For Manufacturing: How to Strengthen Teams in Workplaces Where You Cannot Choose Your Personnel

You cannot work only with the people you like

Sometimes I think it would be easier if work were like an RPG, where you could choose your teammates before starting.

Someone with ability.
Someone who can look out for others.
Someone who notices the small details.
Someone who understands your intentions after you've only said a little.

If you could form a team with members like that, work would progress quite smoothly.

However, real-world workplaces are not set up so conveniently.

Urgent work comes in.
The person you planned on is taken for another task.
Equipment availability is limited.
There are days when you really want to leave it to an experienced person, but you have to proceed with someone else.

The shop floor is not a place where you can form an ideal party before heading out on an adventure.

You do it with the people you have now.
You make it with the equipment you have now.
You somehow get it into shape within the currently set deadline.

This is where the difficulty of shop floor management lies.

Working with a fixed team is, after all, easier

Working with a fixed team is, after all, easier.

Since you know each other's habits, you don't need unnecessary explanations.
There are people who understand when you say, 'That, just like last time.'
Even with slightly vague instructions, the other person will fill in the gaps on their own.
Sometimes they even notice things you forgot to mention beforehand.

This kind of relationship is a huge help on the shop floor.

If you had to explain everything from scratch every time, you would run out of time just doing that.
When you team up with someone you get along with, someone who has a similar sense for work, or someone who has a similar approach to verification, there is less unnecessary friction.

That is not a bad thing.

However, if you get too used to that ease, some slightly scary things can happen.

When people change, hidden weaknesses become visible

One day, the person in charge changes.
Someone takes a day off.
Support comes from another department.
You try leaving a little bit to a newcomer or a younger employee.

Then, work that had been flowing normally until now can suddenly come to a halt.

Even when I feel I have communicated in the same way, it does not get through to the other person.
Things I thought they would check are simply being overlooked.
What I consider 'obvious to check' is not considered obvious by the other person.

This becomes exhausting.

Things do not proceed at the usual pace.
Explanations increase.
Confirmations increase.
Situations arise where you have to stop what you are doing and go back.

While watching from the sidelines, some people must feel that it is faster to do it themselves.

In fact, in the short term, that is true.

It is faster to rely on someone who is used to it.
It is more reliable to look at it yourself.
It is easier to finish with only those who understand rather than teaching while working.

The busier you are, the more you want to do that.

However, if you keep doing that, the work will end up being handled by only a few people.

Experienced people become even busier.
Those who are not entrusted with tasks cannot gain experience.
The nuances of the work remain unspoken.

And then, when personnel changes, everything falls apart.

What becomes apparent here is not just the other person's ability.
It is the reason why the work was going well until now.

Was it truly organized as a process?
Or was it just being supported by the attentiveness of experienced people?

I think it is better to consider these separately.

Work that goes well with a fixed team is also a strength of the workplace.
There is trust, there is a relationship of mutual consideration, and unnecessary checks can be reduced.
That is a valuable strength.

But if it only works with a specific combination of people, a different perspective is also necessary.

That work might not be running on a system, but rather being sustained by individual habit.

New team members are not strong from the start.

In RPG terms, it is like a state where you are only progressing with strong party members.

The way of fighting is stable.
You know who will step forward.
The healer and the support roles are generally decided.
Even in dangerous situations, you can get through them with practiced movements.

However, if you never let a new member fight, their level will not increase.

At first, their movements are sluggish.
Watching from the sidelines, there are times I hold my head in my hands wondering why they are acting that way.
They lack equipment and experience.
They do not move the way I expect them to.

Even so, they will not grow unless you make them fight alongside you.

The workplace is similar.

When you pair up with different people, your own lack of explanation becomes apparent.
You also learn the other person's strengths and weaknesses.
You begin to see how much you can entrust to them and where you should step in.

That is troublesome.
It does not proceed like a neat educational theory.

Sometimes it takes longer than planned.
Sometimes rework is required later.
There are days when the person teaching gets tired and ends up wanting to go back to the usual people.

But if you keep avoiding those troublesome parts, the workplace will not expand.

Waiting for the ideal personnel will not move the workplace forward

I do not believe that what is needed in a workplace where you cannot choose your personnel is to wait for the ideal candidates to arrive.

How much work can you get done with the members you have now?
If the equipment is old, which quirks should you address first?
For those with little experience, how much should you entrust to them, and where should you step in to check?
For cautious people, tell them where they are likely to get confused beforehand.
For energetic people, set specific points where they must stop.

There is no need to make everyone versatile.

In fact, there is almost no such workplace.
Everyone has strengths and weaknesses.
Some are good at detailed work, while others are good at planning.
Some have speed but are careless with checks, while others take time but can spot dangerous areas.

The important thing is not to blame them for what they lack, but to find a combination that allows the work to get done.

If you assign work without looking at the person, it is just dumping the task on them.
On the other hand, if you only rely on experienced people, the range of what you can handle will not increase.

To strengthen a team, you need some troublesome combinations.

Dare to pair them with different people.
Give them roles different from their usual ones.
Try entrusting them with small tasks.
Draw a line for checks beforehand only where failure would be problematic.

That is how you gradually expand the scope of work.

Of course, there is no need to force this on urgent projects or dangerous tasks.
In the workplace, there are tasks that are fine for training and tasks that must not be compromised.

If you do not distinguish between them and just throw tasks at them saying it is for experience, both the teacher and the learner will get tired.
That is not growth; it is just exhaustion.

A team of only the strongest members does not make a strong team

There are jobs that can be finished quickly with a fixed team.
You should make use of that strength.

However, if you only operate with the same usual combinations, invisible weaknesses will remain.
Operations stop when the personnel changes.
Things fall apart when the explanation changes.
Quality and delivery times suddenly become unstable when the consideration of experienced staff is missing.

That can hardly be called the strength of the entire workplace.

I don't believe a truly strong team is one that wins only with the strongest members.

Even if someone a bit clumsy joins, the workflow doesn't stop too much.
Even if a new person joins, they know where to check.
While relying on those who are skilled, you can gradually expand the scope of what you entrust to others.

In the long run, that kind of workplace is stronger.

Not being able to choose your personnel is certainly an unreasonable aspect of the workplace.
However, because you think about how to organize the team within that unreasonableness, the team grows.

It would be easier with the usual people.

There will continue to be times when you think that.

But if you only run operations with that ease, the workplace will remain dependent on the currently strong people.
To raise the status of new colleagues, there is really no other way than to work together.

I believe that the next strength of the workplace is sometimes hidden within combinations that are a bit tiring.

Related Articles

What is Eliminating Personal Dependency? Why Education Alone Won't Solve It
https://note.com/millennium_bird/n/n05cb173fbc0f

To Newly Appointed Managers in Manufacturing: When You Think 'I Just Want to Go Back to Making Things,' the Real Management Begins
https://note.com/millennium_bird/n/n1a0d5f6e0b8d

For Manufacturing: Why 'The Person Who Does the Work Loses Out'
https://note.com/millennium_bird/n/n5239aece0499

Kindle Book Information

When you become a workplace leader, you increasingly face situations where you are torn between doing the work yourself for speed and entrusting it to others to help them grow.

This Kindle book summarizes how to organize that burden and decision-making.

An Introduction to Factory Management So That Workplace Leaders Don't Get Burned Out

Self-introduction

Information about the author is summarized here.