Who can best navigate Employee Engagement at work?

Those were the days I was working as Plant Personnel Executive in a factory. The factory had three plants, let me call them for convenience A, B & C, within the same premises. All the three plants produced similar products, but addressed an exclusive segment of customers or application, with the plant machinery, facilities, and processes remaining almost the same.

The factory was more than two decades old. So, the employees were all highly skilled. They had a union led by an external leader and negotiated their wage settlement every three years.

When it came to delivering on customer requirements, the Plant C had an impressive record, while the other two, Plant A & B, lagged. Plant C did better on most of the parameters, like improvement in cycle time, operator efficiency, quality levels, housekeeping levels, contribution of kaizens and suggestions, discipline, share of awards, etc. It stood out as an example for the other two plants.

As Plant Personnel Executive, I spent considerable time on shop floor of each plant every working day. But it was Plants A & B that took away lion’s share of my time. Some of the issues that dogged these two plants were – employees starting the work late, idling the machines, missing from the work spot, closing the shop early, reluctance to shift to other workstations, and so on.

Every trivial issue was blown up into crisis, often disturbing the work. To cite an example, an occasional delay of a few minutes in tea arrival at tea time caused an uproar in the plant.?

I must narrate one incident that happened during the wage negotiations between the management and union. The negotiations had reached a stalemate. You know what happens once parties reach the deadlock. ?They start experimenting, rather gambling, with pressure tactics.

On one fine day, the production in Plants A and B dropped down by almost 25%. It was apparently a slowdown discreetly orchestrated by the union.

But surprisingly, the Plant C had almost maintained the normal production levels. This obviously displeased the union. The union office bearers, we heard, met that evening with the Plant C representatives and exerted pressure on them to fall in line. The next day, the production in Plant C also dropped, but only by 10%.

These are some examples of how the Plant C stood out from the other two plants and showcased the deeper commitment levels its employees had with the organisation.

The question is, what is it that made the difference? If you consider the facilities and amenities available for employees to work, they remained same across all the three plants. Even the compensation and benefits were governed by the common wage settlement.

The only difference that was quite evident for me was the way in which the supervisors in Plant C treated their employees. The one man who relentlessly coached his supervisors to develop this sensitivity was the plant manager.

He was often heard telling his supervisors :

“It is your own behaviour as a supervisor that directly impacts how the employees feel at work. It is those experiences that often reflect in their behaviour or performance on the job. So be sensitive to make them feel worthy and valued at work!"

This sensitivity helped the supervisors earn trust and respect from employees and develop mutual commitment, which proved too strong even for the union to break, albeit for the time being.

The most valuable lesson I learnt from this experience was that - 'the organizations can hire the most competent people for work but creating the all important willingness in them to give their best is the domain of their immediate supervisor, often notwithstanding the realities of the organisation.'

What are your views? Please share your comments.

In the next article, I will share what actually these supervisors did to create those engaging experiences.