4.43 – 4.18 = 0.25. This week I am struggling. Is 4.18 close enough? Good enough? Is it okay to settle for 94.36%? When 100% is possible? Of course, now that the work is done at 94.36%, 100% means additional labor. So do we determine “good enough” based on the additional costs? Or is “good enough” never good enough? And do we even consider or address the fact that it could have been done at 100% in the same amount of time with the same effort as was put into the 94.36%? I understand diminishing returns, so perhaps the decision includes an analysis of the purpose and resulting actions from this number. If consequences are inconsequential and no harm comes to individuals in the making of this data, then perhaps ballpark is good enough. But if this is, say, an accountability measurement in which a lower number indicates a better performance, and let's say the overall average is 4.04, I would much rather be identified as a 4.18 than as a 4.43. 4.18 just seems so much closer to everyone else. Yet in this case, 4.18 is inaccurate.

I have always been labeled a perfectionist. And I have very high standards regarding fairness and justice. And these factors are very much a part of my struggling this week.

First, (and really as an aside), 4.04 is exceedingly high as an overall average. Let’s say 4.04 is the average number of requests communicated to obtain a required or desired service. If I had to go through a drive-thru on average 4.04 times to get my meal, I believe I would seek another establishment to patronize. On the other hand, in some government offices and/or other like-minded institutions (I’m thinking the Social Security office, the cable company, the bank…) in which condescending bureaucracy runs rampant, I might be thrilled with only 4.04 requests before fulfillment.

Second, should “good enough” (94.36%) ever be good enough? Especially when better or even perfect (100%) is attainable? And is this even more true with numbers and data that influence thoughts and actions? And if 100% accuracy is required, shouldn’t there be a system of checks for accuracy? And isn't that a supervisor's responsibility?

And third (and perhaps most important to the direction of this week's thought), how do I determine if the 94.36% is simply the limit of an individual's capability in the circumstance? Or laziness? Or apathy? Or even a malicious disregard? If it is a question of capability, then have we found potential for a learning/teaching moment from which to build on? If it is laziness or apathy, then again a teaching moment? Or perhaps a disciplinary action? And maybe an increase in accountability measures? Especially when it is an accountability measure inaccurately reported? If it is malicious disregard, then definitely discipline; right? And perhaps the beginning (or even the end) of the end. Or, (here is a radical thought), in this circumstance should I even consider individual responsibility? Or would it be best to allow the individual their individuality, perhaps make them aware of their mistake, then maybe let them choose if they would like a learning moment or if they would maybe rather just avoid tasks involving data? It does seem radical for a supervisor to allow their subordinate to choose their work, but when and where we can, why not? Productivity is enhanced by individual capability which is further enhanced by individual attraction to and curiosity about a task or a grouping of tasks. So, it only makes sense to (when possible) allow individuals to choose rather than to haphazardly assign tasks; especially in a setting in which versatility is expected and there are multiple tasks to assign. A misplaced or inconsiderate assignment may be resented which in turn could lead to laziness, apathy or even malicious disregard. And that brings us back to the difficulty of determining individual responsibility, now complicated by the knowledge that perhaps (because the supervisor did not bother to pre-assess interest and capability, nor did they check for accuracy) the supervisor is also (and perhaps as or more) responsible for the 94.36% when 100% was attainable.

I believe good enough is never good enough. I believe a supervisor can (to a point) assess output/results but no one except the individual can fairly assess the individual's effort and/or intent; especially when the expectation is versatility and the individual has not been trained for the specific task. I believe we should no longer, in good conscious, describe anyone as a subordinate. I believe we should no longer, in good conscious, treat anyone as a subordinate. Regardless of my beliefs, this is not, typically, how the workplace works. Nor do I believe this is typically how the human mind processes a task at hand. I obsess and work for perfection. I believe that in the (paycheck-to-paycheck) workplace, a majority of individuals accomplish a task to move on to the next task, believing quick is synonymous with efficient, never thinking outside the box, less concerned with accuracy than with output, and unconcerned with process improvement.

Responsibility: Obligation? Burden? Taken on? Assigned? Appreciated? Tolerated? Nurtured? Neglected?

To be assigned responsibility is a burden, tolerated and neglected.

To take on responsibility is an obligation, appreciated and nurtured.

Perhaps my point this week is that it should not be about accountability or learning moments or disciplinary action or separation. Perhaps my point this week is that it should be about awareness; a 360 degree, mutually beneficial, non-judgmental exchange of information to increase productivity, efficiency and accuracy. I do not believe accountability is a thing without awareness.

The opposite of aware is ignorant. The opposite of accountable is blameless. It is logical that if awareness must precede accountability, then ignorance (regardless of whose initiative is lacking) rejects appreciated-nurtured responsibility leaving only the tolerated-neglected-burden path of assigned responsibility that (by definition), because it does not include awareness, cannot include accountability.

Whether an individual chooses to be ignorant, or a power (i.e. supervisor, organization, government…) chooses to ignore (be ignorant of) ignorance, the result is the same. Simply put, to hold someone accountable for an assigned responsibility is oppression. To improve process and enhance productivity, efficiency and accuracy, those in power must allow individuals, whenever possible, to choose their work. And if/when this is not possible, those in power must be aware that an individual is unhappy with an assignment so they (the power) may empathize and react accordingly. And if this is a frequent or majority occurrence that (due to job requirements) will not change, the individual must be aware of this fact so they have an opportunity to adjust (either their interest / curiosity / capability or the circumstance) before a power feels they must make that adjustment for them; because at that point it will be a forced change of circumstance. A back and forth must occur; 360 degree awareness. It is a lot of work. Much easier for the power to simply bypass awareness, apply their take on accountability and not worry about that whole communicating and empathy thing.

Simply put, to hold someone accountable for an assigned responsibility is oppression. To improve process and enhance productivity, efficiency and accuracy, those in power must allow individuals, whenever possible, to choose their work.

Radical.