AT THE START

 

The factory was a shambles.  People were literally sleeping on the job.  Tasks,  which should take an hour, took a day.  The Team Leaders had no sense of urgency and the operators were not committed.  Absenteeism and late coming was poor.  There was control on the line only when the Team Leader was present on the line.  There were Team Leader vacancies with operators in “Acting” Team Leader roles.  Most of the Team Leaders had been “written off” by management as not up to the job.

 

There was no consistency across lines or shifts.  The Team Leaders kept changing.  As Production Manager, she did not know who would be in charge of a line from one shift to another.

  

Changes which made the difference

 

-       The initial Care and Growth training brought clarity regarding the crucial difference between management and leadership.  The Care and Growth model gave her a way to do what she knew intuitively.

 

-       Changes in structure made it possible for the first time to hold people appropriately accountable. This happened when the structure was changed so that operators were dedicated to a line with a Shift Leader for all the operators on each line  A Packing Team Leader was appointed, but each Process Team Leader was accountable overall for the line

 

-       There was an ongoing incremental suspension of control as the Production Manager began to handover specific accountabilities to the Team Leaders A good example of this was accountability for start up on a Monday.  She used to come in early and run around frantically checking that everything was in place for the start up This when she set a clear standard (08h30 start up), provided a Start Up Checklist (a guide only) and required Team Leaders to account for the “why” behind exceptions.  Another example was the chairing of Production morning meetings which used to be done by the Manufacturing Manager.  Now, one of the Team Leaders do it if the Production Manager is not there. The  next step is for operators to chair their own meetings on their line.

 

-       She worked at ensuring that Team Leaders had the support they needed from Support functions like Engineering and Logistics.  According to her: “my Team Leaders only started to believe in me once I made sure that they had the support that they needed to run their lines.”

 

The right level/kind of service from Support functions was achieved not by finger pointing/blaming.  She went to Functional Managers with specific issues, eg. no raw materials for Line X, explained the impact it had had on performance, eg. waste due to stopping and starting the line, and then required them  to come back on the “why” behind the specific problem and what they were going to do about it.

 

-       The Manufacturing Manager deliberately ensured that he respected the line of command.  Her standpoint was: “if the Manufacturing Manager changes the plan and communicates this to Team Leaders, then he can’t hold her accountable for the plan.”  The Manufacturing Manager gave her the space to run production.

 

-       She applied the golden rule/value of fairness for any disciplinary action that was taken in Production  The key issue, she believes, is to have the right intent when disciplining.  Her view: “the difficult part is having the courage to initiate discipline, not chairing the enquiry.”

 

-       She focused on “ turning around “ individual Team Leaders who seemed to be hopeless cases.  She did this through a combination of finding out their strengths, understanding their reasons for poor performance and appealing to their sense of pride/believing in them.

 

She was not successful with every Team Leader – an individual was dismissed for poor performance.  She believes, however, that she has killed the perception that “Team Leaders at the factory are useless.”

 

-       She focused on doing what is right/not what the business wanted  from her in terms of results.  She says: “if you do your own investigation and then act on what is right, your people will walk through fire for you.”

 

-       She has committed to lead from the following standpoint:

 

·         Suspend your own agenda/understand that you are accountable to your subordinates, not the other way around.

 

·         Take responsibility for providing the means and ability for your people.

 

·         Have the courage to be fair (there have been four dismissals this year and all have been upheld by the CCMA).

 

-       She put a lot of  emphasis on one-on-ones discussions with each of her team leaders  This, more than anything else, she believes is what builds the relationship and an individual’s confidence/performance.

   

-       She recently established weekly plan/do/review meetings with each Team Leader and their team.  Guidelines were provided by her in the form of an agenda printed on flipchart page (one flipchart per Team Leader for each week in the year).  Her standpoint was: “Keep it simple and make it engaging rather than technically sophisticated.”

 

-       She used the opportunity provided by the Line 7 crisis (OEE – 16%) to demonstrate that the right people (new Team Leader and Operators) doing the right thing, can produce the right result.  (OEE now 97%).

 

 AT THE END OF THE YEAR

 

A credible leadership level (Team Leaders) has been established in the factory replacing the previous lead operators who were Team Leaders in name only.  The results (quality, volumes, speed) have improved accordingly.

Tags: Add new tag, Care and Growth, Care and Growth Leadership, Schuitema, Snackworks, Trust, Trust in Management, Wendy Lambourne

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 10th, 2009 at 9:11 am and is filed under Care and Growth Leadership, Case Studies, Wendy Lambourne. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.