Finish Strong® by Becky Morgan Fulcrum ConsultingWorks, Inc

Most of us hire people to fill a slot -- a given role. That happens all too often because we hire in a reactionary mode, to someone leaving or to sales growth.
We talk about cross training, but often don't provide it for a number of reasons: no time, will have to pay person more, or not sure what we will need are just a few.
If your company talks about sales mix impacting productivity or other measures like on-time delivery, it often reflects a lack of flexibility or agility with our work force.
Cross training employees can be expensive, but can pay for itself every day. Random or time-filling cross training will likely be expensive and not pay for itself, ever.
Operations leadership are well served by creation and maintenance of a widely visible cross training matrix. The matrix starts with a picture of each employee on the Y axis, and the names of the various relevant skills on the X matrix. Where the picture and the skill intersect is the information about that person's level of mastery of that skill.
Now review what that list of relevant skills should include. Some simply name machines, but often there are subsets of skills for a given machine that are important and not equally mastered by all. Rather than worry about perfect, create the list of skills that seem to make sense at the start.
Now, it's time to indicate who (the pictures on the Y axis) has which skills (the X axis entries). Most find it helpful to define categories, like "run with supervision," run without supervision," "perform setups," and "train others to operate." These classifications will vary depending upon your business and staffing models.
It is time to fill out the matrix. You can look across and see who is capable of what, and look vertically to see who all is skilled in a specific machine or task.
You've created the "current state" matrix. That tells you what you currently have. What's next?
How will you keep this accurate? The fact that John Doe ran a machine a year ago doesn't mean he is still qualified at the same level to do so again. How does your re-verification effort work?
Similarly, you don't need everyone cross trained in every machine or skill. How many do you need for flexibility and to support growth?
Each column should indicate a number for the goal skilled personnel. You may need 3 trained on Machine 1 and 6 trained on Machine 2. These numbers are based on product demand, engineering intentions, the number of shifts, and other factors.
Your current state matrix, combined with the target number for each skill, makes visible the needs of the organization for appropriate cross training. This is a live document, as new skills are added, people lose skills over time, and our expected needs change.
Operations is responsible for capacity planning and management of people, equipment, and processes. The cross training matrix I have just described to you is a simply and important tool in that effort.

When I worked for TRW in the 1980's, the company required everyone with purchasing responsibilities to take the Chester Karrass negotiating course. At that time it was 100% focused on the assumption of a zero sum game, where whatever the other "side" got came directly from you. Win-lose. Since then companies have come to understand that successful suppliers are required by successful customers, and vice versa. Win-win became the order of the day.
Unfortunately, that understanding itself often ebbs and flows with near-term earnings, and for too many companies it has yet to extend beyond the commercial supply chain.
Every business has five constituencies: customers, suppliers, employees, investors, and the community at large. The concept of community extends into the future. Every responsible company considers all five when making major decisions. Too many leaders focus first on investors, and then on customers, and then perhaps on suppliers. If there's money "left over" the employees may get a raise or a bonus. The community? Well, if there's still money left over, maybe we'll donate to something or fix that fence.
Managing costs is integral to long term success. Managing costs is not the same as stretching payments to vendors, taking discounts not earned, or laying off highly skilled employees when times are tough. Poor processes, guestimate specifications, slow time to market and unverified products, ineffective onboarding and training, accepting bad orders or customers, staying with suppliers uninterested in improving your success, firing suppliers without investing in their success, ignoring local schools — these, and more, are all significant contributors to poor financial performance.
Consider what it takes to be a company that the best want to work for, suppliers energetically support, customers seek out, long term investors chase, and that the community is thrilled to have. You can't get there without being profitable. But being profitable doesn't put you there either. Profits are important. They can and should be derived from well considered decisions, not short term ones to maximize today's numbers.
As you consider significant decisions, I encourage you to ask yourself: 'what is the impact likely to be on all five of our constituencies?" If all five benefit, now and in the future, it's an easy decision to make. If not, consider both the short and long term impact on each of them. Then make the right decision, which might well not be the one that maximizes profits.
To focus solely on maximizing profits is a strategic mistake that few of you can afford to make.

Phil Spector was a very successful music producer and songwriter, who was also convicted of murder and serving a long sentence when he died in prison.
Talented people can be bad people.
Talented bad people can also do good things.
Phil Spector produced the famous Ike and Tina Turner song "River Deep - Mountain High." He knew how controlling Ike was, so he created a unique contract for this work, paying Ike Turner $20,000 to stay away while giving credit to both Ike and Tina Turner. That seems like a talented bad person doing a good thing.
We all know the story of Ike repeatedly beating Tina, until she escaped one night with no money and no where to go. Working long and hard at low-end jobs to keep herself and her children fed, she knew that she was a really good singer. Still under contract with United Artists she released solo albums, none of which succeeded.
The UAR contract ended; she signed with EMI in the early 1980's, and as they say, the rest is history.
It is easy to be impressed by talent, even when that talent is covering significant character flaws, ergo Ike Turner and Phil Spector.
It is easy to overlook world-changing talent when it pushes a mop bucket, like Tina Turner.
How much talent do you reject because it doesn't look like the talent you normally hire? How much talent do you keep, despite toxicity, because it can hit the high notes?
We all know, whether we like it or not, that culture eats strategy for breakfast.
So why do we live with toxic workers? Not one of them anywhere in any role for any organization is worth it. Many of us choose to be optimistic, hoping that the person will improve.
How long is enough? One day? One month? One year?
Every minute you accept toxicity as acceptable behavior you are driving away everything that is good about your organization. No level of skill can outweigh that.
Your organization may be filled with Tina Turners looking to escape because of the Ike Turner or Phil Spector you choose to retain.
What's love got to do with it?

Why would a senior employee keep tricks of the trade secret from others? For one reason only: a lack of confidence.
Someone who acknowledges his own talent and thinking skills would not be intimidated by others having the same abilities. Someone committed to team success would ensure knowledge is public -- that is, known and available to many -- and not private -- that is, known only by himself.
In this podcast I provide examples of how and why to ensure the knowledge of your organization is not lost when someone walks out the door for the last time.

A few years ago I volunteered to support the Continental Cup activities in Cleveland. This is an international sporting event that included 2500 youngsters from ages 8 to 18 from 12 countries competing in a variety of sports.
My first day, I was an electronic scorekeeper / clock operator for basketball games, seated next to a young man who was to keep track of individual statistics, team fouls, and team time-outs on paper. I received 2 minutes of training on the equipment; not sure he received any on his role. We did have experienced refs.
Unfortunately, the court we were assigned was in the middle, with fans at one end and the scoring table (us) and the players at the other. With whistles blowing on courts on both sides and required to look at the far end of the court for half the activity, ours was not an easy assignment.
I had to rely on the scorekeeper to know when to light the bonus and double-bonus indicators for the refs. He needed nothing from me. We were individuals, not a team, in tracking the score. As is not surprising, during one game our scores were different. Additionally, he was confused on individual fouls and team fouls, which understandably frustrated coaches. He wanted silence, except when he asked me a question, so he could concentrate. I wanted to verbally verify which team scored so we could stay aligned.
That volunteer and I never became a team. We went through the forming and storming stages, but never reached norming or performing. The refs had the same challenge. They were to perform as a team, but were thrown into the game together just as my fellow volunteer and I were.
All 4 of us should have been a single team, but instead we behaved as 4 individuals each trying to do a good job. No one with bad intentions.
My second day I had the paper detailed scorekeeper job. My "table-mate" for that day and I had about 5 minutes before our games started. We talked about how to work together, she trained me on my new job, explaining "little tricks" that make it easier. Our team of refs had worked together before. We talked with the refs about how they could help make our jobs easier, and vice-versa.
While far from perfect, the four of us were a fairly effective team. When creating a small team to accomplish a task, plan time for them to get to know one another, discuss roles and responsibilities, and agree on operating guidelines.
No matter how smart, how experienced, or how caring they are as individuals, they will not suddenly become a team just because the game has started.

A majority of adult Americans do not vote in our elections. Why is that? Simply because they don't believe their vote matters. They believe nothing will change anyway.
Voting within your company happens. Any idea what the participation rates are? They are 100%, regardless. Some votes are simply more visible than others.
Why do some not vote in other countries? One recent Russian immigrant told me he never voted in Russia because he didn't want to vote to support the existing government and he didn't want to be caught voting for anyone else.
Voting in your company can be accomplished by leaving, or by staying.
The vote of staying may well be that of the Russian man or our unregistered and nonparticipative voters. If staying is a real vote it includes speaking up and the belief that input and ideas will be considered.
In elections we want to believe that our side may not win, but our vote counts. In companies, it's the same thing.
How long is the line to vote within your organization? If turnout appears low, you know why.