Fear-Based Performance Management at Fox News?

Written by

Regardless of what you may think about Fox News, it is hard to argue with their commercial success. Nonetheless, at least based on a leaked memo published over at Gawker, it appears that senior management is concerned about a rash of mistakes. They are apparently responding by instituting a fear-based system.

I say "apparently" because I have no idea if this is actually written by Fox executives. Real or fake, it provides a good illustration of the kind of thing that seems reasonable, but that — at least if you believe the basic underpinnings of the quality movement (quality guru W. Edwards Deming's mantra was "Drive Out Fear") and related research by Amy Edmondson and others on psychological safety, mistakes, and learning — these are practices that aren't likely to eliminate mistakes, but they will amplify CYA behavior, brainstorming, and tendency to make the same mistakes over and over again. I would add that perhaps they may increase personnel costs as people are fired for their mistakes, blamed and shown the door, and then new people come in and keep making the same mistakes because the system stifles learning.

Here is the alleged memo from the Fox executives. Let me know what you think about it — would this work in your organization?

Subject: Quality
Control We had a mistake on Newsroom today when a wrong book cover
went on screen during a guest segment, the kind of thing that can fall
through the cracks on any day with any story given the large amount of
elements and editorial we run through our broadcasts. Unfortunately, it
is the latest in a series of mistakes on FNC in recent months. We have
to all improve our performance in terms of ensuring error-free
broadcasts. To that end, there was a meeting this afternoon between
senior managers and the folks who run the daytime shows in which
expectations were reviewed, and the following results were announced:
Effective immediately, there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors.
Mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air may result in
immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant
roles in the "mistake chain," and those who supervise them. That may
include warning letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other
possible actions up to and including termination, and this will all
obviously play a role in performance reviews.

So we now face a great
opportunity to review and improve on our workflow and quality control
efforts. To make the most of that opportunity, effective immediately,
Newsroom is going to "zero base" our newscast production. That means we
will start by going to air with only the most essential, basic, and
manageable elements. To share a key quote from today's meeting: "It is
more important to get it right, than it is to get it on." We may then
build up again slowly as deadlines and workloads allow so that we can be
sure we can quality check everything before it makes air, and we never
having to explain, retract, qualify or apologize again. Please know that
jobs are on the line here. I can not stress that enough. I will review
again during our Monday editorial meeting, and in the days and weeks
ahead. This experience should make us stronger editorially, and I
encourage everyone to invest themselves one hundred and ten percent in
this effort.

P.S. See this post on "The best diagnostic question" for a much different approach to learning from failure. Although I should note that there is another interesting element here: The memo implies that getting it right rather than getting done as quickly as possible will be rewarded more now –which is a step away from from fear and toward quality.

Comments

64 responses to “Fear-Based Performance Management at Fox News?”

June 1, 2010

Wally Bock

I think there’s an important distinction between “mistakes” and “failures.” You need to tolerate both, but in different ways and for different reasons.
Failures are part of innovation. They’re what we call it when the experiment doesn’t work. You learn from them by conducting some form of after-action critique that helps you adjust your next trial.
Mistakes are different. They’re what humans do. Most mistakes are isolated incidents and hardly merit attention, let along analysis. That changes when you have a pattern of mistakes.
The memo implies that a pattern exists, but doesn’t describe the individual mistakes or their frequency. When you have a pattern of mistakes, your analysis can lead you in different directions.
You might find that the mistakes are mostly by (or involve)n a single individual. Then you have to dig deeper to figure out if you have a training problem or a supervisory problem.
You might find that that the mistakes are tied to a single process. Then you try to figure out why and what to do about it. Ditto if they’re tied to a single cultural norm.
What you don’t do is implement an organizational death penalty for mistakes. What that gets you is hiding, lying, lack of trying, and lots of blaming and weasling.
It also leaves you in the position have having to enforce your edict. Do we really think that the star, ratings magnet anchor will be shown the door?
And mistakes won’t go away. If you’re working with humans, they will make mistakes. No amount of exhortation or memo writing will change that.

Reply
June 1, 2010

Wally Bock

I think there’s an important distinction between “mistakes” and “failures.” You need to tolerate both, but in different ways and for different reasons.
Failures are part of innovation. They’re what we call it when the experiment doesn’t work. You learn from them by conducting some form of after-action critique that helps you adjust your next trial.
Mistakes are different. They’re what humans do. Most mistakes are isolated incidents and hardly merit attention, let along analysis. That changes when you have a pattern of mistakes.
The memo implies that a pattern exists, but doesn’t describe the individual mistakes or their frequency. When you have a pattern of mistakes, your analysis can lead you in different directions.
You might find that the mistakes are mostly by (or involve)n a single individual. Then you have to dig deeper to figure out if you have a training problem or a supervisory problem.
You might find that that the mistakes are tied to a single process. Then you try to figure out why and what to do about it. Ditto if they’re tied to a single cultural norm.
What you don’t do is implement an organizational death penalty for mistakes. What that gets you is hiding, lying, lack of trying, and lots of blaming and weasling.
It also leaves you in the position have having to enforce your edict. Do we really think that the star, ratings magnet anchor will be shown the door?
And mistakes won’t go away. If you’re working with humans, they will make mistakes. No amount of exhortation or memo writing will change that.

Reply
June 1, 2010

Wally Bock

I think there’s an important distinction between “mistakes” and “failures.” You need to tolerate both, but in different ways and for different reasons.
Failures are part of innovation. They’re what we call it when the experiment doesn’t work. You learn from them by conducting some form of after-action critique that helps you adjust your next trial.
Mistakes are different. They’re what humans do. Most mistakes are isolated incidents and hardly merit attention, let along analysis. That changes when you have a pattern of mistakes.
The memo implies that a pattern exists, but doesn’t describe the individual mistakes or their frequency. When you have a pattern of mistakes, your analysis can lead you in different directions.
You might find that the mistakes are mostly by (or involve)n a single individual. Then you have to dig deeper to figure out if you have a training problem or a supervisory problem.
You might find that that the mistakes are tied to a single process. Then you try to figure out why and what to do about it. Ditto if they’re tied to a single cultural norm.
What you don’t do is implement an organizational death penalty for mistakes. What that gets you is hiding, lying, lack of trying, and lots of blaming and weasling.
It also leaves you in the position have having to enforce your edict. Do we really think that the star, ratings magnet anchor will be shown the door?
And mistakes won’t go away. If you’re working with humans, they will make mistakes. No amount of exhortation or memo writing will change that.

Reply
June 1, 2010

Wally Bock

I think there’s an important distinction between “mistakes” and “failures.” You need to tolerate both, but in different ways and for different reasons.
Failures are part of innovation. They’re what we call it when the experiment doesn’t work. You learn from them by conducting some form of after-action critique that helps you adjust your next trial.
Mistakes are different. They’re what humans do. Most mistakes are isolated incidents and hardly merit attention, let along analysis. That changes when you have a pattern of mistakes.
The memo implies that a pattern exists, but doesn’t describe the individual mistakes or their frequency. When you have a pattern of mistakes, your analysis can lead you in different directions.
You might find that the mistakes are mostly by (or involve)n a single individual. Then you have to dig deeper to figure out if you have a training problem or a supervisory problem.
You might find that that the mistakes are tied to a single process. Then you try to figure out why and what to do about it. Ditto if they’re tied to a single cultural norm.
What you don’t do is implement an organizational death penalty for mistakes. What that gets you is hiding, lying, lack of trying, and lots of blaming and weasling.
It also leaves you in the position have having to enforce your edict. Do we really think that the star, ratings magnet anchor will be shown the door?
And mistakes won’t go away. If you’re working with humans, they will make mistakes. No amount of exhortation or memo writing will change that.

Reply
June 1, 2010

Wally Bock

I think there’s an important distinction between “mistakes” and “failures.” You need to tolerate both, but in different ways and for different reasons.
Failures are part of innovation. They’re what we call it when the experiment doesn’t work. You learn from them by conducting some form of after-action critique that helps you adjust your next trial.
Mistakes are different. They’re what humans do. Most mistakes are isolated incidents and hardly merit attention, let along analysis. That changes when you have a pattern of mistakes.
The memo implies that a pattern exists, but doesn’t describe the individual mistakes or their frequency. When you have a pattern of mistakes, your analysis can lead you in different directions.
You might find that the mistakes are mostly by (or involve)n a single individual. Then you have to dig deeper to figure out if you have a training problem or a supervisory problem.
You might find that that the mistakes are tied to a single process. Then you try to figure out why and what to do about it. Ditto if they’re tied to a single cultural norm.
What you don’t do is implement an organizational death penalty for mistakes. What that gets you is hiding, lying, lack of trying, and lots of blaming and weasling.
It also leaves you in the position have having to enforce your edict. Do we really think that the star, ratings magnet anchor will be shown the door?
And mistakes won’t go away. If you’re working with humans, they will make mistakes. No amount of exhortation or memo writing will change that.

Reply
June 1, 2010

Wally Bock

I think there’s an important distinction between “mistakes” and “failures.” You need to tolerate both, but in different ways and for different reasons.
Failures are part of innovation. They’re what we call it when the experiment doesn’t work. You learn from them by conducting some form of after-action critique that helps you adjust your next trial.
Mistakes are different. They’re what humans do. Most mistakes are isolated incidents and hardly merit attention, let along analysis. That changes when you have a pattern of mistakes.
The memo implies that a pattern exists, but doesn’t describe the individual mistakes or their frequency. When you have a pattern of mistakes, your analysis can lead you in different directions.
You might find that the mistakes are mostly by (or involve)n a single individual. Then you have to dig deeper to figure out if you have a training problem or a supervisory problem.
You might find that that the mistakes are tied to a single process. Then you try to figure out why and what to do about it. Ditto if they’re tied to a single cultural norm.
What you don’t do is implement an organizational death penalty for mistakes. What that gets you is hiding, lying, lack of trying, and lots of blaming and weasling.
It also leaves you in the position have having to enforce your edict. Do we really think that the star, ratings magnet anchor will be shown the door?
And mistakes won’t go away. If you’re working with humans, they will make mistakes. No amount of exhortation or memo writing will change that.

Reply
June 1, 2010

Wally Bock

I think there’s an important distinction between “mistakes” and “failures.” You need to tolerate both, but in different ways and for different reasons.
Failures are part of innovation. They’re what we call it when the experiment doesn’t work. You learn from them by conducting some form of after-action critique that helps you adjust your next trial.
Mistakes are different. They’re what humans do. Most mistakes are isolated incidents and hardly merit attention, let along analysis. That changes when you have a pattern of mistakes.
The memo implies that a pattern exists, but doesn’t describe the individual mistakes or their frequency. When you have a pattern of mistakes, your analysis can lead you in different directions.
You might find that the mistakes are mostly by (or involve)n a single individual. Then you have to dig deeper to figure out if you have a training problem or a supervisory problem.
You might find that that the mistakes are tied to a single process. Then you try to figure out why and what to do about it. Ditto if they’re tied to a single cultural norm.
What you don’t do is implement an organizational death penalty for mistakes. What that gets you is hiding, lying, lack of trying, and lots of blaming and weasling.
It also leaves you in the position have having to enforce your edict. Do we really think that the star, ratings magnet anchor will be shown the door?
And mistakes won’t go away. If you’re working with humans, they will make mistakes. No amount of exhortation or memo writing will change that.

Reply
June 1, 2010

Wally Bock

I think there’s an important distinction between “mistakes” and “failures.” You need to tolerate both, but in different ways and for different reasons.
Failures are part of innovation. They’re what we call it when the experiment doesn’t work. You learn from them by conducting some form of after-action critique that helps you adjust your next trial.
Mistakes are different. They’re what humans do. Most mistakes are isolated incidents and hardly merit attention, let along analysis. That changes when you have a pattern of mistakes.
The memo implies that a pattern exists, but doesn’t describe the individual mistakes or their frequency. When you have a pattern of mistakes, your analysis can lead you in different directions.
You might find that the mistakes are mostly by (or involve)n a single individual. Then you have to dig deeper to figure out if you have a training problem or a supervisory problem.
You might find that that the mistakes are tied to a single process. Then you try to figure out why and what to do about it. Ditto if they’re tied to a single cultural norm.
What you don’t do is implement an organizational death penalty for mistakes. What that gets you is hiding, lying, lack of trying, and lots of blaming and weasling.
It also leaves you in the position have having to enforce your edict. Do we really think that the star, ratings magnet anchor will be shown the door?
And mistakes won’t go away. If you’re working with humans, they will make mistakes. No amount of exhortation or memo writing will change that.

Reply
June 1, 2010

Mike Sporer

Mistakes like these, when made too often, indicate that the problem is likely systemic and cultural. A collaborative discussion intended at driving down to the “why” works better than fear. Fear-based management simply does not work, period! Change the culture, change the results…..

Reply
June 1, 2010

Mike Sporer

Mistakes like these, when made too often, indicate that the problem is likely systemic and cultural. A collaborative discussion intended at driving down to the “why” works better than fear. Fear-based management simply does not work, period! Change the culture, change the results…..

Reply
June 1, 2010

Mike Sporer

Mistakes like these, when made too often, indicate that the problem is likely systemic and cultural. A collaborative discussion intended at driving down to the “why” works better than fear. Fear-based management simply does not work, period! Change the culture, change the results…..

Reply
June 1, 2010

Mike Sporer

Mistakes like these, when made too often, indicate that the problem is likely systemic and cultural. A collaborative discussion intended at driving down to the “why” works better than fear. Fear-based management simply does not work, period! Change the culture, change the results…..

Reply
June 1, 2010

Mike Sporer

Mistakes like these, when made too often, indicate that the problem is likely systemic and cultural. A collaborative discussion intended at driving down to the “why” works better than fear. Fear-based management simply does not work, period! Change the culture, change the results…..

Reply
June 1, 2010

Mike Sporer

Mistakes like these, when made too often, indicate that the problem is likely systemic and cultural. A collaborative discussion intended at driving down to the “why” works better than fear. Fear-based management simply does not work, period! Change the culture, change the results…..

Reply
June 1, 2010

Mike Sporer

Mistakes like these, when made too often, indicate that the problem is likely systemic and cultural. A collaborative discussion intended at driving down to the “why” works better than fear. Fear-based management simply does not work, period! Change the culture, change the results…..

Reply
June 1, 2010

Mike Sporer

Mistakes like these, when made too often, indicate that the problem is likely systemic and cultural. A collaborative discussion intended at driving down to the “why” works better than fear. Fear-based management simply does not work, period! Change the culture, change the results…..

Reply
June 1, 2010

gabriel

When you don’t have a second chance and mistakes shouldn’t happen, as in the case of surgeons, You can work to build and coach excellent teams, nonetheless (or thanks to) fear.
I think, the single, and most devastating, point in your great post is the “It is more important to get it right, than it is to get it on.” pattern.
Or, we can say “getting it right pays, no matter the outcome”. “Formally correct” or better “visibly correct”, this pattern is at the core of nepotistic organizations, fraudulent business or even corrupts countries.

Reply
June 1, 2010

gabriel

When you don’t have a second chance and mistakes shouldn’t happen, as in the case of surgeons, You can work to build and coach excellent teams, nonetheless (or thanks to) fear.
I think, the single, and most devastating, point in your great post is the “It is more important to get it right, than it is to get it on.” pattern.
Or, we can say “getting it right pays, no matter the outcome”. “Formally correct” or better “visibly correct”, this pattern is at the core of nepotistic organizations, fraudulent business or even corrupts countries.

Reply
June 1, 2010

gabriel

When you don’t have a second chance and mistakes shouldn’t happen, as in the case of surgeons, You can work to build and coach excellent teams, nonetheless (or thanks to) fear.
I think, the single, and most devastating, point in your great post is the “It is more important to get it right, than it is to get it on.” pattern.
Or, we can say “getting it right pays, no matter the outcome”. “Formally correct” or better “visibly correct”, this pattern is at the core of nepotistic organizations, fraudulent business or even corrupts countries.

Reply
June 1, 2010

gabriel

When you don’t have a second chance and mistakes shouldn’t happen, as in the case of surgeons, You can work to build and coach excellent teams, nonetheless (or thanks to) fear.
I think, the single, and most devastating, point in your great post is the “It is more important to get it right, than it is to get it on.” pattern.
Or, we can say “getting it right pays, no matter the outcome”. “Formally correct” or better “visibly correct”, this pattern is at the core of nepotistic organizations, fraudulent business or even corrupts countries.

Reply
June 1, 2010

gabriel

When you don’t have a second chance and mistakes shouldn’t happen, as in the case of surgeons, You can work to build and coach excellent teams, nonetheless (or thanks to) fear.
I think, the single, and most devastating, point in your great post is the “It is more important to get it right, than it is to get it on.” pattern.
Or, we can say “getting it right pays, no matter the outcome”. “Formally correct” or better “visibly correct”, this pattern is at the core of nepotistic organizations, fraudulent business or even corrupts countries.

Reply
June 1, 2010

gabriel

When you don’t have a second chance and mistakes shouldn’t happen, as in the case of surgeons, You can work to build and coach excellent teams, nonetheless (or thanks to) fear.
I think, the single, and most devastating, point in your great post is the “It is more important to get it right, than it is to get it on.” pattern.
Or, we can say “getting it right pays, no matter the outcome”. “Formally correct” or better “visibly correct”, this pattern is at the core of nepotistic organizations, fraudulent business or even corrupts countries.

Reply
June 1, 2010

gabriel

When you don’t have a second chance and mistakes shouldn’t happen, as in the case of surgeons, You can work to build and coach excellent teams, nonetheless (or thanks to) fear.
I think, the single, and most devastating, point in your great post is the “It is more important to get it right, than it is to get it on.” pattern.
Or, we can say “getting it right pays, no matter the outcome”. “Formally correct” or better “visibly correct”, this pattern is at the core of nepotistic organizations, fraudulent business or even corrupts countries.

Reply
June 1, 2010

gabriel

When you don’t have a second chance and mistakes shouldn’t happen, as in the case of surgeons, You can work to build and coach excellent teams, nonetheless (or thanks to) fear.
I think, the single, and most devastating, point in your great post is the “It is more important to get it right, than it is to get it on.” pattern.
Or, we can say “getting it right pays, no matter the outcome”. “Formally correct” or better “visibly correct”, this pattern is at the core of nepotistic organizations, fraudulent business or even corrupts countries.

Reply
June 2, 2010

Dan

Wally’s got it right (as usual).
I would add that the memo is a perfect example of the “default culture” that lies just beneath the surface in many organizations, called up out of the grave by stress and frustration. The executives actions are defensive in a classic sense, but come across as highly offensive and aggressive. They are acting as if their own competence is under attack and have planted the poison of mistrust in a way that is likely to last years and years.

Reply
June 2, 2010

Dan

Wally’s got it right (as usual).
I would add that the memo is a perfect example of the “default culture” that lies just beneath the surface in many organizations, called up out of the grave by stress and frustration. The executives actions are defensive in a classic sense, but come across as highly offensive and aggressive. They are acting as if their own competence is under attack and have planted the poison of mistrust in a way that is likely to last years and years.

Reply
June 2, 2010

Dan

Wally’s got it right (as usual).
I would add that the memo is a perfect example of the “default culture” that lies just beneath the surface in many organizations, called up out of the grave by stress and frustration. The executives actions are defensive in a classic sense, but come across as highly offensive and aggressive. They are acting as if their own competence is under attack and have planted the poison of mistrust in a way that is likely to last years and years.

Reply
June 2, 2010

Dan

Wally’s got it right (as usual).
I would add that the memo is a perfect example of the “default culture” that lies just beneath the surface in many organizations, called up out of the grave by stress and frustration. The executives actions are defensive in a classic sense, but come across as highly offensive and aggressive. They are acting as if their own competence is under attack and have planted the poison of mistrust in a way that is likely to last years and years.

Reply
June 2, 2010

Dan

Wally’s got it right (as usual).
I would add that the memo is a perfect example of the “default culture” that lies just beneath the surface in many organizations, called up out of the grave by stress and frustration. The executives actions are defensive in a classic sense, but come across as highly offensive and aggressive. They are acting as if their own competence is under attack and have planted the poison of mistrust in a way that is likely to last years and years.

Reply
June 2, 2010

Dan

Wally’s got it right (as usual).
I would add that the memo is a perfect example of the “default culture” that lies just beneath the surface in many organizations, called up out of the grave by stress and frustration. The executives actions are defensive in a classic sense, but come across as highly offensive and aggressive. They are acting as if their own competence is under attack and have planted the poison of mistrust in a way that is likely to last years and years.

Reply
June 2, 2010

Dan

Wally’s got it right (as usual).
I would add that the memo is a perfect example of the “default culture” that lies just beneath the surface in many organizations, called up out of the grave by stress and frustration. The executives actions are defensive in a classic sense, but come across as highly offensive and aggressive. They are acting as if their own competence is under attack and have planted the poison of mistrust in a way that is likely to last years and years.

Reply
June 2, 2010

Dan

Wally’s got it right (as usual).
I would add that the memo is a perfect example of the “default culture” that lies just beneath the surface in many organizations, called up out of the grave by stress and frustration. The executives actions are defensive in a classic sense, but come across as highly offensive and aggressive. They are acting as if their own competence is under attack and have planted the poison of mistrust in a way that is likely to last years and years.

Reply
June 3, 2010

Thomas

I’ve always found “zero tolerance” to be a silly policy. In this case it is presented as outright nonsense:
“Effective immediately, there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors.”
Now that would make sense if anyone who makes a mistake was immediately fired, no questions asked. But that’s not how the memo goes on. It says:
“Mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air MAY result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the “mistake chain,” and those who supervise them…”
Or, presumably may NOT, i.e., the mistake MAY be tolerated. Even if not “tolerated” per se, it is very unclear what the consequences will be, which
“…may include warning letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other possible actions up to and including termination, and this will all obviously play a role in performance reviews.”
In other words: effective immediately, try to avoid making mistakes; if you are found to have played a significant role in making a mistake you may be fired (if the mistake is big enough) or it may just be something we’ll discuss as part of your overall performance.
That’s a NEW policy?

Reply
June 3, 2010

Thomas

I’ve always found “zero tolerance” to be a silly policy. In this case it is presented as outright nonsense:
“Effective immediately, there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors.”
Now that would make sense if anyone who makes a mistake was immediately fired, no questions asked. But that’s not how the memo goes on. It says:
“Mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air MAY result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the “mistake chain,” and those who supervise them…”
Or, presumably may NOT, i.e., the mistake MAY be tolerated. Even if not “tolerated” per se, it is very unclear what the consequences will be, which
“…may include warning letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other possible actions up to and including termination, and this will all obviously play a role in performance reviews.”
In other words: effective immediately, try to avoid making mistakes; if you are found to have played a significant role in making a mistake you may be fired (if the mistake is big enough) or it may just be something we’ll discuss as part of your overall performance.
That’s a NEW policy?

Reply
June 3, 2010

Thomas

I’ve always found “zero tolerance” to be a silly policy. In this case it is presented as outright nonsense:
“Effective immediately, there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors.”
Now that would make sense if anyone who makes a mistake was immediately fired, no questions asked. But that’s not how the memo goes on. It says:
“Mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air MAY result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the “mistake chain,” and those who supervise them…”
Or, presumably may NOT, i.e., the mistake MAY be tolerated. Even if not “tolerated” per se, it is very unclear what the consequences will be, which
“…may include warning letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other possible actions up to and including termination, and this will all obviously play a role in performance reviews.”
In other words: effective immediately, try to avoid making mistakes; if you are found to have played a significant role in making a mistake you may be fired (if the mistake is big enough) or it may just be something we’ll discuss as part of your overall performance.
That’s a NEW policy?

Reply
June 3, 2010

Thomas

I’ve always found “zero tolerance” to be a silly policy. In this case it is presented as outright nonsense:
“Effective immediately, there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors.”
Now that would make sense if anyone who makes a mistake was immediately fired, no questions asked. But that’s not how the memo goes on. It says:
“Mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air MAY result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the “mistake chain,” and those who supervise them…”
Or, presumably may NOT, i.e., the mistake MAY be tolerated. Even if not “tolerated” per se, it is very unclear what the consequences will be, which
“…may include warning letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other possible actions up to and including termination, and this will all obviously play a role in performance reviews.”
In other words: effective immediately, try to avoid making mistakes; if you are found to have played a significant role in making a mistake you may be fired (if the mistake is big enough) or it may just be something we’ll discuss as part of your overall performance.
That’s a NEW policy?

Reply
June 3, 2010

Thomas

I’ve always found “zero tolerance” to be a silly policy. In this case it is presented as outright nonsense:
“Effective immediately, there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors.”
Now that would make sense if anyone who makes a mistake was immediately fired, no questions asked. But that’s not how the memo goes on. It says:
“Mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air MAY result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the “mistake chain,” and those who supervise them…”
Or, presumably may NOT, i.e., the mistake MAY be tolerated. Even if not “tolerated” per se, it is very unclear what the consequences will be, which
“…may include warning letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other possible actions up to and including termination, and this will all obviously play a role in performance reviews.”
In other words: effective immediately, try to avoid making mistakes; if you are found to have played a significant role in making a mistake you may be fired (if the mistake is big enough) or it may just be something we’ll discuss as part of your overall performance.
That’s a NEW policy?

Reply
June 3, 2010

Thomas

I’ve always found “zero tolerance” to be a silly policy. In this case it is presented as outright nonsense:
“Effective immediately, there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors.”
Now that would make sense if anyone who makes a mistake was immediately fired, no questions asked. But that’s not how the memo goes on. It says:
“Mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air MAY result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the “mistake chain,” and those who supervise them…”
Or, presumably may NOT, i.e., the mistake MAY be tolerated. Even if not “tolerated” per se, it is very unclear what the consequences will be, which
“…may include warning letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other possible actions up to and including termination, and this will all obviously play a role in performance reviews.”
In other words: effective immediately, try to avoid making mistakes; if you are found to have played a significant role in making a mistake you may be fired (if the mistake is big enough) or it may just be something we’ll discuss as part of your overall performance.
That’s a NEW policy?

Reply
June 3, 2010

Thomas

I’ve always found “zero tolerance” to be a silly policy. In this case it is presented as outright nonsense:
“Effective immediately, there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors.”
Now that would make sense if anyone who makes a mistake was immediately fired, no questions asked. But that’s not how the memo goes on. It says:
“Mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air MAY result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the “mistake chain,” and those who supervise them…”
Or, presumably may NOT, i.e., the mistake MAY be tolerated. Even if not “tolerated” per se, it is very unclear what the consequences will be, which
“…may include warning letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other possible actions up to and including termination, and this will all obviously play a role in performance reviews.”
In other words: effective immediately, try to avoid making mistakes; if you are found to have played a significant role in making a mistake you may be fired (if the mistake is big enough) or it may just be something we’ll discuss as part of your overall performance.
That’s a NEW policy?

Reply
June 3, 2010

Thomas

I’ve always found “zero tolerance” to be a silly policy. In this case it is presented as outright nonsense:
“Effective immediately, there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors.”
Now that would make sense if anyone who makes a mistake was immediately fired, no questions asked. But that’s not how the memo goes on. It says:
“Mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air MAY result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the “mistake chain,” and those who supervise them…”
Or, presumably may NOT, i.e., the mistake MAY be tolerated. Even if not “tolerated” per se, it is very unclear what the consequences will be, which
“…may include warning letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other possible actions up to and including termination, and this will all obviously play a role in performance reviews.”
In other words: effective immediately, try to avoid making mistakes; if you are found to have played a significant role in making a mistake you may be fired (if the mistake is big enough) or it may just be something we’ll discuss as part of your overall performance.
That’s a NEW policy?

Reply
June 3, 2010

Dave Moran

Wow! The memo opened up with a great articulation of the problem, but then launches into how there will be zero tolerance for errors and action against those in the “mistake chain.” The wording then shifts back to how this is a great opportunity to review and improve. Later on, in the midst of talking about how getting it right is more important, wording that “jobs are on the line” creeps in.
The undercurrent of a fear-based system is certainly present, and the opportunity to set a, “We’re in this together, what can we do better as a company?” tone that encourages open, honest communication is lost. This would not work in our organization, and something like this really only offers the appearance of working. People who are working in a fear-based climate will eventually leave, and while they remain they will go through the motions and take whatever action they can to keep from being associated with even the perception of a mistake in order to preserve their jobs. In addition to the lack of candor, I doubt that there would be much initiative in this atmosphere. I work in a software company, and we need initiative and open, honest communication!

Reply
June 3, 2010

Dave Moran

Wow! The memo opened up with a great articulation of the problem, but then launches into how there will be zero tolerance for errors and action against those in the “mistake chain.” The wording then shifts back to how this is a great opportunity to review and improve. Later on, in the midst of talking about how getting it right is more important, wording that “jobs are on the line” creeps in.
The undercurrent of a fear-based system is certainly present, and the opportunity to set a, “We’re in this together, what can we do better as a company?” tone that encourages open, honest communication is lost. This would not work in our organization, and something like this really only offers the appearance of working. People who are working in a fear-based climate will eventually leave, and while they remain they will go through the motions and take whatever action they can to keep from being associated with even the perception of a mistake in order to preserve their jobs. In addition to the lack of candor, I doubt that there would be much initiative in this atmosphere. I work in a software company, and we need initiative and open, honest communication!

Reply
June 3, 2010

Dave Moran

Wow! The memo opened up with a great articulation of the problem, but then launches into how there will be zero tolerance for errors and action against those in the “mistake chain.” The wording then shifts back to how this is a great opportunity to review and improve. Later on, in the midst of talking about how getting it right is more important, wording that “jobs are on the line” creeps in.
The undercurrent of a fear-based system is certainly present, and the opportunity to set a, “We’re in this together, what can we do better as a company?” tone that encourages open, honest communication is lost. This would not work in our organization, and something like this really only offers the appearance of working. People who are working in a fear-based climate will eventually leave, and while they remain they will go through the motions and take whatever action they can to keep from being associated with even the perception of a mistake in order to preserve their jobs. In addition to the lack of candor, I doubt that there would be much initiative in this atmosphere. I work in a software company, and we need initiative and open, honest communication!

Reply
June 3, 2010

Dave Moran

Wow! The memo opened up with a great articulation of the problem, but then launches into how there will be zero tolerance for errors and action against those in the “mistake chain.” The wording then shifts back to how this is a great opportunity to review and improve. Later on, in the midst of talking about how getting it right is more important, wording that “jobs are on the line” creeps in.
The undercurrent of a fear-based system is certainly present, and the opportunity to set a, “We’re in this together, what can we do better as a company?” tone that encourages open, honest communication is lost. This would not work in our organization, and something like this really only offers the appearance of working. People who are working in a fear-based climate will eventually leave, and while they remain they will go through the motions and take whatever action they can to keep from being associated with even the perception of a mistake in order to preserve their jobs. In addition to the lack of candor, I doubt that there would be much initiative in this atmosphere. I work in a software company, and we need initiative and open, honest communication!

Reply
June 3, 2010

Dave Moran

Wow! The memo opened up with a great articulation of the problem, but then launches into how there will be zero tolerance for errors and action against those in the “mistake chain.” The wording then shifts back to how this is a great opportunity to review and improve. Later on, in the midst of talking about how getting it right is more important, wording that “jobs are on the line” creeps in.
The undercurrent of a fear-based system is certainly present, and the opportunity to set a, “We’re in this together, what can we do better as a company?” tone that encourages open, honest communication is lost. This would not work in our organization, and something like this really only offers the appearance of working. People who are working in a fear-based climate will eventually leave, and while they remain they will go through the motions and take whatever action they can to keep from being associated with even the perception of a mistake in order to preserve their jobs. In addition to the lack of candor, I doubt that there would be much initiative in this atmosphere. I work in a software company, and we need initiative and open, honest communication!

Reply
June 3, 2010

Dave Moran

Wow! The memo opened up with a great articulation of the problem, but then launches into how there will be zero tolerance for errors and action against those in the “mistake chain.” The wording then shifts back to how this is a great opportunity to review and improve. Later on, in the midst of talking about how getting it right is more important, wording that “jobs are on the line” creeps in.
The undercurrent of a fear-based system is certainly present, and the opportunity to set a, “We’re in this together, what can we do better as a company?” tone that encourages open, honest communication is lost. This would not work in our organization, and something like this really only offers the appearance of working. People who are working in a fear-based climate will eventually leave, and while they remain they will go through the motions and take whatever action they can to keep from being associated with even the perception of a mistake in order to preserve their jobs. In addition to the lack of candor, I doubt that there would be much initiative in this atmosphere. I work in a software company, and we need initiative and open, honest communication!

Reply
June 3, 2010

Dave Moran

Wow! The memo opened up with a great articulation of the problem, but then launches into how there will be zero tolerance for errors and action against those in the “mistake chain.” The wording then shifts back to how this is a great opportunity to review and improve. Later on, in the midst of talking about how getting it right is more important, wording that “jobs are on the line” creeps in.
The undercurrent of a fear-based system is certainly present, and the opportunity to set a, “We’re in this together, what can we do better as a company?” tone that encourages open, honest communication is lost. This would not work in our organization, and something like this really only offers the appearance of working. People who are working in a fear-based climate will eventually leave, and while they remain they will go through the motions and take whatever action they can to keep from being associated with even the perception of a mistake in order to preserve their jobs. In addition to the lack of candor, I doubt that there would be much initiative in this atmosphere. I work in a software company, and we need initiative and open, honest communication!

Reply
June 3, 2010

Dave Moran

Wow! The memo opened up with a great articulation of the problem, but then launches into how there will be zero tolerance for errors and action against those in the “mistake chain.” The wording then shifts back to how this is a great opportunity to review and improve. Later on, in the midst of talking about how getting it right is more important, wording that “jobs are on the line” creeps in.
The undercurrent of a fear-based system is certainly present, and the opportunity to set a, “We’re in this together, what can we do better as a company?” tone that encourages open, honest communication is lost. This would not work in our organization, and something like this really only offers the appearance of working. People who are working in a fear-based climate will eventually leave, and while they remain they will go through the motions and take whatever action they can to keep from being associated with even the perception of a mistake in order to preserve their jobs. In addition to the lack of candor, I doubt that there would be much initiative in this atmosphere. I work in a software company, and we need initiative and open, honest communication!

Reply
June 4, 2010

Paul Gribbon

I think that the real problem is that the employees weren’t giving the “110%” which was asked….
I always give 111% which makes sure I never makes mistakes.
Joking aside, I hope that a journalist didn’t write that memo.

Reply
June 4, 2010

Paul Gribbon

I think that the real problem is that the employees weren’t giving the “110%” which was asked….
I always give 111% which makes sure I never makes mistakes.
Joking aside, I hope that a journalist didn’t write that memo.

Reply
June 4, 2010

Paul Gribbon

I think that the real problem is that the employees weren’t giving the “110%” which was asked….
I always give 111% which makes sure I never makes mistakes.
Joking aside, I hope that a journalist didn’t write that memo.

Reply
June 4, 2010

Paul Gribbon

I think that the real problem is that the employees weren’t giving the “110%” which was asked….
I always give 111% which makes sure I never makes mistakes.
Joking aside, I hope that a journalist didn’t write that memo.

Reply
June 4, 2010

Paul Gribbon

I think that the real problem is that the employees weren’t giving the “110%” which was asked….
I always give 111% which makes sure I never makes mistakes.
Joking aside, I hope that a journalist didn’t write that memo.

Reply
June 4, 2010

Paul Gribbon

I think that the real problem is that the employees weren’t giving the “110%” which was asked….
I always give 111% which makes sure I never makes mistakes.
Joking aside, I hope that a journalist didn’t write that memo.

Reply
June 4, 2010

Paul Gribbon

I think that the real problem is that the employees weren’t giving the “110%” which was asked….
I always give 111% which makes sure I never makes mistakes.
Joking aside, I hope that a journalist didn’t write that memo.

Reply
June 4, 2010

Paul Gribbon

I think that the real problem is that the employees weren’t giving the “110%” which was asked….
I always give 111% which makes sure I never makes mistakes.
Joking aside, I hope that a journalist didn’t write that memo.

Reply
June 8, 2010

Walter

Wow, what an email to read and it brought back flashbacks to company I worked at where the CEO wrote a similar memo stating “No failures tolerated and you will be fired for failure”. The response from the engineering team was simple: we only “designed” what was done or being done at the competitors and we went from leading the pack in profits to almost going broke.

Reply
June 8, 2010

Walter

Wow, what an email to read and it brought back flashbacks to company I worked at where the CEO wrote a similar memo stating “No failures tolerated and you will be fired for failure”. The response from the engineering team was simple: we only “designed” what was done or being done at the competitors and we went from leading the pack in profits to almost going broke.

Reply
June 8, 2010

Walter

Wow, what an email to read and it brought back flashbacks to company I worked at where the CEO wrote a similar memo stating “No failures tolerated and you will be fired for failure”. The response from the engineering team was simple: we only “designed” what was done or being done at the competitors and we went from leading the pack in profits to almost going broke.

Reply
June 8, 2010

Walter

Wow, what an email to read and it brought back flashbacks to company I worked at where the CEO wrote a similar memo stating “No failures tolerated and you will be fired for failure”. The response from the engineering team was simple: we only “designed” what was done or being done at the competitors and we went from leading the pack in profits to almost going broke.

Reply
June 8, 2010

Walter

Wow, what an email to read and it brought back flashbacks to company I worked at where the CEO wrote a similar memo stating “No failures tolerated and you will be fired for failure”. The response from the engineering team was simple: we only “designed” what was done or being done at the competitors and we went from leading the pack in profits to almost going broke.

Reply
June 8, 2010

Walter

Wow, what an email to read and it brought back flashbacks to company I worked at where the CEO wrote a similar memo stating “No failures tolerated and you will be fired for failure”. The response from the engineering team was simple: we only “designed” what was done or being done at the competitors and we went from leading the pack in profits to almost going broke.

Reply
June 8, 2010

Walter

Wow, what an email to read and it brought back flashbacks to company I worked at where the CEO wrote a similar memo stating “No failures tolerated and you will be fired for failure”. The response from the engineering team was simple: we only “designed” what was done or being done at the competitors and we went from leading the pack in profits to almost going broke.

Reply
June 8, 2010

Walter

Wow, what an email to read and it brought back flashbacks to company I worked at where the CEO wrote a similar memo stating “No failures tolerated and you will be fired for failure”. The response from the engineering team was simple: we only “designed” what was done or being done at the competitors and we went from leading the pack in profits to almost going broke.

Reply