You’ve witnessed it: large communication boards on the manufacturing plant floor that appear to be a beacon of sharing, until you move closer. Then you notice the information hasn’t been updated in three months or else the data is impossible to comprehend. Or consider hourly status boards at which employees are expected to report the number of widgets produced versus goal, augmented with explanations when those goals aren’t met. A month of two after implementing these status boards, they are blank. No one is reporting the data.
Why do these communication methods—intended to encourage transparency, foster open communication and promote improvement—seemingly do the opposite instead?
In this episode of Behind the Curtain: Adventures in Continuous Improvement, co-hosts Dr. Mohamed Saleh and John Dyer discuss why such communication efforts fail and what you as a leader can do about it.
They begin with a reminder that workplace attitude toward open communication reflects organizational culture. For example, if workers see hourly metric boards as leadership spying on their actions (whether it is a perception or reality) and blaming the workers for missed metrics, then the workforce has no incentive to fill in the data. Similarly, consider gemba walks and communication boards.
"Are you doing them because you see that as a vehicle towards building relationships, building trust, and ultimately improving the process that will allow the business to grow and thrive and be prosperous—or are you doing it to check a box?" asks Dyer?
If open communication is the goal, Dyer says it’s important to continually reinforce that “we are doing these things to help you. We're doing this because when we see that there's a trend of certain things that are happening, we can put resources towards that.”
Taking action is equally important because without action, the words come off as fake and insincere, Dyer says.
Saleh continues the discussion by outlining key ingredients to open communication, which include trust, the need for a level of autonomy and providing people with clarity and purpose.
Among his comments: "There's a level of autonomy that's needed for people to feel like they have the authority to do what they need to do, and if the top is constantly scrutinizing them or telling them they need to do x, y and z, then they really don't have autonomy. It's a facade. You're pretending they have autonomy, but you're still telling them what to do."
