hogheavenfarm
Admin
RE: Quality Progress Article “Reason to Smile”, January 2011 , Author Tom Becker
Summary - Employee engagement through challenges , ‘ career development’ , in the workplace can make a company more productive through increased retention rates, improved morale, and a sense of ‘ownership’ and value.
This was a great article on one of my favorite topics ,but I felt some things were left out
Caveat, by Tim Behr , HMW CQM/OE
Being a Quality Manager, I have had the opportunity to work closely with Human Resources on this very idea in a few former companies. The thing QM’s learn very early, is that employee engagement is a critical factor in the success of the company, and more directly, in the success of the quality structure of the company.
While the concept makes infinite sense to the quality professional and the human resources people, management tends to balk when the plans are put into action.
Training is always an area that gets the focus, as it is easily discerned and communicated through management.
Lack of training, or poor training programs are probably the biggest single quality issue in a majority of small to mid size companies.
Larger companies generally have the resources available to perform training in a more effective way.
Smaller companies tend to budget the training resources very tightly.
In a smaller company, sending workers off site for seminars and hands on workshops invariably means personnel shortages on the production floor, or in lower to middle management. This could also mean poorer quality and lower production as key people are temporarily replaced with workers unfamiliar with the job at hand.
In-house training has many of the same pitfalls, and may have even worse consequences, depending upon whether the trainer is brought in from off-site, or the company utilizes in-house ‘experts’ to conduct the training, depriving the company of the best qualified people along with those to be trained.
So, how does one present such a plan?
The upside is fairly obvious, better retention rates, multi-skilled employees, and improved morale. Sounds like it cannot lose, right?
All too often, we as quality people see only a limited scope of the bigger picture.
The powers that be usually see a different landscape.
A bit of SWOT analysis will show that even in a rosy picture like this, there are hidden dangers to the company as a whole.
Let’s look closer.
Better retention means less turnover, which means your existing employees become better at their jobs, and are cross trained and given more responsibility. They build up a larger reservoir of knowledge which also assists the company.
On the minus side, this works. Less turnover means less work for HR, less budget for all that advertising, medical checks, drug screens, and processing.
In two previous companies, HR went to part time. In a third, they were combined with finance. Still good for the company, bad for HR.
But wait, there’s more.
Now the much better educated and skilled employees require more compensation. If it is not forthcoming, those employees will now market those newly acquired skills to someone else, leading to a loss of skill and acquired knowledge. Bad for the company, better for HR, they can start all over again.
And more.
There is an expense, as discussed previously associated with this training. Loss of product quality, loss of skilled employee time while being trained, and possible loss of key skilled employee time as they assist in training.
So the company has paid to train, suffered production time and quality loss, and in the end, loses the now highly trained employee to the competition.
With operating budgets on a shoestring , it is a tough sell for quality or human resources people to get past this immediate reaction from management .
It can be done , but it requires a more detailed plan which must include continued retention as well as covering potential reductions in quality and production.
Having covered the “Strengths” and “Threats” with the SWOT analysis, there are two areas left to fill in, “Opportunity’ and “Weaknesses”.
These are where we must concentrate, for they hold the key to success or failure.
The opportunities are obvious. Increased company knowledge , a staff of experts, soaring morale, little to no turnover.
A company like that has a great shot a success , even if they only made concrete life preservers!
The weakness is also obvious, but rarely addressed.
This “career building” needs to be carefully planned.
Using ‘experts’ to train others involves some risk. Risk to quality level, risk to production volume, risk to personnel due to injury while training, etc. Managing that risk is critical.
How do you prevent highly skilled people from leaving?
This must be addressed also, however you do it, it must be creative. There is no magic system to follow. Every company is different.
The point is, this is the most critical part of the plan, and without addressing it thoroughly, is why these initiatives often fail.
Summary - Employee engagement through challenges , ‘ career development’ , in the workplace can make a company more productive through increased retention rates, improved morale, and a sense of ‘ownership’ and value.
This was a great article on one of my favorite topics ,but I felt some things were left out
Caveat, by Tim Behr , HMW CQM/OE
Being a Quality Manager, I have had the opportunity to work closely with Human Resources on this very idea in a few former companies. The thing QM’s learn very early, is that employee engagement is a critical factor in the success of the company, and more directly, in the success of the quality structure of the company.
While the concept makes infinite sense to the quality professional and the human resources people, management tends to balk when the plans are put into action.
Training is always an area that gets the focus, as it is easily discerned and communicated through management.
Lack of training, or poor training programs are probably the biggest single quality issue in a majority of small to mid size companies.
Larger companies generally have the resources available to perform training in a more effective way.
Smaller companies tend to budget the training resources very tightly.
In a smaller company, sending workers off site for seminars and hands on workshops invariably means personnel shortages on the production floor, or in lower to middle management. This could also mean poorer quality and lower production as key people are temporarily replaced with workers unfamiliar with the job at hand.
In-house training has many of the same pitfalls, and may have even worse consequences, depending upon whether the trainer is brought in from off-site, or the company utilizes in-house ‘experts’ to conduct the training, depriving the company of the best qualified people along with those to be trained.
So, how does one present such a plan?
The upside is fairly obvious, better retention rates, multi-skilled employees, and improved morale. Sounds like it cannot lose, right?
All too often, we as quality people see only a limited scope of the bigger picture.
The powers that be usually see a different landscape.
A bit of SWOT analysis will show that even in a rosy picture like this, there are hidden dangers to the company as a whole.
Let’s look closer.
Better retention means less turnover, which means your existing employees become better at their jobs, and are cross trained and given more responsibility. They build up a larger reservoir of knowledge which also assists the company.
On the minus side, this works. Less turnover means less work for HR, less budget for all that advertising, medical checks, drug screens, and processing.
In two previous companies, HR went to part time. In a third, they were combined with finance. Still good for the company, bad for HR.
But wait, there’s more.
Now the much better educated and skilled employees require more compensation. If it is not forthcoming, those employees will now market those newly acquired skills to someone else, leading to a loss of skill and acquired knowledge. Bad for the company, better for HR, they can start all over again.
And more.
There is an expense, as discussed previously associated with this training. Loss of product quality, loss of skilled employee time while being trained, and possible loss of key skilled employee time as they assist in training.
So the company has paid to train, suffered production time and quality loss, and in the end, loses the now highly trained employee to the competition.
With operating budgets on a shoestring , it is a tough sell for quality or human resources people to get past this immediate reaction from management .
It can be done , but it requires a more detailed plan which must include continued retention as well as covering potential reductions in quality and production.
Having covered the “Strengths” and “Threats” with the SWOT analysis, there are two areas left to fill in, “Opportunity’ and “Weaknesses”.
These are where we must concentrate, for they hold the key to success or failure.
The opportunities are obvious. Increased company knowledge , a staff of experts, soaring morale, little to no turnover.
A company like that has a great shot a success , even if they only made concrete life preservers!
The weakness is also obvious, but rarely addressed.
This “career building” needs to be carefully planned.
Using ‘experts’ to train others involves some risk. Risk to quality level, risk to production volume, risk to personnel due to injury while training, etc. Managing that risk is critical.
How do you prevent highly skilled people from leaving?
This must be addressed also, however you do it, it must be creative. There is no magic system to follow. Every company is different.
The point is, this is the most critical part of the plan, and without addressing it thoroughly, is why these initiatives often fail.
