Improving Maintenance and Reliability Through Cultural Change. Stephen Thomas G.
as well as the cultural infrastructure can make this change a difficult task.
Long Term – Tactical (Quadrant 2)
The role models found in Quadrant 2 do day-to-day work, but are more focused on longer-term goals. Typically these are the field superintendents – the people who manage the foremen and field work crews and who have the responsibility for leading their portion of the organization.
Short Term – Strategic (Quadrant 3)
The role models in Quadrant 3 support the line organization in a staff capacity. They include planners and schedulers, engineers, and possibly even consultants hired to implement reliability improvement processes. They are not directly involved in the day-to-day effort, but their work direct influences it. They keep the strategic initiatives of the organization in front of those immersed in the day-today work activity.
Long Term – Strategic (Quadrant 4)
Quadrant 4 is filled by the organization’s managers. Their responsibility focuses on the longer term strategic goals and with those in the other quadrants to accomplish them.
Figure 5-2 shows how the quadrants described fit with the Goal Achievement Model, as discussed in Chapter 3. The quadrants from Figure 5-1 are also shown in brackets.
Figure 5-2 Strategic vs. tactical role models
Different groups and people select their role models based on where they work within the organization. Those on the line may select short-term models, either tactical or strategic, because the majority if not all of their work is short term in nature. If you were a foreman or mechanical engineer trying to implement a preventive maintenance program in the field, you would probably look for a role model in quad 1 or 3. These people are the ones who have been successful getting similar things accomplished within the culture.
Conversely, if you were trying to develop a strategic direction for the business such as self-directed work teams at the maintenance level, you would select role models who were successful in quads 2 and 4. These individuals have been successful in developing and implementing a vision and supporting goals for cultural change.
Because this book is focused on changing from a reactive maintenance work culture to one that is reliability focused, we need to discuss what happens when the new role models are introduced. This is a real problem when trying to implement a reliability-focused work culture because invariably those who have been successful in the existing culture are usually not of this mold. Remember my example where my initial role model was highly reactive in a reactive culture and then a new plant management team was appointed with a reliability focus. In my case I made the transition, but what if I hadn’t?
A role model cultural mismatch can occur at every level within the organization. For example, a company is purchased and the new management team has different plans for the business than did the former. A new manager is hired with a different outlook. A new superintendent is promoted who decides a change is needed, and new foremen are hired who are not content with the status quo. In each of these cases, those in the lower tiers of the organization are confronted with new role models and a new set of expectations that may be far different than those of their prior managers.
Everyone at some time (and often more than once) will have this experience. Owners, managers, and supervisors change; the role you need to model for success often changes as well. You have two choices. First you can adopt the new cultural role model as long as it doesn’t conflict with your basic beliefs. This will maintain your position and you may learn something along the way. In my example, when my new manager introduced reliability concepts to my organization, he opened my eyes to a new and better way to do work. Although the change meant a new set of concepts to be learned and applied, the value to the company and also to me was immense.
The second option is to leave. If the new expectations are that much in conflict with your work processes, then leaving is a good option for you and for your firm. Otherwise neither will be happy over the long term. Admittedly, leaving is easier said than done. However, if you stay and do not adopt the new model, you will be viewed as someone who resists the change. Ultimately this image will make the work place difficult for you and all of those around you.
There are those who also believe that, if they wait long enough, the new culture and those associated with it will move on and the program will fade away. Although this may be the case with individual projects, it is not the case with a major cultural shift such as one from reactive-to reliability-focused maintenance work. These changes are major; once you begin moving down the reliability path, there is no going back. As someone once told me, “The train is leaving the station. Get on board for the ride or get off.”
5.5 Bad Role Models Have Value
One other type of role model is worth discussing - one which is the most difficult to work with in our jobs. This is the person whose beliefs and actions are so opposed to our own that it is virtually impossible to adopt his or her style of management or behavior without violating who we are. There are alternatives when you are confronted with this type of situation. You can leave the organization and seek work elsewhere. You can attempt to transfer to another department. Or you can try to stick it out and survive, hoping that the individual will leave before you do.
At one point in my career, I worked for such a person. He was not what I considered a good manager. Nor did he treat the people who worked in the department with very much dignity or respect. To make matters worse, to run the daily maintenance operations he hired a person who had the same style of management as he had. This was a very difficult time in my career. I could not transfer and chose not to leave, but I also decided that I would continue to function as I had in the past using those who trained me as my role models. This dilemma is similar to the one described in the previous section except I was not being asked to change and model a better behavior. In choosing to reject the role model of my manager, I often got into difficulty. Fortunately for me, the individual he hired was promoted to another plant and the manager retired shortly thereafter.
What I learned is that not everyone is a positive role model. We are often presented with what I will refer to as “good bad examples.” These are people who we can look at and say “here is someone who I do not wish to act like.” If you examine why you feel this way and adopt behaviors that are opposite and more in line with how you feel you should behave, then they will have done you a great service. They will have shown you a model that you will choose to reject for a more positive (and opposite) behavior.
5.6 Role Models Are Created NOT Born
Thus far we have assumed that our role models are proactively focused, the ones who will support the change in culture from one that is reactive to one that is proactive and reliability-focused. However, what if discover that the predominant role models throughout the organization are not those who support change, but instead those who support the status quo? An even more challenging scenario: What if proactive role models don’t exist at all in the organization? This is not an unrealistic expectation. Those who advocate proactive maintenance don’t survive long in a reactive work culture where success is viewed as being the best “fire fighter” you can be.
Figure 5-3, which illustrates a reinforcing loop explains the problem faced by most reactive work cultures when it comes to developing role models who support a different type of work culture. In block 1, things break. Equipment breaks down and production