0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
56 Ansichten4 Seiten
In the 1980's, Ralph Stayer owned a successful, growing sausage company. He turned the company upside down, but only by turning himself upside down firstly. Stayer bowed quality control over to the workers on the production line.
In the 1980's, Ralph Stayer owned a successful, growing sausage company. He turned the company upside down, but only by turning himself upside down firstly. Stayer bowed quality control over to the workers on the production line.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Verfügbare Formate
Als DOC, PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
In the 1980's, Ralph Stayer owned a successful, growing sausage company. He turned the company upside down, but only by turning himself upside down firstly. Stayer bowed quality control over to the workers on the production line.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Verfügbare Formate
Als DOC, PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
In the era of 1980’s, Ralph Stayer owned a successful, growing
sausage company that had him inadequately nervous. The reason was that Commitment was poor, motivation was down and the difference between performance and potential was colossal. Over the next five years, Stayer turned the company upside down, but only by turning himself upside down firstly. Four years he had control of company in his own hands, made all decisions, and delegated nothing. But when he tried to view what the company would have to look like to sell the most expensive sausage with enjoy the biggest market share, he found that an organization whose employees took responsibility for their own work. After several mistakes at the start, he finally began in a serious way by making himself give up much of his own authorities. Stayer bowed quality control over to the workers on the production line. As the result Workers also began answering letters of complaint from customers. Rate of Rejection went from 5% to 0.5%. It elaborates that the way that he was able to help change the company culture from one where he made all the decisions and took all responsibility to one where everyone in the company was involved in decision making, resulting in a more successful organization. In the interesting early parts of the article it is stated that how the problems created are all about the fault of the author who is the CEO of the company:
“I started by searching for a book that would tell me how to get
people to care about their jobs and their company”. It is stated that there is something which is very easy to forget and we probably end up placing too much emphasis on the individual and forget the whole context in which they are operating. For example, it’s much easier to execute well working in a team in an organization which really buys into the agile/lean way of doing things than it is in one with a strong culture, a tendency to favor the big up front approach and a culture where politics and politics and bureaucracy are predominant. Another interesting surveillance is that his employees were so involved to him solving their problems that even when given permission to solve problems they struggled to do so.
In organization there were good soldiers, and they always tries to do
their best, but I had trained them to expect from me to resolve their problems. I had nurtured their inability by expecting them to be powerless; now they met my expectations with an inability to make decisions unless they knew which decisions I wanted them to realize. I wonder if this explains why, when you try to work in a lively way with a team which is used to a strict hierarchy then they will initially find it difficult to challenge any decision and solve their own problems by their own. This links well with another thing I have noticed as I was reading the article - it takes a long time to change a whole system. The article covers a period of near about 5 years and still there is more that can be done to make the organization even better than before. Another good change is that we don’t need to have a grand plan in order to initiate the change – we can just do it.
These system changes trained me two more valuable lessons; First,
just start, Don’t wait until you have all the answers, if I had waited until I had all the answers, I’d still be waiting. A grand plan was impossible, I just knew I had to change something in order to alter expectations and begin moving toward my goal. I wanted coordinators who could build problem-solving capacities in others rather than solve their problems for them…I took every opportunity to manage stress the need for coaching skills, whenever someone became a coordinator, I made sure that the promotion was for demonstrated abilities as a teacher, coach, and facilitator. This new promotion standard sent a new message: to get ahead at Johnsonville, you need a talent for cultivating and encouraging problem solvers and responsibility takers. The problem with working is that you encourage the wrong behavior but equally we need to ensure that it is safe to fail otherwise people will be terrified to make the wrong decision. In software we can design this into the system by ensuring that we have tight feedback loops and by automating out the possibility of human error. Another observation which I imagine is fairly familiar to anyone working in software development as the following: In our early enthusiasm; we had played down the technical aspects of our business, encouraging everyone to become a coordinator, even those who were far better suited to technical specialties. A career team recommended that Johnsonville set up dual career tracks — one for specialists and one for coordinators that would enable both to earn recognition, status, and compensation on the basis of performance alone.
Employees thrived on their new responsibility and asked for more.
Gradually, people on the shop floor took over personnel functions as well, followed by scheduling, budgeting, and capital improvements. Managers came to function more as coaches than as bosses. Stayer--a little to his own disappointment--began to find himself superfluous. In mid-1985, the company faced a watershed decision--whether or not to accept a massive new order that would make huge demands on every employee and strain the company's capacities. Stayer asked the employees to make the decision. They accepted the challenge, and productivity, profits, and quality all rose dramatically. By the late 1980s, Stayer had reached his goal of working himself out of a job.
Stayer ends with some interesting ideas on improving performance in
organizations of which the stand out points for me were:
• People want to be great. If they aren’t, it’s because
management won’t let them to be. • Learning is a process, not a goal. Each new insight creates a new layer of potential insights.
He also introduced a learning and personal development team to help
employees improve themselves which seems like an interesting idea and one I hadn’t thought about before. The traditional personnel department disappeared and was replaced by a learning and personal development team to help individual employees develop their own Points B and A — their destinations and starting points respectively — and figure out how to use Johnsonville to reach their goals. The summary of his learning’s is perhaps the most insightful though; I’ve learned that change is the real job of every effective business leader because change is about the present and the future, not about the past. There is no end to change. This story is only an interim report. This is the idea of continuous improvement that lean thinking encourages us to embrace – it’s all about the journey and not the destination.