On Reporting Noncompliance

If your role involves monitoring one or more processes to ensure compliance with standards and the reliability of outcomes, the quality of your information about those processes determines how well you can perform your function. In some organizational cultures, gathering reliable information about noncompliance can be difficult. Some of the organizational cultures most exposed to this risk are those that are oriented around blame (BL cultures), rather than accountability (AC cultures). When something goes awry, BL cultures seek causes so they can punish, while AC cultures seek causes so they can learn and perfect their performance. [Brenner 2005]

To gather the information needed to detect and deal with noncompliance, the process monitor must build a network based on trust and safety, even if the culture is blame-oriented. A foundation for that network of trust is an understanding of the challenges that the people of the organization must confront. This post considers some of the difficulties of monitoring processes for compliance within a BL culture.

The dynamics of witnessing noncompliance

To monitor To monitor a process in which we aren't
direct participants, we must rely on
information from direct participants.
That's where trouble begins.a process in which we aren't direct participants, we must rely on information from direct participants. That's where trouble begins. Suppose that in a BL culture, a process participant observes an instance of noncompliance. This exposes the observer to the risks associated with a difficult choice. The observer must choose whether (a) to intervene personally, or (b) to do nothing for now, or (c) to pass the information to a process monitor. A process monitor is someone who is bound to act on evidence suggesting noncompliance, and who then can initiate investigation and possibly corrective action. In BL cultures, choosing option (c) is equivalent to "snitching."

Anyone who observes noncompliance can choose option (a), intervening personally, if supported by formal lines of authority. But if not so supported, in a BL culture, the intervention is likely to appear to be a political attack. And because attacks precipitate retribution, personal intervention unsupported by formal authority is rare.

Option (b), doing nothing "for now," is likely the most commonly chosen option in BL cultures, because it seems so safe. The only serious risk arises from a charge of negligence. The basis for such a charge emerges when the observer of the noncompliance is found to have known about the issue and then to have chosen to do nothing. Some observers can manage that risk by carefully avoiding situations in which they can observe incidents or patterns of noncompliance. For some, though, avoidance of all incidents isn't possible.

Option (c), passing the information to a process monitor, is an attractive option for those who cannot avoid (or who couldn't avoid) witnessing incidents of noncompliance. Having reported the incident, the observer is protected from charges of negligence. But in BL cultures the person who receives the report is now in a difficult position, having been converted into a witness by receiving the information from the observer. So let's examine that process monitor's position more closely.

Options for process monitors

For process monitors, option (b), doing nothing for now, is rarely selected, because they have a duty to act. In some cases, the process monitor can intervene directly, investigating and taking corrective action. In other cases, the process monitor can only pass along a report to someone with a greater span of control. But in either case, the process monitor might be required to identify the source of the information.

In BL cultures, identifying the source of the information could subject that source to retribution. And such retribution can jeopardize the future flow of information to the process monitor from that source or any other sources similarly situated.

How to protect the identities of those who report noncompliance

To preserve access to information from process participants, process monitors can take four steps that people in BL cultures understand well.

1. Forge an agreement between the process monitoring function and senior management that acknowledges the importance of protecting the identities of observers or process participants who report process noncompliance.
2. Establish a procedure for reporting process violations that enables the process monitor to receive reports confidentially.
3. Establish a procedure for investigating as a performance issue the unauthorized disclosure of the identity of any observer or process participant reporting process noncompliance.
4. Conduct irregularly scheduled process audits.

The last item above requires some expansion. Audits are helpful for uncovering noncompliance, but in BL cultures irregularly scheduled audits help to protect the identities of those who provide information about noncompliance. They do so because they can serve as cover for investigations of situations that have been topics of confidential reports of noncompliance. When a process monitor receives a confidential report of noncompliance, the process monitor can conduct an investigation without arousing concern that someone might have reported noncompliance.

Last words

I've suggested above a framework for process monitors in blame-oriented cultures. They can use that framework to help them determine the degree of compliance with standards. It's helpful because it alleviates to some degree the symptoms of the problem. Those symptoms relate to constriction of the flow of information from process participants or observers to process monitors due to fear of retribution.

But that framework doesn't address the root causes of the symptoms. The root causes lie in the culture and its orientation around blaming people for its failures. Converting a blame-oriented culture to an accountability-oriented culture is another task — a task outside the scope of the process monitor role.  Top    Next Issue

Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Devious Political Tactics:

Ten Approaches to Managing Project Risks: I

Risk management usually entails coping with losses if they do occur. Here's Part I of a concise summary of the options for managing risk.

Preventing Meeting Hijacking

Meeting leads, meeting chairs, and facilitators must be prepared to deal with meeting hijackers. Hesitation, or any ineffectual action, enhances the hijacker's chances of success. Here are suggestions for preventing hijacking.

Narcissistic Behavior at Work: IX

An arrogant demeanor is widely viewed as a hallmark of the narcissist. But truly narcissistic arrogance is off the charts. It's something beyond the merely annoying arrogance of a sometimes-obnoxious individual. What is narcissistic arrogance and how can we cope with it?

What Is Hypophora?

Hypophora is a rhetorical device that enables its users to deliver simple messages with enhanced power. But it has a dark side. The people who read or hear those messages tend to assess them as having more merit than they do.

Gratuitous Complexity as a Type III Error

Some of the technological assets we build — whether hardware, software, or procedures — are gratuitously complex. That's an error, but an error of a special kind: it can be the correct solution to the wrong problem.

See also Devious Political Tactics and Devious Political Tactics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info