Meridian Group - Company Culture Consultants

Employee's frustrations lead to doubling productivity.

This is the second newsletter in the three-part series discussing why changing a company culture requires small evolutionary steps and how these lead to large and positive changes. This issue includes a case study showing how employee involvement resulted in a company doubling its productivity in 18 months!

Last month, I mentioned that evolution—be it of a new species or of a more productive company culture—can occur only in open systems. At the biological level, evolution occurs if it leads to reproductive advantage. At the human level, evolution occurs in systems that are open to the needs, hopes and aspirations we each possess and hope to fulfill.

I frequently remind myself—and occasionally remind our clients—that in contrast with animals and machines, people have imagination, wants, needs, desires and above all, the capacity to choose. While people might desire to be involved and productive, they can choose to withhold their energy, responsibility, and creativity if they don't feel it is wanted or appreciated. In a truly open workplace, people will respond by choosing to bring more of themselves to the task.

To accomplish this, the company's leadership must show that they are open to employees' concerns and ideas. Unfortunately, this is not happening in most companies. Consequently, workers withhold information, energy and creativity. But, when employees see that leadership is open to their concerns and ideas, they take responsibility for solving problems in the workplace. Here is a dramatic example of how that process unfolded in one of our client companies.

How Employee Involvement Doubled Productivity

Managers of a manufacturing plant with several hundred employees decided to build a more open workplace. Meridian Group was invited to help them with that process. Several meetings with the plant leadership group produced a vision and a plan.

Meridian Group trained supervisors to lead open problem-solving meetings with employees. Through a series of discussions with supervisors, managers committed to support three employee problem-solving groups: manufacturing, sanitation and safety, and the quality control lab. Each of the three groups began by identifying problems interfering with their tasks.

Breakdowns gave the production line group the most trouble. These were physically and psychologically draining for the workers. With guidance, the small group systematically collected data on the frequency, type and cause of breakdowns. The process of identifying and analyzing problems soon led to problem-solving. As their analysis looked deeper at root causes, the group involved other shifts and other departments in the analysis; first to collect and analyze data, but later to list and map broad system-related issues connected to the breakdowns.

It was not easy for the managers to remain open as the employees took responsibility for analyzing and addressing inter-departmental and, later on, external supplier issues. Many managers felt that this was their exclusive territory. ("If I don't own that who am I?") But with a little help from the plant manager and Meridian Group, they restrained themselves from interfering and soon learned to adopt a strongly supportive role.

Meanwhile, the small group of sanitation and safety employees had begun analyzing their own work-related problems. Their biggest frustrations were the large mounds of product waste they had to constantly clean up. As a long-range goal, they wanted to keep the plant cleaner by stopping the mess at its source. As with the production group, it wasn't long before they involved other parts of the plant in mapping broad system-wide issues that led to product waste.

The third group in quality control took a curious twist. Lab employees' biggest problem stemmed from conflicting shifts schedules. Their own 4 x 10 hour shifts were out of sync with the supervisor's 5 x 8 hour shifts. Employees had rotating supervisors each with their own favorite way of conducting quality control checks. This unpredictability drove the lab employees crazy.

The lab team wisely avoided confronting the supervisors directly. Instead, they decided to develop a quality control manual. This was a big undertaking given that, as with the other two groups, they only met once a week for an hour. But the project was very satisfying and involving. Employees frequently worked on it at home at night and on weekends. They circulated each standardized process draft to everybody affected—this was a required part of the problem-solving process. Supervisors had to discuss the drafts and agree whether or not to follow the proposed standardized tests. Soon everybody was on board.

Employees' frustrations evaporated. Within 18 months, the small group had produced a 150-page manual that was so comprehensive and thorough, it was adopted by most of the other plants in the company.

Uncovering Systemic Problems
From a broader perspective, all of the problems were related. So, the three groups quickly found themselves working closely together on system-wide issues, a process that eventually involved, to some degree, almost everybody in the plant. It was clear that a new wind was blowing.

Culture Change Needs Momentum and Senior Management Support
Employees knew that upper management now supported employees in solving their frustrations at work, even if this sometimes involved changing comfortable and long-standing (but not necessarily constructive) relationships with supervisors, managers and other departments.

Not only did productivity increase and product loss decrease, but morale rose to the point that people were openly excited about coming to work. People discussed at home what was going on at work—something they had never done in the past.

It wasn't just employees who experienced change. I was pleased to hear the assistant plant manager talking with a group of new supervisors say, "After 28 years with the company, I'm looking forward to bringing you along so that you don't have to unlearn what I have unlearned about leadership in the last year." With employees taking more responsibility for issues in their work area the plant manager told a visitor, "I have more control of what goes on here now when I'm away from the plant than I had before when I was on-site."

Key to Change: Senior Management's Open-mindedness
It was upper management's new openness to employees' concerns that set the stage for all these innovative changes as employees energetically and creatively addressed problems interfering with their work. Management didn't give them these problems or abstract goals such as "increase productivity" or "improve customer service." Real concerns of real people were identified and solved through an open evolutionary dialogue with each other and with management. Because employees identified the problems, they were highly motivated to solve them and to make their solutions stick.

None of these specific problems or their solutions were predicted or anticipated by upper management. While the process began with people's workplace frustrations it soon led to addressing broad, system-wide interdepartmental and supplier issues that had been unapproachable for many years. At this plant, in 18 months, productivity doubled. Small evolutionary steps had led to big changes.

Company leaders who are open to their people and to this human evolutionary process will experience building successful, profitable and highly satisfying work places.



	Site Map \| FAQ \| Search
	A Better Workplace --- Meridian Group's Newsletter, Number 19, 5-15-03

	Creating Evolutionary Change in Your Organization's Culture, Part II: Employee's frustrations lead to doubling productivity. This is the second newsletter in the three-part series discussing why changing a company culture requires small evolutionary steps and how these lead to large and positive changes. This issue includes a case study showing how employee involvement resulted in a company doubling its productivity in 18 months! Last month, I mentioned that evolution—be it of a new species or of a more productive company culture—can occur only in open systems. At the biological level, evolution occurs if it leads to reproductive advantage. At the human level, evolution occurs in systems that are open to the needs, hopes and aspirations we each possess and hope to fulfill. I frequently remind myself—and occasionally remind our clients—that in contrast with animals and machines, people have imagination, wants, needs, desires and above all, the capacity to choose. While people might desire to be involved and productive, they can choose to withhold their energy, responsibility, and creativity if they don't feel it is wanted or appreciated. In a truly open workplace, people will respond by choosing to bring more of themselves to the task. To accomplish this, the company's leadership must show that they are open to employees' concerns and ideas. Unfortunately, this is not happening in most companies. Consequently, workers withhold information, energy and creativity. But, when employees see that leadership is open to their concerns and ideas, they take responsibility for solving problems in the workplace. Here is a dramatic example of how that process unfolded in one of our client companies. How Employee Involvement Doubled Productivity Managers of a manufacturing plant with several hundred employees decided to build a more open workplace. Meridian Group was invited to help them with that process. Several meetings with the plant leadership group produced a vision and a plan. Meridian Group trained supervisors to lead open problem-solving meetings with employees. Through a series of discussions with supervisors, managers committed to support three employee problem-solving groups: manufacturing, sanitation and safety, and the quality control lab. Each of the three groups began by identifying problems interfering with their tasks. Breakdowns gave the production line group the most trouble. These were physically and psychologically draining for the workers. With guidance, the small group systematically collected data on the frequency, type and cause of breakdowns. The process of identifying and analyzing problems soon led to problem-solving. As their analysis looked deeper at root causes, the group involved other shifts and other departments in the analysis; first to collect and analyze data, but later to list and map broad system-related issues connected to the breakdowns. It was not easy for the managers to remain open as the employees took responsibility for analyzing and addressing inter-departmental and, later on, external supplier issues. Many managers felt that this was their exclusive territory. ("If I don't own that who am I?") But with a little help from the plant manager and Meridian Group, they restrained themselves from interfering and soon learned to adopt a strongly supportive role. Meanwhile, the small group of sanitation and safety employees had begun analyzing their own work-related problems. Their biggest frustrations were the large mounds of product waste they had to constantly clean up. As a long-range goal, they wanted to keep the plant cleaner by stopping the mess at its source. As with the production group, it wasn't long before they involved other parts of the plant in mapping broad system-wide issues that led to product waste. The third group in quality control took a curious twist. Lab employees' biggest problem stemmed from conflicting shifts schedules. Their own 4 x 10 hour shifts were out of sync with the supervisor's 5 x 8 hour shifts. Employees had rotating supervisors each with their own favorite way of conducting quality control checks. This unpredictability drove the lab employees crazy. The lab team wisely avoided confronting the supervisors directly. Instead, they decided to develop a quality control manual. This was a big undertaking given that, as with the other two groups, they only met once a week for an hour. But the project was very satisfying and involving. Employees frequently worked on it at home at night and on weekends. They circulated each standardized process draft to everybody affected—this was a required part of the problem-solving process. Supervisors had to discuss the drafts and agree whether or not to follow the proposed standardized tests. Soon everybody was on board. Employees' frustrations evaporated. Within 18 months, the small group had produced a 150-page manual that was so comprehensive and thorough, it was adopted by most of the other plants in the company. Uncovering Systemic Problems From a broader perspective, all of the problems were related. So, the three groups quickly found themselves working closely together on system-wide issues, a process that eventually involved, to some degree, almost everybody in the plant. It was clear that a new wind was blowing. Culture Change Needs Momentum and Senior Management Support Employees knew that upper management now supported employees in solving their frustrations at work, even if this sometimes involved changing comfortable and long-standing (but not necessarily constructive) relationships with supervisors, managers and other departments. Not only did productivity increase and product loss decrease, but morale rose to the point that people were openly excited about coming to work. People discussed at home what was going on at work—something they had never done in the past. It wasn't just employees who experienced change. I was pleased to hear the assistant plant manager talking with a group of new supervisors say, "After 28 years with the company, I'm looking forward to bringing you along so that you don't have to unlearn what I have unlearned about leadership in the last year." With employees taking more responsibility for issues in their work area the plant manager told a visitor, "I have more control of what goes on here now when I'm away from the plant than I had before when I was on-site." Key to Change: Senior Management's Open-mindedness It was upper management's new openness to employees' concerns that set the stage for all these innovative changes as employees energetically and creatively addressed problems interfering with their work. Management didn't give them these problems or abstract goals such as "increase productivity" or "improve customer service." Real concerns of real people were identified and solved through an open evolutionary dialogue with each other and with management. Because employees identified the problems, they were highly motivated to solve them and to make their solutions stick. None of these specific problems or their solutions were predicted or anticipated by upper management. While the process began with people's workplace frustrations it soon led to addressing broad, system-wide interdepartmental and supplier issues that had been unapproachable for many years. At this plant, in 18 months, productivity doubled. Small evolutionary steps had led to big changes. Company leaders who are open to their people and to this human evolutionary process will experience building successful, profitable and highly satisfying work places.