Setting goals for consequences

Answers to all of these questions are yes, if you take Deming s points literally. However, my evaluation of Deming s scholarship and workshop presentations, and my personal communications with him in 1990 and 1991, have led me to believe that Deming meant we should eliminate goal setting, slogans, and work targets as they are currently implemented. 

What does the goal of zero injuries mean an5way Is this goal reached when no work injuries are recorded for a day, a month, six months, or a year Does a work injmy indicate failure to reach the goal for a month, six months, or a year Does the average worker believe he or she can influence goal attainment, beyond simply avoiding personal injury  

I have seen several corporate mission statements with the safety goal of zero injuries. As I have indicated earlier, this is obviously an example of incorrect goal setting. It is easy enough to track injuries, but employees daily experiences lead them to believe that many injuries are beyond their direct control. For one thing, injuries usually happen to someone else— what can they do about that One injury in the workplace, perhaps resulting from another person s carelessness, ruins the goal of zero injuries. This leads to a perception of failme. 

No one likes to feel like a failure. So people typically avoid situations where failure is frequent or eminent, or they at least attempt to discount their own possible contribution to the failure by blaming factors beyond their own control (as discussed in Chapter 6). This fosters the belief that injuries are beyond personal control, and creates the sense that safety goal setting is a waste of time. 

So have I made my point Zero injuries should not be specified as a safety goal. Instead, zero injuries should be the aim or purpose of a safety mission—a mission that depends on various safety processes motivated in part by SMART goals. 

---