Workplace Changes In Progress

The Becton Dickinson Corporation was established in Columbus, Nebraska, on October 12, 1949. The plant is one of several in the United States, and specializes in the production of a medical device. The average current daily output of Becton-Dickinson is several million medical devices per week in the Columbus plant.

Columbus has a population of about 19,500, and Becton Dickinson must compete with several other major corporations as it seeks to hire staff for its plant. A large number of laborers is available from surrounding small towns, but those seeking work have a number of options, due to the Columbus industry’s growth and the low unemployment rate in recent years.

Becton-Dickinson’s Columbus plant normally employs 700 workers on the production line, with another 200 associates involved as support staff and management. As of September 30, 1997, the workforce included 360 (40%) male and 540 (60%) female associates. The distribution for workers in management was 125 (63%) male and 75 (37%) female associates.

For several decades, Becton-Dickinson organized its management according to a pattern typical of similar factories in the Midwest. A supervisor was placed in charge of a department to supervise 60-70 production line workers. The supervisor was directly responsible to the production manager. The associates on the line were encouraged to provide input to the supervisor by means of written suggestions.

In an effort to provide a stronger sense of ownership by production associates, some experimentation has been introduced, with the formation of work cells and self-directed work teams, including 15-20 associates, none of whom is designated as a “coordinator” or “supervisor.”  As of September 30, 1997, management had in place three such work cells, organized around the stated purposes of the work cell organization including the following:

• Associates on the line should develop a stronger sense of ownership in tasks common to all associates in the group
• Associates on the line should find it easier to suggest ways in which their segment of production can become more efficient, and to implement such strategies on a limited basis, allowing all members of the work cell to make observations concerning the efficiency of any new strategy

Management made the decision five years ago to implement work cells in the Columbus plant. From management’s point of view, work cells were the direction to go in optimizing work relations, quality improvement, cost reduction and ownership. A change in work relations reinforces the ability of associates to have mutual respect, openness and trust for fellow associates. Quality improvement at each process operation gives the associates an understanding that quality means business, and the absence of quality means loss of business. Associates come up with cost reduction ideas and understand the need to compete on a worldwide basis. A change in attitude helps associates look at things differently, and gives them a new perspective and a change in paradigm, and ultimately helps them come up with new ideas and to think outside the box.

Self-directed work teams will help associates make decisions at the lowest level. Making decisions at the lowest level means: having information available, knowing the schedules, overall expectations, and due dates; if this is implemented at the associate level, management hierarchy can be reduced. Decision-making at the lowest level is a time and money saver for the associates and the company.

Conversely to all of the previous stated benefits that self-directed work teams provide, there are disadvantages to the process. There is some resistance to the idea and to the process. It is not clear whether resistance is due to a lack of understanding or a lack of training. Sometimes inadequate training can be a major obstacle for individuals without the necessary training in the work cells concept.

Are associates reluctant to change?  Maybe associates are comfortable in their present environment and they are unwilling to accept changes. Sometimes associates feel they have been doing things this way for many years, so why change?  For some associates, the least thought of change gives them a feeling that something will be taken away from them, or that management does not care anymore. Sometimes associates feels they will have to do more work for less pay.

Lastly, has management really bought into the idea of self-directed work teams?  These questions need to be answered in order to build on a solid foundation for positive results in implementing self-directed work teams.

Answers to these questions will be sought by way of a survey. Surveying the existing work cells should provide some insights as to why there is resistance to the self-directed work team concept. Some of the questions to be surveyed include such things as:

• What does a self-directed work team mean to you?
• What do you like about a self-directed work team?
• What do you dislike about a self-directed work team?
• If you could change one thing about your team, what would it be?
• Do you think that you get the support needed from management?

The use of the survey will give some answers to important questions about the pros and cons of self-directed work teams. It is expected that the survey will bring to the surface some deep personal feelings in regards to the work cells.

The goal of this book is to explore the advantages of a self-directed work team. In writing this book, I have used numerous books and authors for research material. Several books have been written on self-directed work teams that show a rich history of successful companies, and my survey of these companies will be an integral part of this book.