Schuitema 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?
|
|
For each Specific Cause the command issues behind the Cause were established as shown below.
PART TWO: TRACKING THE COMMAND ISSUES BEHIND EACH CAUSE
|
|
|
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. |
||
|
|
|
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. |
||
|
|
|
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: Care and Growth Leadership, Employee Accountability, Employee Exceptions, Leadership diagnostics, Schuitema, Wendy Lambourne
