The Issue
The critical issue facing Jimenez in trying to transport the solution which worked at the Wichita site to the Lubbock site is that the Lubbock plant is missing the charismatic leadership of a veteran like David Keller. Keller is an exceptional leader who is quick to seize an opportunity when he sees it. Besides, he had also previously worked at Wichita for eight years and people probably still recognized him. At the Wichita site, he was obviously making all the decisions and hence there was no ambiguity (Rogers & Blenko, 2007). Since the workers trusted Keller, it was easier for them to suggest changes for the benefit of the site. Keller’s absence at Lubbock made that all-important difference between the success and failure of the strategy.
In attempting to transfer the model to Lubbock, Jimenez is trying to take on the leadership role which was taken by Keller at Wichita. However, she does not have the charisma of Keller and workers probably think of her in the same way as they think of engineers: “she knows how to mine only on a computer screen”. Her various attempts to get the workers to participate in the problem-solving process are not working because the workers are seeing it as a distraction that is preventing them from doing the real work (Zaleznik, 1997). As far as the workers are concerned, their job is to mine and not sit in some conference room discussing the mining process on paper. And when Jimenez tried to force the Wichita methodology at Lubbock she is seen as taking undue advantage of her authority. In short, everything that worked at Wichita is failing at Lubbock because of lack of inspirational leadership.
The Response
Although the problems at the two sites were similar, the same strategy is not working in both the places because the strategy involves human participation. Humans are complex beings and it is difficult to say how they would react in a particular situation. Same person may react differently to the same problem at different times depending on a number of personal and professional reasons. So while strategy used at Wichita was a good one, it needs to be tweaked to adjust to the realities of Lubbock site.
The success of the strategy at the Wichita site proves that the people are at the heart of the problem and they alone can solve it (Heifetz, 2006). Just as at Wichita, at Lubbock too, the main problem is that the workers do not get along with the managers. However, unlike at Wichita, at Lubbock the workers are unwilling to cross the mental barrier and work cooperatively in an attempt to find the solution. The one person who could change this is Keller, but he is unavailable. Under the circumstances, Jimenez needs to change her strategy and instead of trying to bring the workers to attend the monthly “problem chat”, she could accompany the managers on a weekly tour of the site, trying to find out what the problems are. The workers are more likely to co-operate when they see the managers alongside, getting down and dirty. Also, since they would not be required to leave their work while offering their suggestions, they would not feel that they are ignoring “real work” at the management’s whim. Once the management has thus isolated and fixed a couple of problems, they are likely to get more respect and trust from the workers, who are then likely to be more forthcoming with their problems.
Another strategy would be to allow the workers to be more participative in solving the day-to-day problems (Hersey & Blanchard, 1995). Since the workers are doing this work daily, they are closer to the operational issue which prevents better efficiency. As such, instead of the management telling them what to do, the leadership could encourage the workers to solve their own problems, even announcing awards for those who solve a major problem. Such a strategy would make the workers feel more responsible and reduce their antagonistic attitude. Once the workers let their guard down, it will become easier to improve the relationship between the workers and the managers, helping raise their morale and improving the productivity of the site.
Although this strategy could succeed at Lubbock, it is not without its drawbacks. Communication between the management and the workers is the biggest barrier and there is no guarantee that the strategy would be able to overcome this barrier. Also, some of the workers may resent being asked too many questions and feel that managers are interfering in their work. Jimenez will have make sure that when the managers make their rounds of the site, they do not come in the way of the workers and their presence should not in any way threaten the workers.
Annotated Bibliography
Heifetz, Ronald. “Anchoring Leadership in the Work of Adaptive Progress.” The Leader of the Future 2. Eds. Frances Hesselbein & Marshall Goldsmith. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006. 73-84.
The writer discusses the role of leadership in handling various challenges when adapting to change. Of the several challenges discussed in the essay, one of the challenges is that the people with problems are the problem, and hence, they are the solution. Since in the present case the workers are unwilling to work towards improving the productivity, they are the problem and hence they alone can solve it.
Heresy, Paul, and Kenneth Blanchard. “Situational Leadership.” The Leader’s Companion. Ed. J. Thomas Wren. New York: The Free Press, 1995. 207-211.
The essay discusses the importance of changing the leadership style as per the situation and the follower’s readiness to follow. Based on follower readiness, they identify four situations for leader behavior. These are High task-low relationship, high task-high relationship, low task-low relationship and low task-low relationship. The low task-high relationship behavior called “Participating” should be used when people are competent but have variable commitment. Since in this case, competency of the workers is not an issue, including them in the decision-making process could be beneficial.
Zaleznik, Abraham. “Real Work.” Harvard Business Review. 1997: 39-51.
In this article, the author suggests that real work is often sidelined because managers pay more attention to psychopolitical rituals such as smoothing conflicts, avoiding aggression and promoting human interaction. In this case, management’s insistence on monthly “problem chats” and invitation to games could be seen by many workers as deviating from “real work” and could be the cause of the problem.
Rogers, Paul, and Marcia Blenko. “Who has D.” Harvard Business Review. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, 2007. 1-24.
The authors discuss the decision-making bottlenecks as a result of ambiguity about who gets to make a decision. They suggest ways to align the decision-making process so that the right people make the right decision and the people who have to live with it are included in the decision-making process. In the present case, the Wichita site was a success because the right person was making the decision and the workers were included in the decision-making process.