Inspired by the Olympic Games in Rio this summer, we decided to spice up our continuous improvement work up by initiating a little intra-factory competition. We thought that unleashing the factory’s competitive streak would drive up performance levels. But, in actual fact, the only thing we’d win a medal for right now is world’s most acrimonious shopfloor.
The competition was tied into our governing metric: quality. The plant makes a range of electronic components and sub-assemblies so we eat, sleep and breath flawless defect rates. We’re a long way off those and typically register around 10,000 defective parts per million (PPM) (1%). Our long-term goal is to bring that down to 25 PPM (0.0025%) over the next three years.
It’s equivalent to Usain Bolt bringing his 100m time down from over an hour to under 10 seconds. I actually used that comparison when I announced the Quality Olympics to the shopfloor. Our task was daunting, but with a sufficient number of small improvements, the finish line would come into view.
Production was divided into three teams configured around our shifts. Each was empowered to develop their own strategy and assigned a senior manager to act as an advisor and facilitator for any kaizen activity. Initially, the site was buzzing and filled with good natured banter about B shift being so good they’d be given their gold medals up front. We created an Olympic motif on the team boards and weekly metrics linked to defect rate reductions.
Week one saw A-shift (mornings) surge ahead. C-shift (afternoons) were second and B-shift (nights) brought up the rear. A-shift lauded it over their colleagues, as you’d expect, and we threw in some vouchers for a team meal. What happened next was a fascinating insight in human psychology. B- shift bemoaned the scoring system. From ‘we faced a larger proportion of complex assemblies than they did’ to ‘working at night under lights means we’re less able to spot mistakes’: you haven’t seen a longer list of excuses since England exited Euro 2016. Then there was C shift who adopted the mind-set of: ‘let’s avoid the ignominy of finishing last’.
By week two, A shift stretched their lead. C shift stayed in second and showed only meek gains. Meanwhile, B shift drifted further behind and carried a murderous air. We saw open warfare between team members, who accused one another of not pulling their weight. What we also witnessed was B and C shifts closing up. Fewer ideas were being offered up at their kaizen sessions and there was less tolerance to concepts that weren’t cure-alls.
To salvage morale, I called the whole thing off after a month. However, I remain convinced that competition can be healthy and a great driver for business performance. Have I got it wrong and does intra-factory competition work in CI?
CI Solution: Kevin Eyre, managing consultant, S A Partners
At the end of a torrid month you ask, 'Have I got it wrong?'
Well, things haven't gone as well as you would have liked so let's explore why not. And since there is 'nothing and practical as a good theory', let's begin with some of that.
Without realising it, you have begun to create what the educationalist, Carol Dweck, calls 'an entity mindset' amongst your people. Dweck distinguishes in her work between two types of thinking - entity and incremental. The entity mindset takes the view, when set a challenge, that if a solution is not immediately forthcoming, then the best thing to do is to give up trying. There is really no point in persisting with looking incapable. An incremental mindset, by comparison, takes the view that, 'if at first you don't succeed, then try, try again'. Those with an incremental mindset out-perform those with an entity mindset even where the entity IQ is at a higher level. Furthermore, when asked to take on new challenges and select for themselves the level of challenge, then incremental thinkers pick the tougher challenges. This is great news if you want a culture of making things better. Dweck argues, and shows in her work, that the type of mindset one has is socially conditioned and not a genetic characteristic. In other words, it's possible to makes entity thinkers of incremental thinkers and vice versa. So how is this done?
Entity thinkers, Dweck argues, are created when the focus of feedback to them is on performance outcomes alone. Having been labelled as a 'good performer', entity thinkers work to preserve this label. Taking on big challenges risks failure and failure destroys the much-prized label. Entity thinkers who do begin to fail often blame 'the system' (sounds familiar?) for their failure!
When the feedback is balanced with a high proportion focused on 'effort', so that 'just trying' is an accolade in itself, then people work hard to maintain this label by persisting. Because they persist they improve. So what does this mean for intra-company competition?
Your system of competition with its focus on outcomes and associated winners and losers has demoralised employees. More worryingly, you have begun to create 'entity thinkers' - blaming the system; blaming others; slowing up on ideas; not being last; and only seeking cure-all's. But not all is lost. To change this I propose the following:-
- You have to review the failure of this process openly with the people. Demonstrating that failure is a reasonable topic for learning is an important first step. It's what incremental thinkers do.
- Secondly, you need to focus discussion and feedback not only on outcomes but on effort, on trying. Recognise all such acts of persistence and monitor the relationship between effort and outcome drawing this to the attention of people.
- Have the workforce identify the 'most improved' activities and have the workforce allocate rewards sponsored by managers.
It looks as if there remain significant improvement to be made. After a period of re-adjustment, attention will re-focus here. Co-opetition may be better than competition.
