A632.7.3RB

A632.7.3RB

MSLD 632: Decision Making For Leaders 

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Worldwide: Online Campus

January 7, 2015

INTRODUCTION:

I am Quality Manager of a printed board manufacturing company and have the responsibility of insuring that the facility, the people and processes are within IPC and ISO compliance, specifically, compliance regulations that have governing body oversight. I am responsible for certifying, training, and systematically improving operations among the staff of thirty. While I have been in this position for under a year, the majority of the staff has been with this company on average fifteen years. This long-time employment trend and low turnover reflects positively on the owners and the work environment they have created.  

The ISSUE:

This stable environment, however, has created a perfect impediment to company growth: the resistance to change.  When I attempted to improve systems by implementing a new process improvement or even a change in routine, I met resistance. For example, it is my responsibility to assign identification stamps to every assembler on the production floor, so that boards are manufactured correctly.  If, during final inspection or testing operations, the board is found defective in any way, the assembler is held responsible.  This applies to RMAs, as well, that is, a rejection due to defect by the customer. At first, it seemed to me to be a reliable, accountable process, but it was not. The existing stamping process that matched an assembler to a stamp was completely ineffective. Tracking identification stamps had been assigned to each assembler, on average, about twelve years ago. I discovered that the stamps we use cost about $15 each. 

JOB RESPONSIBILITY CONFUSION:

Because these stamps were bought so long ago, the assemblers found very creative ways of re-designing them to function so that they could stamp their identification number, as required, on an average 100 boards per day. In my research, I learned that the production manager and prior quality manager responded hostility when assemblers asked for new, verifiable stamps. The production manager did not see a need for new ones, regardless of the condition. 

A potential conflict became immediately apparent. It is my job responsibility as quality manager to assign and ensure that identification numbers are assigned, but it is the production manager's responsibility to provide the tools in order to get the job done. The production manager also has the exclusive responsibility to purchase any supplies deemed necessary, and I, therefore, am not able to go around the production manager. 

I was able to walk the production floor to get an estimate of how many assemblers were in dire need of new stamps; the finding was that more than 75% needed new ones. All assemblers were very appreciative that I even asked them what I could do to improve their working conditions. The requests were very minimal, ranging from the need for new pens to fulfill mandatory data reporting to the need for paper clips and binder clips to secure important reference ISO and IPC documentation. It took me an hour to satisfy these basic needs. But, when I approached the production manager about the need for new stamps, my request was met with anger, frustration and resentment. 

No doubt, the investment in necessary tools is an essential manufacturing cost and should be considered as such by all management. The fact that these stamps carry a minimal cost made me wonder what the true resistance was really about. 

The CONSEQUENCE:

Because I had asked the assemblers their opinions, the staff seemed hopeful that I was going to follow through on a misunderstood request to replace their ineffective or missing tools. Because I asked the production manager to replace the stamps, he grudgingly went to every assembler, confronting them by asking, "What is wrong with your stamp now?" This did two things. It started a conflict among the staff with their manager, and it made me look like I had no authority in the process. Additionally, I felt it showed and modeled a lack of respect for a peer manager. From another perspective, it challenged the production manager's authority.

STAKEHOLDER BUY-IN:

Had I gone to the production manager prior to asking the assemblers about the condition of their stamp, I would have minimized the outcome and perhaps realized that I lacked the decision-making authority with regard to the acquisition of new stamps. I would have learned his perspective of why he believed the assemblers should go longer with tools that are inferior. I could have possibly received his buy-in to make the change once I had shared the benefit to the company for change.

The assemblers have yet to receive new stamps to use in their daily routines, and they are still seeking creative solutions to get their tools to work effectively.

The MANAGER ROLE:

Given the long-time, embedded culture, I am still trying to determine the range and limits of my managerial role.  It is still not clearly defined whose buy-in I need on certain issues.  This would help determine which political plays I need to make, and when and how to assert leadership when needed. Once I understand this, I think the buy-in; my acceptance and position in the company will have more clarity for me and to all involved. This is definitely a work in progress. 

References:

Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution: Turning conflict into resolution. (2nd edition). Williston, VT: Berrett-Koehler. ISBN: 978-1-57675-771-0