Emotional Intelligence

Emotional Intelligence.

What is it?

Where does it come from?

Can it help elevate competence in leadership and analytical thinking on the shop floor?

Generally, emotional intelligence is self-awareness. It is the ability for an individual to be aware of how they function socially. But not just that, it is further carried to mean one’s ability to function not only socially, but effectively, of which social function is a component, in the business environment. People with emotional intelligence are typically willing to accept accountability, are open and honest and often exhibit self-deprecating humor, which endears them to others. Those with emotional intelligence also have the ability to get results. They are competent subject matter experts (SMEs) in their area of expertise, but they are also able to achieve results through others, regardless of whether their leadership is formal (supervision) or informal (thought or team leaders).

Research has shown that emotional intelligence can be both inherent and acquired. Acquisition however is often challenging and dependent on self-awareness, which is a component of emotional intelligence. Odd as this seems it is a cycle that is dependent on itself, and difficult to change. However, open and honest feedback thoughtfully rendered, can jumpstart the unaware, and help them to the desire to become self aware. Whether inherent or acquired, experts seem to agree that emotional intelligence requires constant development.

To enable one to elevate competence in leadership and analytical thinking on the shop floor, the first step is to recognize the issue of the lack of self-awareness. The second step is to identify what is required to overcome the problem. The third step is to take action to overcome the problem. Finally, one must evaluate the results of the action and in so doing, recognition of additional developmental gaps will become evident.

Emotional intelligence CAN elevate competence in leadership and analytical thinking on the shop floor. In order for this to take place the steps cited in the prior paragraph must be followed. It is not typically the habit of operators on the shop floor to think of themselves as leaders and analytical thinkers. However, they too can leverage the tools that are often used by the managers who supervise them. The cycle begins with operators evaluating what need they have to improve themselves through introspection, feedback or other means. They then identify the tools and the plan that will help close that gap. After identifying the tools, they then take action to develop themselves using the tools identified. Upon completion of the action, the process begins again with not only identification of additional gaps, but also evaluating how well the last action executed filled the previous identified gaps.

When I was an operator, I learned the importance of honest feedback from my peers and from my supervision. However, I was completely unaware and had to literally be “shocked” into realizing this was important for me to understand in order to develop myself in the way I wanted. In short, I was completely oblivious. I've since given myself to soliciting and evaluating feedback often. Fortunately at the time I worked for an organization that also provided me the tools and training for development. I was able to identify and act, developing my skills as I moved through the process. I eventually won the trust of many of my peers (this is often a very difficult task among operators), such that I could get open and honest feedback in evaluating whether I had learned what I needed, and what they thought I might do next to further improve myself. I also had a mentor, which was necessary to my long term development, which provided coaching and feedback as well.

I am no rocket scientist. However, I work now several extremely bright and talented scientists. I am currently engaged in informal leadership, leading a cross-functional team that has global impact in the organization for which I work. I’ve been very fortunate and it’s been a long road since being an operator on the shop floor. The key was in understanding what needed to be done to make it all happen. Now my passion is to help others like myself understand those same concepts as well. To understand the value and need for…

Emotional Intelligence.

A Writer Writes!

I have a favorite movie. It is a dark comedy starring Billy Crystal, who plays Larry, a bitter and frustrated would be author, teaching creative writing at the local community college. The movie is a hilarious dark comedy, but that's not the point of this post! At the end of each class session portrayed in the film, Larry finishes his class session by stating to his students, "A writer writes!"

I am currently in the process of studying a book. I say studying because at first I just read it. The book is entitled, "How To Run Seminars & Workshops," (Robert L. Jolles, Wiley, ISBN 0471715875). There is a section on writing, which states, "Planning to write is not writing. Thinking about writing is not writing. Talking about writing is not writing. Researching to write, outlining to write - none of this is writing. Writing is writing."

So now I have two paragraphs in this post about writing. Why, one might suppose, is that? Well here it is: You can execute an Investigation. You can do it using Fault Tree Analysis or some other methodology. You can identify Root Cause and the appropriate Actions to mitigate the Loss Event and prevent it's recurrence. You can involve SMEs and your Investigative Team members. At the end of the day, you will have to document your findings. For many people, this is sometimes the worst possible aspect of an investigation, made more so when the summary requires approval from various parties, each of whom has their own opinion as to style and grammer, and which can reject your summary for tawdry edits that often don't make sense.

There are a million reasons why we don't like to write. However, at the end of the day, if we do not write at one point or another, the investigation is incomplete. In order to truly complete the investigation, it needs to be "wrapped up in a bow," through documenting (read as "writing") the investigation.

Lead Investigators, or at least a member of the Investigative Team, is typically a writer. And the Root Cause Analysis, must be documented and summarized so a record exists for review in the future. If for nothing else, to enable prevention of the same issues in the future. You may not feel like your documentation is up to par, and perhaps it is not. At least not now. But the more you write, the better you get at writing.

Over the course of a 26 month period, I documented 115 Investigations, all requiring full Root Cause Analysis. Many suggest that I am an expert. However, I contend, if that is the case, it is only through the continued practice that took place from writing so many investigative summaries in so short a period of time. Anyone can develop this skill set if they have a mind to. It's not difficult, although you have to toughen up your hide and accept feedback from time to time. But this is no problem if you truly wish to excel. The key thing to remember is...

A writer writes!

Root Cause Investigation of the Month Winner

On my pager, I was just sent a page from a colleague (not more colleagues!?) to look at my email account at work. When I did, I was surprised to find that I had been selected, in my Corporate Division, as the Root Cause Investigation of the Month Winner. What I was even more gratified by, was that the things that I think are truly important to a good Root Cause Analysis, were all listed as components of the selection criteria.

The body of the text in the announcement included the following:

"Strong points include: 1) Performed thorough fault tree analysis of the situation and provided data for those paths both pursued and eliminated, even though confirmed root cause could not be identified, 2) Employed investigative tasks to obtain SME contributions, 3) Supplied solid data to support impact conclusions and final disposition, 4) Employed good technical writing practices, and 5) Demonstrated adherence to [appropriate] tools. In addition, the [investigative] team exhibited curiosity and open-mindedness."

My intent in sharing this is not to toot my horn, so much as to illustrate that development of this skill set is highly valued by organizations. There are not a great many individuals that are willing to do what it takes to seriously develop these skills. Doing so requires you to make yourself vulnerable by soliciting feedback, and credible, by acting on that feedback. Demonstrating these behaviors with each investigation will drive improvement of your skill set, as well as your capability within the organization.

The Root Cause Investigation of the Month Winner is...

[Insert your name here]

Group Think is Thoughtless

In the 18th Century, the Vienna General Hospital had a serious problem. There was a high degree of infant deaths due to puerperal fever. Data for infant deaths became available in 1784. From 1784 to 1822 the infant mortality rate was about 2%. From 1823 to 1841 infant mortality was about 7% and from 1841 to 1846 it jumped yet again to nearly 10%.

Women plead not to be admitted unless they had to be, knowing their babies had just as good a chance at survival, outside the hospital as in. Physicians studied this phenomenon and could come up with no cause as to why. Doubly perplexing was that infants delivered by mid-wives had a mortality rate of 0.6% as opposed to the infants delivered by the physicians and medical students, which had the near 10% mortality rate.

In 1846 Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis agreed to a three year contract to work at the hospital, beginning that year. He became aware of the problem, pored over the data and learned that in 1823, pathological anatomy began at the medical school, where physicians and medical students would dissect and study cadavers. Midwives did not attend the medical school, and as such performed no pathological anatomy. The physicians and medical students would complete their anatomy classes and then attend to the obstetrics of the hospital, now being carriers of cadaverous contamination.

Upon recognizing this issue, Semmelweiz instituted the practice of hand washing in chlorine after a physician or medical student completed a pathological anatomy. This was instituted in 1847. Infant mortality rates from 1847 to 1858 were about 1.6%, significantly lower than the nearly 10% mortality rate before.

During the decades prior to the investigation of Semmelweiz, the physicians in the hospital could not begin to fathom that anything they were doing would be the cause of the increased infant mortality rates. This is a classic example of Group Think. Group Think is found in organizations (larger than one individual). Tunnel vision and myopathy are synonymous with group think, but can also apply to the individual.

I read a book once, entitled, "Leadership and Self-Deception: Getting Out of the Box," in which the example was given of an infant learning to crawl. The infant gets up on its hands and scoots around by pushing itself back. Eventually, it gets wedged against something and cannot scoot back farther, becoming trapped. Frustrated, it screams and cries and pushes back harder, but to no avail. The paradigm of the infant does not allow it to consider that it might be the source of its own problem. If it could see the problem, it may not be able to do anything, if much about it, because it may not have the capability to change direction without pushing back. Intervention is nearly always required.

This is the hallmark of Group Think, Tunnel Vision and Myopic thinking. That is why it is important to have the emotional maturity to allow someone else to challenge the thought processes we are engaged in. This is critical to a good investigation. Having someone on your investigative team who will challenge the process can get others to see and think about things in a different way. This is necessary to a robust and successful investigation.

Group Think is thoughtless.

Ooops!! I could have had a...

I enjoy doing meaningful, robust investigations that really get to the root of the matter. They allow me to be involved in improving whatever process is impacted. This is something I find a great deal of satisfaction in.

The other day, I asked for feedback on a presentation I was giving for approval of an investigation I am working on. The investigation was not one of the type I had done before, was exceptionally high profile and had a very compressed time line for the level of effort and detail that would be required. I was given some reference numbers, in our database, of similar investigations I could review, and perhaps use as a template for my investigation.

Well, I did just that and started digging in. However, I was so zoned on completing the investigation, that I missed one of the key fundamentals I usually adhere to; I failed to utilize Fault Tree Analysis as a means of getting to Root Cause. I am not a disciple of Fault Tree Analysis. I AM A ZEALOT!! And yet, I failed to do what I am normally quite disciplined about doing.

Back to my feedback on the presentation: I was asked, "Where is your Fault Tree Analysis?" After trying to justify myself, I gave up and capitulated to what I knew was the truth; I had buried my nose so deep in the template, that I failed to do a thorough investigation.

I was forced (by my own behaviors) to rework my work (terribly painful on a personal level) and build my Fault Tree. The end result of the investigation was no different, but the Fault Tree provided substance to what I had done with the template and made it easy for the approvers to see my conclusion and how I had gotten there. In the end, I was glad I had to rework my work. (That's kind of a catchy phrase!)

I've now put together a little checklist for me to follow, so that when I am steeped in a big investigation, I won't slap my forehead with the heel of my palm and say, "Oooops!! I could have had a...

...Fault Tree!