Reliability Engineering Snapshot TM

Illustrated Case Studies in the Industrial World of Failure Analysis, Non Destructive Evaluation, and Predictive Maintenance

People

February 2001

The continuing series ... The successful failure analyst must have the same attributes as a top level manager. When comparing the core competencies required of a top level company manager, there isn't much difference. This month, it's dealing with building effective teams.

Recently, a top level production superintendent moved on to greener pastures. The company posted the job and its responsibilities. It was interesting to see the list of core competencies required for that job. The core competencies highlighted in silver were covered in the November through January PEOPLE articles.

BUILDING EFFECTIVE TEAMS AND INTERPERSONAL SAVVY

There are all sorts of teams. The team that will be discussed here is the one that is required when a chronic and extraordinary problem persists and inflicts a serious economic impact to a company, and subsequently, a failure analysis "team" is put together. Usually a team of expertise that covers the appropriate disciplines is put together. The following two core competencies are discussed in that light.

These two competencies go hand-in-hand with each other. In fact, I don't believe a person can build an effective team without interpersonal savvy. So what is savvy? Building an effective team is being able to achieve a goal through other people by capitalizing and utilizing their experience and expertise, and doing it in a manner that promotes common respect and good will. Being able to do that without alienating people in the process involves having interpersonal savvy. The person who is going to build an effective team to address a chronic problem needs to be able to reflect upon the history of that problem, and the people that have been involved up to that point. The phrase "stepping on toes" comes to mind when I think of interpersonal savvy. Sure, as boss or head of an investigation, one can dictate the desired goal to subordinates. One can even go one step further, rub their noses in it, and tell them exactly how they are going to get to that end goal. That type of management style and finesse is called the U.S. Military. I mean no disrespect to the military, but guys, you have to admit that the reason the objective turns into an "order" is because the one giving the order puts a lower value on what the subordinate thinks and feels, period. The inference behind saying the word "order" here is that if the order isn't carried out then there will be disciplinary action. It's a legitimate and practical management style, and necessary in war time. However, that style doesn't work well out in the peace-time free-world private sector.

So how does one avoid stepping on toes and rubbing the egos of people the wrong way? Did I say egos? That's right, we all have egos if we have any bit of self-esteem. During a team building process lots of questions arise. Personally, I don't mind being challenged with questions. Others take it as an attack on their integrity, that's their own personal problem and weakness. As for me, it gives me a chance to show off my work in the first person. It makes me feel that the other person has a definite interest in the problem, and is on top of it. Through responding to those questions, the thoroughness and accuracy of the results becomes quite apparent. If a question posed to me clearly shows where I have overlooked something, then I am the better for it because the oversight has been pointed out and corrective action may be taken. I am allowed to correct and improve my own shortcomings. It's called learning. I appreciate the ability to learn from someone smarter than me, or from someone who is able to ask questions that reveal weak points in my investigative work. After all, I do want to be a part of solving the problem. A team can be put together by the "team leader" without trampling on egos if care is taken to express any doubts or reservations up front and in the "first person." However, when the "team leader" asking the questions clearly reveals that they have not done all of their homework, and then goes on to infer that I have not done all of mine, then that sir is an insult to my intelligence, and I don't really want to play on their "team."

It is not a sign of weakness to say "I don't understand." That's why you make teams, so you can understand. That is the team's job, to make you understand the problem so that you can make the big decision regarding the path forward and the solution sought. What is really depressing is to see someone try to build a team and alienate everyone in the process. A key phrase to look out for when forming a team is to hear the word "whatever." That word is a death blow to independent thinking and any incentive on the part of a team member. It means "I give up, I'll do whatever you tell me to do because it's quite obvious that YOU'RE THE BOSS regardless of whether you know what you're doing or not."

Yet ... somehow, problems get solved in spite of ourselves.