“WHAT DO YOU MEAN - I CAN’T DISCIPLINE HIM
BECAUSE HE SUBMITTED A CONDITION REPORT?”
Prepared for:
The 9th Annual Human Performance/Root Cause/Trending Conference
June 16-20, 2003
Groton, Connecticut
Author:
Dorian S. Conger
General Manager
Conger & Elsea, Inc.
9870 Highway 92, Suite 300
Woodstock, GA 30188
800-875-8709
congerd@aol.com
“WHAT DO YOU MEAN - I CAN’T DISCIPLINE HIM
BECAUSE HE SUBMITTED A CONDITION REPORT?”
Abstract Investigating human performance incidents for cause and disciplining the employee for
inappropriate behaviors have conflicting goals. Now, we can add the potential for
regulatory violations to an already complex process. Personnel who originate,
investigate, charter, supervise, provide information and review Condition Reports are
engaging in protected activities. Actions taken by personnel that may have an adverse
effect on these people during (or because of) the performance of their duties may result in
a violation of 10CFR50.7. Current corrective action processes often result in a
supervisor/manager evaluating a condition report which originated in their department
and which involves human performance issues involving their people. Performing the
investigation (including gathering information, analyzing information, developing
corrective actions and implementing the corrective actions) places the supervisor on the
horns of a perplexing dilemma. How can the supervisor/manager take the steps necessary
to correct an employee’s performance without violating (or appearing to violate) the
employee’s rights under 10CFR50.7?
There are three key issues. First, how can the Corrective Action Program best be
designed to reduce the likelihood of having a violation occur? Second, can a
supervisor/manager direct activities and discipline employees who have initiated a selfreport Condition Report on their own inappropriate behaviors? Third, and most
important, how can the Corrective Action Process and the Performance Improvement
Process coexist without violating 10CFR50.7? The answers to these questions, discussed
in the paper, can protect organizations and managers from putting themselves at risk
while managing their people.
Dorian S. Conger
General Manager
Conger & Elsea, Inc.
9870 Highway 92, Suite 300
Woodstock, GA 30188
800-875-8709
congerd@aol.com
INTRODUCTION Under the best of circumstances, investigating human performance incidents for cause
and disciplining the employee for inappropriate behaviors have conflicting goals. Now,
we can add the potential for regulatory violations to an already complex process. Recent
NRC actions/violations have made it apparent that people working within a corrective
action program are, by definition, engaging in a protected activity as defined by
10CFR50.7.
Personnel who originate, investigate, charter, supervise, provide
information and review Condition Reports are engaging in protected activities. Any
actions taken by facility personnel that may have an adverse effect on these people during
(or because of) the performance of their duties may result in a violation of 10CFR50.7.
Many current corrective actions processes result in a supervisor/manager evaluating a
condition report which originated in their department and which involves human
performance issues involving their people. Performing the investigation; including
gathering information, analyzing information, developing corrective actions and
implementing the corrective actions; places the supervisor on the horns of a perplexing
dilemma. How can the supervisor/manager take the steps necessary to correct an
employee’s performance without violating (or appearing to violate) the employee’s rights
under 10CFR50.7?
From a human performance standpoint, there are three key issues. First, how can the
Corrective Action Program best be designed to reduce the likelihood of having a
violation occur? Second, can a supervisor/manager direct activities and discipline
employees that have initiated a self-report Condition Report on their own inappropriate
behaviors? Third, and most important, how can the Corrective Action Process and the
Performance Improvement Process coexist without violating 10CFR50.7?
These questions can be successfully resolved. An organization can find the root causes
and fix them without tying the hands of the supervisors/managers with respect to
appropriate discipline. The answers to these questions, discussed in the paper, can
protect organizations and managers from putting themselves at risk while managing their
people.
The Situation –
Billy Barber has been a consistently poor performer over the last several months. His
errors have been captured in the condition reporting system of the plant and evaluated as
human performance issues by his supervisor, Sammy Smith. Billy has been one of the
Department’s biggest supporters of the new corrective action program and the lower
reporting thresholds. In fact, the last three mistakes that he made, he actually reported
himself through the condition reporting system. Sammy diligently evaluated all of the
associated information from each incident and had determined that Billy’s most recent
error – violating the company industrial safety practices – was the last straw. He met
with Billy this afternoon and told him to clean out his locker and pick up his final
paycheck. Just a minute ago, Sammy’s phone rang and it was the Employee Concerns
Program Advocate calling to inform him that Billy had come to him with a concern about
being persecuted for reporting plant problems through the condition reporting system. To
make matters worse, Billy was heading to the NRC Resident’s office before he left the
site to file an allegation about the chilling effect being created at the plant because people
were being fired for initiating condition reports. His parting comment to the ECP
Advocate was, “If I hadn’t reported my own errors the last three times, Sammy never
would have known about it and some of the equipment I worked on might have failed
during operation. My friends told me to keep my mouth shut, but I told them that the
new system was just what we needed. I guess I was naïve and they were right after all.
This plant won’t be hearing about much from my friends anymore, especially if they
make a mistake in the field.”
Sound uncomfortably familiar to you? This scene and others like it are played out at
plants throughout the United States.
How can the Corrective Action Program best be designed to reduce the likelihood of
having a violation occur?
Two of the recurring characteristics of corrective action programs that leave the process
open to questions in “the situation” are:
1. Condition reports initiated in one department or work group are frequently returned to
that work group to resolve. In the case of a self-report condition report, this program
feature puts the evaluator (often the supervisor) in the position of investigating
performance problems within his/her own work group. Any disciplinary action taken
because of the employee’s improper performance could have the appearance of being
based on the corrective action program investigation and trouble may begin. At its
essence, this is a question of independence.
One solution to this type of problem is to make a change to how condition reports are
tasked out for evaluation. The corrective action program could be established in a way
that assures that personnel errors are always evaluated by someone independent from the
work group where the error was made. While taking pressure off the work group
supervisor, this also has the added benefit of decreasing the bias associated with the
evaluation of the condition report.
2. Unless the condition report is deemed highly safety significant by the organization, no
formal analytical techniques are used in evaluating a condition report. The use of
“apparent cause evaluations” for almost everything eliminates the ability of an
organization to demonstrate the objective process by which the conclusions were
determined. As the term apparent cause implies – the most obvious cause determined
without additional information and no formal analysis, it is simply based on the
experiences (biases) of the individual performing the evaluation. There is no way to
demonstrate the objective nature of the conclusions.
The corrective action program needs to demonstrate objectivity in its processes. The
process must demonstrate that all condition reports are treated the same regardless of who
initiates the report, who investigates the report, and what the report concludes. The
single biggest protection against an allegation of an unjust evaluation is the use of formal
objective techniques to perform the analysis. By using and referencing a formal
analytical method, one can more easily demonstrate that all parties were given “fair”
consideration during the investigation.
The programmatic lack of independence and objectivity in the corrective action program
leaves an organization vulnerable to allegations of improper behavior. There are
opportunities for organizations to make adjustments to their existing corrective action
programs with only minor modifications that may provide the insulation necessary to
avoid such allegations.
Can a supervisor/manager direct investigation activities and discipline their own
personnel who have initiated a self-report Condition Report on their own
inappropriate behaviors?
This is exactly the circumstance in “the situation”. Billy initiated a self-report Condition
Report about his own inappropriate behavior, and Sammy is now investigating it as part
of the corrective action program. There are many facets to this circumstance that are
potentially problematic.
Since Billy works for Sammy, the odds are good that Sammy assigned the work to Billy
in the first place. How likely is Sammy to find problems with the following?
1. The supervisor did not provide an adequate pre-job briefing.
2. The supervisor did not walk down the job completely prior to assigning the job.
3. The supervisor did not identify the potential problems that might cause Billy
difficulty on the job.
4. The supervisor did not visit the job site to check on the job or answer questions.
5. The supervisor …
The list could go on and on. The idea is clear: Supervisors are not likely to identify the
problems associated with their own behavior while investigating the performance of
those they supervise. That doesn’t make them bad people, just human.
This creates a problem for the organization, especially when Billy decides that he has
been “wrongly accused”. The organization cannot say that the investigation was
thorough in its consideration of all the possible contributors or even the likely
contributors, when supervision was not examined with a high degree of attention. The
organization cannot claim that the investigation was conducted without bias. Since he is
the supervisor who assigned the work, Sammy has an obvious bias. He is not likely to
say that Billy was the wrong person for the job.
Knowing that he cannot let a worker in his group continue to perform badly without
consequence, Sammy sends Billy home after the investigation is completed. Now the
questions become: 1) If Billy had “kept his mouth shut”, would he have been likely to
have been let go? 2) Would Sammy ever have known about the error in time to tie it to
Billy? 3) Is disciplining Billy after completing the Condition Report investigation likely
to keep others from initiating Condition Reports when they make mistakes?
In order, the answers are:
1. No, he would probably still have been there had he kept quiet. The error may
never have surfaced. When the equipment did fail, other contributors could well
have been found.
2. No, in many cases, the error may not have even been discovered. Had the error
been discovered eventually, there may have been other competing causes, if Billy
didn’t raise his hand. Certainly there may have been no direct link.
3. Yes, employees will be very likely to tie the discipline to the Condition
Reporting and corrective action process. If discipline is an outcome when I file a
Condition Report about my own error, the organization better find another way to
discover it, because I’m not talking. Look what happened to “good old Billy”.
In both of these circumstances, the best solution may well be the one that is the most
obvious. Organizations are inviting trouble when they ask supervisors to investigate
Condition Reports initiated within their own work group by those people they supervise.
By assigning the investigation to another party, the organization is increasing the chances
for a thorough investigation, including the consideration of supervisory contributors to
mistakes. Using another party for the investigation, also, means that the organization is
removing the supervisor from a potentially difficult situation/dilemma. A better
investigation and less pressure on the supervisor, sounds like a good plan. It also has the
added benefit of not inadvertently discouraging personnel from initiating Condition
Reports.
How can the Corrective Action Process and the Performance Improvement Process
coexist without violating 10CFR50.7?
While many systems in facilities work better through integration, collaboration and
synergy, these two processes DO NOT fit that model. The best move that an
organization can make is to separate these two systems by as high and thick a wall as
comfort allows. Such an action is frequently outside the comfort zone of many in line
management. They admittedly lose some direct control over the corrective action process
and there is increased pressure on line management to get into the field and observe the
work. Here are some characteristics of the ideal model for these two programs inside an
organization.
In an ideal organization, supervisors would be expected to spend time in the field (at least
4-6 hours each day) observing the work performance of their people. When they
observed their people making a mistake, they would be able to address it as a
performance matter immediately and not have to rely on the Condition Reporting process
to identify problems in their work group. If unreported mistakes or inappropriate
behaviors discovered during the normal course of these observations, disciplinary action
may be taken by the supervisor. Discipline becomes a performance management
problem and should be dealt with by line managers in the same way that they deal with
other performance issues.
In an ideal organization, the Corrective Action Program would be completely separate
from the line organization with the sole purpose of improving the organization’s way of
doing business through problem resolution. When Condition Reports were filed, they
would be investigated by people who were functionally separate from the line
organization – someone without “a dog in the fight.” Information available to the
Condition Report investigation would not be shared with the line managers and line
managers would be specifically prohibited from using the information in the Condition
Reports as a basis for any disciplinary action (actions of that type would result in
disciplinary action against the supervisor). People providing information to the condition
report investigation would be told that said information cannot be used against them in
any disciplinary action at the plant.
As to self-reporting of problems, the ideal organization would encourage such honesty in
reporting.
People who self-report mistakes would be assured that they cannot be
disciplined for an error that has been self-reported. Errors that have not been selfreported, but that are discovered by a supervisor during the normal course of their duties
may result in disciplinary action through the line organization.
The closer organizations come to ideals described above, the less likely they are to have
problems with 50.7 issues resulting from implementing the corrective action processes.
Some organizations are trying to implement pieces of the model process. A few
organizations in other industries (most notably in manufacturing and chemical
processing) have implemented the ideal model with remarkably positive results in error
reduction and performance improvement.
Conclusion With respect to human performance, there are three key questions - How can the
Corrective Action Program best be designed to reduce the likelihood of having a
violation occur? Can a supervisor/manager direct activities and discipline employees that
have initiated a self-report Condition Report on their own inappropriate behaviors? How
can the Corrective Action Process and the Performance Improvement Process coexist
without violating 10CFR50.7?
The answers to these questions converge on a series of potentially successful solutions,
but they require adaptations by most industry organizations. Taking the steps needed to
implement the suggested solutions will reduce the likelihood of an organization having
50.7 difficulties associated with their corrective action program implementation. At this
point, it is impossible to say that taking even all of these suggestions would preclude such
problems entirely. The most important adjustments for organizations to make are:
1. The level of investigation independence should be increased by ensuring that personnel
errors are evaluated by a person outside the reporting chain of those involved in the error.
2. The level of demonstrable objectivity in investigations should be increased by applying
the use of formal analytical processes on human error investigations.
3. Condition Reports initiated within one group should be evaluated by personnel from
outside the reporting chain of that group and, if needed, not by a person inside the group
toward which the Condition Report is directed.
4. Disciplinary action should be based exclusively on information gained by a
supervisor/manager during the performance of their normal managerial duties.
5. Line management should be prohibited from using information from the corrective
action program/process in support of any disciplinary action.
6. Personnel should be assured that those who self-report errors cannot be disciplined for
information contained in the self-report.
What are the other expected benefits of these changes for most organizations?
1. Improved investigation results and more effective corrective actions. The
investigations will be based on more complete and more accurate information. The use
of formal analysis assures that the results of the investigations are more reliable and more
valid. Therefore, the subsequent recommended corrective actions are more likely to be
effective in resolving the real causes.
2. Increased level of openness in the self-reporting of errors, which leads to quicker
discovery and correction of the resulting problems. Removing the potential for
punishment for self-reporting incidents will result in an increased level of incident/near
miss reporting. Therefore, earlier problem identification and resolution can occur.
3. A reduction in disciplinary actions, but the disciplinary actions taken have more
effective results. “Amnesty” for self-report and corrective action program discovered
human performance problems may result in fewer overall disciplinary actions being taken
against employees. However, by placing the responsibility to line supervisors to identify
and address the performance problems of their employees through the management
system, the actions taken are more likely to be viewed as appropriate and achieve the
desired result.
These are a few of the positive outcomes. If implemented correctly, there is also an ever
increasing level of trust among the people in the organization. Finally, there is the
inevitable reduction in the likelihood of 10CFR50.7 concerns aimed at the
implementation of the corrective action program.
Comments and questions about this paper are welcomed. Please contact Dorian Conger at 1-800-875-8709
or congerd@aol.com.