The Curse of Compromise

Originally written as a piece on what happens when leaders start to make compromises while professing a commitment to total quality management (TQM) this article by Robert Bacal stands the test of time and context. Even if you aren't involved in TQM initiatives, the principles discussed here are relevant to any managerial or leadership context.

If you have worked in government for any period of time, you have likely seen, and made compromises for the sake of expediency.  We are not talking here about finding a middle ground with another person.  What we are talking about is the situation where managers knowingly do things that they know are going to be ineffective.  It is important to be aware of how those kinds of decisions impact upon introducing and implementing TQM in the workplace.

Let me cite some examples:

A Minister exerts some influence on hiring practices by suggesting that a specific person be gated in.  Government officials, mindful of the political realities of government, comply.

A branch director identifies "which way the winds blow" on an issue such as affirmative action, or multiculturalism.  The branch director takes the stance that "we need to be seen as doing something", and formulates a program or process with the sole goal of appearing to do something.

A manager receives a complaint from a client/customer.  Speaking with the client, the manager is considerate and understanding, but when relating the incident to staff, indicates that "these things happen", and gives the impression that the situation is not to be taken seriously.

A brochure is created for public consumption.  For one reason or another, the writing and visual content is clearly not as good as it could be.  The manager, noting this state of affairs, shrugs and says "oh, well, it's good enough".

Effects on Quality

Each and every time a manager compromises regarding quality, or bows to pressure, a clear message is sent to staff, colleagues, and customers.  To staff, the message received is that the organization is not serious about achieving its substantive goals in a quality way.  Staff will quickly catch on that the organization values appearance over accomplishment, expediency over results, and avoidance of conflict over problem-solving.

No matter what a manager says, staff will examine managerial behaviour to determine whether there is a serious commitment to quality.  Each instance of "compromise" will erode staff's perception of commitment, and reduce their own levels of commitment and motivation.

 

Keep in mind that both clients and staff will be alert to situations where people are rewarded for doing lousy work.  By sanctioning compromised standards, procedures or actions, you are likely to increase the occurences of future compromise on the part of your staff.  Also keep in mind that your clients will be encouraged to behave badly, if they believe that you will buckle.  This is clearly the case in organizations are involved in administering financial benefits.  Employees in organizations that give out money have indicated that there seems to be a relationship between the degree to which senior officials give in to squeeky wheels, and the amount of threatening or obnoxious behaviour on the part of clients.

Conclusion

As a manager, one of the toughest decisions you need to make is when to compromise standards and when to stand your ground.  Each situation is different.  At least be aware that these kinds of decisions will affect your credibility and standing with your staff, and affect your ability to orient your organization towards Total Quality Management.  Keep in mind that what initially appears to be a decision made to please those above you has the potential for doing the opposite, creating unpleasant media furor and negative public perceptions. 

Your "walk" speaks louder than your "talk".