Industrial production always seeks to optimise its reliability and performance. It is a guarantee of profitability and sustainability. There are continuous improvement processes, based on staff experience and capitalised on (more or less). There are change processes that come from elsewhere, inspired by a new methodology – sometimes accompanied by new tools – by sharing experience, or by standardising practices across several sites.
A necessary modesty
To those who complain about these changes – because, in their minds, things were often “better before” – one should answer, in all honesty, that there is no ideal model. But that changing habits, provided it does not destabilise results and teams too much, helps people question themselves and identify a few areas for improvement, beneficial in every respect. But that is not much of a “sales pitch”… So it may be wise and honest to adopt a posture of enthusiasm and determination, certainly, but also of modesty.
In the case in question, the aim was to introduce, in a long-established industrial structure, a new organisation for shop-floor management, bringing together trades that are sometimes at odds (maintain or produce?). And to introduce a new role, focused on continuous improvement and mostly filled by young engineers full of goodwill.
After the “laboratory” phase…
Like any implementation phase, even one preceded by a fairly traditional “laboratory”, “experiment” or “test site” period, this one ran into some resistance… Because for many, the test site was “the showcase”. Everything else was “reality”. Because “it’s different where I work”, isn’t it? And indeed it always is, even in an industrial structure, because production lines are always at least a little different. Physically and in terms of the skills found there.
So rationality (or the “magpie syndrome”, which draws us to whatever “shines”) might have led to tackling the dysfunctions specific to each management group. Because since the new organisation was “well thought out” (and tested beforehand on the “showcase”), the difficulties could naturally only come from the “human factor”: interpersonal incompatibilities, unequal skills, even sexism…
Yet the choice made was that of the collective. Because, beyond the day-to-day work of production teams, there are dimensions that go beyond them, transcend them, and open up avenues for powerful synergies. Between trades, between generations, between temperaments. Which meet the need for professional recognition, the taste for work well done, and also the pleasure of everyday solidarity and mutual help. And therefore belonging, and the meaning people give to their work.
“Changing the board” to build synergies
And also because, to overcome local antagonisms – often based on not knowing or not understanding the other – it is always useful to “change the board”: to look elsewhere (and it is not very far) for support, different perspectives, testimonies and proposals considered legitimate in the light of professional experience, competence and demonstrated qualities. Useful synergies. Indispensable ones.
Interpersonal adjustments will come later. But above all, this work on collective dynamics will have laid the common foundation. And strengthened the commitment of those who, despite their goodwill, felt – rightly or wrongly – excluded. To the detriment of the group’s strength – in terms of personal commitment, at a time of the “war for talent”, and of performance, both individual and collective.
Leave a Reply