Goal Exercise

As the economic climate changes and as the business climate becomes uncertain it is imperative that you and your leadership team have a clear understanding of the mutual goals you are working toward. When business is going “good” this understanding is not regularly clarified and it can be very surprising to learn how your key managers interpret and prioritize their goals. Consequently they do not readily line up with the changing goal set necessary to weather a major shift in business climate.

Making quarterly numbers and meeting or exceeding forecast is not necessarily a sign that your managers are in tune with the goals of the company. Some times numbers can be made in spite of ourselves and yet we tend to believe that it is because everyone is operating as you want them to in every situation. However, success (just making numbers) can cover a multitude of sins.

A tight market, rapid arrival of a competitor, loss of a major customer can stress “reliable” business functions. Previously well-performing groups can begin to struggle or go into denial that a change is upon them. When you peel back the layers that distant us from the inner workings of these groups and take a closer look it becomes obvious that what we assumed were groups running on sound business rules and practices were running on auto-pilot driven by the market and not business discipline. Too often this is not discovered until it is discovered how it is impacting the bottom line.

We are less inclined to audit or challenge performing groups. There are always other more important issues that take up our time and why spend time “fixing something that is not broken”. However, you don’t just get up and run a marathon. You train for it. If you are going out for a run you stretch to make sure you don’t pull something. Do we do this to our businesses?

Take the time to “test” or “measure” your management team and business plan. Conduct a disaster drill that exercises practices and strategies that are rarely used to measure how well you are able to respond.

• What attitudes do you witness during the exercise?
• Was everyone on the same page?
• Did they all recognize the “urgency” of the situation and take appropriate measures?
• What groups already had early warning practices in place that helped them anticipate a change?
• Who were the leaders and who followed? Is this what you expected?
• Who recognized what tough decisions needed to be made and developed an implementation plan to make them?
• Did you discover a consistent understanding of the company goals or do you need to work on refining them, improving communication and execution?

This is a tough business practice to implement on top of everything else that you are asking your management team to do. However, when you regularly exercise under practice situations you will find that you can always respond faster, go farther and last longer when the real thing happens. The boundaries of your goals are sharper and better understood by the key people that are in key positions. Your company will be better prepared and have a good understanding of your strengths and weaknesses to develop a competitive response to unexpected circumstances.

Dealing with Employees Consistently

My experience in manufacturing began in a UAW union plant. I was part of a turnover of the management team designed to bring a fresh approach to dealing with a number of issues that the manufacturing team was struggling with. The most significant issue was the number of outstanding grievances that existed between the bargaining unit and management which consumed a great deal of “productive” time on a daily basis.

Why were there so many grievances? There were issues on both sides. Initial recruiting standards for employees and supervision were poorly defined and cronyism existed where friends and family were often employed without regard to qualifications, temperament or character. This was most evident in the supervision ranks which were the primary interface between management and union employees. Individual supervisors were given a wide birth in what they were allowed to do and how to do it with regard to how they used and directed people. Consequently many “inconsistencies” existed which led to a great deal on complaints as to how discipline issues were dealt with on a daily basis – both good and bad! The union stewards had a field day highlighting and comparing good examples with bad examples and the previous management team responded in a defensive way which further exacerbated the situation.

How was the situation brought under control? Our new management team took on the issue of dealing with employee issues in a proactive way with emphasis from the top down and that consistency was the new way to deal with complaints and discipline throughout the plant. Top and middle level management were constantly on the floor observing, coaching and available to assist front line supervisors as they applied the new supervision process. In some cases “hard” headed supervisors who resisted the new direction needed to move on. Recruiting standards for new supervisors were raised to measure the supervision attributes, temperament and desire to work in a manufacturing line environment. In a few cases, line employees stepped forward and moved into supervision and this also included the first female line supervisors (a rarity in the ‘70’s).

Changes were also made in the recruiting of line employees as well requiring minimal education accomplishments as a way to measure the interest of the prospective employee to advance themselves. This was most effective when a slow down and protracted strike resulted in a number or early employees hired when the plant was first staffed, who were poorly prepared for a work environment, did not have to be brought back and they were replaced with new, motivated employees.

Slowly the contentious work environment changed. Incidents of on-the-line disputes reduced to zero. The triple digit number of grievances dropped to double and then to single digit. The time spent disputing (negotiating) grievances dropped from hours per day to a couple of hours or less per week. The productive climate in the plant changed dramatically and the plant became a top performer reversing the reputation that it had when the new management team arrived.

While there were a number of changes throughout the plant to cause this change in performance the most significant was the change in dealing with people and it had a great impact on me. As I moved on to other management position with companies that were non-union it was obvious that many of the other managers did not appreciate the management environment of a non-union business. I would always address the “violations” that I noticed in my departments to be more employee focused and measuring how consistent our practices were in dealing with performance, discipline and behavior and ultimately the quality of the work environment. Again, this often required people to make major changes in the way they viewed there subordinates and in a few cases changes in personnel. However, the result of dealing with employees consistently was always rewarded with an increase in productivity, reduction in turn over and a positive work environment that attracted high achievers.

Betrayed by Work

Are you proud of the job, position or profession that you have developed over your working career? While you may have reached the prominent position in your company or industry that you have always desired do you find that you are not as comfortable or satisfied as you expected to be. Why is that?

Those who have worked hard at their careers, developing a strong reputation for performance and accomplishment and are often too preoccupied with their work to the exclusion of other people (non-work related), hobbies, volunteer experience and very often their own family. People that fit this profile are described as having a “life out of balance!”. A career focused life is a very self-serving existence which you may declare to be doing it for the company or your family or “??” but in reality it is a pre-occupation with your success. Unfortunately in many cases men and women find that what they were driving toward does not have the “rewards” they expected to receive and enjoy when they got “arrived”.

They are surrounded by people like themselves who are too often focused more on their own interests than yours. You don’t have the relationships (men primarily) that you would think your accomplishments would create or attract. Relationships that are needed when the tough life experiences arrive in your life when you ask “Who do I turn to?”. Is this due to your job or you?

Do not rely on work to be an end all! While you may achieve the desired image you are pursuing, you may not be the person you want to be. How do you answer the following questions?

1. Are you comfortable with people in non-work situations?
2. Are you able to give freely of your time to something other than work?
3. Are you recognized by those around you as a genuinely happy person?
4. Do you constantly seek the approval of others?
5. Is your life constantly too busy where even standing in line for tickets at a theater is agonizing?

If you found yourself answering yes to these questions then you need to re-examine “the life you always wanted”. More work-work is not going deal with these issues. You need to step back and take a look at where you are going and change the manner in which you approach your job. What am I talking about?

1. Consciously focus on other people. Those around you at work, the waiter that serves you, the neighbor down the street or your children at home that you may have never looked at in a different way in terms of what is going on in their lives. Spend time considering what they are dealing with in their lives and if possible and appropriate offering advice or support (i.e. helping them move on a weekend) to let them know they are not alone.
2. Commit to serving in a volunteer role – youth sport coach, non-profit position, ushering at church – where you give of yourself and serve outside of work.
3. Look for humor in your daily life. Engage with people who have the ability to find joy in what they do on a daily basis and have them help you see similar circumstances in your life and how to laugh at them or enjoy them with humor.
4. Do something anonymously to reduce your tendency to only do things that bring acknowledgement. Help someone without telling them who you are. Send money to an organization or person in need in a way that they will not be able to trace it to you.
5. Find a way to bring patience into your daily life. Let someone ahead of you in the check-out line. Find a way to bring solitude into your daily routine – get up 15 minutes earlier, schedule time in your calendar to not-be-busy. Use this time to bring order to your life.

By focusing on others, giving of ourselves in a volunteer role, seeing life through the lens of humor, helping others selflessly and doing so with an attitude of patience we bring a new bearing to who we are and a value to life and others that is not based on work. One day we will be “retired” and then what? Will that be the time to change and be a different person? Make the change now and expand your job satisfaction to be based on life beyond work so that when the rewards of working fall below what you expected and you feel betrayed you have something to fall back on that is far more rewarding.


For more information about “The Life You Always Wanted” click here.

Framing Job Value

Job satisfaction is often talked about in terms of what the company needs to do to make the job more rewarding and satisfying for the employee. The company has basic obligations to provide a reasonable and competitive work environment, effective tools and systems, training and compensation. Intangibles such as motivation programs, social opportunities to develop work relationships and teamwork add to a positive work environment.

Even if the company excels at all of these efforts, employees (owners included) can still struggle with job satisfaction. Why? Why does a company have a poor to mediocre attitude on the part of its employees when they appear to be doing all the right things. What are high performing companies doing to create a highly motivated work environment for their employees?
I recently heard a story about Bill Pollard, now the retired Chairman of ServiceMaster, who had to deal with a work performance issue at a hospital where the cleaning crew (janitors) had a morale problem toward their work duties resulting in a customer satisfaction problem. The crew seemed to be above average individuals and well qualified to do the work but they viewed themselves at the bottom of the pecking order in the hospital and this translated to the attitude and self image that they carried into their daily routine. They did not feel that what they did on a daily basis – clean floors, restrooms, hallways, etc. – had any value.

ServiceMaster took the novel approach of “framing” the job that the janitors were doing into an integral role in joining the healthcare professionals to improve the healthcare delivery and treatment of the patients. Turning their focus from cleaning floors to providing a “clean” facility where people could be treated better changed the value that the janitors placed on their jobs. Consequently the floors were cleaner, the restrooms regularly serviced and cleaned and job satisfaction improved significantly leading to a satisfied customer.

Are other companies helping their employees frame their jobs into one that has high value?

• Toro (lawn mowers) sent manufacturing employees to customer locations during slack production cycles – high quality golf courses such as Augusta – to work alongside the users of the equipment that they assembled and rarely had a chance to use or see in use. Result: These employees came back with recommendations on how to improve the product and produce a quality product.
• Disneyland has for years used the approach in training employees that they are actors providing entertainment for visitors – guests. They each have a role to play and are conditioned to be in character when in the presence of guests to create a high quality customer experience.
• Les Schwab sells tires but when you enter the parking lot and park your car you are often greeted at the car by an eager employee to respond to your needs. They don’t just shuffle over to the car since it is rare for them to not run over to you and present a professional appearance – clean uniform, recent haircut, and upbeat greeting.

There are many other examples but the common practice observed is the intentional effort to focus the employee on a role of value that they are satisfied with that will best serve the customer. Is this the practice at your company? Is this how you approach your job, how you interact with your employees and most importantly how this carries out to the customer.

Establishing a company signature culture such as Disneyland or Les Schwab can rarely be implemented without the full endorsement and “walk-the-talk” attitude from the owner or leadership team. This is something that is not someone else’s job and if you want to do it right, needs to permeate all that you and the rest of your company does on a daily basis. Inconsistencies will be quickly recognized and will erode all of the good efforts that others may do and you will come short of your objective.

Take a look at how your employees approach their jobs. Do they see value or drudgery? Come alongside them and redefine and “frame” what they see in their jobs into one that has value. You will be amazed at the impact this will have in their work life, personal life and the customers impression of your company.

Get the Facts!

Our new innovative product on the new 747-400 was experiencing a high failure rate during installation. Boeing engineering pointed the finger back to us as producing a failure prone product. However, due to our recent adoption of SPC tools and processes the failure modes were not indicative of a manufacturing related defect or failure.

Boeing was new to the SPC process and even though they were dictating that many of their suppliers adopt it they put aside our SPC evidence and remained firm in their belief with non-SPC data as their basis. We made repeated requests for Boeing engineering to go out onto the assembly line and talk to the installers to get a first hand understanding of we configuration in which the units were failing. These requests went nowhere and were denied. They were hesitant to do their own due diligence and have engineering talk the installers to get further details – a classic engineering/manufacturing silo effect.

Coincidentally British Aerospace was also putting our product, same design different package, on their new regional commuter jet the BAE 146. I made a courtesy visit to their factory and they greeted me with the news of our product “failing on the line”. I took the opportunity to ask if I could go into an aircraft where the product was installed and talk to the installation team. They immediately complied in an interest to get to the bottom of the problem.

While I did not have any detail failure analysis of these units I suspected that the failures they were having were of the same order as those at Boeing. I was escorted into a selected aircraft that was in the stage of assembly where our product was installed. I was introduced to the supervisor who quickly confirmed that the units were failing at a high rate. I asked to talk to the actual person who installed the units. He was nearby and said that yes, the units were failing but that was not the whole story. When the installed unit failed he would install a second unit and if it failed he then tested the wiring harness and almost in every instance he discovered a short in the wiring harness that was damaging our product. Our product was in fact testing their wiring harness to see if it was defective or not – an expensive proposition.

I asked if the wiring harnesses were high pot tested and they did not know. The engineering manager that I was with took me over to the wiring assembly area where the harnesses were assembled on large tables. The supervisor there said that at that time the harnesses were not high pot tested but they had a request into management to purchase the test adapters and equipment for the test but it had not been approved.

I returned to Seattle and immediately called for a meeting with Boeing where I presented my findings from my visit to British Aerospace. They were somewhat skeptical that what happened at BAE would occur at Boeing. I requested that they provide evidence that the 747-400 harnesses were high pot tested. A week late Boeing engineering reported that in fact the cause of the failures of our product was resolved. An immediate change had been made in their wiring harness process to high pot test them before they were put on the aircraft. Boeing accepted responsibility for all of the return units the “failed” and further failures dropped to a near zero level.

When failure modes don’t add up, trace the problem to its root cause and understand the failure environment. Go to the source and “get the facts” to make sure you are getting the real story. Too often organizational barriers filter information which is further distorted as it is passed through multiple people on its way to you and even within your company. It is amazing how quickly problems can be solved when you have the complete information.

Get the facts!

Use Your Brain Trust!

Late one afternoon the call came in that Boeing was putting a hold on receiving any further of our highest volume and most profitable product. They said the incoming rejection rate was too high and until this was resolved we were on hold. I had only been with the company a few months and I already had a number of fires I was dealing with and did not need another one, particularly with our biggest customer and one that had such immediate economic impact.

This was obviously a concern to everyone involved with the product line. How could this happen overnight? Well it didn’t! Boeing was under pressure to ramp up their production line and the quality problems with this product had been there for some time but were not high on their priority list but when it did percolate to the top they took immediate action.

I convened a meeting of manufacturing, engineering and test engineering to understand why the product was having such a poor incoming inspection quality. No one had an immediate answer for, in their minds, everything was “normal”. I asked everyone to work together and diagram how the product was currently manufactured, tested and environmentally stressed. We consumed several white boards with functional blocks and arrows. As we stood back we started asking questions about why it was manufactured and tested in this way and were these procedures the best way to do it to get the highest quality unit to the customer.

Quickly we identified a major flaw in the process. Two critical steps in the process were reversed and it apparently had been that way for some time. How did this happen? No one knew specifically, or own up to it, but it appeared to be the result of a “patch” applied to the manufacturing process to solve one problem that was now causing an even greater problem that was not reviewed to make sure it was compatible with the total process to produce a quality product.

The error in the process was corrected and all units currently in house were retested under the new process and within a matter of a few weeks the quality matter was resolved, units were exceeded incoming inspection standards, Boeing removed the product hold and paid invoices – life was good!

Taking advantage of the collective knowledge and expertise of those closest to the product, “the brain trust”, was the key to a quick resolution of this problem. As individuals they did not recognize the source of the problem as their perspective was affected by their bias of what they felt should be the right process. Fortunately as a group they were able to admit that the old process was flawed and could not produce a quality product, identify what changes needed to be made and establish a corrective action plan to implement to get all in house units, and eventually those at Boeing, retested, certified and accepted by Boeing.

Could this problem have been solved another way? Possibly but it would have taken longer, the outcome may not have changed the process, leaving a process in a condiiton that might create the same problem again and the response to Boeing would have been unreasonably delayed.

This incident raises a number of questions from our experience that you might want to consider for your company:

• What problem resolution process do you use in your company?
• Does it take a “stop shipment order” of this magnitude to get the right people in the room?
• Do your employees have the freedom to critically question the process without fear of retribution from those in power positions?
• Is your brain trust available to solve problems that need resolution fast or are the problems relegated to employees who are not in positions to get action within the company?
• Do not assume that just because you have a process that has been in existence for some time that it cannot become “corrupted” even under the best circumstances?

Make sure that your “brain trust” is applied to isolate and correct dysfunctional business processes and serve the best interests of the company and customer.

Are You a Change Agent?

“If you’re looking for a sure way to make enemies, change something” President Woodrow Wilson

All of us have experienced change in our businesses. These are changes that are necessary in order to respond to market needs, expanded or increased business growth, presence of new competition in the marketplace or the need to stimulate the organization to perform at a higher level. However, not everyone in our organizations view the need for change as an imperative to adopt in order to perpetuate the business and help it remain viable and competitive.

Why do we find employees so ready to resist change? It often begins when we recruit and hire them with what they believe they were “promised” as a job role and responsibilities. On the other hand it may fall to us who allow the organization to continue to operate past a point when change was necessary but we procrastinated or allowed ourselves to be distracted by other more important issues.

Highly competitive companies master the ability to change when conditions dictate. Key people are recruited who show an ability to recognize when it is time to make a change and are change enablers. They lead the change process and help other who are less likely to accept change to get over the hurdles that they imagine are in the way of success.

Is your organization change enabled? Do you have key people who are able to recognize when existing business practices are out of date or inappropriate for the current business circumstance. Are these key performers able to coach others who are fundamental to the successful adoption of changing business practices to see this as a positive change and not one that threatens them? Are your key performers measured on their ability to support change in addition to the other performance factors that they are expected to do as part of the their professional responsibilities?

Are you part of the problem or part of the solution? Too often business owners are a stick in the mud when change is needed as it often means accepting the ideas of others, often much younger and newer to the company, to obsolete or significantly modify business practices that you personally established. Is your first reaction to a suggestion to make a change defensive or supportive? How you are viewed as a change enabler – open to new ideas, encourage those who take a risk, willing to let people take responsibility, and forgiving if the change is not totally correct the first time – will determine how likely your company will consider change and implement it successfully.

Look for opportunities to encourage the “young Turks” in your organization to question what they are doing to see if it is the best way for the company to serve customers, design quality products, reduce the time to get new products to the market and control product cost. Determine if you have an appropriate process to handle change so that the change fits your company ethics, avoids conflicts elsewhere in the company, and involves the necessary parties that are involved. A very important test is to ask your employees (and in some cases customers) to assess whether your change process is successful or not.

Employees are most satisfied when they use business practices that are tuned to the business environment that they serve and possess an avenue to change these practices when they have a better idea or see a conflict when special circumstances occur. The stress level of employees can be reduced significantly if they can see a realistic way to influence how they conduct their responsibilities. Regularly examine the health of your company based upon its ability to change and change successfully in addition to P/L, Balance Sheet and the other measures by which we score our businesses.

Ownership/Leadership Delegation

A common attribute of company owners is there tendency to micro-manage and closely hold onto the operations of the company. They insist on being part of too many decisions and business practices that should be delegated to properly recruited and trained employees. However, the initiative, drive, product/market knowledge and independent problem solving skills that were fundamental in the founding of the business become a major obstacle to the efficient operation of the company as the size of the business exceeds their ability to handle it all.

The wise owner soon realizes that there are not enough hours in the day to be integral in the many details that need attention. He or she understands that they cannot be absorbed on one issue while two or more others stand waiting in line. They realize that the intimate knowledge and exposure they used to have of the business needs to be delegated to trained and trusted employees that are prepared to demonstrate that they “own” that area of the business as much or more than the owner.

Wise owners adjust where they get their satisfaction in the business by seeing others do what, in the past, only they could do. Transferring the primary roles of sales, product or operations leadership to other competent employees and helping them grow is where their greatest value can be applied to the company.

We can be obsessed with our importance and our self esteem becomes wrapped up in what we do at work. This is a trap! The harder you work to prove your ability, you find yourself on a treadmill of always proving yourself and demonstrating your importance. However, as we increase the hours that we work in our companies, are we just satisfying our need to be important or are we laying the foundation for others to eventually step in and take over. The test is what happens when you leave the company for a few days or take a two week vacation – without checking e-mail.

If on your return days or two weeks later, for example, and your staff clearly demonstrates that they stepped in and dealt with the normal and unexpected activities of the business then you are doing a good job. On the other hand, if you return and find chaos then you are surely wanted to get everything back into control but what happens next time. Will your customers be willing to hang in the wind when you are out next time? You may justify this condition by telling yourself how important your are to the company as you perform damage control but you clearly represent a critical liability to the company. One that needs immediate attention to avoid what happens when the proverbial truck happens to meet you in the road.

If you can’t let go then get help! The following details what steps you can take.

• Have someone look over your shoulder to help you develop a plan to delegate the critical priorities of your job to others either permanently or in a secondary role.
• Establish priorities to spend time developing people to improve their skills to handle more responsibility.
• Hold yourself accountable on a regular basis to developing others.
• Intentionally reassign meeting responsibilities that you used to handle, formally designate responsibilities to key people so that other employees know who is the primary person to contact, and direct others employees to them when they try to get you involved.
• Have regular meetings with your reports to go over how they are handling their responsibilities. Do not take control when emergencies reach a critical stage. Ask the responsible manager what they recommend, give them options to consider, help them make the decision and if necessary help them execute the decision.
• Where necessary make personnel changes to make sure you have the right people in the right positions that are rewarding for them and the company.
  

Effectively delegating ownership and leadership responsibilities is healthy for the company, helps it grow, keeps vital and valuable employees in the company and provides the opportunity for a balanced life for the real owner – you!