RL Wolfe: Implementing Self-Directed Teams (HBS Case 4063)"

RL Wolfe: Implementing Self-Directed Teams (HBS Case 4063)" Order Description Read HBS case "RL Wolfe: Implementing Self-Directed Teams (HBS Case 4063)" and answer the following three questions: What are key design features of self-directed teams (SDT) ? Do you think SDT is successful at the new Corpus Christi plant? In terms of both human resource management and plant policy, how would you address the identified areas of struggle between the workforce and plant management (see pay more attention for this case,I need a good score for this assignment. Use some self experience to analysis this case and answer the questions. For the exclusive use of X. Sun, 2015. DAVID A. GARVIN ELIZABETH COLLINS RL Wolfe: Implementing Self-Directed Teams On a clear day in May 2007, John Amasi looked down on the city of Corpus Christi, Texas, as his plane approached the airport. As director of Production and Engineering at RL Wolfe—a $350M privately held plastic pipe manufacturer headquartered in Houston, Texas—he was looking forward to visiting the company’s plant in the city. Four years previously, in 2003, when RL Wolfe had purchased Moon Plastics—a small, familyowned custom plastics manufacturer in Corpus Christi—Amasi had seen an opportunity to implement self-directed teams (SDTs) at the new plant. He had been interested in SDTs for several years, since taking a business school executive education course on workforce motivation and team structures. Amasi had been intrigued by reports of 30% to 40% improvements in productivity and quality for SDT-run units, when compared with traditional manufacturing facilities, and returns on investment more than three times the industry average.1 Those reports had come from a variety of industries—food and beverage, consumer goods—but Amasi felt he saw evidence that he could use the SDT model to drive high productivity in a plastic pipe manufacturing plant. The Corpus Christi plant, once retooled and back online in 2004, had a design capacity of 2,250 tons of high-density polyethylene (PE) pipe per year. “High productivity,” in his view, was 95% or more of design capacity. Wolfe’s two other plastic pipe manufacturing plants were running at 65%-70% of design capacity. Amasi’s first step had been to gain the board of directors’ approval to approach the workers’ union and offer a long-sought concession in health care coverage to clear the path for what became known as “the Corpus Christi experiment.” The new plant would not be unionized, in contrast to Wolfe’s other two plants. His second step had been to lure 35-year-old Jay Winslow from Wolfe’s top competitor to become plant manager. When Amasi and Winslow sat down to design the work system, they both envisioned a flattened and simplified organizational hierarchy and committed work force with a high level of satisfaction in their work (see Exhibit 1 for background on the theory of self-directed teams). That commitment and sense of ownership, they believed, would inspire the workers to continuously improve processes, 1 David A. Garvin, “Understanding Self-Managing Work Systems,” Technology and Operations Review, 1997. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ HBS Professor David A. Garvin and Elizabeth Collins prepared this case solely as a basis for class discussion and not as an endorsement, a source of primary data, or an illustration of effective or ineffective management. This case, though based on real events, is fictionalized, and any resemblance to actual persons or entities is coincidental. There are occasional references to actual companies in the narration. Copyright © 2009 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-545-7685, write Harvard Business Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to http://www.hbsp.harvard.edu. This publication may not be digitized, photocopied, or otherwise reproduced, posted, or transmitted, without the permission of Harvard Business School. This document is authorized for use only by Xiaowei Sun in BUSS5307_2015SP04 taught by Yoshio Yanadori, University of South Australia from July 2015 to October 2015. For the exclusive use of X. Sun, 2015. 4063 | RL Wolfe: Implementing Self-Directed Teams thereby increasing productivity and quality. Now Amasi was on his way to tour the plant and talk with Winslow. He was a frequent visitor at the plant, eager to see firsthand whether SDTs could help him achieve and sustain high productivity in a plastics manufacturing plant. So far, the plant was running between 80% and 82% of design capacity annually, but he and Winslow were not satisfied with that result. He and Winslow planned to use this visit to tour the plant and to address the barriers that were preventing higher productivity. Background: Plastic Pipe Manufacturing at the Corpus Christi Plant The new plant used plastics extrusion to produce high-density polyethylene (PE) pipes primarily for the natural gas and oil industries. Lightweight, noncorrosive, chemically inert, and available in long runs, plastic pipe was the preferred method of distributing natural gas and oil in many parts of the world. PE pipe was easy to handle: a 500-ft length of 1-inch pipe weighed approximately 100 pounds. To create extruded plastic pipe, raw thermoplastic beads (or resin) were loaded in a hopper and mixed with additives such as colorants and IV inhibitors. The hopper fed a highly automated extrusion manufacturing line composed of an extruder for melting and mixing the raw materials, a die that determined the ultimate shape and diameter of the pipe, a vacuum tank for sizing and cooling, and cooling tanks. At the end of the extrusion line, the pipe was moved to a finishing line where identification marks were added. Stacked lengths and spools of pipe were moved to an inspection area, where the outer diameter, pipe thickness, and other quality parameters were confirmed. Finally, the pipes were packaged and prepared for shipment to customers. Workers also performed quality inspections on raw materials. The plant established its own procedures for testing incoming resin based on melt index, density, tensile strength, and environmental stress crack resistance (ESCR). Computerized controls were used both in the raw materials quality inspections and throughout the extrusion line. Corpus Christi, a 300,000 square-foot facility, ran four extrusion lines 24 hours a day over three shifts (7 AM to 3 PM; 3 PM to 11 PM; and 11 PM to 7 AM). The strong hum on the factory floor was punctuated by the hiss of cooling pipe. Each shift required 27 floor workers, with most of the activity focused on bringing raw materials to the hoppers, running the lines, and transporting pipe away from the finishing lines. Corpus Christi in 2004: Moving Toward a Self-Directed Work Force Back in 2003, Amasi and Winslow had asked the managers of Wolfe’s Austin, Texas, and Columbus, Ohio, plants to join them on the Corpus Christi implementation team. The four met in Corpus Christi for three days of planning meetings addressing job definitions, hiring, team setup and responsibilities, and the role of the coordinator. Job Definitions For Corpus Christi, Amasi and Winslow strongly advocated pushing aside the job distinctions and roles currently in place at Wolfe’s two unionized plants and creating semi-autonomous work teams in their place. The Austin and Columbus plant managers provided similar descriptions of the traditional roles at their plants. 2 BRIEFCASES | HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL This document is authorized for use only by Xiaowei Sun in BUSS5307_2015SP04 taught by Yoshio Yanadori, University of South Australia from July 2015 to October 2015. For the exclusive use of X. Sun, 2015. RL Wolfe: Implementing Self-Directed Teams | 4063 First, plant contracts with the 62,000-member Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics & Allied Workers International Union and other unions divided workers into two categories—production and maintenance—with work assignments further determined by job classifications and seniority (see Exhibit 2 for a partial organization chart for one of the unionized plants). The implementation team maintained that these traditional divisions would not provide the flexibility and equality that were necessary to make SDTs a powerful source of continuous improvement ideas. A related issue was associated with conflicts between maintenance and line operator personnel at the two unionized plants. No workers on the line, foremen included, were authorized to perform maintenance on equipment. Maintenance personnel were paid a higher wage than production personnel, and production personnel were promoted to maintenance positions only after at least one year at the plant. Even if a line operator knew how to fix a problem, the extrusion line would halt to wait for a maintenance worker to fix the problem. Maintenance workers and line operators often disagreed on the reasons for the breakdown of equipment as well as the best way to troubleshoot the line. Further, line operators had an often-justified fear they would be blamed for any drop in the line’s productivity while a fix was being made. To compound the problem, maintenance workers on the Austin plant’s third shift called in sick at a rate 20% higher than third-shift workers at comparable plants. For the Columbus plant, the rate was 35% higher than at comparable plants. The implementation team agreed on two job levels for workers on the factory floor. The first classification included line operators and materials handlers. The second level, called “technicians,” would be assigned to the more technically demanding work on the plant floor. The job descriptions for line operators and technicians were very similar, but technicians were expected to take the lead in technical problem solving (see Exhibit 3 for a partial organization chart for the Corpus Christi factory floor). Hiring The team recognized that the innovative work system planned for Corpus Christi would require characteristics that were not traditionally sought in factory floor workers. Winslow was committed to flexible work assignments at Corpus Christi and wanted, ideally, every worker to learn every job at the plant. But fully participating in self-directed teams would clearly require both management and workers to learn a new set of skills. Winslow and the others documented a set of personal characteristics to use as hiring criteria, including problem solving and a thirst to learn, performance reliability and adaptability, judgment, organizing skills, and initiative. Then they set up three exercises, or simulations, to evaluate applicants on these dimensions. In one unusual exercise, applicants were asked to create a box from a sheet of 8 ½ x 11 paper, train someone else in the steps used, and then work with a team to create as many boxes as possible in 10 minutes. Applicants were told that the hiring approach was different than they had probably experienced elsewhere because the plant was setting up its workforce in a different way. These exercises mystified some applicants but others enjoyed the process, as one former oilfield worker explained: “I’d never had a job interview like that. They want me to actually think and make choices on the job. I didn’t understand how it would work but I sure got excited by the idea.” Winslow and his hiring team interviewed 500 applicants for approximately 90 positions. They initially offered positions to Moon Plastics workers but eventually hired only 20. “Moon was unionized,” Winslow had explained to Amasi, “and I did not want teams to fall back into the old ways of doing things.” Applicants were offered compensation comparable to that at Wolfe’s other plants. Amasi had wanted to pay a premium of up to $2 per hour, based on job description, to employees at Corpus Christi, but under pressure from the union he set aside this idea. HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL | BRIEFCASES 3 This document is authorized for use only by Xiaowei Sun in BUSS5307_2015SP04 taught by Yoshio Yanadori, University of South Australia from July 2015 to October 2015. For the exclusive use of X. Sun, 2015. 4063 | RL Wolfe: Implementing Self-Directed Teams Team Definition The implementation team debated how to design the SDTs. They asked questions such as, “How big can a team be and remain productive?” and “Do workers identify themselves with a specific job, a specific shift, or an area of the floor?” Winslow and the others considered using a shift—all 27 people working eight hours on the floor together—as a team. After all, it was the shift that produced plastic pipe. Further, if workers rotated through all the jobs on the floor, they would gain a deeper understanding of the pipe production process. As a result, they would start to think of the work areas as interdependent and as equally responsible for the production of a quality product. Ultimately, the managers on the implementation team decided to set up two teams—extrusion line operators and material handlers—for each shift. Each team contained 12-15 people (see Exhibit 3). Boundary of Team Responsibilities In establishing boundaries for team decision making, the managers at the Wolfe’s two unionized plants highlighted the gap between most plant workers’ experience and the roles that Amasi and Winslow wanted them to play. In the other two Wolfe plants, most decisions were made in the office suites, with little involvement by the workers. What could the Corpus Christi implementation team reasonably expect in terms of initiative and problem-solving skills from the new hires? In the beginning, Winslow expected the teams to take over the control of their day-to-day activities—for example, setting up break time policies, fixing equipment on the line, and ensuring that the right raw materials were always available for a given extrusion line. Winslow did not set a hard boundary line for the decisions that teams could take on as they matured—though, in 2004, he could not imagine that they would set production goals for themselves or participate in strategysetting for the plant as a whole. Role of the Coordinator The least traditional role on the Corpus Christi factory floor was that of the coordinator, who was expected to support and facilitate the teams, but with little formal direction. One coordinator was on the floor per shift. To help define the coordinator role, Winslow hired an organizational consultant, who defined four leadership styles and described different circumstances suitable for each style. (See Exhibit 4 for a description of the leadership styles.) Acting as a directive leader, a coordinator would provide specific instructions and supervise workers one on one, similar to the traditional role of a foreman. Acting as a coach, a coordinator would explain decisions and ask for suggestions but would retain the power to make decisions. Acting as a supportive leader, the coordinator would involve workers in making decisions and act as a facilitator. And, finally, as a delegating leader, the coordinator would turn over decisions and responsibility to the team. Delegating leadership was the ideal, Winslow said. He asked the implementation team: What do we mean by a self-directed work force, and how will we know when we get there? For me, the answer is when our coordinators are true delegators. For example, if an extrusion line decides to make a change in the water temperature used to cool the extruded pipe, a coordinator in a delegator role would support their right to experiment with this improvement, even if he disagreed. Wrong decisions cannot affect workers’ take-home pay—if it did, everyone would fear innovation. And yet, the team as a whole must take responsibility for thinking through decisions that affect the bottom line. 4 This document is authorized for use only by Xiaowei Sun in BUSS5307_2015SP04 taught by Yoshio Yanadori, University of South Australia from July 2015 to October 2015. For the exclusive use of X. Sun, 2015. RL Wolfe: Implementing Self-Directed Teams | 4063 Coordinators were asked to participate in a three-day training when hired. Winslow also acted as mentor to all the coordinators and met with them as a group once a week. 2007: Tallying Successes and Disappointments When Amasi reached the Corpus Christi plant that May morning, Winslow was waiting. The two managers sequestered themselves in a meeting room to explore the successes and disappointments associated with the same issues they discussed at the plant launch three years before (see Exhibit 5 for a summary of morale, absenteeism, and productivity measures among the three Wolfe plants). Job Definitions While initial job rotations on shifts caused disruptions, with workers confused about where they should go from day to day, this issue was successfully resolved in 2005 by implementing a series of recommendations from the SDTs and coordinators. Over a 36-week period, each line operator would perform all of the jobs associated with that role, with equal time in every position. On-the-job training would be provided, as needed, particularly for some of the new equipment Amasi purchased as part of the plant retooling. After 36 weeks, the line operators would begin the same rotation on the next shift. Materials handlers followed the same rotation. Technicians, on the other hand, were expected to develop deep technical knowledge in two or three work areas. Therefore, they rotated to a new area once per quarter. “We do have an issue with our job definitions,” explained Winslow. Many line operators and materials handlers feel they lack status when compared with technicians. It appears as if subtle distinctions between roles are creeping back into our culture. Yesterday, one line operator told me, “The technicians are being used like foremen and they are not supposed to be. When the coordinator comes by, he asks for the technician. He doesn’t value our opinions much.” Hiring In the past three years, Winslow had discharged seven factory floor employees. Some employees were fired because they refused to participate in the SDT process, instead sitting silent and impatient at their team meetings in the factory cafeteria and bolting for the door as soon as possible. Others had misunderstood the concept of employee empowerment. “Empowerment does not mean autonomy or total freedom to do what you want,” Winslow explained. “The source of empowerment comes from the willingness to take on responsibility—responsibility to the team and to the plant as a whole.” Winslow continued: Most of our teams have taken ownership of quality improvement and safety issues. Neither John Amasi nor I am satisfied with the plant’s performing at 80% to 82% of design capacity, but across the shifts the teams are generating 20 ideas for process improvements per month. We have an excellent safety record—only one accident in three years compared to two a year at the Austin plant. Our third shift, though, is not making its production targets. And when the coordinator or I try to help, the workers claim we are going back on our promises. Team Definition, Boundary of Team Responsibilities, and Role of the Coordinator “In 2004,” Winslow continued, “I would say 100% of decisions were made by coordinators in a directive leadership style. Now, 80% of decisions about the work on the factory floor are made by the 5 This document is authorized for use only by Xiaowei Sun in BUSS5307_2015SP04 taught by Yoshio Yanadori, University of South Australia from July 2015 to October 2015. For the exclusive use of X. Sun, 2015. 4063 | RL Wolfe: Implementing Self-Directed Teams teams. In many cases, the workers know more now about plastics extrusion than the coordinators do. As one coordinator said to me last week, ‘Now the workers are the experts, and they are accountable to each other.’” Remaining areas of difficulty centered on personnel management and plant policy. Winslow shared examples with Amasi: • Individual recognition: “We’re successful at group recognition, but individual recognition is a Pandora’s box. When a coordinator posted a list of outstanding performers, people on the list didn’t like it and asked for it to be taken down. Also, workers are asking for pay increases for high performance. But I want to incent teams, not individuals acting on their own—how do I do that?” • Performance evaluation: “Floor workers tell me that coordinators know their names but little about the work they do. And yet, no one wants to do peer evaluations, which I have seen as a goal since 2004. They worry that disagreements between workers will be reflected in negative comments in people’s permanent files. And peer appraisal raises a host of questions. How would we use the results?” • Size and composition of the teams: “I think small teams are far more effective than larger teams, but I’m struggling with how to define smaller teams on the factory floor. Furthermore, we have fairly high turnover of floor workers—which means membership of the teams changes frequently. That change makes it difficult for teams to gel, and when a team loses a true leader, its decision-making ability plummets.” • Overtime, vacations, and policy: ‘Teams want control over the amount of overtime they work and when they work it. But I believe that production goals, pay, and benefits are out of bounds for team decisions. Just yesterday a worker complained, ‘We were given the impression when we came here that the majority rules, but that’s not the way it is.’ The problem, as one of my coordinators said to me just yesterday, is that the boundary between management and workforce decisions is constantly shifting and everyone has a different idea of where the line should be.” “There is no turning back with self-directed teams,” Amasi said, after listening to Winslow, “It’s like teaching a bear to dance. Once we started dancing with the bear at Corpus Christi, we gave up the ability to say when it’s time to stop. We still have a higher productivity, measured as a percentage of design capacity, than we do at the other Wolfe plants. The big question is, how do we use the SDT model to drive even better performance?” Thanking Winslow, Amasi headed back to the airport. He had his work cut out for him. On the plane ride back to Houston, he planned to start sketching ideas for improving productivity at Corpus Christi. He and Winslow would build a strategy over the coming months. “And was it possible,” Amasi mused, “to persuade the unionized workforce at the other Wolfe plants to accept the SDT model? I do not want this experiment to end.” 6 This document is authorized for use only by Xiaowei Sun in BUSS5307_2015SP04 taught by Yoshio Yanadori, University of South Australia from July 2015 to October 2015. For the exclusive use of X. Sun, 2015. RL Wolfe: Implementing Self-Directed Teams | 4063 Exhibit 1 Theory of Self-Directed Teams These ideas characterize self-directed teams and their associated work systems. Different organizations implement these ideals in different ways. • Joint optimization of social and technical systems—Both social and technical aspects of work should be designed together so that people, equipment, and tasks become parts of a single system. • Participative design—Employees must be involved in determining their own job responsibilities and perhaps in designing the overall processes used in the organization. • Minimal, rather than complete, design—Management defines only the essentials of the work processes, leaving tasks, roles, methods, and policies broad and open-ended. Employees then take an active role in refining the design. • Open systems—To inspire continuous improvement and ensure adaptability, direct ties should be built with customers and suppliers. • Autonomous work groups—Teams are the building blocks of these systems. Teams should strive to be autonomous and self-governing, though often management assigns teams their overall goal and sets metrics for the teams to achieve. • Boundary location and control—SDTs require clear decision-making boundaries to function effectively. • Control variances at the source—Teams should handle unexpected or unprogrammed events (such as quality problems) themselves, thereby increasing their level of autonomy and responsibility for the quality of their own work. • Enriched jobs—Workers enjoy enriched jobs, partly due to learning diverse skills through job rotation and partly due to increased involvement in problem solving and activities typically reserved for management. • Shared power, information, and rewards—Power, information, and rewards should be “where the action is—at the lowest level of the organization.” Information should be widely dispersed and easily accessible. • Egalitarian and humanitarian values—Equality and equity are core values of SDTs, leading to flat organizations, few levels, and blurred lines between management and the workforce. Trust is a key value as well, resulting in less oversight of workers. Source: David Garvin, Understanding Self-Managing Work Systems (Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 96-041), 1997. 7 This document is authorized for use only by Xiaowei Sun in BUSS5307_2015SP04 taught by Yoshio Yanadori, University of South Australia from July 2015 to October 2015. For the exclusive use of X. Sun, 2015. 4063 | RL Wolfe: Implementing Self-Directed Teams Exhibit 2 Partial Organization Chart for Unionized RL Wolfe Plant (2004) Plant manager Foreman Foreman Production operators Downstream technicians Maintenance workers Line operators Loaders Raw materials handlers Finished materials handlers Each eight-hour shift (7am-3pm, 3pm to 11 pm, 11pm to 7 am) required the following workers: Role Engineer (foreman) # per shift 2 Production operators 4 Line operators Downstream technicians 8 4 Loaders Finished-materials handlers 2 2 Maintenance Raw-materials handlers 2 3 Responsibilities Run the floor and address any production issues for the shift. Ensure that all equipment or inventory issues are addressed. One foreman was in charge of production and the other in charge of maintenance. Monitor equipment to ensure it is running correctly and producing the correct product. Perform the daily activities associated with a production line. Package, label, and visually inspect all products produced by their assigned line. Load and unload all deliveries made and received. Safely handle and transfer finished goods from the production floor to the stocking yard. Fix problems on the extrusion lines during the shift. Receive shipments of raw materials; perform QA tests on raw materials; ensure that each line has the necessary raw materials at the beginning of (and throughout) the shift. Total: 27 8 This document is authorized for use only by Xiaowei Sun in BUSS5307_2015SP04 taught by Yoshio Yanadori, University of South Australia from July 2015 to October 2015. For the exclusive use of X. Sun, 2015. RL Wolfe: Implementing Self-Directed Teams | 4063 Exhibit 3 Corpus Christi Shifts Using Self-Directed Teams Plant manager Coordinator Materials team, consisting of materials handlers and technicians Line operation team, consisting of line operators and technicians Each eight-hour shift required the following workers: Team 1: Extrusion line operators Role Technicians # per shift 6 Line operators 8 Responsibilities Master the technical aspects of the extrusion process to provide necessary engineering oversight. Handle maintenance. Perform the daily activities associated with a production line. Team total: 14 Team 2: Materials handlers Technicians Materials handlers 2 11 Master the technical aspects of materials testing. Perform all the tasks performed by the downstream technicians, loaders, finished materials handlers, and raw materials handlers. Team total: 13 9 This document is authorized for use only by Xiaowei Sun in BUSS5307_2015SP04 taught by Yoshio Yanadori, University of South Australia from July 2015 to October 2015. For the exclusive use of X. Sun, 2015. 4063 | RL Wolfe: Implementing Self-Directed Teams Exhibit 4 Stages of Team Evolution and Associated Leadership Role LEADERSHIP STYLE EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT LEADERSHIP ROLE TASK SITUATION HIGH DIRECTIVE LOW SUPPORTIVE ENTHUSIASTIC BEGINNER FOREMAN HIGH COMMITMENT LOW COMPTETENCE “I’LL DECIDE.” SPECIFIC DIRECTION DIRECTING HIGH DIRECTIVE HIGH SUPPORTIVE DISILLUSIONED LEARNER LOW DIRECTIVE HIGH SUPPORTIVE SUPPORTING REGRESSION PROGRESSION COACHING SUPERVISOR LOW COMMITMENT SOME COMPETENCE EMERGING CONTRIBUTOR “LET’S TALK, I’LL DECIDE.” LISTENS TO IDEAS FACILITATOR MODERATE COMMITMENT HIGH COMPETENCE “LET’S TALK, YOU DECIDE.” SHARES DECISION MAKING LOW DIRECTIVE LOW SUPPORTIVE PEAK PERFORMER COORDINATOR HIGH COMMITMENT HIGH COMPETENCE “YOU DECIDE.” ACCEPTS DECISION DELEGATING SELF-DIRECTED WORKFORCE 10 BRIEFCASES | HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL This document is authorized for use only by Xiaowei Sun in BUSS5307_2015SP04 taught by Yoshio Yanadori, University of South Australia from July 2015 to October 2015. For the exclusive use of X. Sun, 2015. RL Wolfe: Implementing Self-Directed Teams | 4063 Exhibit 5 Morale, Absenteeism, and Productivity Across Wolfe Plants, 2007 Morale Corpus Christi, TX Selected worker quotes: • “Things seem less boring and rigid here than in my last job.” • “Why should we take on all this extra work with the teams? I don’t see us getting paid for it.” • “I wasn’t born yesterday. You really think the boss would let us make decisions that really count around here?” • “I actually enjoy going to work. More than I can say about other jobs I’ve had.” Absenteeism rate (average workdays absent across workforce) When compared with similarly sized plastics manufacturing plants: Selected Productivity Measures • 82% of design capacity (2,250 tons/yr) 1st shift: 10% below 2nd shift: 5% below 3rd shift: equivalent Turnover: 5% annually Active participation on teams (as estimated by coordinators): 60% Austin, TX Selected worker quotes: When compared with similarly sized plastics manufacturing plants: • “In this economy, I’m just happy to have a job. Any job.” • “It’s us against them—management. They won’t pay us a penny more than they can get away with.” 1st shift: 10% above “My father works in this factory, and my brother does, too.” 3rd shift: 20% above • • 70% of design capacity (3,300 tons/yr) nd 2 shift: equivalent Turnover: 9% annually Columbus, OH Selected worker quotes: • “I check out during meetings. Most of what I hear is a lot of hot air about how we are supposed to work harder and how tough the economy is.” • “I don’t know why I need to call in a maintenance worker to fix something on my line. They are slow, they act entitled. Forget it if you need one and he’s on a cigarette break. Often they don’t bring the tools they need.” • “I like being on the third shift. Usually lots of people call in sick, so the work slows down while the bosses figure things out. That’s ok with me.” When compared with similarly sized plastics manufacturing plants: • 65% of design capacity (3,650 tons/yr) 1st shift: equivalent 2nd shift: 15% above 3rd shift: 35% above Turnover: 12% annually 11 This document is authorized for use only by Xiaowei Sun in BUSS5307_2015SP04 taught by Yoshio Yanadori, University of South Australia from July 2015 to October 2015.