At our site, I manage a training lab for teaching our new
production system. The lab is real; we
have saws and presses. But the PVC airplane
“parts” we make are not. I am one of
many instructors that help facilitate groups.
Our most popular training is Systematic Problem Solving (SPS, based on
the Toyota 8-Step Problem Solving Process).
In this class, we break the group into sub-teams. Each sub-team is assigned some work to produce
our “parts,” trained on how to do the work to build at their station, and then
we run several “shifts” and track our progress.
Based on the issues in the lab, sub-teams then perform problem solving
on their own “work” (meaning the work they have been assigned in the lab). It’s lots of fun! And, as you can imagine, leads to lots of
conflicts, of all varieties. We see all
types of personal differences, as do almost all team environments. Informational deficiencies are common because
of the different pace each individual learns the material they are immediately
expected to apply. And, my favorite, we
induce a lot environmental stress into the situation by keeping very short and
strict timelines for working through the problem solving process. In most of these conflicts, my role as
facilitator makes me moderator (less frequently as the teacher, I am also sometimes
the judge).
One common conflict we see repeatedly is when trying to
determine the root cause of an issue. In the SPS model, you pick the one, most
impactful root cause and fix that first.
Often we find that the groups splinter into camps between two root
causes. When this happens, as coach, I
have to step in to ensure the learning doesn’t stall. My approach is always neutral and question based. I start by reminding them that I don’t have
the answer (although many of them think I have a secret book of all the
solutions to all of the problems in the lab – I don’t). Then, I ask them to review the problem that
they have decided to work. Sometimes,
they recognize right away that one root cause ties directly to the problem and
then they quickly determine on which root cause to focus. Other times it takes a bit more digging. I ask them if the root causes are both facts
or if one is an assumptions. I ask them
if they’ve done any testing to determine which root cause really creates the
problem. In all cases, I guide the team
into discussing the process and the facts.
And, I always, always inject humor.
In almost all cases, the conflict elements
melt away. In some cases, a team member
may require a cooling off period. I
always allow them that personal space and ensure that the rest of the team is
respectful of that need. In addition, I
have a pretty good list of appropriate (and inappropriate, if it gets really
tense) jokes about root causes and all the recurring problems in the lab, so I
know what works to break the tension.
I also ensure that they complete their problem solving. Whatever level of participation, the entire
team gets equal credit. This usually
provides a rallying point for even struggling teams. The final step in the training is presenting
the problem solving to leadership. As
expected, that “in the trenches” camaraderie building goes a long way in repairing
damage from conflict.
In the end, the lab is fun and it’s not real life. Therefore most conflicts, no matter how
desperate they seem, are overcome by the end.
I think being more mindful of my role as mediator will help me to
approach situations better with a theory-based plan of how to handle it. To this point, I have relied on my intuition
and experience. While experience is
good, it’s great when it has theory behind it.
No comments:
Post a Comment