In his Hi, I'm Back posting, Wichi Dude talks about changing nomenclature at his place of work--a place that has gifted him with a paycheck for 20 years (plus or minus a couple). [I'll probably pay for that remark!!] At any rate: anyone who has been employed for more than six months, by a company or corporation, will experience a resonance in reading that posting. Things just keep changing. There are people out there who make their living just selling upper management on new notions. "If you impliment this new program, it will double your sales, double your production, halve your costs, and make all of your employees happy campers! And I wouldn't be surprised if it cures all the backaches, toothaches, and cancers in your workers, too! And, oh, BTW, I'll be happy to supply the trainers and training materials that you will need to inculcate this new culture into your organization over the next six-to-ten years."
At The Little Airplane Company, every few years, we were faced with a "new" way of thinking about things. In the late 1970s it was Value Analysis - Value Engineering, in which I duly earned their diploma in 1980. I went away for nine years (during which I had to adapt to a corporate culture at The Little Consultant Engineering & Management Company that underwent its own changes). When I returned to The Little Airplane Company, they were just starting the change to Total Quality Management. Each employee was required to take at least 40 hours of training (10 courses) in TQM, and we in management had to take at least 44 hours. I finished that course of training by 1998 or thereabouts. Next up: RPD (Rapid Product Development? Who remembers?) RPD didn't last very long: We progressed right into the Six Sigma culture and Supply Chain Management. By this time, I had had enough Mickey Mouse and refused to play nice. As I retired in 2004, my recalcitrance didn't cause my bosses a problem, and I am happy to report that I earned neither a green belt nor a black belt; although, I still read in the company's bi-monthly news magazine about those who have.
My personal opinion is that if 90% of the money spent on such training programs were spent on providing better tools to the workers--be they in fabrication and assembly, in engineering, or any of the other organizations that struggle with justifying capital expenditures--morale would be improved. The other 10% should be spent on get-to-know-one-another classes (I think the youngsters call this "networking".) Each class would have students drawn, randomly, from various departments and the student's only assignment would be to get to know others. A student wouldn't be allowed out of the class until s/he could call each other student by name, tell what department (not by department number, but by actual, by-gosh function) that person worked in, and a few things about the person. Come to think of it: I'll spend the next 3 months putting together a proposal and curriculum to present to the 10 top aviation-related companies in the Wichita area. Anyone want to be a part of my "faculty"? (We'll make a killing!) What shall we call our new program?
"Gifted". I love it. Best chuckle I had all day.
If it were an actual program, that would have been fine. This is just re-evaluating a current system and making it more detailed. But instead of having "minor", "major" and "critical" quality issues, the "major" is broken into 3 parts.
And depending on the "type" of audit, they don't count anyway.
Crazy.
"Gifted" hehe
Posted by: Wichi Dude | March 01, 2006 at 01:32 AM
Whatever are you thinking, Cowtown Pattie? Do you realize what this would do to the unemployment figures if all those consultant training jobs were eliminated?
As for your suggestion that people get to know each other and what each other does, that is totally contrary to the whole business philosopy of "It's better to not know than to know." (Can't recall now the management guru who coined that slogan, but he made a mint on his book, all those seminars and consulting jobs.)
I'll serve on your faculty, 'cause I like airplanes. That's enough isn't it?
Posted by: joared | March 01, 2006 at 02:45 AM
Everyone would hate me in your class - I would never remember everyone's names (much less their department). Heck, I can't remember the names of people I have known for years much of the time. We would never get out of that room!
Posted by: bogie | March 01, 2006 at 03:11 AM
Wichi Dude--I had to be a lot nicer to you when you and Dudette had complete control over the amount of time that I could spend with Wonderful GrandDaughter, didn't I? I couldn't resist!
Joared--Glad to see that I'm not the only one who gets confused as to whose posting I'm commenting upon. (I go one further--leaving a comment for one blog's posting on a posting of a different blog! Did that the other day with Millie and Pattie, as I recall.) My theory, throughout my career, was that one could not know too much about one's product nor could one know too many fellow employees. Of all the management meetings/corporate culture courses that I ever took, the greatest value imparted to me was in getting to know the other folks.
Bogie--Did I say that you had to, forever, remember anyone's name? I have complete faith that you can remember the names long enough to get out of the class. If you get to know each person a bit, in class, you may not, later, recall the name; but, you will know that the person exists. Knowing that s/he exists, it shouldn't take more than 3 phone calls to track them down. How else can one ask favors? Gotta know of whom to ask them, first! (Obviously, favors are a two-way street.) That's what "networking" is all about. My thinking on this may not be of as much value to someone working within a smaller corporation. The smallest company for which I worked had 4,000 people; the largest, (I'm guessing) 75,000. The Little Airplane Company was usually about 11,000.
Posted by: Cop Car | March 01, 2006 at 03:19 PM
I will serve on the faculty and bring with me all the education workshops and education philosophy classes that I suffered through in my 34 year career.
This reminds me that I mentored new teachers for at least half of my career and loved it. No pressure just the teacher across the hall with a few ideas and a few years under her belt. Then the State set up a Mentor Program and paid us to Mentor. The new teachers were scared to death of Mentor Teachers and stayed as far away as possible. They were afraid to ask for help because they thought we would evaluate them and they would show a lack of ability. They were justified because some Principals (although this was not part of the job,) did expect feedback to use for evaluation
Another example of a new idea gone bad.
Posted by: Maria | March 01, 2006 at 05:31 PM
I'm still stuck on trying to remember someone's name just 10 seconds after we have been introduced (even if I called them by name while shaking their hand). Can I use cheat sheets?
Posted by: bogie | March 02, 2006 at 03:11 AM
Maria--It's too bad that the formalization of the mentoring relationship led to distrust/discomfort. Teachers work in a different hierarchy than that within which engineers work. Regardless, anyone with a little experience under his/her belt is well-served to become a mentor. In engineering management, the most rewarding part of the job is in seeing one's less experienced engineers coming along and blossoming into their potentials.
Bogie--Absolutely use a cheat sheet. Just be sure to take it back to your desk for future reference! (And just who are you, now? I've forgotten) Like you, it takes me milliseconds to forget a name. The best thing that I can do to help me remember it is to have the person spell the name(s) for me. That (sometimes) allows the information to lodge in a nook or cranny of my brain. It's too bad that your mother used up all of your synapses when you were a kid!
Posted by: Cop Car | March 02, 2006 at 09:08 AM
What are "names"?
Posted by: Wichi Dude | March 02, 2006 at 12:57 PM
I have a dreadful time with names. If I can write the name down, see it, and then say it to others, I can usually remember, but that doesn't necessarily withstand the test of time.
Our company has been as small as 4 and as large as 32. Unfortunately, even though I handle paperwork for every employee, I only know four of us. Everyone but me, works on a job site, and I generally stay away from the mud.
I can't tell you how thankful I am not to have to go through those awful trust building exercises that are so prevalent now. I would NEVER fall backwards into the waiting arms of my fellow employees. Fire me! I'm not doing it!
Posted by: buffy | March 04, 2006 at 08:45 PM
I've heard about the physical exercises of trust, but never observed them. I'm with you, Buffy. Especially since I'm not "into" game playing, they would have had to fired me! I pretty much trust everyone until I've been burned. They usually get a shot at restoring the trust, but almost never a 2nd shot at restoration.
My biggest problem with names is that I get "paired" people who, for whatever reason, get twisted in my mind. After 32 years, I've been known to call each of the pair by the other's name. They don't even have to look at all alike! There are some twisted synapses in my so-called brain!
Posted by: Cop Car | March 05, 2006 at 02:27 PM