[_n_b_]

I work in the nuclear industry, where most places are pretty good about maintaining a "blame-free" culture. You focus on what processes and procedures failed, what controls were missing, etc., that allowed somebody to make a mistake.

As this attitude was adopted, things shifted too far (at least in the opinion of industry groups, and my observation) to the point where people underperforming to the point of negligence weren't blamed, and the corrective actions to prevent reoccurrences of problems they caused ended up being cumbersome and expensive without really improving safety. (And in this industry, everything relates back to safety.)

In recent years, things have shifted back towards a more pragmatic middle ground. There are tools to assess if a problem was organizational (and it still almost always is) or if there was some element of personal negligence involved. This follows with an industry wide trend of trying to fix the real problems that affect safety and operations, not over-engineer cumbersome corrective actions.

[lostcolony]

Well, that's just it, the fact that underperformers aren't recognized is also a symptom of the process, and the fix is fixing the process, not throwing away the process.

Every problem is organizational, even those caused by individuals, because it's the organization's job to recognize and remove those individuals where appropriate.

[lev99]

In a bad organization many people that would perform to satisfactory levels begin to underperform. One signal of this is when individual responsibility is removed from the equation.

I enjoy organizations where individual's expectations are clearly defined, and I prefer if there are consequences for missing those expectations because I feel like it increases the reliability of the team.

[commandlinefan]

> where people underperforming to the point of negligence

Well (to play devil's advocate just a bit) - isn't the ultimate end-goal of an end-state robust process one in which people can not just underperform, but be replaced completely?

[MR4D]

Only if the technology exists to do so.

Given the above discussion about a nuke plant, think of all the complexity inside it: - monitors - alerts & triggers - valves - compressors and other rotating equipment - fire safety - electrical systems

All of those have to be checked, tested, maintained, and fixed on a periodic basis over their lifetimes.

An incompetent person (or group) will eventually be the cause of something.

Maybe 100 years in the future we'll have self-operating nuke plants, but doubtful in my lifetime because of the incredible scale of complexity.

[advisedwang]

What are the tools you you to assess if a problem is organizational or personal?