News

Since April 20 we have published a series of articles focussed on questions a manager can ask their frontline leaders to gauge the chances of sustaining consistent desired results. Within there is an implicit skill that needs to be made explicit – the handling of problems.

Where are we in this series? Our frontline leaders can easily and consistently identify any difference between WHAT SHOULD BE HAPPENING and WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING; they are applying a robust training system thus addressing ‘don’t know, can’t do’; they have habits and a skill to address ‘does know, can do, but isn’t doing’.

Where are we in this series? Our frontline leaders can easily and consistently identify any difference between WHAT SHOULD BE HAPPENING and WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING, and they are applying a robust training system thus addressing ‘don’t know, can’t do’. So, what’s next and necessary for system stability?

You’re a frontline manager leading a ‘people-based system’ producing a product or service and your front line leaders can easily and consistently identify any difference between WHAT SHOULD BE HAPPENING and WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING. What’s next and necessary for system stability?

You’re a frontline manager leading a ‘people-based system’ producing a product or service. Daily you ‘walk the floor’ building strength in the system through understanding then responding to answers to 4 questions posed to your frontline leaders.

A frontline manager can be viewed as a person leading a (production or service) system where their primary asset is their people, in particular their frontline leaders, through whom the manager will get their operational results.

Would you do something that makes you feel uncomfortable if it benefits the objective, the group and production?

Richard De Crespigny, captain of A380 Qantas Flight 32 that blew an engine out of Singapore in 2010, speaks of the value to him of having his slow mind ‘available’ such that he could problem solve scenarios that had never before been experienced in simulated or real flight.

When we add humans to a process and make a change that impacts habits and behaviours, often the changes made don’t have the desired effect. So how do we know if the change has ‘worked’?

During session four of Job Relations (JR) on Wednesday last week a site leader said to me “sometimes it doesn’t work”.

What is the compounding consequence of an aging workforce, rising demand and a tight labour market? Right now, we are at a crossroad in people development!

I’ve not yet seen positive relationships in any workplace where TRUST hasn’t been close to or at the core. So the question must come, assuming positive relationships are desired, how can we build trust? Or more interestingly perhaps, what part did trust play in the story of QF32?

… where ‘normal’ (or ‘good’) is the predetermined acceptable standard. A recent project with Lachlan Shire Council has taught me (Ben) a lot. Although, upon reflection, I’m now wondering why it took me so long. Let me show you what I learnt.

When I (Oscar) asked Tony Burns “what’s our objective for the week?” Tony replied “make sure all participants have enough knowledge and skill to go and play and learn from that”. What a terrific answer when the ‘playing’ is directed toward scientifically thinking within continuous improvement. It’s easier to act your way into a new way of thinking than think your way into a new way of acting …

The reality is if the why isn’t meaningful ‘enough’, the what and way we do it will probably waiver over time.

There is potential for 91,000 workplace experiments per year in a very large Australian government organisation. The maths is straightforward. It may be for your organisation too.