More Eyes Would Be Better, Right?

Years ago, I was in management with the corporation I still work for (though in a different capacity). Upper management had decided they'd had enough of a particular kind of mistake being made, and so they made a rule that whenever one of your subordinates made that kind of mistake, you had to go to a big meeting in front of everybody else in management and explain to the entire group why that mistake had been made and what procedural change you were implementing to prevent it from happening ever again.

I can't fault upper management for taking a position that a certain type of mistake is unacceptable and trying to do something about it, but it doesn't take a genius to see how ridiculous this way of handling it is. On one particular occasion, one of my people made the Mistake of Doom. When I questioned her about it, she replied that she was well aware of exactly what the procedure was and exactly how unacceptable that mistake was, but she'd simply slipped up. She was human; what can you say to that? I had to come up with some lame procedural change for the meeting, but at the end of the day, the fact is that human beings mess up from time to time, no matter how unacceptable that mistake may be and how careful the person who makes it was being.

I found myself reminded of this story last week when something happened to one of my peers, but it requires a little background to lead up to it. My job is complicated and the stakes are high. There can be serious legal consequences if we make the wrong kind of mistake. Furthermore, we're required to constantly multitask and everything is on an extremely tight deadline. Someone decided several years back that it'd be a Good Idea to take one of the most experienced people and have him monitor everybody's work on an especially complex subprocess to make sure we did a better job with it. And sure enough, everybody took his advice and the subprocess improved.

Time passed, and upper management decided that it worked once, so it'd be another Good Idea to add a similar review for another subprocess. Then over the last two years or so they added another two. So not only do we have our actual superior watching what we do, we also have no less than four other people looking over our work and telling us how to do things better. As you can imagine, it gets more than a little frustrating having four very experienced people going over your work with a fine tooth comb looking for mistakes. It's not a question of if they're going to find mistakes; it's a question of how many and how big the mistakes they find will be. My very competent peer was being nitpicked over a minor error noticed by one of those reviewing people, and had to explain why she'd made the error and how she was going to avoid making it again in the future. The simple truth is, when you're doing everything as fast as you can and getting interrupted by someone roughly every three minutes, you're doing extremely well if your mistakes are occasional and minor.

I have this Paranoia-style vision of management deciding that we're not productive enough, so they keep pulling the most experienced people away from the actual work to review everybody else's work, until you eventually have thirty two people standing around the one person doing the actual work, each of them yelling advice simultaneously (and some of that advice being contradictory). We're not there yet, but we're working on it.