MetaOpsMagazine.com

Posted on June 13, 2013 by Walter McIntyre

Leadership vs. Supervision As reprinted from http://MetaOpsMagazine.com

LIVONIA, Mich., June 13, 2013 — Making leaders, not rulers

Every manager maintains a balance of supervisory and leadership skills. This balance is impacted by the personality of the manager and the situation in which they are operating. These skill sets complement each other in a healthy work environment, but are in conflict in an unhealthy one.

Leadership and supervision are concepts best defined by the source of their authority to act, or their power source. A supervisor gets his or her authority, or power, from the position power provided by the organization. This is a top-down flow of power. Supervisors manage from a command-and-control paradigm that is rooted in the ongoing inspection of performance.

Conversely, leaders get their power from those who are willing to follow. This power can flow from anywhere and anyone. Leaders manage from a facilitator perspective that is rooted in the expectation of performance.

Building on this, there are formal and informal power structures within any organized group of people. Formal power is typically based upon command and control (supervision). Informal power is typically rooted in leadership. These two power structures co-exist within the ebb and flow of people and their perceptions. Sometimes the same person or group of persons wield both types of power at the same time. This typically leads to a workspace with low stress and high productivity. When this is not the case, the formal and informal power “centers of gravity” are found in different persons and tension is created between the two.

In successful military systems, the authority and power structure is very organized and centralized. Conformity is both demanded and enforced, and there is a great need for authority figures to be both a supervisor and a leader. This is why military officer training programs emphasize leadership skills. The tension that results from different formal and informal power centers, within a military group, can be fatal.

On the other hand, look at the typical athletic team. Here, the formal and informal power foci are found in different people. The coach, for example, wields the formal power and a player—functioning as team captain—may wield the informal power. This works because the coach is not out on the field of play as a participant. The team needs a leader “in the game” to carry out the strategy.

Now, how do these power structures apply in the typical workplace? First, the relationship between leadership and supervision is situational and the balance between the two is dynamic. It is usual and normal to find both the formal and informal power being wielded by a single person in one situation and wielded by different persons in the next. In a healthy workplace, there is a high level of trust and cooperation between formal and informal power, which results in a high level of delegated empowerment. In the healthy workplace, productivity is typically high while conflict is minimized.

In an unhealthy workplace, trust is weak or absent. The relationship between the formal and informal power structure is based in conflict. Productivity is typically low and conflict replaces empowerment.

In order to be a truly motivating, inspiring and effective leader, develop and nurture the qualities that are found in good leaders. You must be a good listener who is also capable of motivating his or her team. Knowing your employees’ names is essential for respect given and received. Additionally, credit must be given and received where it is due. Following these guidelines will help you develop into a team leader who is both trusted and deemed trustworthy, and that’s the true mark of leadership.

Walter McIntyre has spent 30 years in the business world, holding positions from apprentice to Vice President. Throughout that time he has worked in both the manufacturing and transactional sides of business operation. He is currently the Chief Operations Officer and General Manager of Nationwide Parts Distributors in Jacksonville, Florida.

Walt earned a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from Greenville College, Greenville, Illinois. He earned a master’s degree in engineering management from the University of South Florida in Tampa. He is a certified Six Sigma Black Belt, Master Black Belt and Master Trainer.

Walt’s motto is, “Have fun learning, have fun doing, have fun sharing.” He can be found on Twitter @waltmcintyre, at his website: leanmeanprocessimprovement.com, or by email at walt.m@att.net.

Walt McIntyre, COO and general manager of Nationwide Parts Distributors in Jacksonville, Florida, presented an analysis of supervision, power and how to turn “rulers” into true leaders in an article published in MetaOps MagEzine, http://metaopsmagazine.com.

About Walt McIntyre:

McIntyre has spent 30 years in the business world, holding positions from apprentice to Vice President. Throughout that time he has worked in both the manufacturing and transactional sides of business operation. McIntyre earned a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from Greenville College, Greenville, Illinois, and a master’s degree in engineering management from the University of South Florida in Tampa. He is a certified Six Sigma Black Belt, Master Black Belt and Master Trainer.

About MetaOps, Inc.:

MetaOps, Inc. helps companies increase their market share and profit through a PeopleCentrix™ approach. The company’s team of world-class experts brings an extensive toolkit that helps management see problems and opportunities while teaching staff how to make dramatic improvements and drive sustainable improvement. Learn how to transform your own organization, boosting efficiency and increasing market share, by visiting MetaOps, Inc. on the web.

Who Do I Work For?

Posted on March 12, 2013 by Walter McIntyre

I was recently in a discussion about the lines of authority within an organization. The question was “Who do you work for?” There can be many answers to this, but I believe there is one best answer.

I do not work FOR the persons in the hierarchy above me in the “O” chart. I do not work for the person who signs my pay check. These false assumptions are the root cause of many problems within a business when persons in authority believe them. In fact, this belief can be fatal to the business. They are held by those with too much ego and misplaced loyalties. It represents supervision instead of leadership.

The truth is that I work WITH those above (and below) me in the hierarchy, and FOR the business as a whole. This is the way of leadership.

Thanks for the prayers

Posted on February 8, 2013 by Walter McIntyre

God is good…all the time.

Pray for my family today

Posted on February 7, 2013 by Walter McIntyre

Pray for my family today.

Keeping the Main Thing the Main Thing

Posted on July 30, 2012 by Walter McIntyre

One of the challenges that we have as leaders is to keep our eye on the ball. Since we are responsible for driving our organizations to the finish line using the least amount of resources possible, and at the same time achieving the greatest value possible, we cannot afford to get distracted by non-core issues.

When the boat is sinking, the color of the bailing bucket is not all that important. Yet, all of us have seen leaders get caught up in issues that do not move the organization forward. Examples of issues that get in the way of progress are office politics, finger pointing, whose job it is, etc.

This is related to a leader’s ability to do only what they are uniquely to do and delegate the rest. A leader who is busy making decisions that should be made by others is, by definition, not busy making decisions that only they can make. This inefficiency leads to mistakes, demotivation and re-work.

Let’s apply some management 5S to the problem.

Sort: Separate what takes you to the finish line and what does not. Get rid of tasks and decisions that do not need to be dealt with right now (or ever). Remove politics and finger pointing. Reward those who take responsibility. Have meetings only when meetings are necessary and keep them short.

Straighten: Every task is assigned to the person or group most qualified to complete it according to the demands of the business environment. Don’t play favorites, just work on getting the best qualified people focused on what they do best, and get out of the way.

Shine: Re-assign tasks to appropriate individuals or groups. Delete tasks from all individuals and groups that are not essential to their core mission, or need to be given to another person or group.

Standardize: Document the decision and task matrices. That is who should be making what decisions on what criteria and who should be completing what tasks according to what criteria. Use these matrices going forward to avoid backsliding into inefficiencies in the future.

Sustain: Audit the team’s task and decision matrices frequently enough to maintain organization effectiveness.

The 5S principles can be applied to just about any business process. I encourage you to get out of the box and think like a champion.

Have an Opinion?

Posted on April 6, 2012 by Walter McIntyre

Everyone has something to say. Diversity of opinion and perspective is a good thing. In the age of the internet, there is no excuse for not having a venue to express yourself. Leanmeanprocessimprovement.com is a place to post your ideas and perspectives on Six Sigma, Lean, Business Management, and Personal Development.

If you want to contribute comments to existing posts on this website, please register as a user.

If you want to author posts on this website, register as a user and contact me at walt.m@att.net, to get access to author status. You will get full credit for your posts, networking opportunities, and my appreciation.

Selling

Posted on March 30, 2012 by Walter McIntyre

After putting in several years as a manager in a sales organization, I have found that the key to training up a quality sales person is developing their understanding of what I would call the essence of selling. The misunderstandings that exist regarding selling and the sales process are many and profound. Sometimes these misunderstandings are right there in the hearts and minds of the trainers who are teaching your staff to sell.

At its heart, selling is an interpersonal experience that is focused on an exchange of value. Too often the focus of sales training is on one or the other, relationship or value exchange, when both are required. This mistaken approach comes from a failure to see that both parties are part buyer and part seller. Both sides pitch their perspective on the value of their side of the potential transaction. A successful sale happens when an agreement is reached about the perceived value of each side of the exchange.

Each side of the value equation (buyer and seller) sees the potential exchange differently. For example, a car sales person sees a particular tipping point between the value of their merchandise and the value of the proposed dollar amount being offered by the prospect. The person considering the purchase of the car sees a different tipping point. The tipping point for each side is where the perceived value exchange favors their position. In other words, there will be no deal until both sides see their value proposition being satisfied.

If a sales person listens for the potential buyer’s value proposition, and then frames the value exchange around that information, they will be well on the way to closing the deal. For example, if a prospect wants a sporty vehicle that has room for their family and luggage, the sales person will not be successful in trying to sell them a standard cab pick-up at a low price. The perception of value for the prospect is not just about price in this case. On the other hand, if the sales person tries to sell a more expensive sport sedan with a large trunk, they will be more successful.

Selling is about listening to the other person and applying what you hear to the value proposition. An educated buyer will do the same thing. The best listener will nearly always win.

Intuition and Data Analysis

Posted on February 17, 2012 by Walter McIntyre

The analysis of data is now, and always has been, problematic. We are not machines. Our thinking is affected by intuition and experience, which are not empirical in nature. In business, Six Sigma or not, the ability to see information from both an empirical perspective and from the perspective of human stake holders (not empirical), is critical to quality decision making.

Let me give you an example of a non-empirical, intuitive/experiential perspective. If you have ever returned to a playground that you knew when you were young, you may have remembered the sliding board being really high, but now it seems small. It did not shrink. Your perspective changed. This is a fundamental rule of human thought. We learn through experiment (experience). These learnings change the way we view the world. In other words, the context of our information changes.

This is both good and bad. We learn not to put our hand on a hot stove, to look both ways before crossing the street and to not insert keys into electrical wall sockets, because of severe negative consequences. This is the result of the power of observation.

This works well on simple systems where results are not ambiguous, and are easy to understand and predict. On systems where there is complexity and results are not easy to predict, you must “peel the onion” with your observations. When evaluating a complex system, intuition must be used very carefully.

Dr. Daryl Bren does a magic trick with his students on their last day of class with him. The magic trick is really a lesson. He attempts to demonstrate his ability to read a student’s mind by way of giving information about their personal history that he could not otherwise know. He is always successful and his students grapple with what to think about this intriguing skill. Their intuition, based on trust in their professor, compels them to want to believe. Once he has given them enough time, he tells them how he accomplished the feat. Basically he knew who he was going to” read” and collaborated with their family ahead of time, without the student knowing. It is a trick, not magic. He then delivers the punch line, never substitute your intuition for real data.

Another story. Several years ago I had an employee that told me that he had started a rumor about the possibility of a major management shakeup. Two weeks later he came to my office, excited, saying that he had it on good source that there was going to be a major management shakeup. He even had details (facts?), which his intuition bought into.. I had to remind him that he, in fact, started that rumor two weeks earlier and fell victim to it. Intuition, in the absence of fact, will nearly always lead to incorrect conclusions.

This is not to say that intuition is not important. Intuition is a critical evaluation tool, and just like any other tool, must be used properly. Intuition can indicate that either your perspective or the data is skewed in some way. Maybe both are skewed. Intuition will point to what needs a reality check or more information.

This is just another case where balance and perspective play important roles in our lives. In reality, what I am talking about is finding the “why” behind a set of data or “facts”. Successful Six Sigma Projects and quality business decisions depend on it.

21st Century Leadership

Posted on February 2, 2012 by Walter McIntyre

In the 1950’s, if you wanted to bring the world’s best minds together to solve a problem, it involved weeks or months of effort, and the exercise limited the number of participants. Today, with the internet, a million minds can be brought to bear on a problem in minutes. If you hold to the idea that within our corporate human hearts and minds we have the answers to our most pressing concerns, than you must also believe that we are on the cusp of great change. What can hold back a million great minds communicating at the speed of the internet?

This is both the opportunity and the threat. We need leaders focused on the truth, not just random facts, that can bring people of diverse backgrounds together and attack our common problems. We have shrunk our world with technology. This means that global opportunities are within our grasp, not just local or regional optimizations. There are few excuses for leaving anyone behind.

It can also be said that with technology moving as quickly as it is, there is a threat of sub-optimization. That is technology used by one people group to subvert another people group. This refocuses on leadership. The 21^st century will be defined by leaders who are able to leverage diverse opinions toward the common problems we face, providing opportunity for participation to anyone who has the desire to make a positive difference. The 21^st century leader knows that we are stronger when we work together than when we work against each other.

From a business point of view, the same perspectives apply. The status quo will be replaced by paradigm shifts, and thinking big with bold ideas will lead to financial rewards. Here are a few talking points for global business leadership in the 21^st century.

Don’t accept the status quo.
Must have the courage to shift the paradigm.
Use technology to leap into the future. Maybe the biggest opportunity in some emerging markets is infrastructure related. A cell phone has little value where there is no cellular service available.
Understanding emerging markets means understanding the consumer profiles within that market. Being customer centric makes your product or service relevant, which brings about financial success.
Think big, but be flexible enough to rollout your product or service according to the needs and infrastructure of the targeted market.
Be bold. If you want to lead, you must be willing to lead from the front. That means accepting risk that will lead to financial success.

Designing of Products and Services

Posted on January 27, 2012 by Walter McIntyre

Last week I posted a piece on using a form, fit and function analysis in reverse engineering. This type of analysis can also be used in product or service design. The starting point is different, but the analysis works the same way. In reverse engineering, the form, fit and function analysis starts with a product or service and works backward to determine how something works. In the design of products and services the process starts with a customer need and works toward a solution.

The questions that need to be answered in design work are similar to the reverse engineering questions. The need to repeat the steps of the analysis is also similar. The main difference is that in reverse engineering, the product or service is the focus, but in design, the customer is the focus.

There are areas of overlap in a form, fit and function analysis. This is the natural result of moving through the form, fit and function steps in the analysis process. Additionally, the steps are cyclic in that the analysis is repeated with increasing levels of detail. This “drilling down” to more granular knowledge of how something works, or should work, allows for a more robust design of a new, or refined, product or service.

As in the previous post, the questions in each category are framed around the interrogative, “What”. To repeat the analysis cycle to gain better detail, the “why” must also be discovered. Also, a mind map tool is useful in documenting progress.

Form:

What customer need is the product or service addressing?
What does a solution look like to the customer?
What is the assumed skill level of the user of the product or service?
What tools and knowledge are typically, easily, at hand for the customer to use with the product or service?
What is the history of the customer need?
What other solutions are already available to meet the customer’s need?

Fit:

In what specific situation(s) is the product or service intended to be used?
What are the specific features of the product or service that the customer will consider critical to quality?
Who will use this product or service? (Who is the customer?)

Function:

Looking at the product or service’s internal processes, what will it do?
Looking that product or service’s internal processes, how does it do it?

The above questions are a starting point and will get more specific as more knowledge is gained. It is simply a matter repeating the analysis cycle until it makes sense to move forward on a prescribed course of action.

There is a lot more detail to the form, fit and function method of designing products and services than this post can cover. To learn more, check out my Lean Six Sigma book titled, “Lean and Mean Process Improvement”.

Walter McIntyre Lean Six Sigma