Skip to content
Client area
EN
Request a demo
QHSE · Quality, Hygiene, Safety and Environment · programme 08

Make everyone accountable

Show that quality is everyone's business, not just the auditors'.

Why this programme

The programme puts each participant in the shoes of the person who inspects, then of the person on the receiving end of the defect, then of the person who fixes it. Quality stops being someone else’s job.

A bad system will beat a good person every time.

W. Edwards Demingstatistician, father of quality managementDeming’s four-day seminar, Phoenix (Arizona), notes by Mike Stoecklein; quotation catalogued by The W. Edwards Deming Institute, 1993

What your teams experience

  1. The customer: experience the consequences of a defect from the recipient’s point of view.
  2. Auditor for a day: each team inspects another team’s work, in a spirit of goodwill.
  3. My contribution: identify, in your own role, what guarantees quality.
  4. The commitment: each team sets out what it will do from tomorrow.

Each activity opens and closes with a projected cinematic sequence, personalised for your teams. The facilitator sets the pace: nothing moves forward without them.

What the company gains

Quality accountability understood at every workstation, and commitments formulated by the teams.

43 %

Tips were the most common detection method, accounting for 43% of cases; more than half of tips came from employees.

Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE)Occupational Fraud 2026: A Report to the Nations, 2026

How we tailor it to you

Your wording, departments, figures and photos are built into the challenges and cinematic sequences, to the letter. The look follows your brand guidelines. Teams are formed on the spot or based on your organisation chart. The session report is delivered to you after the event.

The sources of this programme

Every game, measure and reminder in this programme builds on published research. The facilitator cites it in the debriefs, and you can check every reference.

  1. Grant, A. M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 108-124. 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108
  2. Grant, A. M., et al. (2007). Impact and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with beneficiaries on persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 53-67. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.05.004
  3. Grant, A. M., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). It's not all about me: Motivating hand hygiene among health care professionals by focusing on patients. Psychological Science, 22(12), 1494-1499. 10.1177/0956797611419172
  4. Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., & Farh, J.-L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71-92. 10.5465/amj.2010.0176
  5. Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869-884. 10.5465/amj.2007.26279183
  6. Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 173-197. 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328
  7. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284. 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
The foundations shared by all our programmes (22 references)

The mechanics of our sessions: team play, the debrief, the before-and-after measure, spaced reminders.

  1. Nair, A. (2006). Meta-analysis of the relationship between quality management practices and firm performance—implications for quality management theory development. Journal of Operations Management, 24(6), 948-975. 10.1016/j.jom.2005.11.005
  2. Kaynak, H. (2003). The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(4), 405-435. 10.1016/S0272-6963(03)00004-4
  3. Sousa, R., & Voss, C. A. (2002). Quality management re-visited: A reflective review and agenda for future research. Journal of Operations Management, 20(1), 91-109. 10.1016/S0272-6963(01)00088-2
  4. Levine, D. I., & Toffel, M. W. (2010). Quality management and job quality: How the ISO 9001 standard for quality management systems affects employees and employers. Management Science, 56(6), 978-996. 10.1287/mnsc.1100.1159
  5. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. 10.2307/2666999
  6. Tucker, A. L., & Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Why hospitals don't learn from failures: Organizational and psychological dynamics that inhibit system change. California Management Review, 45(2), 55-72. 10.2307/41166165
  7. Reason, J. (2000). Human error: Models and management. BMJ, 320(7237), 768-770. 10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768
  8. Dekker, S. (2007). Just Culture: Balancing Safety and Accountability. Ashgate (ouvrage).
  9. Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(1), 96-102. 10.1037/0021-9010.65.1.96
  10. Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C., & Burke, M. J. (2009). Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1103-1127. 10.1037/a0016172
  11. Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 946-953. 10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.946
  12. Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119-142. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00797.x
  13. Reason, J., Parker, D., & Lawton, R. (1998). Organizational controls and safety: The varieties of rule-related behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71(4), 289-304. 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1998.tb00678.x
  14. Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55(1), 231-245. 10.1177/0018720812448394
  15. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119. 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
  16. Howard, G. S. (1980). Response-shift bias: A problem in evaluating interventions with pre/post self-reports. Evaluation Review, 4(1), 93-106. 10.1177/0193841X8000400105
  17. ISO 9001:2015. Quality management systems — Requirements. Organisation internationale de normalisation (norme). www.iso.org/standard/62085.html
  18. ISO 14001:2015. Environmental management systems — Requirements with guidance for use. Organisation internationale de normalisation (norme). www.iso.org/standard/60857.html
  19. ISO 45001:2018. Occupational health and safety management systems — Requirements with guidance for use. Organisation internationale de normalisation (norme). www.iso.org/standard/63787.html
  20. ISO 22000:2018. Food safety management systems — Requirements for any organization in the food chain. Organisation internationale de normalisation (norme). www.iso.org/standard/65464.html
  21. INNORPI, Institut national de la normalisation et de la propriété industrielle (Tunisie) : normalisation, certification NT, fiche de membre ISO (organisme). ; https://www.iso.org/member/2158.html www.innorpi.tn/
  22. TUNAC, Conseil national d'accréditation (Tunisie) : accréditation des organismes de certification (ISO/IEC 17021-1) et accords de reconnaissance mutuelle EA, ILAC, IAF (organisme). www.tunac.tn/

Before you book

What is digital team building?

A team building session in which teams play challenges on participants' phones while a big screen shows the running order, the scores and the cinematic sequences. A facilitator runs the room from start to finish. Everything happens in person.

Do we need to install an app?

No. Participants scan a QR code and play in their phone's browser. No account, no password, no installation. It works on iPhone and Android.

Is there a limit on the number of participants?

No. The platform adapts to your headcount, from a small team to the whole company, in one or several rooms.

Demo

See “Make everyone accountable” in action.

Thirty minutes on your premises. You play a challenge and see the report at the end.

Request a demo