What Did You Say?

I ended my previous post with the question, ‘how does one becomes an effective listener or retains information better?’  There are a number of methods that are written on the Internet with some variations but they do have some commonalities.  These common points I noticed were:

– focus

– patience

– questions

– understanding

– impartiality

– empathising

– observation

There were other various points but those were based on personal opinions and specific settings other than the work environment.  The common points that I have listed are valid and I do use them but the way I use them is dependent on the situation.  The situation varies from group meetings to one-to-one conversations.

As I said before, in the work environment communications is all about getting what you need.  The information conveyor needs something done or delivered.  The information recipient needs to act on those needs or facilitate them.  In order to fulfill the needs of the conveyor you must have all of the relevant information.  To ensure that none are missed you need to perform the first point, ‘focus’.  You need to have your complete attention on the conveyor.  Nothing should distract you from what they are saying; with the exception of a burning building.  The conveyor may think you’re not serious, unprofessional, or even disrespectful if you are easily distracted by other things in the immediate area or what’s on your mind.  As I wrote in the previous post, this could result in the conveyor losing confidence and perhaps even respect for you.

To aid in being focused you must exercise the second point, ‘patience’.  Impatience is a definite distraction for focus, therefore, it is imperative that while you are listening you must not be impatient.  You must allow the conveyor to present the information in a manner in which they feel is effective and are comfortable with.  You may feel that the speaker is taking too much time but they may feel they are providing all of the necessary information. For one-on-one conversations or small meetings, if you have a very finite amount of time to listen, inform the speaker of that before they start; not during.  This will allow them to condense the information so you are not missing any when you leave.

If you have any questions while the conveyor is talking, wait until they pause or are finished to ask your questions.  While it’s unprofessional to interrupt someone, it’s embarrassing to be told that they were about to cover the answer to your question.  This is yet another reason why it is important to be patient.  Some people may feel the need to interrupt because they are concerned that they will forget their questions once the speaker finishes. A remedy for that concern would be to write down your questions in a notebook.  If your questions are answered while the speaker is talking then write down the answers next to your questions, for later reference .

This leads to the next point ‘questions’.  It is absolutely essential that you ask questions if the conveyor did not present enough information.  Your questions need to pertain to the requirements of the speaker.  If the speaker is conveying the performance criteria for a car, it would be irrelevant to ask what colour it should be.  Your questions should be based on an understanding or a lack of understanding of what is required.

This brings us to the next point, ‘understanding’.  There is no better way to be and remain focused than to make an effort to understand what is being said and what is being expected.  As I said before, communications is all about getting what the speaker needs. You must have an understanding of what that need is or strive to gain it.  If you have trouble trying to understand then your questions will be very relevant.

What I typically do whenever the speaker pauses is to formulate in my mind the best or optimum way to achieve the desired deliverables.  If enough information hasn’t been presented to achieve them then I will ask a question or questions, at the appropriate time, requesting clarification or more information.  By the end of the meeting I would have a general plan on how to achieve the deliverables.

Complementing understanding is ‘impartiality’.  Essentially, you must not allow your own ideas or preconceived notions to bias you against the conveyor’s ideas or procedures.  If you do then you will not be receptive to what the speaker is saying.  If you are not receptive then you will not be listening effectively, therefore, listening with an open mind is essential.

The next point is ’empathy’.  Some may say that empathy and understanding are the same point but they do differ.  Understanding is the comprehension of the content of what’s being said.  Empathy is the understanding of the conveyor’s situation that brought about that need, the urgency for it, the criteria for obtaining it, et cetera.  By having a comprehensive understanding of this background information you will able to devise a more effective, quicker solution.  There would be less time spent obtaining clarification, negotiating compromises and less iterations involved.

The final common point is ‘observation’, the act of noticing non-verbal cues.  These cues could include facial expressions, eye movement, hand gestures, body posture, et cetera. The authors of these listening skills articles state that much information can be obtained from these cues, which I don’t doubt.  Personally, I’ve never utilised observations to determine what these cues are probably indicating.  I have found in the work environment that it was always in the best interest of every conveyor I’ve dealt with to state all of the essential information in order to get what they need.

As you have noticed, just as productivity aspects are all interrelated so are the common points for effective listening.  Focus requires patience.  Empathy requires impartiality.  Questioning requires focus and understanding and so on. With these seven points always keep in mind that communication is all about getting what one needs and listening is all about getting the necessary information to provide those needs.

Until the next time!

Employee Empowerment

The last key for a successful company turn around that John Chen mentioned in his blog was employee empowerment.  This was the only key of his which I did not write about as an aspect of productivity.  Since I didn’t write about it, do not think I consider it as not pertinent. It is just as important as all of the other aspects.

The reason why I didn’t write about it is actually quite surprising.  I really didn’t think about it.

You’re likely wondering why I didn’t think of it, yet I wrote about those other aspects.  The reason was that empowerment was inherent in every environment I’ve worked in.  I’m so used to it that I don’t think about it.  If any of my co-workers or myself encountered a problem or an oversight that was made by someone else, we immediately took the necessary steps to correct it without asking permission from management.  Like most things in life, there are exceptions.  Those exceptions could be ‘customer specifications’ related.  In that case, permission would definitely be required.

Essentially, empowerment is the act of giving the authority to subordinates to make their own decisions, take risks, to take control of a situation that requires an immediate direction, et cetera.

If employees are empowered then decisions on several matters could be accomplished by several people rather than by just one; the manager.  Projects would progress at a faster pace.

A recent example of this occurred when our project manager decided to have a supplier supply a main component in a semi-completed state.  Our fabrication department would then complete the parts by adding the remaining features.  The project manager naturally assumed that the remaining fabrication would be well within the capabilities of our shop and it was a correct assumption.  Our fabrication department have consistently produced excellent components.  Personally, I don’t make assumptions on anything, regardless of past performances.  I decided to ask the fabrication manager if his department was capable of the required operations to finish these parts.  He replied it would be very difficult due to possible imperfections in the semi-completed parts.  I informed the project manager of the fabrication manager’s concerns and I suggested a higher point of semi-completion that would be free of any inherent imperfections.  He agreed to my suggestion.  It was very fortunate that I had done this.  Had I not taken the initiative to check with the fabrication manager, the result would have been in a much long project completion time and extra costs.

That was an example of what John Chen expects in his organisation, employees taking the initiative to take action on things that they recognise as a potential problem, as well as providing ideas.  It is easy to sit back and say “I knew that was going to happen” but that hindsight doesn’t benefit anyone, not even the person making that claim.  Productivity suffers and consequently the company’s bottomline.  One will not be appreciated when they make an after-the-fact claim but they will be appreciated if they are proactive the moment they’ve identified a potential problem.

As a manager, you have to be open to suggestions from anyone regardless if they have less experience and knowledge than you.  They may have noticed something you may have overlooked or not considered.  By letting your employees know you are willing to listen and give consideration for their ideas you will be fostering initiative with your employees.  Once that is established your projects should run faster due to others, not just management, making decisions on matters which requires immediate attention.

Until the next time!

What’s Your First Thought?

When I wrote my first post I mentioned three aspects of productivity I wanted to cover; innovation, flexibility, and speed.  The first aspect I mentioned and talked about in detail, in subsequent posts, was innovation.  Innovation was also the first key John Chen mentioned in his post on the method for a successful company turn around.  This wasn’t a coincidence.  There is a reason why we both mentioned it first but that should not be interpreted as an order of importance.  As Mr. Chen stated in his post, innovation is what people expect from companies in his industry.  It is the most visible aspect for an outsider.  It is what is talked about most often and it tends to generate the most excitement.  If you were to tell an outsider your company is now faster in delivering it’s products or services, it is now more flexible in it’s operations, and it has improved all internal and external communications you will likely receive a somewhat positive to neutral response.  If you were to say your company is producing more innovative products or services you will more than likely receive a much more positive response.  It can be argued whether or not innovation is more important than the other aspects of productivity but one thing is certain; it definitely grabs a person’s attention more than the others.  This is the reason why it is usually mentioned first.

Once you have that person’s attention they will either assume your company is engaging in ground breaking R&D or they may ask how is it being innovative.  If you tell them “inside the box” they feel that it may not be enough.  The chances are that reason would not be based on any intimate knowledge of your organisation but purely on preference.  People generally like to hear that some thing is “cutting-edge” or radical.  As I said in a previous post ‘Innovation, No Its Too Hard – Part 2‘, your decision to innovate inside or outside the box would depend on your available resources.  If your organisation has an abundance of resources such as expertise, time, money, et cetera then both options could be considered.  If your organisation has a shortage of any one or more of the typical resources then inside the box would be the more viable option.

I read an article on an interview John Chen had where he talked about the two approaches to innovation.  He basically said that while “outside the box” is nice it is not necessary for developing great products.  He then said that utilising the “inside the box” approach can yield great products also.  What he was indicating was that if one already has a good product then “inside the box” innovation could transform it into a great product.  To understand his approach you have to keep in mind his specialty; turning around struggling companies.  Struggling companies may not have an abundance of money and certainly not an abundance of time.  With a shortage of two significant resources, “inside the box” innovation become the preferred method of innovation.

Although we all would like to have radically new products and services derived by “outside the box” thinking, we have to be aware of not only of the available resources but also the risks.  Remember the risks are much greater when you develop a product or service “outside the box” than “inside the box”.  I am by no means trying to discourage anyone for engaging in “outside the box” thinking.  All i am saying is be aware of your resources and risks.  Even though John Chen’s company was struggling and short on resources at the time, they still produced a revolutionary product that was well received by their customers.  They took the risks and it paid off for them.

In my next post I will talk about the next key to John Chen’s method for a successful turn around and how it is similar to it’s associated aspect of productivity.

Until the next time!

Do “Bullet-Proof” Processes Or Designs Eliminate Future Problems?

Throughout my career I’ve heard the term “bullet proof” a few times from a few managers but never from individual contributors.  The first time I heard it I didn’t know what it meant but from the context of the sentence I determined the intended definition.  Some of these phrases I’ve heard were, “…your design needs to be bullet-proof.” or “…the procedure must be bullet-proof.”

Why would anyone request, metaphorically speaking, that a design or process be “bullet-proof”?  The foremost reason why someone would make that request is  for their concern to eliminate the effects of any and all problems that may arise.  For the creator of the design or procedures, their primary concern is that it functions within the accepted criteria.  Designing for anticipated problems would be an immediate secondary priority.

I never gave the bullet-proof term much thought or the reasons why the individual contributors I know never used it, until some time ago.

I had an interview for a Manufacturing Engineer position.  Throughout the interview the interviewers repeatedly expressed how impressed they were at the fact that I was cross-functional.  I didn’t see that quality or skill as something exceptional.  It’s just a matter of doing what is required for dynamic situations.  I thought if they were impressed with that then they would be very impressed with my track record of quickly resolving production issues, since both come from the same philosophy.  Surprisingly, the technical manager was not impressed.  He said that the goal of the Manufacturing Engineer is not to solve problems all the time but to devise processes that are “bullet proof”.  Hmm, I haven’t heard that term for the longest time.  I came to the immediate realisation why my colleagues and I don’t use it.  For the sake of possibly snafuing the interview, I decided not to point out the flaw in the technical manager’s philosophy.

Sure, in an ideal world it would be possible to devise designs or processes that would account for all problem occurrences.  In reality there are numerous factors that can render the “bullet-proof” concept as nothing more than a desire.  One of these is the human factor. The human factor is one that is multi-faceted.  By that I mean to say we all have our times when we are not operating or thinking at 100%.  We have our “off-days” due to illness, distractions, or mood.  Basically our focus have diminished to a degree, which naturally would result in mistakes being made.  Another variable of the human factor is our mindsets. Mindset is another broad topic which I talked about in the Flexibility and Mindset posts (Introduction, Complacency, and Ego).

I can go on to list even more variables to this one factor but the point I’m making is that with all of the variables that are a part of this factor, the goal of devising a “bullet-proof” system becomes a very difficult endeavour.  Eliminating the human factor through automation will not guarantee a “bullet-proof” system.  Mechanical problems do occur, such as tool breakage, equipment defects, and other factors we may or not have control over.

To list every known possible cause for problems and those that would be unknown, it would be an extremely long and exhaustive exercise.  If someone requests that a product or process be “bullet-proof”, they are essentially asking the creator to undertake this very long exercise.  Does productivity suffer?  Absolutely.  Implementation times would be greatly increased, resulting in spending more time for the products and services to reach the customer.  Some may argue that the extra time spent up front will be beneficial in the long term.  That is correct if your organisation is not planning on changing anything for that length of time.  In an evolving business environment, that would not be a practical thing to do.

So the question of, do “bullet-proof processes or designs eliminate future problems?  In theory, yes.  In practice, it is not a feasible endeavour.

In the spirit of keeping this post short, I would like to continue this topic on next week’s post.

Until the next time!

Semi-Automation: Achieving Speed And Also Cost Reductions

At the beginning of the 20th century an innovator name Henry Ford revolutionised the auto industry and consequently the industrial world with the invention of the assembly line. Prior to that workers walked over to each product, carrying with them the add on parts and their tools.  Usually they made numerous trips, switching between parts and tools. A considerable amount of time was taken up by the workers travelling to and from the products.  The assembly line turned this concept around to the exact opposite, where the products move to the workers while the workers remain in one spot.  By having the workers, their tools, and parts in one place individual travel times are eliminated, thus speeding up the assembly process.  Additional, each worker would be responsible for attaching the same part(s) onto the product.  By specialising the functions of each worker the tasks become repetitive, therefore, reducing the chances of errors and speeding up the assembly process further.

The assembly line made it possible for more people to afford their own vehicle due to reduced costs and increased productivity; by having more products made over a period of time.  It would be advantageous to use those same principles in our work to raise our productivity but that is only possible if your work consists of only repetitive tasks.  Project work, for the most part, is not repetitive.  Every assignment is different or has varying degrees of differences from the next.  If your project does have some repetitive tasks within it or it has a task that is similar to a task in other project then some of the aspects of the assembly line could be incorporated into your project and others’.  This aspect I’m referring to is what I call ‘semi-automation’.  The repetitive or similar tasks could be off loaded to a process that doesn’t not require as many inputs compared to a fully manual operation.  That semi-automatic process isn’t necessarily a robot performing tasks.  It could be software used for number crunching or a jig / fixture for product alignment.

A friend owns a small business that designs and makes custom reflective products.  He told me that no two orders are the same.  All of the products are designed based on the individual customers’ requirements.  My friend told me that he spends a considerable amount of time manually quoting each proposed requirement and he said there are times when he finds it difficult to keep up when there is a surge in quotation requests. I suggested to him that he should make the quotation process semi-automatic.  He quickly dismissed the suggestion by saying each quotation is different.  He said the sizes and material combinations differ between the requests so it is impossible to do that.  I asked him if there were any common factors between the quotes for each product.  He thought about it for a few seconds and then said yes.  I told him those common factors could form the basis for making his quotation process semi-automatic.  I told him that the numbers for the common factors could be calculated by a computer programme while he manually calculates the values for the unique factors and then incorporate the two sets of numbers into the formal quotation.  A few weeks later I spoke with him.  He told me that he created a spreadsheet that has entry fields for both the common and unique factors.  He said he now spends one tenth the amount of time on the quotations compared to before.

Another friend who is an engineer mentioned to me a product his company has been making successfully for many years but now they’re finding it difficult to be competitive. He said the competition is offering their own product at a much lower price and they are not sure how to bring down their costs, in order to match the price.  He said there was one considerable difference with this order compared to the others.  That was the quantity. They had never received a quotation request for such a large quantity before.  I noted that they were fairly competitive with smaller orders but not with this large quote.  I asked him what processes were they using at his company to make this product.  As it turns out, their processes were very manual intensive.  For a small order, the number of manual inputs may not have that great of an impact as compared to a large order.  I told him that he could reduce the amount of manual inputs by using fixtures to position the components while they are being secured to one another.  Similar to the previous example, the time savings from reducing the number of manual inputs becomes greater with increased volumes. The greater the time savings, the lower the costs.

This approach of semi-automation can be used for any task or procedure that have repetitive or very similar actions.  These repetitive actions do not have to occur in the same project or task in order to have them semi-automated.  Think of it like there are two different products that need to be painted the same colour. Rather than painting them separately in their own production cells, they could be sent to a common paint booth to be painted at the same time.  The two separate steps would be combined into one step for both projects.

Until next time!

Employee Treatment: Short Or Long Term Impact?

I want to go back to the responses of the productivity survey I conducted a few weeks ago, in particular treatment of people.  I mentioned it very briefly, so I want to go into more detail on it’s effects on productivity.  I’ve read some articles on this subject and I have witnessed different approaches supervisors and managers use towards their subordinates. Their approaches ranged from treating their employees with the utmost decency and respect to using fear and intimidation.  Much of the articles (Business Insider and USA Today Money) I’ve read focused on the former as a means to increase workers’ productivity. These articles have essentially stated the same thing that I’ve mentioned before, if employees are treated well then they will be more likely to put in extra effort in their jobs and stay with the company for the long run.  The industry term for this is called ‘Employee Engagement’.  These articles go even further to state that studies have been made that concludes that the higher the employee engagement a company has, the higher will be it’s growth and profits as compared to companies that have low employee engagement.  One of the articles references a study which finds that companies that have high employee engagement had on average operating margins of 27.4% whereas companies that are focused only on it’s goals had operating margins of about 14.3%.  Companies that ignored employee engagement had on average margins around 9.9%.  If you look at companies on Fortune’s list of the ‘100 Best Companies to Work For’, you will notice that these companies have a lower employee turnover average than their industry wide average.  As I stated in a previous post, a lower employee turnover results in higher company productivity.  You will not have your sources of innovation leaving as frequently.  You will not have to spread existing employees thin to make up for any positional vacancies.  You will not have to spent as much time and money vetting replacement candidates and there will be less training time involved for new employees overall.

Okay, the message is loud and clear; you treat employees with decency and respect, they will become more engaged with the company.  The more employee engagement you have, the higher the company’s productivity will be.  The opposite is also true.  Lower employee engagement results in lower productivity.  So the question is why do some supervisors and managers operate on the other end of the scale; subjecting their subordinates to fear and intimidation?  The answer is because it works.  Fear and intimidation are effective motivators.  It goes back to our primal origins, the fight for survival.  If you watch nature shows fear is the emotion that keeps an animal on it’s guard, thus increasing it’s chances of survival.  An animal that doesn’t have any fear doesn’t last very long.  These supervisors and managers instinctively know this, therefore, that is a reason why they use it.  In reality fear and intimidation does motivate employees but only in the short term.  After a certain period of time the employee’s higher reasoning brain functions kick in or they become demoralised.  Either way, the fear and intimidation tactics will cease to work.  The demoralised employee would just give up trying and just take their job on a day to day basis, expecting to be let go eventually.  The employee who uses higher reasoning will either take steps to leave the company or retaliate.  With all three outcomes, the company suffers.

Also consider that worker motivation is not the only reason for these manager’s intimidation approach.  Another reason is they are establishing themselves as the superior, not just in rank but also knowledge and intelligence.  I have witnessed this with a few new managers. They immediately criticise everyone and everything shortly after arriving, thus giving the impression that they are the company’s or department’s saviour.  They usually don’t acknowledge any of the existing positives because that would be counter to the message they are trying to get across.  If you are considering using this approach I strongly recommend you don’t.  The reasons are as follows.  I was told about a company that had it’s fair share of new hire managers.  Some of these managers quickly played the bad cop role shortly after arriving, employing fear, intimidation, and criticism.  I was informed that it only worked on a select few.  There was no effect on the majority of employees.  Those employees were all using higher reasoning.  They knew that it was impossible for these new managers to have a total understanding of the operations and operators within a few days or even hours.  The employees would then view them as being “out of touch” or uninformed and as a result would not take them seriously.  This is the primary reason why I strongly recommend against the use of this tactic.  The exact opposite of the intent is achieved.  Rather than motivating the employees and/or trying to get them to adopt your ideas, you would be ignored.  Once the respect is lost it will be very hard and will take a long time to regain it.  There is one particular type of employee in which these tactics will not work on at all.  Those employees are the ones who are very competent, knowledgeable, and confident in the jobs they do.  Since they are very good at what they do, they will not tolerate these tactics.  Chances are they would not hesitate to leave the company, knowing that their skills, knowledge, and experience will get them into another company.  The tactic quickly becomes counter-productive as oppose to being effective for the short term. Instead it would be considerably better to exchange ideas with these employees since they would have intimate knowledge of the various operational aspects and that information would be very useful to you in your plans.

It is far more advantageous to focus on employee engagement for obtaining a long term impact on the company’s performance than on actions with near term goals.  Like everything else, to realise higher productivity levels, a foundation must be established first. That foundation is the employees.

Until the next time!