometimes get interpreted differently than intended. The individual working the floor is at a distinct disadvantage by being told to follow a path that contradicts upper management’s directive. Upper management has a tendency to cut ties once they send a directive and relegate administration of their directives at the local level. Thus the local contraction will stand and the floor workers have no support. When local management knows that the floor workers have the support of upper management, the tendency to contradict such upper management directives is greatly diminished (as any local management doing such would be making a career-ending decision).
This is all intended to lay the ground work for establishing a trusting organizational culture. This means change — change for the workers on the floor, local management and upper management.
Cognitive dissonance
There is a psychological phenomenon called the Stroop Effect (and I have mentioned it before). It has you read a set of words of colors: red, blue, green, etc. Easy. It then has you identify the different colors of a series of blocks. Also easy. Then the words get colored differently, such as the word red would be colored green and the word blue would be colored orange. Then it asks you to name the color and not the word. It takes longer to do this task because of a conflict between your right brain and left brain. This conflict is called cognitive dissonance. We experience this as mechanics when doing a task that you have done numerous times, then all of a sudden you slow down because something isn’t right. You don’t know what it is, but you have this feeling that something is askew. You are experiencing cognitive dissonance. It is an internal physical protective device that has us pause and think of our actions. It also slows us down when we know we are doing something that we aren’t supposed to do. Many of us refer to this as our conscience speaking.
As we plod through organizational life, we continually face cognitive dissonance which forces us to make a decision to ease the discomfort of dissonance. If the decision is to cut corners in bypassing some procedures, the first attempt gives us an uneasy feeling of internal conflict because we know it is wrong but we are going ahead and doing it anyway. The more we bypass procedures, the easier it becomes. That feeling of internal conflict dissipates over time to the point where bypassing procedures becomes second nature and the organizational norm. This is referred to as escalation of deviance.
We do it when we drive. If the speed limit is 55 mph, we will typically drive faster than 55 mph. How fast depends on how lenient the police are in enforcing the limit, the driver’s compulsion to drive faster and the driver’s disdain for the law. We know that the police will generally not give you a speeding ticket for doing 60 mphin a 55-mph zone — so we drive at 60 mph because we know are safe from getting a ticket. When we initially went beyond 55 mph, we were somewhat wary and tenuous to continue, but as time goes by at going 56 we push it to 57, then 58, and eventually we are comfortable at 60 mph. We also learn that the police are even more tolerant in some areas and we can drive 70 mph without attracting a speeding ticket. If you have a disdain for the law, you might push it to 80 mph, knowing that you will get a ticket but that the police probably aren’t nearby.
The effects of consequences
As humans, we want to complete the task to which we are assigned. If that means pushing the boundaries as a path to success, we will push the boundaries. Once the boundary is extended without consequences, it provides a dim green light to continue that activity in the future. Consequences do not necessarily mean disciplinary actions. The best form of consequences is peer pressure. If the organizational culture tolerates cutting corners or tacitly approves this activity through turning a blind eye, it will proliferate. However, if the organizational culture or the group culture doesn’t tolerate that activity, the likelihood of it recurring is slim. If the group doesn’t view an action as acceptable, the perpetrator could become viewed as an outcast — another uneasy feeling.
The organization also builds dissonance in tacit approval in cutting corners if the result is positive but not if the result is negative. Here a losing situation is set up, making the wrong choice the logical one. Management does not look favorably upon failure. That’s a given. How they handle failure sets the tone of the organizational culture. If a plane is grounded, it is viewed as a failure somewhere, typically focused upon an individual. If the plane flies but cutting corners must be utilized, it is looked upon as a success. The means to the end are ignored. If the plane is still grounded after cutting corners, it is looked upon as a failure in execution and administration. Double whammy. If you are looking for approval from management or simply avoiding their disapproval, the environmental pattern would lead one to take the chance in cutting corners and a probability of success, as the other choice is a sure route to failure.
I mentioned how management handles failure. The aforementioned scenario is dysfunctional and promotes continued deviation. However, if failure is seen as an opportunity to learn, it is beneficial to all in preventing similar failure in the future. This is often too idealistic in the heat of the moment. Additionally, when failure is directed towards an individual, it discourages teamwork instead of fostering it.
All together now
As Americans, we hold ourselves as independent individuals — but as humans, we are social animals and want to belong. If the organizational group culture sets the tone that it doesn’t tolerate deviant activity and this is supported by all levels of management, the preponderance of peer pressure suppresses such activity. A person going against the grain will be viewed as a nonconformist. However, not all nonconformist activity is necessarily bad, as new ideas and innovation springs from non-conformity. We can become complacent and comfortable in the organizational culture which we have built, when along comes someone who does it differently. It’s the “don’t upset the apple cart” syndrome. We can label that individual as a non-conformist and non-compliant, but let’s not dismiss the fact that the individual might have revealed a better method. That energy needs to be encouraged and properly channeled, not suppressed.
We are dealing with a balancing act. You want people to conform and comply with established procedures, but you don’t want a set of robots that don’t think on their own and only follow instructions. You also need to provide an avenue for those who may have creative ideas or a better way, or who see certain unneeded steps in a procedure to incubate those thoughts toward some resolution, either an explanation why the steps must remain or adjustment to the procedure. This gets employees engaged and provides a sense of contribution and ownership that they can have a hand in changing and improving their organizational environment.
This is part of what is termed “Just Culture” — building an atmosphere that speaks with one voice, everyone knows the organizational mission, is mutually cooperative and supportive and trusting, tolerates mistakes as learning opportunities, holds people accountable but doesn’t discourage converse opinions, and in short is the perfect organization. However, nothing is perfect and “Just Culture” is no exception. Just Culture, like safety and quality, has an ultimate perfect goal that will never be reached. Perfection is in God’s hands; excellence is in our hands. As we envision perfection, we strive for excellence.
As the Greek philosopher Aristotle said, “Excellence is a habit, not an act. It takes practice and perseverance.”
Patrick Kinane joined the Air Force after high school and has worked in aviation since 1964. Kinane is a certified A&P with IA and holds an FAA license and commercial pilot certificate with instrument rating. He earned a bachelor of science degree in aviation maintenance management, MBA in quantitative methods, master of science degree in education and Ph.D. in organizational psychology. He has been involved with 121 carriers and held positions from aircraft mechanic to director of maintenance. Kinane currently works as Senior Quality Systems Auditor for AAR Corp. and adjunct professor for DeVry University instructing in organizational behavior, total quality management (TQM) and critical thinking. PlaneQA is his consulting company that specializes in quality and safety system audits and training. Speaking engagements are available with subjects in critical thinking, quality systems and organizational behavior. For more information, visit www.PlaneQA.com.