This is a short podcast episode where I deliver some education or at least opinion and perspective on leadership, operations and safety performance based on things I have seen or experienced or perhaps read or learned through dialogue with colleagues. In this episode I want to talk about the subject of operational workarounds or where operational teams will modify procedures to meet the goals of the organization, This can be a touchy subject because in a perfect world we want 100% compliance, but is that always possible and is it possible that workers are placed in a position where they cannot fully comply with all the workplace rules or informal demands? As an example, what if management says you have to meet the shortened production deadline no matter what, but at the same time complying with all the rules or formal procedures may result in delays and missing the deadline? Also, is it possible that employees are not equipped with the resources they need to get the job done safely and comply with rules and procedures? As an example, I was on a job site during a consulting engagement and I noticed a modified tool, which apparently the workers modified because the tool didn’t meet their needs. This isn’t surprising. Additionally, I recently read an aircraft accident report where the pilot placed a NVG case in front of the yoke to relieve control pressure off the yoke during the loading of bulky cargo. Maybe he was trying to make the procedure more effective, efficient and safer, but in the process forgot to remove the case. Then after takeoff the case blocked the control movement and the aircraft ultimately crashed. I believe these types of workarounds happen a lot and in the mind of the operator they are necessary. Is it right to simply run around and chastise employees for implementing workarounds or what Weick refers to as “bricolage” or the artful use of what’s at hand? Of course, some workarounds simply should not be permitted. We can’t have employees removing machine guards to get the job done faster. But isn’t that where strong leadership comes in? Shouldn’t leaders get out into the field and on the production floor to try to understand the challenges employees face when getting the job done? This doesn’t mean workarounds are simply ignored, because as the saying goes, “what we permit, we promote,” and ignoring workarounds because they are successful is like giving tacit approval. What if leaders engaged the workforce in a dialogue to find out what they needed to improve the system and what if these potential improvements were vetted to verify they were safe and didn’t violate regulatory compliance? Would it be possible to create a middle ground between compliance and workarounds so that a formalized process could be developed to improve production and safety performance? Some people might call this process Management of Change or MOC, but I don’t think the MOC process is used enough to identify gaps between work as imagined vs. work as done. What do you think? What is the role of the leader in balancing procedure compliance and rule compliance and identifying the challenges workers face in the field in getting the job done? What can leaders do to improve the process and help minimize cross-purpose goals and misalignment in the organization?