There is a little article in an obscure publication – Food manufacture – from the UK that nails a critical problem right on the head. Nestle chairman and CEO in the UK and Ireland Fiona Kendrick says, “Few would be engineers are ‘willing to really roll up their sleeves and get really involved, particularly when working with unskilled and semi-skilled operators.” The article, titled Graduates lack personal skills and business acumen – Nestlé boss, points to the problems that one dimensional people cause in trying to create an effective business culture.
A few years ago at a Lean Accounting Summit I heard a line from a Parker Hannifin division controller that I have shamelessly plagiarized countless times since. He described and engineer as someone who is good at math, but lacks the personality and social skills to be an accountant. It got a big laugh in no small part because he said it in a room full of accountants. I have flipped it when speaking to engineering groups, describing accountants as folks good at math, but lacking the social skills to be engineers.
Both groups – and lets throw IT into the mix, as well – have reputations for wanting to be left alone, content to spend their days with their noses in front of computer screens, or the output from those computers. They often talk only to people within their own functional circle who share their knowledge of, interest in, and passion for numbers; avoiding interaction with people who are not similarly, numerically inclined.
Of course the flip side – the guy or girl who casually says, ‘I’m a people person not a math person’ – as thought math skills are somehow embedded (or not) in one’s DNA – is equally problematic. The problems innumerate people create are well known and loudly decried, however. We read often that the math skills of American workers are not up to par. It is about time someone like Ms. Kendrick pointed out the flip side.
The problem is that math is not real – it is nothing more than a tool engineers and accountants use to try to create a model of reality. Sometimes the real world can be described in discrete, mathematical terms, but more often it can’t. The math might come close, or it might be a good representation of the average, but it most often fails to define a specific reality.
There is a gray space between mathematical theory and reality. While there is certainly a sound basis for urging shop floor folks to improve their math skills so they can work to bridge that gap, Ms. Kendrick is dead on when she points out the engineers (and accountants) have to move into that gray space as well so they can meet up with production folks and make good decisions. To the extent that management only views the gap from one side – ‘the problem is entirely on production folks aren’t good with numbers’ – they are essentially saying that the theoretical view of the world is the real world. They are dead wrong.
Success requires production folks who understand the math and technical folks who accept the limitations of the math; and constant, open, respectful interaction between both out in that gray area.
About Bill Waddell
She said she hoped a new masters degree program at Sheffield University would help “put this right”
Really?? The remedy for an excessively-academic orientation in graduates is another degree program?
This simple but profound idea would help any new engineering, accounting, or other technical graduate jump start their career. A former employer required every new professional employee (there were zero exceptions!) to spend two weeks on the line, as if they were a newly hired assembly worker. Not only did it provide real production insights, it began some very valuable networking friendships!
Al, we also empolyed this procedure when I worked in the Czech republic. All engineers had to spend 3-4 days on each operation in the line and at least one week in the area that they be responsbile for.
There was quite a lot of push back from some new engineers, but those that stuck to it were (I think) better engineers for it, having a better knowledge and understanding of the process and more time for those at the sharp end, the operators.
It also proved out the shopfloor documentation, that it was fit for purpose, and that we did what we said and said what we did.
Unfortunately it did not work in El Salvador, one, the engineering manager thought it was below his people to do this, and two, none of the male engineers wanted their macho image damaged, in their eyes.
Yeah, David, she certainly did a lot better job of identifying the problem than the solution.
There are some people who let their activity in a job be directed by what the work itself inherently requires…for example, the salesman-turned-sales-manager who dislikes administrative work, but recognizes that the job requires it, or the engineer-turned-product-manger who is a little introverted but realizes he needs to get out in the field and meet customers and sales reps.
Another category of people, and I’m afraid a larger one, is those who stick to their own definition, either consciously…”I’m a people person, I hate paperwork”…or by selective interpretation of the needs of their job…”I can learn more about customer needs by doing structured surveys that by a bunch of glad-handing.”
Those in the first category, of course, tend to be more successful.
David,
I think senior management (either assuming people will follow your first path and take on the needed managerial or inter-personal traits, or under-estimating the importance of those things) coupeled with HR job classification systems often create the problem.
Case in point: I once worked in a company with a woman who was a tremendous buyer … incredible product and industry knowledge, great negotiating skills, and a passion for finding great suppliers and working up creative, mutually beneficial deals; But she was a loner and an adminsitrative train wreck.
The problem was that she was making the maximum allowed for a senior buyer. So they made her Purchasing Manager for no reason other than that it was a way to get her into a higher pay classification and put more money in her pocket – keeping her from considering leaving the company. Of course, she was a lousy manager, and never really made much of an effort to become a good manager.
I suspect this sort of thing happens quite often … some variation of the Peter Principle I suppose.