George:
Thank you for bringing the topic up as I think it's an important one. I
can't answer all your answers but I can share my experience.
For almost four years I managed the training function of a unionized paper
mill in the mid-90s. Before I arrived they had never had a formalized
training system and there was great distrust between management and the
union. During the time I was there, the management and the union
leadership agreed to a number of different training and organizational
iniatives with the overall purpose being to raise the level of knowledge
among all employees, increase their involvement in improving the product,
and overall raising quality and lowering costs. Over the course of about
three years, employees received a variety of training, including technical
training on the machines, team and interpersonal communication training,
and SPC (statistical process control). The more experienced and
knowledgeable employes were also asked to help develop manuals, document
procedures, and agree on quality standards. (In addition, the company
sponsored a literacy program which was co-adminstered by me and an hourly
employee.)
The results were, to some degree, extremely gratifying. The trust level
overall increased. The training manuals were, on the whole, well received
and used to improve the ongoing, one-on-one training. Teams were formed,
sometimes at the iniative of management and sometimes at the iniative of
hourly workers, which produced real improvement. Probably the single
greatest evidence of progress was the retention of a whole department
which corporate had wanted to cut. It was saved because, through their
teams, the department's employees had already started to collect the data
they needed to show that "outsourcing" the function would not produce the
savings corporate had predicted. (At another mill where this had not been
done, the department was cut.) The head of this particular department
also calculated that in one year his department, through increase in the
"yield" of quality paper, had produced savings in the realm of $2 million.
Overall and gradually, the hourly workers! took on the "team/system
mentality."
We did encounter the resistance you allude to and which one would expect.
There was a culture present which did not reward, either formally or
informally, the sharing of knowledge. The more immediate resistance was
from the union leadership in believing that any manuals produced would
lead to management's ability to withstand a strike because it would show
them how to operate the equipment. (This was actually the hardest and
slowest barrier to overcome because it concerned a trust issue which
didn't change overnight.)
Also hourly workers worked their way up through their progressions to the
highest job of machine tender. Not all the machine tenders wanted to give
away what they saw as their knowledge that they had worked so hard to
gain. Furthermore, there was a very real belief on the part of individual
employees that only they knew how the machines should be run to produce
quality paper and, therefore, a tendency to adjust the controls as soon as
they arrived, no matter what the paper looked like. There were also the
usual "silo blinders" where departments pointed the finger and didn't pass
information backwards or forwards. So in answer (finally) to one of your
questions, yes, it was difficult "to move from the station mentality to
the team mentality." However, although I can remember various conflicts
between workers (especially in the initial stages of learning team
skills), the initiatives did not seem to increase the overall level of
conflict.
Anecdotally, I observed "increased job satisfaction" and we certainly
experienced increased output and quality. I don't think I observed any of
the managers expressing the belief "that a station mentality...produces
higher quality." However, some of the behavior of the line supervisors
did not always support the involvement of the hourly workers on their
shifts. (They would overrule or ignore suggestions; they wouldn't explain
decisions. They sent the metamessage that the hourly worker did not have
enough knowledge to make a certain decision, etc.) But actually the
quality professionals present in the mill were, for the most part,
extremely supportive of the team/systems approach.
Unfortunately, we just weren't fast enough. Costs weren't reduced enough
fast enough to compensate for falling market share and lower prices
generally within the industry. And when staff and hourly worker positions
kept getting cut, it became more and more difficult to continue because
basically the support just wasn't there. And management became distracted
by the urgency of reducing the red ink immediately and took their eye off
the longer term payoffs. Eventually, the mill was sold to another company
which I understand has done even more cutting.
So my experience was certainly a mixed bag. But, after it, I believe even
more strongly that the knowledge residing in individual employees is
gold...if only it can be mined effectively. And that's why I continue to
enjoy the contributions here because I am not satisified that I know how
to influence an organization to become a more effective learning
organization within the time required. But I do know that for awhile I
had the most intense and satisfying work experience of my career and that
the relationships I formed there were unlike any others I've had before or
since.
Thank you for letting me share my experience. I apologize for the length.
This has really been the first opportunity I've had to reflect on it
within a community such as this. I hope some of it was of value to your
question.
Rebecca Bell
email: rgbell@earthlink.net
Seattle, WA
--"Bell, Rebecca S" <Rebecca.Bell@PSS.Boeing.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>