I was working with a team that had a very unusual, but more common today, leadership structure. They basically had 1 “designated” leader for the entire plant floor on each shift. Designated meaning shift coordinator, supervisor, group leader, etc… This is not in any way to imply that a title is required to be a leader, it’s merely just to point out the defined structure and as I explain more, it will clarify the effects of this structure.
So, this leader had roughly 60 direct reports each shift. They utilized working technical associates as team leaders as well. In most cases, the technical workers ran a machine for 8 hours. In addition, they had cross-functional teams comprised of engineers, quality techs, etc… The team formally met once per week to report out on data and discuss the actions they were taking to work on opportunities that the data exploited. In one of the meetings, it was determined that much of the previous week’s downtime was a result of not completing tooling maintenance per the defined plan. During the morning market, the team walked the maintenance process to understand “what’s supposed to be happening.” Long story short, the system and its expectations were clear, there was readily accessible, up-to-date documentation on the Morning Market Board that the maintenance was not being completed, as well as visible untidiness of the cell that the system was not being followed. The “designated leader” looked to the cross-functional team and said, “We’re always pointing out that we’re not doing what we’re supposed to be doing, so what is this team going to do about this?” 1 of the cross-functional team members replied, “Yeah, what are we going to do about this. The team implemented the standard, and it would help if production leadership would help ensure that the standard is followed.” The leader replied, “We need to stop this game of hot potato. Everyone is here to support production.”
This organization had a very toxic work culture where standards where rarely followed, the associates had very little expectations beyond making their numbers, and they basically governed themselves accordingly. They constantly received PRR’s from their customers, many of which would be repeat non-conformances. Leadership declared that the associates are empowered and enabled to make improvements and they wanted them to lead the charge. They wanted to avoid the need to wait on direction from the top and go ahead and decide.
Empowering associates in an organization in which leaders do not lead is simply a transfer of responsibility, not empowerment. It is becoming more common that I see organizations implementing isolated (a team of people hired specifically to only do problem solving & improvement) and non-isolated teams, cross-functional team, etc… with the intent of the team solving the problems & driving the improvement. I am personally not sold on this idea, especially the isolated teams. For me, the departmental team and its support help chain is the cross-functional team. When an organization is staffed with a 1:60 leader ratio, it can be difficult but it’s not impossible. Leader standard work is a must. It cannot be that the leader leads how and if they choose to. What happens in this structure is everyone (the team) is responsible, and no one is accountable. The implementations are what the team expects, and the support of leadership is missing because they are not involved in the improvement process. Honestly, the leader will not even know what the team is supposed to be doing, and never seeks to answer the question, “What should be happening” because that’s the team’s responsibility. Management will constantly pool the team for who; anyone other than the defined leader, wants to be the one to lead the charge, while those being pooled are wondering what the leader is doing all day if he/she is not leading the charge…
I also mentioned that technical leadership is utilized as a slash team leader. My response in this situation is that production needs will always consume a leader with designated direct or indirect operational responsibilities, and the result will be the same, the shop floor team will lead themselves and adherence to policies, standards, etc… will be optional.
This example is the reality of many organizations. We are studying Toyota’s practices and randomly implementing pieces and parts and calling that teamwork, continual improvement, lean, etc…It’s not. Every organization must define its vision, methodology, and culture for itself, and it is Top Leadership’s responsibility to define the system and the roles, responsibilities, and behaviors of the people within that system. This is the missing step in our organizational transformation plan.
For more information on changing organizational culture, download my free e-workbook, “3 Hidden, Yet Visible Factors Stifling Culture Change.”
The Gemba Coach
Deena Boyce aka The Gemba Coach, is an experienced productivity management and improvement coach with over twenty-five years of experience in lean management within American, Japanese, and German owned organizations. Her mission is to end management and lean implementation failure in the manufacturing organization. She is passionate about proactive management and developing others via a robust, bottom- up management system. As a traditionally trained manager that now “gets it,” she shares her insight and expertise to heighten the awareness of the importance of the management system and the leadership behaviors within it to drive organizational culture and fix our broken traditional foundations. It’s Renovation time!
Stability on the Front Line is leverage on the Bottom Line!”