Although “Drive out fear” is among Deming’s Fourteen Points for managers, freedom from fear is not something that can be simply mandated. It must be carefully nurtured in order to create both the “pride in workmanship” that Deming calls for and the joy in work that top organizations strive for their workers.

The critical importance of creating an environment where employees feel free to take risks and innovate practices is underlined by Armand Feigenbaum, sometimes known as “the father of total quality control” in The Power of Management Innovation. Leadership in driving out fear is essential to progress.

Some how-to steps can be seen in the seven-step process improvement approach that supports continuous quality improvement throughout an organization. Walking through these steps systematically may shed light on their usefulness for specific organizations.

Eliminating fear in the workplace is a process that must be analyzed like any process in organizations that are focused on quality improvement. Using a seven-step system (an elaboration of Deming’s Plan-Do-Check-Act approach), an intentional, systematic approach, is key. The seven steps, as defined in PQ Systems’ Total Quality Transformation, include:

Define the system Assess the current situation Analyze causes Try out improvement theory Study the results Standardize improvement Plan continuous improvement

1. Define the system

In defining a system that produces fear, identifying the underlying causes that bring about the fear is the first step. The check sheet, a useful tool to begin any analysis, is among approaches that can be used to summarize results of an anonymous survey, for example, of work groups that have been asked, “What are the sources of fear in this organization?”

In defining the system, an operational definition of fear must be articulated. “Fear” is defined as a condition ensuing from any barrier to one’s ability to take pride in his or her work. While these barriers may not actually create fear or terror, they inhibit employees’ willingness to take risks in order to improve processes, and rob them of the creative problem-solving opportunities that give satisfaction in one’s work life. In one organization, a survey was given to work groups, with the responses recorded on a check sheet:

With groups surveyed separately, it is possible to disaggregate this data to see differences among groups, but to examine the entire organization, the totals can be examined and analyzed.

2. Assess the current situation

In this step, the analysis focuses on the data and what it may indicate. The survey data suggests that the greatest source of fear in this organization lies in employees’ belief that their supervisors do not understand their work (“He has no idea what I do,” one worker commented). Related sources include wasted effort, changes in job expectations and tasks added without explanation. Before leaping to a response or suggesting a solution, it will be important to understand the reasons for this perception.

3. Analyze causes

To pursue this step in understanding the data, responses were solicited by using the Crawford slip method, engaging workers in writing their answers on small slips of paper and submitting them anonymously. Using sticky notes, similar responses are then grouped in an affinity diagram.

Responses:

Job description is out of date

Supervisor never comes to work site

Have little interaction with boss

Job has changed and boss doesn’t know it

HR department generated job description

New equipment has changed responsibilities

Boss is often off site

No collaboration in solving problems

Boss doesn’t like me

I finish assigned tasks too quickly

As the greatest contribution to fear, it would appear that job descriptions may be out of date or have changed, with little knowledge of supervisors or opportunity to update these descriptions. Workers are held responsible for work that may not actually be part of their jobs.

Brainstorming potential theories for improvement, a process management team in this case came up with a theory about addressing this issue.

“If workers meet with supervisors at least twice each month to discuss their jobs, the relationship of employee to boss will improve.”

4. Try out improvement theory

Selecting the group with the highest number of responses that reflected this concern (Work Group 1), the team put into place a system where a regular schedule of meetings took place. Workers had opportunities to share their concerns about their work, make suggestions about the work environment or job description, and respond to questions about their work from their supervisors, who as a result had opportunities to get to know each employee and his or her work. The team monitored the result for six months before repeating the survey.

5. Study the results

After six months, the survey was repeated, with a dramatic reduction in responses that reflected the relationships of workers and their bosses with respect to their jobs. It’s important to note that applying an improvement theory and understanding its impact requires repetition and time to analyze and evaluate the effect that it produces. If the theory proves not to provide improvement, the cycle can be repeated, to generate alternative improvement theories.

6. Standardize the improvement

With clear demonstration that the suggested change in the process had improved the situation for Group 1 in this case, the regular meetings were introduced in all work groups, and the outcomes monitored on a regular basis.

7. Plan continuous improvement

After this improvement plan has been applied to other work groups, process improvement teams can look at other areas that have been designated as sources of fear in the workplace.

It is clear that improvement cannot take place unless managers encourage this kind of introspection and are willing to accept suggestions (even criticism) from those whom they supervise. Organizations that see continuous improvement as a way of life, however, understand that process improvement applies to human interactions as well as machine capabilities.

Eliminating fear, as Deming no doubt understood well, contributes to employees’ sense of wellbeing and satisfaction with their work lives. In a world where 85 percent of workers say they hate their jobs, this is no small matter. Feeling positive about one’s work life undoubtedly leads to fewer work-related accidents and absences. “Studies have shown that the safest workplaces have cultures in which the workforce is inter-connected, knowing each other long and well. There’s stability and not much turnover. Conversations come easily. Openness and trust are established. Supervisors are on a first-name basis with employees, and stop to talk with them about their families, hobbies, or their weekends or vacations.” https://www.ishn.com/articles/108573-do-you-know-your-people-5-ways-to-assess-their-well-being

Deming’s imperative, “Drive out fear, so that everyone may work effectively for the company,” thus has implications far beyond the bottom line, recognizing that behind that nameless worker in an organization lies a willing human being with motivation to succeed. Creating an environment where this can happen is not an instant process, but one that must be nourished over time. As Rodgers and Hammerstein asserted in their 1943 musical “You’ve got to be carefully taught.” The right kind of teaching can happen with this seven-step plan for improvement.