Archive for July, 2010

« Older Entries

The Trellis of Sustainability: Engaged Stakeholders - Afia Mansoor

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

trellis

 

Engaging the stakeholders of an organization is crucial for ensuring its sustainability. Engaged customers, employees and even industry rivals make up a cohesive trellis on which an organization can grow securely.

At the very beginning however, it is important to analyse how an organization views its stakeholders. Are stakeholders the means to achieve the end of results or are they the end themselves; securing results as they grow?

We at Schuitema profess strongly that for any organization to flourish, its stakeholders must be viewed as an end to the means of results. The focus of the organization must be to serve stakeholders indiscriminately. And, the process leads to remarkable results.

How to Serve the stakeholder?

The foundation of serving stakeholders lies in giving them significance. And giving significance is really about giving respect to the other. Giving respect in turn, achieves stakeholder engagement in extraordinary ways.

When a stakeholder, for instance the employee, is recognised as the goal of the game, the focus of the organization switches from what it can get out of the employee to what it can give to the employee. That, is also the essence of social responsibility.

There are two important ways that an organization can serve its employees:

1. Affirming the Individual:

Schuitema’s Care and Growth Leadershipâ„¢ Model advocates that an individual working for an organization must be cared for. This care goes beyond the immediate results the individual is supposed to secure for the organization. So the individual is not just a toolkit, but a human being with aspirations and emotions.

Telenor, our client for the Care and Growth Leadershipâ„¢ Model has practiced this philosophy in interesting ways. The company invests a huge amount of money in gauging employee concerns, aspirations and responses to work demands. A survey called IVC (Internal Value Creation) is managed by an external party and asks employees questions about their work/life balance at the company or how their work has been made easier by their bosses. The company adjusts its own dynamics for employees according to these responses – thus realizing the benefits of the hard work behind the survey.

Recently Telenor Pakistan also initiated a campaign where employees submitted true stories of how they lived the core values of the company. Even though most stories had nothing to do with work, the company appreciated the best responses with a view towards affirming the individuals working with it.

Telenor’s management believes that since steps like these have been taken to give significance to the employees, the company has been earning accolades for being one of the best employers in the country. And, the company is also doing very well from a business point of view. No surprise there for stakeholder engagement proponents.

grapevine

2. Keeping the best interest of the individual in mind:

Serving employees in the best possible way also includes treating them appropriately in a given situation.

Serving and giving significance in an organization should not be misconstrued to mean management that is soft on all issues; including accountability. For instance, if an employee, despite having the Means (infrastructure, tools and systems required to do the task) and Ability (knowing how to perform a task and why it needs to be done) to deliver, shows consistent poor performance against the specified standards, then it is in the employee’s best interest to be held accountable for the lack of performance.

A workforce that feels accountable towards performing and has been given the means and ability to work, is an engaged team. No wonder that in many government sector concerns of Pakistan, where holding people accountable for their performance is often a low priority issue, workforce can be disengaged and do not act in sync with the objectives of the very organization they work for.

These two criteria form the foundation of the trellis of engaged stakeholders – who in turn spell the organization’s sustainability.

 

 

The article was published in Triple Bottom Line - A CSR Journal on 25 June 2010. Other insightful articles from the journal can be read from the website: www.tbl.com.pk

Photos Courtesy:

http://www.uncommoncloth.com/.%5C72%5Ctrellis_full_72.jpg

http://www.kristinbennettart.com/fresconuovo/grapevine%20firescreen.jpg

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Afia Mansoor, Care and Growth Leadership, Corporate Social Responsibility | No Comments »

Mediocrity to Excellence in the Classroom - Part 3 - Shahpur Jamall

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

 

POWER vs. CONTROL

 

great-teacher

 

During my 25 years of involvement with education I have seen classrooms where students respond to a teacher’s authority without a challenge. I have also seen teachers who manage to motivate their students to really work hard in a particular subject, even if they are not working in others. To understand why students respond positively to the authority of some teachers and challenge others we need to explore the difference between Power and Control.

 

When you force someone to do something under threat, and they do what is asked of them out of fear of punishment, that is control; not real power. The analogy would be the difference between a military dictator and a genuine leader. Both of them would get people to do things, but the results would be very different. This is because people obey the dictates of a dictator because he is backed up by the barrel of gun. They act out of fear and compulsion. A classroom or an organization where the predominant feeling is fear, is in the long term doomed to mediocrity because people will only do the minimum that they have to do to avoid punishment

 

On the other hand people obey a genuine leader out of loyalty, trust and respect. The hallmark of a true leader is that his role is to serve his people.  Therefore, people work willingly for a leader because they sense that he is ‘there’ for them. 

 

When people work willingly, they go the extra mile. Therefore to encourage excellence, which is to bring out the best in others, we must engage the person’s will.  The issue, therefore, is how does a teacher, like a leader, get real power, which is when students submit to the teacher’s authority willingly and work for this person because they want to work for him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Care and Growth Leadership, Education, Shahpur Jamall | 1 Comment »

Rejecting the Busyness in Business - Mike Morrison

Saturday, July 24th, 2010

busy-business 

 Mike Morrison is a Management Consultant, Dean University of Toyota, and author of a well known business book titled “The Other Side of the Card:Where Your Authentic Leadership Story Begins”. In his recent fortnightly column he touched upon something quite interesting and insightful which we would like to share with you…




Our lives - and our leadership journeys - tend to follow one of two paths:  the “conventional” and the “unconventional.”  The conventional path is driven by our work cultures - cultures that tend to thrive on action, activity, and results. That’s why it’s called work.  So, when we are at work, we need to be “doing” something (anything).


Here is where we will start the journey.  Our lives are accelerating in terms of increasing complexity, unmanageable aspects of time, escalating expectations, and declining resources.  Welcome to the age of anxiety. In the process, we are losing our sense of community and our ability to be fully present for each other when we are needed most.

“I’m so busy -  I have lots of meetings to manage, goals to meet, and a to-do list that just doesn’t quit. You should see my e-mail.  Lunch date?  Maybe next week.  Gotta run, I’m late for my next appointment!”


Busyness gets noticed in work.  It’s praised by others.  It also gives us a sense of self-importance (I must be important . . . look how busy I am). 

 

Busyness also makes it difficult to relate to others who are not being swept forward with the same level of determination and flurry of activity. 

Unfortunately, “busyness” also absolves us of our need to do the deeper and more profound work that will truly make a difference in our personal and professional lives.  We can’t stop, look, or listen.  We are simply too busy going to meetings, saying yes to all requests, and “doing our best.”  However, in the process we lose sight of the bigger issues that underlie our work.  We continuously attack the surface issues - failing to identify and solve the core source of the problem.

Our bias for action is so strong that we no longer question - “why are we even doing this?”

When we are forced to slow down, we miss the sense of urgency that comes from the “busyness” pace.  In fact, slowing down (e.g., having to stay home with a sick family member) creates a sense of vulnerability that occurs when we get pulled from the game.  We dutifully complete our responsibility to family but somehow it still feels like a distraction and we cannot wait to re-enter our go-go world. 

Here’s the deal.  “Busyness” - the wrong answer to the complexities and responsibilities of life - has never been associated with great work. To be in the moment - to be fully present and attentive to the person or task at hand has become a lost art in our go-go, web-based culture.  We are physically present but our mind, psychic energy, and deeper capacities have been unwittingly diverted or diffused by the three sins of distraction:

1.  Trying to do too much:  We often fall into the “busyness trap” -eventually becoming addicted to the high that comes from a caffeine-fueled over-engagement.

2.  Trying to do too many things:  We also fall prey to the multi-tasking madness that is enabled by our hand-held and desktop devices that are grossly mismanaged at the personal level (leading to TADD - technology-assisted attention deficit disorders). 

3.  Trying to fit one more thing in:  This is also known as the time management trap.  We believe we can manage time - but it’s the wrong focus and leads us to do dumb things.

 

For example, you look at your watch and it is five minutes before you meet a friend in the lobby for lunch.  You could leave now and arrive comfortably in time - but you don’t.  You turn to your e-mail, quickly opening all new deliveries without fully responding to any of them. Unfortunately, the e-mail from your boss has a troubling tone to it - and the anxiety it produces follows you into your lunch date.

The non-conventional leader refuses to be swept along by this new cultural current. They protect and enjoy slack time - savoring quiet moments of reflection and rejuvenation.

 

officezen

 

For the non-conventional leader, “reflection” is just as important as “response.” Through reflection, they facilitate their own potential to create meaning.  They slow down.  Go off line.  They think - not just process information - but bring their fullest cognitive and emotional capability to the issue at hand.

 

 

You don’t need a mountaintop.  You just need to create some time and space.

 

Another key element of reflection is that we remain open to adjusting our ideas about our selves and the world.  By doing so, we learn to view our challenges differently. It allows us to counter the automatic, “busyness” thinking that leads us to the same insights and solutions.

Simply stated, the non-conventional leader is not “busy.”  They have a presence that suggests the opposite…  they have purpose.


Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Fakhir Shah | No Comments »

Dr Happiness shares more Wisdom!

Monday, July 19th, 2010

sofia1

Sofia Kauko-Valli is a Social Entrepreneurship teacher at the University of Jyvaskyla, Finland. Due to her keen interest in areas of Happiness and spirituality, she runs a Happiness Clinic at her university and coaches people professionally on how to be happy!

We carried an article earlier on Sofia revealing the secrets of happiness. Now she talks about forgiveness, mindfulness and healing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

poetry How do you believe a fractured society can heal itself?

To me it all starts with you and me. If we want to heal the society we need to become the change we want to see and in a sense we need to rise up and take 100% responsibility for what is, even if it was handed to us by other people. I

It is important to understand that we are not isolated from each other but that we are part of a whole. If someone else is suffering it is not their problem only, it should be ours too because we all are connected to each other. I think healing follows when we stop thinking about ourselves only and about what we can get out of events and situations and start concentrating on what we can do, what we can change and what we can contribute to.

Although it may seem that the change is very slow in the beginning I think the breakthroughs will come quickly as more and more people become aware and concentrate on their own piece in the puzzle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What aids forgiveness?

I really love this question. For me forgiveness was a really hard thing for so many years. When I felt offended I could not imagine forgiving the other person because I felt it was so unfair - they would not get what they deserve and they would get off the hook somehow. It took me a long time to realize that holding onto offence came with a high price, namely growing bitterness. I reached my personal breakthrough when someone defined unforgiveness as - drinking poison and expecting someone else to die. How true that was. While I was simmering in my grudges the other person went happily about their life not maybe even realizing they had been an offence in the first place.

The other thing that really helped me was to understand my own need for forgiveness. I have come to the conclusion that it really is easy to forgive if you understand that unforgiveness only hurts your own life and concentrate more on your own walk than on the faults of others.


What is mindfulness and how can one achieve it?

To me mindfulness is all about being actively aware and present in the Here and Now. I don’t really know how others describe it, but to me it is all about presence. I think for many people, especially those who have adopted the western crazy lifestyle, being present with all of your senses, soul, spirit & body is really hard. The mind has a race on its own. Either constantly rehashing some past events and situations or thinking about what will be in the future.

In a sense we are never in the present as part of us is constantly somewhere else. Being mindful to me is very healing and invigorating. Achieving mindfulness is also easy although it takes some practice. You can do it anywhere, in any kind of situation. The most mundane tasks - like washing dishes by hand - can be made into a mindfulness exercise. The point is to captivate your thoughts, to silence them and choose to be in the here-and-now experiencing what is going on with all of your senses. For instance, if you have a habit of worrying you can tell yourself that you will most certainly worry on Tuesdays between 1 and 2 pm and let go of the worry thoughts and come back into the Here-and-Now. It takes some practice but finding a place of just being, being without judgments or expectations, just experiencing what is, is well worth it.

So often in life we seem to forget that we really were created to be human beings - just being alive and aware, instead of always doing something, always trying to achieve something.

Is success in life linked to spirituality in your opinion?


Yes. I think so. Spirituality to me is all about finding meaning and purpose in life regardless of what form the practice of your daily spiritual life takes. The most successful people seem to know this and really live a life that is in line with their strengths and values in life. You could say that they live authentic lives. To me spirituality is also about connection - being connected to oneself, to other people around yourself and to something far greater than oneself, whatever you like to call it.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Afia Mansoor, Personal Excellence | 1 Comment »

Leadership Diagnostics Methodology - Lessons Learned: Wendy Lambourne

Thursday, July 15th, 2010

unlit-bulbs

 

Schuitema’s experience over the years, both doing Leadership Diagnostics and coaching managers in doing so (inter alia in mining, manufacturing, banking and the hospitality industry) has produced a number of insights with respect to the use of the Leadership Diagnostic methodology. They are as follows: -

lessons-learned

 ·   Leadership Diagnostics should be done with benevolent intent. That is, not as some kind of witch hunt or as an effort to apportion blame. Leadership Diagnostics do in fact have a noble purpose. It is to enable enhanced future contribution all the way up the line. As such the methodology’s primary function is to grow leaders at every level in an organisation.

·     Leadership Diagnostics should be done on both positive and negative exceptions. This helps to dispel the myth that a Leadership Diagnostic is essentially punitive in nature, used by management as a means to censure and discipline people.

 

More importantly doing a Leadership Diagnostic on positive exceptions can help to cultivate excellence in an organisation. Ascertaining what an exceptional performer does (be it a Picker in a warehouse or an Operations Executive) and the Means, Ability and Accountability factors which support them in their excellent performance can yield vital selection and development information for an enterprise.

 

Similarly determining what each person in the line did to effect an exceptional result (for example a dramatic improvement in safety performance) can ensure a perpetuation of the positive outcome into the future and/or a replication of excellence in other areas.

·      Leadership Diagnostics can be both reactive and proactive. A Reactive Diagnostic is by definition an analysis of the past. Its value lies in the learnings afforded by the event/outcome which has already taken place. A Proactive Diagnostic on the other hand can be used to improve on past performance going forward into the future. In the case of a proactive diagnosis a stretch goal is set, after which the Diagnostic determines what specifically needs to be done by whom (including each person up the line of command) to ensure that the desired outcome is achieved.

· Organisations reap the greatest dividends from the methodology when the tool is used with a specific purpose in mind. An organisation may for example elect to do Leadership Diagnostics only on safety incidents (disabling injuries and even near misses) in order to improve its safety performance. Conversely an organisation may decide to do a Diagnostic on every complaint they receive from a customer because product quality is the burning issue in their business.

 

One client undertook a number of Leadership Diagnostics on a variety of exceptions in their business, ranging from ‘incorrect stock quantities on their MRP system’ through to ‘machine downtime in the Sheet Metal Shop due to the unavailability of material’. From the dozen or more exceptions that were analyzed over a two week period they were sufficiently equipped to put together a strategy and action plan to address the core leadership issues in their business.

·      The  more specific the incident or the result which is chosen for analysis the better. This is because finding solutions to the specific exception per se is actually not the reason for the Diagnostic. The specific exception is purely a vehicle for getting to grips with the key command issues which are evidenced by the exception. Being appropriate means addressing each of the command issues which any Diagnostic evidences, not fixing the specific exception.

·      Leadership Diagnostics highlight the importance of “watching the game”. A Diagnostic is only as useful as the quality of information on which it is based. Quality information can only be garnered by spending time in the field gathering the facts, through direct observation and asking questions of all involved. It is useful, by the way, to get a range of different perspectives when doing a Diagnostic. Often someone who is unfamiliar with the situation, but who knows what Means, Ability and Accountability questions to ask, can provide the most penetrating insights.

·      The Leadership Diagnostic needs to be done all the way up the line, preferably to the most senior level in the organisation. This is because what is done/not done, seven levels removed from the actions which directly caused the exception, can often constitute the most critical cause. What senior managers do / don’t do in a situation is often the ‘bulls eye”, the 20% of causes which accounts for 80% of the results.

 

This is confirmed by the fact that remedial actions taken high up in the hierarchy tend to have a far bigger impact than those taken at lower levels. To take only one example, improving the Hazop System on Site in the case of the chemical manufacturer mentioned previously would have a considerably higher impact than holding the injured operator accountable for not wearing his PVC raincoat.

 

· In the case of Reactive Diagnostics, concerted and systematic remedial action needs to be taken post the diagnostic. The required remedial actions, based on the Diagnostic, must, moreover, be owned and driven by line. Unless this is the case, Leadership Diagnostics may produce some interesting findings but nothing more than that. Sadly Schuitema has seen far more documented Leadership Diagnostics than those which have been acted on.  When this is the case Leadership Diagnostics stand the risk of becoming an academic exercise, rather than a means to significantly strengthen an organisation’s line of command.

· Not all Means and Ability issues are valid. Often people proffer Means and Ability issues to avoid being held accountable for their carelessness or deliberate malevolence. When they are in fact ‘excuses’ they should be treated accordingly.

· Improvements in contribution can be realised most quickly when the issues impeding contribution are Means or Accountability issues. Ability issues, by definition, take longer to address. The Machine Shop inspection backlog example is a case in point. A dramatic improvement in throughput was realised very quickly, simply by putting the requisite means in place which would enable the inspectors to do what they were there to do; pass or fail components in the production process.

 

Responding to exceptions in a Business by doing Leadership Diagnostics on them is almost counter intuitive. Managers typically react to exceptions by taking action to reduce the affect of the exception and, further to this, instituting a control to prevent the exception from coming back again.

 

Managements’ actions have short term benefits, in that the symptom typically goes away but has no lasting effect. Moreover management’s desire to personally fix the result as quickly as possible often leads to what we at Schuitema refer to as a ‘collapsing of the line’. In jumping over the heads of Managers / Supervisors in the line to get to and fix the result management effectively disables the line of command below them.

 

Client organizations who have reaped the greatest dividends from the Leadership Diagnostic methodology have deliberately cultivated the use of the methodology in their organizations. They have made the doing of Leadership Diagnostics mandatory and have tasked managers at all levels with reporting back on the findings of their Diagnoses on a regular basis. One client even set a standard for the number of Diagnostics done every month on the site and kept score of how well they performed against the standard.

 

As with everything else reward follows contribution. Initially doing Leadership Diagnostics seems to be hard work and this is true. The benefits which accrue, in terms of significant improvements in the caliber of leadership in a business, are however more than worth it.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Etsko Schuitema | 1 Comment »

Dealing with Exceptions through The Leadership Diagnostic Methodology: Wendy Lambourne

Thursday, July 15th, 2010

leadershipSchuitema has developed a methodology for dealing with exceptions in an organisation which has become known as the Leadership Diagnostic Methodology.   As an instrument the Leadership Diagnostic is designed to identify the command issues, at every level of an organisation, which relate to whatever exception is under scrutiny at the time.

 

The Leadership Diagnostic has two parts to it. The first part is concerned with establishing who did what to cause the exception / the specific causes which led to the exceptional result. The second part of the Leadership Diagnostic involves the unpacking of the command issues behind every identified root cause (typically there are a number of causes which account for a single exception).

 

The Leadership Diagnostic shown below was for a Machine Shop inspection backlog problem. Overall the inspection team was not able to process the work quickly enough to keep up with current demand, let alone reduce the backlog. The investigation identified four causes at issue in this exception.

 

LEADERSHIP DIAGNOSTIC – MACHINE SHOP INSPECTION BACKLOG

PART ONE: Who did what to cause the exception? What are the root causes?

 leadership-diagnostic-12

 

 

 leadership-diagnostics-22

 

For each Specific Cause  the command issues behind the Cause were established as shown below.

PART TWO: TRACKING THE COMMAND ISSUES BEHIND EACH CAUSE


Specific Cause: Failure by Inspectors to reduce backlog.

 

LEVEL

Who?: Inspectors

WHY? (circle relevant)

Specific  means, ability or accountability which needs to be given.

Did this person do the right thing? If so the person should be: Recognised or Rewarded. If this person did not do the right thing, was this a Means or an Ability problem? If it is not a means or an ability problem the person should be Censured or Punished.

The lack of means in terms of measurement, planning of work, documentation, lack of standards, lack of equipment machines currently do not allow Inspectors to make the contribution required of them.  Insufficient action has been taken to resolve these issues.

It is the Crew Chief’s job to provide the means.  He needs to fulfill this critical aspect of his core growth role.

LEVEL

Who?: Inspectors

WHY? (circle relevant)

Specific  means, ability or accountability which needs to be given.

Did this person do the right thing? If so the person should be: Recognised or Rewarded. If this person did not do the right thing, was this a Means or an Ability problem? If it is not a means or an ability problem the person should be Censured or Punished.

The lack of means in terms of measurement, planning of work, documentation, lack of standards, lack of equipment machines currently do not allow Inspectors to make the contribution required of them.  Insufficient action has been taken to resolve these issues.

It is the Crew Chief’s job to provide the means.  He needs to fulfill this critical aspect of his core growth role.

                                                                           

LEVEL

Who?: Crew Chief

WHY? (circle relevant)

Specific  means, ability or accountability which needs to be given.

Did this person do this?  If so they should be Recognised or Rewarded.  Should this person not have done this, was this a Means or an Ability problem? If it is not a means or ability problem the person should be Censured or Punished.

The Crew Chief has been in an ‘acting’ capacity for four months.  He is well liked by subordinates but has not established himself in his role.  He currently lacks both the Means and Ability to perform a Care and Growth role for his subordinates.

He needs to stop doing Inspection work himself.  He needs to be formally appointed and given full authority.  He needs to understand his role by attending Care and Growth training and through coaching by his manager.
         

 

LEVEL

Who?: Production Leader

WHY? (circle relevant)

Specific  means, ability or accountability which needs to be given.

Did this person do this?  If so they should be Recognised or Rewarded.  Should this person not have done this, was this a Means or an Ability problem? If it is not a means or ability problem the person should be Censured or Punished.

The Production Leader has been in the role for +/- 9months.  He currently carries all the responsibility and accountability given the leadership vacuum beneath him. Inspection is only 1 of 6 areas reporting to him.

He needs to dedicate more time to the problem.  He needs to drive an improvement plan for Inspection.  He needs to coach the Crew Chief, not do his job for him.

 

LEVEL

Who?: Manager

WHY? (circle relevant)

Specific  means, ability or accountability which needs to be given.

Did this person do this?  If so they should be Recognised or Rewarded.  Should this person not have done this, was this a Means or an Ability problem? If it is not a means or ability problem the person should be Censured or Punished.

The manager is also new in the role.  He has prioritised the backlog in inspection and asks for progress reports on the issue.

He needs to protect the Production Leader from other demands while he focuses on Inspection.  He needs to develop and implement a new structure for the machine shop which separates Operational from Strategic Improvement roles because currently the Production Leader is struggling to fulfill both roles.

 

 

 

 


Specific Cause 2: Design of Work

 


LEVEL

Who?: Inspectors

WHY? (circle relevant)

Specific  means, ability or accountability which needs to be given.

Did this person do the right thing? If so the person should be: Recognised or Rewarded. If this person did not do the right thing, was this a Means or an Ability problem? If it is not a means or an ability problem the person should be Censured or Punished.

The Inspectors currently receive scrap to inspect which should have been scrapped by Production.

Production areas which are sending scrap for inspection need to be identified and stopped from doing so.

 

LEVEL

Who?: Crew Chief

WHY? (circle relevant)

Specific  means, ability or accountability which needs to be given.

Did this person do this?  If so they should be Recognised or Rewarded.  Should this person not have done this, was this a Means or an Ability problem? If it is not a means or ability problem the person should be Censured or Punished.

The problem of sending scrap to Inspection has been escalated to the Crew Chief but not resolved.

The Crew Chief should refuse to accept scrap from production.  He should elicit the support of the Production Leader in this regard/hold other Crew Chiefs accountable.

 

LEVEL

Who?: Production Leader

WHY? (circle relevant)

Specific  means, ability or accountability which needs to be given.

Did this person do this?  If so they should be Recognised or Rewarded.  Should this person not have done this, was this a Means or an Ability problem? If it is not a means or ability problem the person should be Censured or Punished.

 The Production Leader is not holding Production Crew Chiefs accountable for sending scrap to inspection.  Inspection is doing work which should be done by Production. Inspectors are doing ‘simple’ inspection work.

He should hold Production Team Leader’s accountable for sending scrap to Inspection. He should assign Production Inspectors to do the ‘simple’ work.  He should introduce self inspection in to Production especially since he has authority for that area.

 

 

 

 


Specific Cause 3/4: Failure to appoint Inspectors / shortfall in complement AND failure to develop, plan and implement an alternative strategy for Inspection.

 


LEVEL

Who?: Crew Chief

WHY? (circle relevant)

Specific  means, ability or accountability which needs to be given.

Did this person do this?  If so they should be Recognised or Rewarded.  Should this person not have done this, was this a Means or an Ability problem? If it is not a means or ability problem the person should be Censured or Punished.

There is no hard data to determine the manning requirements in Inspection.  It also is not clear whether (if the means issues are resolved) more people are required or not.

The Crew Chief needs to determine the HR needs for his Team. He is best placed to do so.

 

LEVEL

Who?: Production Leader

WHY? (circle relevant)

Specific  means, ability or accountability which needs to be given.

Did this person do this?  If so they should be Recognised or Rewarded.  Should this person not have done this, was this a Means or an Ability problem? If it is not a means or ability problem the person should be Censured or Punished.

It is not clear where in the line the authority to fill appointments resides.  A strategy to use Temp Inspectors from Production is in the process of being implemented.  Having one person with Programming experience in the Team is a key weakness.

If he does not already have the authority to appoint people in the Workshop he should be given it.  He needs to act on the Crew Chief’s recommendations and ensure that the necessary appointments are made.

 

LEVEL

Who?: Manager

WHY? (circle relevant)

Specific  means, ability or accountability which needs to be given.

Did this person do this? If so they should be:

Recognised or Rewarded. Should this person not have done this, was this a Means or an Ability problem? If it is not a means or an ability problem the person should be Censured or Punished.

The current shortages assume a continuation of the current approach i.e. centralised inspection. Alternative strategies for the future need to be considered and, if appropriate, implemented.  The current age profile of Inspectors (60% over 50 years) is also a problem in the medium term.

The Manager needs to assist the Production Leader in developing a strategy for the future.  He needs to provide him with the means to effect a strategy.  Strategic change requires dedicated time and resourcing.  It is unlikely that the Production Leader can effectively implement strategic changes and simultaneously deal with the ongoing management of the workshop.  A different structure for the Machine Shop is possibly required. 

 

The second part of the Leadership Diagnostic (tracking the command issues behind each cause) showed quite clearly the leadership contribution which was required, at each level in the line of command, to address the inspection backlog problem. Its effect was to reduce what was a significant business problem to a finite number of Means, Ability or Accountability action which leaders needed to take with their immediate subordinate(s) as follows:

·   Level 1 (Crew Chief). The Crew Chief needed to provide the Inspectors who reported to him with the Means to do their jobs rather than spending 80% of his time doing inspection work himself. He needed to stop accepting scrap from production. Finally he needed to motivate up the line for the manning levels required to get the job done.

·   Level 2 (Production Leader)  The Prodcution Leader needed to formally appoint the Crew Chief as the leader of the Inspection team and train/coach him in his Care and Growth role. He needed to take action whenever a Production Team Leader passed scrap through to Inspection. He also needed to get Production to, as far as possible, inspect their own work.

·   Level 3 (Facilities Manager). The Facilities Manager needed to shield his Production Leader from other demands while he focused on the backlog problem. He also needed to develop and implement a new strategy and structure for more effectively dealing with the qualification of work in progress in the Factory.

The findings from the Leadership Diagnostic gave each person in the line the opportunity to empower the level below them. Within four months the racks outside the inspection area were virtually empty. The required throughout was being achieved without an increase in the number of inspectors and without excessive overtime being worked. The inspectors were much happier and motivated than before primarily because each level of management above them was doing what was appropriate with those who reported to them directly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Wendy Lambourne | No Comments »

Establishing the Command Issues behind the Exception: Wendy Lambourne

Thursday, July 15th, 2010

investigation

 

Very often when exceptions arise there is a tendency to limit the investigation and resultant action taken to those who directly caused the exception.  This is not appropriate because whenever Means, Ability or Accountability factors are at issue for the person directly impacting on the result, there are command issues up the line which also need to be addressed.

 

Ensuring that a person has the Means, Ability or Accountability to do what is required of them is the job of those in leadership positions.  Being appropriate therefore means to not only determine why whoever caused the exception did so but, in addition, to unpack the command issues which also had a bearing on the exception.  Two actual incidents, a safety incident and a quality incident at a major chemical manufacturer in South Africa are cases in point.

safety-situation-1-dealing-with-exceptions

 

Management’s response to the incident was to hold the relevant individuals accountable for their deliberate malevolence and to put in place additional means to prevent a reoccurance of the problem.  The operator, his colleague and the Shift Manager were all disciplined for willfully doing what was wrong (Accountability actions).  Clothes lockers were moved closer to the extruder area, the standard for the wearing of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was made more stringent and a system was put in place to ensure that PPE was not removed from the Plant (Means actions).

In fact what was most instructive about the Safety incident was the command issues that it highlighted for those higher up in the line.

 

Firstly, what the exception revealed was that Shift Managers, across all four shifts, were generally not sufficiently in touch with what was taking place on their shift.  What was needed therefore was a clear standard regarding the amount of time Shift Managers should be out on their Plant rather than in the control room.  The Process Manager (whom the four Shift Managers reported to) needed to take accountability for ensuring that all his Shift Managers adhered to the new behavioural standard.

 

quality-situation-dealing-with-exceptions

Secondly, the exception pointed to a need for Senior Management to review the efficacy of the Hazops System on Site.  Despite a number of Hazard Studies being conducted on the Plant over the last 15 years no recommendations had been made to redesign the system for deblocking the dewatering screen.  A redesign, if it had been made, would have eliminated the possibility of an accident taking place during extruder trips and start ups by removing the hazardous condition in the first place.

 

The Chairperson at the enquiry quite correctly recommended a two week suspension without pay in lieu of dismissal for the gross negligence of the operator in this instance.

More important than the specific action meted out to the operator however was the opportunity, created by the exception, to examine whether the means and ability provided by management to panel operators was adequate.

 

What emerged from the exploration of the leadership issues behind the exception was the following. The manning on the plant (Means issue) was enough to ensure safe operations, quality production and the training / coaching of people. The training process was thorough and the pass out procedure rigorous enough to ensure that operators were not passed out when they were not fully competent (Ability Issue).

 

The competency process, however, was heavily reliant on the use of coaches who were technically well qualified but lacked the skills to adequately transfer their technical experience to those they were coaching. The key leadership action, which was highlighted by the exception, was the need  to develop the coaching skills of those with technical expertise in the process, so that they could effectively enable others to run the plant independently of themselves.

 

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Etsko Schuitema | No Comments »

Going up Mukshpurree with Telenor. June 2010

Wednesday, July 14th, 2010
The Ascent

The Ascent

Posted in Etsko Schuitema | No Comments »

Dealing with Exceptions: Holding People Accountable Appropriately - Wendy Lambourne

Wednesday, July 14th, 2010

odd-one-out-2

 

Taking action based on Means, Ability and Accountability issues, rather than in response to an action taken or a result, has far reaching implications for how individuals are held accountable in a business. The following two exceptions in a sales environment illustrate the point. 

 

The action taken by the Technical Sales Representative (TSR) was clearly wrong.  He should have insisted that an independent investigation be carried out to establish the root cause of the client’s poor Plant performance.  Moreover, by making the commitment to the customer that he did, he contravened company policy which dictates that any discount less than 15% of List Price must be referred to a formal review.

 

exception-1-dealing-with-exceptions1

 

The critical question in this incident is however, why did the TSR do what he did?  What the TSR’s manager (Regional Sales Manager) should give the TSR in this situation depends on the answers to the Means, Ability and Accountability questions shown below.

 

MEANS

Did the TSR have access to the conditions of sale?  Did he have access to the RSM to ask for advice?   Was the standard with respect to discounts clear?  Did he know what the limits of his authority were?

ABILITY

Did the TSR lack the technical knowhow to counter the customer’s claims? Did he lack assertiveness? Did he understand the implications of his actions?

ACCOUNTABILITY

Was his motive to serve the client?  Did his desire to meet his sales targets for the quarter influence his actions?

 

The real value of this exception, in other words, lies in the opportunity it affords the Regional Sales Manager to understand what it is he should be doing with his subordinate.  It enables him to act appropriately, as a leader, in the situation.

 

 

Under these circumstances it would be tempting for both the TSR and his manager, the Regional Sales Manager (RSM), to write off the poor sales result to factors outside their control.  In fact this exception provides the RSM with an opportunity to do two things.

 

exception-2-dealing-with-exceptions

 

Firstly to review the TSR’s sale target and possibly revise it for the next reporting period.  Secondly to assist the TSR to analyse his sales process and determine what changes he could make which would yield a better result in the future? Perhaps the RSM could increase the number of leads that he passes onto the TSR? Perhaps the TSR needs to keep closer contact with prospective customers so that he can react earlier to events in their business? And so on.

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Care and Growth Leadership, Wendy Lambourne | 2 Comments »

Dealing with Exceptions - The Means, Ability and Acountability Issues: Wendy Lambourne

Monday, July 12th, 2010

accountability

 

To deal appropriately with exceptions requires, in the first instance, an ability to flush out and correctly identify the means, ability and accountability issues which sit behind them.  Depending on what the issue is, whether it is a Means, Ability or Accountability issue, a particular type of remedial action is required.  The medicine which is given, in other words, must be the right medicine for the disease. 

 

By “means” issues is meant those things in a person’s environment that allow them to give.  They include tools and resources, authority, time, enabling systems and processes, clarity of expectations and information or data.  A lack of means is addressed by the provision of Means; by taking whatever measures are required to ensure that environmental impediments to contribution are overcome.

dealing-with-exceptions-2

  

“Ability” issues on the other hand have to do with the person and whether they can or cannot give.  They relate to capacity, skills, knowledge, understanding and competence.  Both the “know-how” and the “know-why” affect Ability.  Unlike Means issues, Ability issues are best addressed by training or coaching, through job redesign or correct deployment of people to positions which match their capability.

 

Lastly, “Accountability” issues have to do with the will.  That is, whether or not a person is willing or not to give, to whether they take accountability for making the contribution required of them or not.  Accountability issues are addressed by holding people accountable both positively (by means of praise and reward) and negatively (through censure and discipline).

 

From experience those in leadership positions do not find it altogether easy to put their finger on what they are actually dealing with and hence what the appropriate leadership actions should be.

 

dealing-with-exceps-3

 

In Care and Growth workshops, participants are given an exercise which requires them to diagnose a number of performance issues using the schematic outlined above.

 

Typically the exercise highlights two things.

 

Firstly, that there is a tendency to jump too prematurely to conclusions. For example, participants categorise items 3, 5, 7 and 10 as either, Means, Ability or Accountability issues when they are not.  They are results or actions (be they behavioural or cognitive).  As such the ‘why’ behind them still needs to be ascertained in order for the correct diagnosis to be made.

 

Secondly, there is a tendency to make assumptions which are not necessarily valid.  Item 7 is a classic in this regard.  Participants typically assume that this is an Accountability issue.  They make the supposition that the person is taking a shortcut; is doing what they want to do rather than what the procedure requires of them.

 

In fact, the failure to follow the procedure, could indeed be an Accountability issue.  It is just as likely, however, to be a Means issue (the operating instruction was out of date and did not reflect best practice) or an Ability issue (the person has not been trained in what is the right thing to do and why). 

 

A correct diagnosis can only be made on the ground.  That is by “watching the game”; literally observing firsthand what is actually happening and asking the sort of questions which will provide an understanding of what really is at issue.

 

I was once party to an exercise which involved “watching the game” of operators in a factory over a 72 hour period.  Our job was to witness any deviations from critical operating standards and to then ascertain the reasons for them.  70% of the reasons were Means issues, 20% were Ability issues and 10% were Accountability issues.

In all the diagnostic exercises that I have participated in since then Means issues have always been the most common, followed by Ability, and lastly Accountability issues. 

 

This makes sense to me.  The majority of people come to work wanting to do the job right.  The leader’s task is to make it possible for them to do so.

 

 

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Wendy Lambourne | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries