joanna.darby@ifs.com, Author at Future of Field Service

By Sarah Nicastro, Editor, Future of Field Service

I have spoken to a lot of experts over the past few years about change management, digital transformation, and important leadership qualities when it comes to team building and innovation in service. I recently saw an interesting article in my inbox about lessons that leaders can take from the non-profit sector and reached out to author Dr. Te Wu to learn more.

Te is an associate professor at Montclair State University and the CEO and CPO of PMO Advisory, a project management training and consulting firm. A few years ago, he did some research on business execution capabilities, and noticed that certain non-profit organizations were outperforming other non-profits and most other for-profit businesses when it came to executing projects.

Why? According to Te, those high-performing non-profits combined business acumen with a strong vision and understanding of their mission. I asked him to explain some of those findings, and what lessons other types of organizations can take from that data.

What are some of the key differences you have observed between for-profit organizations and these high-performing non-profits when it comes to project management and leadership?

Well, first, non-profits have a bit of self-selection bias when it comes to mission. Non-profits in general pay less than for-profit organizations, so people are there either for the more relaxed atmosphere or they believe in the mission and are willing to make a percentage sacrifice in their possible income. Second, non-profit missions and vision are fairly easy to communicate. Even people who do not work there will know what the mission is, just by the name of the organization.

For-profit organizations have more complicated missions or may have less exciting missions. My first job out of college was at Nabisco. I love snacks, but they are not as exciting as saving lives. At the end of the day, a for-profit mission is either making money or something that is not that exciting. I think for-profits are always going to suffer from that, but you can still put together a high-performance and empowered team. That does require having them head in the same direction. It is worthwhile to get as excited as possible about that mission.

What are some lessons companies can take from how non-profits approach team building and project management?

Non-profits have a more consensus driven culture and are more participatory. Even if they are very hierarchical, they at least attempt to look like they are listening to people. The benefit of that is in having the ability to listen to employees early on. You get to know the problems and conflicts, and the different perspectives. You spend more time upfront, but you can get buy-in from the team or at least get them to understand why you made a decision that may be contrary to their recommendations.

For-profits tend to race against time and have stricter constraints around the schedule or budget. Because of that, they don't have a tendency to listen to anybody else as they execute. You find out about problems and conflicts as you go along. The team shows up to work, but they may not be as excited. That can make things take longer. These conflicts show up later and can be like death by a thousand cuts. People are not as excited, it takes longer, and you probably don't get the project done as well as a well-run non-profit.

The biggest mistake people make is to equate initial speed with quality of execution. For most projects, you are probably better off getting those feelings and disagreements out early on.

As you mentioned, non-profits tend to have more energy around their vision because they are often focused on very positive missions. How can you translate some of that energy into a for-profit business where the mission may not be as superficially compelling?

There are plenty of things you can do. Speaking from personal experience, I usually have a bunch of team leads that work with me on a project. I try to understand why they are on my team. What excites them? Different people have different reasons to be on projects. Some are looking to learn new skills. Others may look at this as a checkmark on a resume. Other people may just like working on projects.

I try to understand what makes them tick. Then I try to make sure that I shape how I work with them and how decisions are made to help meet some of their goals. We have open conversations about expectations of performance, and what you are looking for.

I remind people that it is okay to disagree with each other and have conflict. If you don't have conflict, then either the project is too simple and you are going into overkill, or the team members are not paying attention. Conflicts can bring out the best in the team. What you don’t want is to have conflicts spiral out of control.

It is difficult to replicate the energy you find at a non-profit. My first major experience at a non-profit was almost magical. I could see people huddled together working late at night, still going through design elements, and trying to solve problems. I have never seen that level of enthusiasm at a for-profit, but you can still build very good teams and successful projects. On a scale of one to ten, a good non-profit can get all the way to a ten; a for-profit can still build a good team and get to an eight on that scale of execution.

Sarah shares insight from the awards ceremony for the inaugural Hot Topics’ Top 100 Service Visionaries which took place last week at the iconic Abbey Road Studios in London.

Sarah Nicastro: Welcome to the Future of Field Service Podcast. I'm your host, Sarah Nicastro. This week I had the opportunity to visit the iconic Abbey Road Studios in London to help announce the inaugural group of awards for the Service Visionaries 100. The Service Visionaries Top 100 List is an acknowledgement of service leaders globally that was created in partnership with HotTopics and IFS. If you're not familiar with HotTopics, they are a London-based firm who are dedicated to creating a community of C-suite leaders across the globe, and they have created these awards in various categories, including chief digital officer, information security, marketing, things like that. Obviously, IFS understands the incredible role that service leaders play in today's businesses and worked with HotTopics to create this first ever Service Visionaries 100 List to recognize and acknowledge the hard work of some of the world's top service leaders. So it was a wonderful experience.

I had the opportunity to record a panel discussion in the famous Studio Three, the main event took place in Studio One. I had an opportunity to speak on stage about why I think the recognition of service leaders is so incredibly important and what a service visionary means. And one of the funnest parts of the day that I was a little nervous about honestly going into the day is at the end of the evening, we all got together in Studio Two, which is where the Beatles recorded a lot of their art and music over the years to record a group song.

So we had a vocal coach that led us in some practice before we dove in and recorded a song ourselves as a group. We had the sound engineer, Paul, who was hilarious and a lot of fun. And I was nervous because I'm no singer, but it was actually a really cool experience and it was just incredible to be in a place that so many artists have been and created amazing music and just incredible moments. So just to think about what's taken place in that building while we were there was just phenomenally cool.

So that being said, I thought it would be worthwhile to record this episode to talk a little bit about not just how cool the day was, of course, but what the recognition of service leaders means to me and why I was so honored to serve as a judge in selection of the top 100, and also why I think it's so great that HotTopics has created this category and this list.

So first of all, what is a service visionary? I think everyone would define that a bit differently, but to me, I think that a service visionary is such an incredible connection point within the business between customers being leader of the frontline teams that interact with customers on a day-to-day basis. They sort of own the ability to have that incredible customer impact, to build those relationships, to provide that brand experience, to create loyalty, to bring customer sentiment in, et cetera. So they are incredibly important when it comes to the customer intimacy that a business has. Of course, they can't do that piece without their teams and the frontline workforce. And so they're also a critical connection point for all of those employees throughout the ranks into the business and to the customers, and ensuring that those teams are engaged, empowered, and understand the importance of the mission that they have and the purpose of what they do.

And then finally, they are a connection of those things into the business. So being able to help evangelize the importance of service within the business and being able to help continue to shift the perception of service from a cost center to a profit center, something that is a key pillar and area of innovation and evolution for companies in so many industries. So I think the service visionary has to be a master prioritizer. There are so many different competing projects, objectives, interests, KPIs, challenges, and they're constantly forced to make sure they are not only addressing the day's most immediate needs and priorities, but also looking ahead and putting the business and the function in a position for innovation and making sure that they are creating service differentiation not only for today, but for what customers will want in the future. So incredibly important role.

We had a conversation in our panel discussion about did the folks there feel that the impact of a service visionary is widely understood at the C-level? And the answer was no. I think that we know that historically, service leaders and the service function have been viewed as important in resolving problems and meeting customer needs when they need a repair or an installation or whatever the company's service is. I think what's still not as widely understood, recognized, or acknowledged as it should be, is that service not only is an incredibly important piece of customer experience, but it is a very powerful source of customer sentiment. We talked a lot about how the intimacy that service teams have with customers is often only leveraged in terms of maintaining satisfaction, not leveraged in bringing voice of the customer into the business in terms of product development, R&D or the go-to-market strategy and developing new offerings and understanding what areas of innovation may be most impactful. So it's respected in the sense of the importance of solving problems, but not necessarily the power of how it can play a role in a company's innovation and evolution.

The other piece we talked about is, of course, companies that still aren't harnessing the potential of service to grow the business and create new revenue streams. So there are certainly companies that are and who understand the competitive differentiation and growth potential of the service function, but there are a lot who still view service as quite frankly, more of an afterthought or that necessary evil, if you will. And so I think really bringing service to the table in not only its impact on the customer experience, but its ability to bring customer sentiment into the business and be a key part of the company's evolution and revenue growth is very, very important.

So this award, I think is such an important step in bringing some of that awareness to the C-level, making sure that they understand the impact that service does have, but more importantly can have on the business.

In the panel discussion that we had, we talked a lot about how service leaders often have so much passion and conviction around how a company needs to transform or innovate, and that comes from hearing so much from customers firsthand. So we talked a little bit about how there are functions of the business who are at the table in company-wide decision-making strategy, et cetera, that are quite far removed from the realities of the customer's business. Service, on the other hand, is intimately involved and often owns those relationships and sometimes doesn't have a seat at that table and doesn't have the opportunity to weigh in on what the company is looking at overall. And I think in the years that I've been in this space, I've grown to really love this community. And I think it is that passion and conviction that comes from seeing the opportunity that exists to make changes, to create new things, to solve different problems from those customer interactions.

So I think we in this community all understand the incredible role of service and the ways in which companies who are recognizing its impact, how it sets them apart. But I think this collaboration between HotTopics and IFS to acknowledge not only these top 100 leaders of 2023, but the category itself, to bring it into the conversation, to be able to have myself, some of the other judges, some of the winners on stage in London to talk about what is a service visionary? What is so important about service leadership? And what does the future hold? It's a very important way to initiate those conversations in the businesses of everyone attending. So I just think it's a great initiative.

Judging was hard. There are so many leaders doing incredible things within their businesses, impacting their individual teams and their company's customers, but also for the industry at large. And I have the privilege of talking to so many of them on a weekly or daily basis, and that's why I love what I do so much. So the acknowledgement of the top 100 is just the tip of the iceberg. There's so many more who are having just as big of an impact and playing just as important a role in their respective organizations. So I hope that as HotTopics does this award again next year, the idea of it will catch on, the nominations will be more and more, and the organization will have an opportunity to recognize another 100 leaders and just continue to elevate the discussion around the critical importance and opportunity of service within each and every business that is part of their C-suite community.

So again, big thanks to HotTopics and IFS for seizing the opportunity to create this category and acknowledge these leaders and appreciate the opportunity to play a role in doing that this year. It was an honor and huge congratulations to the top 100 service visionaries of 2023. I have deep respect for each and every one of you and admire the hard work and passion that you bring to what you do. I know that you and your teams are so well deserving of this acknowledgement, and I hope you take a moment to be proud of not only being a part of the list, but just the impact that you have day in and day out. So huge congratulations to this year's winners. I will make sure we link to that list in the show notes so that you can take a look through who is part of the top 100 this year, and of course, as the award surfaces again in 2024, we will be sure to share how you can nominate the top 100 of next year.

So just wanted to share that with you, draw attention to HotTopics as a community, if any of you're interested in following them. Of course, IFS as the leading service management provider and the brainchild behind bringing this award to such an important stage. And of course, the leaders who were recognized. So thanks for having a listen. I'll link those things in the show notes and we'll talk to you next week. As always, you can find more by visiting us at futureoffieldservice.com. The Future of Field Service Podcast is published in partnership with IFS. You can learn more at ifs.com. And as always, thank you for listening.

By Sarah Nicastro, Creator, Future of Field Service

While technology and automation have reduced a lot of workplace hazards, on-the-job injuries and fatalities are still a big problem in the U.S. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there was an 8.9% increase in fatal work injuries between 2020 and 2021.

OSHA reported a 16.3% increase in deaths for driver/sales workers and truck drivers in 2021, for example, and field service-related injuries increased even faster. According to the OSHA data:

“Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations had 475 fatalities in 2021, an increase of 20.9 percent. Almost one-third of these deaths (152) were to vehicle and mobile equipment mechanics, installers, and repairers.”

To put that in context, OSHA reported that there were 302 fatalities in 2021 among protective service occupations, meaning that maintenance/repair workers had an on-the-job fatality rate roughly 60% higher than that of police officers and firefighters.

A lot of field service jobs involve servicing complex equipment with heavy moving parts, working in environments with exposure to high voltage equipment or volatile chemicals, or working in dangerous industrial environments. The work must be done quickly and efficiently, and often on short notice. Technicians have to follow their own organization’s safety protocols, but also remain safe in customer environments that may be held to a wide variety of standards.

Technology is helping – field service management tools provide automated reminders and checklists so that technicians follow required steps, and with mobile devices they can quickly communicate unsafe conditions or accidents. But safety remains, by and large, a cultural issue. That was the subject of a recent talk I had with Franklin Maxson, VP Field Services, North America at Socomec, a company that specializes in electrical and power products.

Because of the nature of the equipment Socomec technicians work with, safety has to be top of mind. But the technicians work in a distributed environment and at client sites where they don’t know how well safety policies have been implemented until they get there. Because service leaders don’t have direct control over the technician environment, Franklin says they had to take a step back and look at safety from a cultural perspective.

“We have to make sure that [safety] is embedded within our culture, within our vision, and our mission, and that it remains an active part of every conversation so that we can maintain that focus,” Franklin said. “Safety is one of those things that if you don't focus on it, you become complacent about it.”

There are a few key components to that approach. First, you have to normalize safety as a default – it should take priority over other considerations like speed and cost, otherwise technicians will feel pressured to take safety shortcuts. Leadership and team members all have to be clear on that.

Tap Into the Power of Curiosity

Additionally, Franklin says companies should have an open-door policy so that leaders can listen to employee safety concerns without judgment. Employees should feel free to report safety incidents, even if that means self-reporting their own mistakes. The key is to make sure that reporting is met with curiosity, so that the team works together to solve any problems and make sure the incident is not repeated – which may mean revisiting policies, providing training, or investing in different equipment. A punitive approach will backfire and reduce organizational visibility into safety issues.

Another helpful tip: identify team members that have some passion around safety. They can help drive the safety culture across departments.

Getting away from a “checkbox” approach to safety can also be valuable. In the electrical industry, Franklin said that the lockout/tagout process is often handled using a list completion approach. But a better way might be to have regular conversations around the process – are there challenges to implementing the company policy? Do employees always have the right equipment on hand to complete these processes when they arrive on site? Those types of conversations can help create new solutions and improve safety for everyone.

Those conversations also empower employees to suggest new solutions, and also lets them know that if an unexpected scenario occurs, they can feel free to delay the work until the safety issue is addressed.

“[T]ypically, what we find when we do the incident investigations, is something changed,” Franklin said. “Something went outside of the expected norm, and we weren't prepared for it. So how do we take that moment and say, ‘You know what? Let's take 10 minutes. Let's review our hazard analysis. Are we actually ready to proceed to do this, or do we have to take a step back?’”

The approach Franklin says has worked at Socomec combines top-down leadership with a grassroots safety culture. But they must be aligned. Leadership needs to set goals and expectations and have methods in place to measure progress. Team members, on the other hand, need a mechanism to document safety observations and hazard reports, and management should focus on addressing those to the best of their abilities. Franklin said he actually tracks the close rates on reviewing and answering those reports.

Finally, he said that safety has to constantly be on the radar of service leadership. “If you stop paying attention to safety, safety will erode,” he said. “Just quick look away, and the next thing you know, there are things that are changing and that are not going the right way, because we stopped focusing on it. And it didn't take long, just a couple of months, and it started to erode.”

We covered a lot of ground in our discussion, including the personal and professional experiences that led Franklin to be such a safety cheerleader. You can listen to the entire podcast here.

In this session from the Future of Field Service Live Tour stop in Paris, Sarah talks with Ravichandra Kshirsagar, VP Digital Buildings & Global Commercial, Schneider Electric who explains why and how Schneider prioritizes discussions about the future and shares what the company has done to reimagine what the role of the field technician will look like in 2025, 2030, and beyond.

Sarah Nicastro: Hi, Ravi. Make yourself comfortable.

Ravichandra Kshirsagar: Thank you.

Sarah Nicastro: Ravi is the Vice President for Digital Buildings and Global Commercial at Schneider Electric. And Ravi and I are going to be talking about how Schneider is re-imagining the role of the field technician for 2025, 2030 and beyond. Okay, so going back to the evolution of service delivery, the talent challenges that we have. These things all intersect to raise a lot of questions really into how are things going to change. That's what we're going to get into. Before we do that, tell everyone a little bit about yourself.

Ravichandra Kshirsagar: First of all, very happy to be here with you Sarah. Thanks for inviting me and enjoyed the panel with Sebastien. I think it was a good start this morning. So about myself. Yeah, I'm born in India. I've been expat for more than now 19 years. I've lived in Southeast Asia, Middle East, Latin America, and now in France last 13 years.

And I've had two parts in my career. In the first part I was a solution architect in telecommunications industry. So I worked with Nokia Networks Erickson across Southeast Asia, Middle East, Latin America, on deploying the biggest three G rollouts at that time. And really enjoyed traveling across the globe. Then I did my MBA in France in HEC. And I joined Schneider Electric in corporate strategy where I worked with the executive committee for a while. I understood our problems in deep. I became an internal auditor. So I went in finance actually thinking I'll become a CFO in the group. Because finance something I enjoy and I still, the closest to my heart is. And I think deep down, I'm a financial guy. So I worked with our executive committee on the biggest problems across the globe from R&D, efficiency solution, business model, services transformation, topics like that. For roughly three years, I traveled across 15 countries. I spent time in our factories. And at that time I realized I'm not a financial guy.

Because I like one part of finance, which is value creation, but I don't like the other part which is controlling. It's not in my DNA. So I went into business, and I started with our biggest customers and cloud and service providers. Supported them in their own expansions across the globe. And I think data center cloud business growing so fast, I learned so much about our own business. Our own deficiency in terms of where we need to transform. And from there now I've been part of the business transformation team, what we call digital energy, for the last seven years. So I was recruited by one of our executive committee members and I worked with him on commercial transformation, which is to turn around the P&L, which was the first phase.

And I was responsible for commercial policy and pricing to turn around the P&L. And then I started leading services some four years back. And now I lead the entire digital buildings commercial globally, which includes three main elements. So one is our global initiatives, which is demand creation, sales community, leading back. Prioritizing new investments and our launches globally. So that's one part. Second part, I lead the international operations, which is growth of buildings, business in international where we want to double our market share in the next three years. And where I lead the investments in those zones, countries like India, Middle East, South America, all those are led by me. And then finally services, which is the major engine of growth and where my main focus is modernization and digitization of our services. And the biggest part is, the biggest opportunity is moving from that traditional service model to completely digital.

Sarah Nicastro: Yeah.

Ravichandra Kshirsagar: So that's about me.

Sarah Nicastro: So thank you for that. And when you think about where Schneider is on that journey, from traditional to digitally enabled service, how would you describe where you are today?

Ravichandra Kshirsagar: That's a good question. Where we are, I think if I take a step back a bit, number one, I think our customers are transforming and the markets are transforming. The biggest opportunity we have today is sustainability, energy efficiency, comfort. And if I talk about sustainability. If you look at any Fortune 500 company and you go into their capital markets, they are talking about sustainability, building sustainable operations, achieving net-zero target by 2030, 2040. That's number one. Number two is energy efficiency. You look across Europe right now, the energy prices went up by three to four for companies like us.

So imagine your energy bill was 30 million euros. Suddenly it's a hundred, 120 million euros, and type of impact that has on your P&L. And third is governments. The net-zero targets the focus on sustainability, efficiency. That has created good secular trends for us to focus on those. And that has led to the transformation of our services business. That started with understanding our customer. The basic in service business is understanding your customer in a very deep sense. In our case, obviously one part of customer is people, second part is what you have sold to them.

And even that knowledge in a lot of our companies doesn't exist. So what we started with our first phase of transformation was creating products that connect to cloud seamlessly. So that we are able to provide that digital service seamlessly to our customer and delivering value over there. Second part is then digitizing those service plans. And I think Sebastian mentioned a very good point, like getting that remote service in your contract. So customers recognize, yeah, there's something that is coming remotely and this is how it's going to happen.

So that was the second phase of transformation where we are today, I would say in terms of maturity, we are not there. I mean today if I tell you in terms of numbers, 25% of our service plans are digital. My ambition is to be around 80% by the year 2025. 80-85% because we still have some customers that don't connect to cloud, especially the cloud customers themselves. So that's the challenge. So we'll go get to 80%. We have the offer, we have the technology. Where we are transforming is people. I think people, not only on our side but customer side as well. A lot of our customers still, they want to transform. They want to show they're digital, but they'll still say, "Oh, I want your guy on site."

But what is he going to do on site? Tell me. What is he going to do on site? Is he going to walk around with you looking at all this equipment? I don't know that's valuable. So my role, and this is where I am very passionate about this, is I go and ask him, "Oh, let me walk with you with my engineer. And show me what you are going to look at." And if I show you that happening digitally, why do you need that?

Sarah Nicastro: But it's a really good point. Because this is where the people part comes in, is digging into, when they say that, what do they mean?

Ravichandra Kshirsagar: Yeah.

Sarah Nicastro: What are they looking for? What are they wanting out of that time on site? Okay? Because if you just blow past that objection and just say, "No, no, no, that's not how we're doing it," right? There's an emotional need or concern that you're not addressing. So you have to take the time to understand, what are they looking for? Do they want more information? Do they want that connection? And what is the best way then, to provide that? Because to your point, it isn't just having someone go walk around. That's probably not what they're actually looking for. Or is it trust? Is it control, right? There's something underneath that.

Ravichandra Kshirsagar: No, you are absolutely spot-on. I mean, whenever I talk about customer, we are in a B-to-B environment. Customer is not one person. So customer is this whole organization and their own politics inside their own regions. You've got one guy global, then you've got regional guys, but you've got country guys just like us. And then you've got a person on site who has his own challenges. He has to deliver his KPIs, he has to make sure the site is running 24/7, delivering the value that he's been asked for, the KPIs that he's addressing.

So number one for me is to understand that customer very in a deep sense, how they are as an organization. What KPIs they're challenged on, and how do I connect that to individual site owner? I think it's very important. Then to understand that site owner, his own opportunities that he would like to achieve. So he gets promoted in his organization. And his own fears as you say, because he's done that in that way for years. I'm not from the industry, right? I told you, I started as a strategy finance guy. But there are people in the industry. You had John on the screen who's been in the industry for 20 years. So now if the person has done that job in the same way for 20 years, I mean, there is something we need to do to make sure he understands the value on the other side. And it addresses his fears that keeps him back. Because fear is a big element.

I mean, we can propose these digital technologies and cloud, but that guy is concerned about his job. And he's concerned that if he doesn't visit that with my engineer, maybe he lose his job. No, we don't blow away from those challenges. I address them. And I like talking to customers and debating with them. Likewise with our own engineers. I mean, the guys on the field have so much knowledge, it's crazy. I go in one site visit and I have three features written in my diary. And I come back and I tell our development team that I want to see these features, and I want you to do a workshop with the rest of the team. I think there is that transformation journey you need to have with your people and with your customer. You cannot blow away from the fears of the people.

Sarah Nicastro: I had a woman on the podcast recently who is a neuroscientist that specializes in leading through change. And so we talked about these five elements of neuroscience that factor into change management. And one of the very simple things we discussed, but I thought powerful, is that we all need to understand that resistance to change is normal. It's human instinct. So whether it's with your employees or, like we just talked about, with your customers, getting that initial resistance is not a sign that they're not willing in the big picture or you're on the wrong path. It's just very normal when someone has done something a certain way for a long time to have that resistance. So we need to expect that and do a better job of working through it. And not see it as a signal that things are not as they should be.

Ravichandra Kshirsagar: No, absolutely. And also you need to understand your own resources. We are a big company, we have a huge P&L. But I tell you, we are challenged big-time on the investment and the cost, where we spend. And one of my priority is that the investment that we make has the best return on investment. So in that case, when I say understanding your customers, you also need to understand which of your customers are ready for the innovation that you're building, right? You don't want to tell that to all your customers. You want to really have a group of customers that are leaders. They want to show outside that, "With this technology we are leading. We are the best in class." And that's the customer who's ready for that type of pilot project with you.

And then you start small in one place where you know that, "Okay, in this customer organization, the people are also open. This is the leader I like." And I do that myself at times, to go deeper in those pilot projects, to understand that we have agreed. The people who will be on those team, the SteerCo, we are aligned on the objectives that we will deliver, and we track that. And I always make them pay. You have to invest. Nothing is free. So if you put money, that means somebody at the top in their organization will ask them, "Hey, I gave you this investment, what is the return?"

So it's the best way. You go in customers, you also need to understand. Who are those leaders where you try your innovation? And you work with them first. And then it's a competition. Now, if you go to any company and you talk about sustainability, they want to be on that path. Today, if you're not on a net-zero path in your capital markets, your stock price will be discounted. It's as simple as that.

Sarah Nicastro: Yeah. Okay, so when we think about the role of the field technician... So you mentioned they're incredibly knowledgeable, which is absolutely true. At the same time, we have a shortage of them. And we have all of these capabilities that are increasing our ability to resolve some issues remotely. So when you think about, what does the role of the field technician look like in 2025, 2030 and beyond, what are you planning for?

Ravichandra Kshirsagar: I think the first thing we did, just a couple of months back is we changed calling them "field technician." We now call them "service technician." And that's the first level of transformation. And there are two breaks in that transformation I would say, or three. One is the technology, the speed at which the technology is developing and getting adopted across a customer landscape. Second break is transformation of service processes and automation. And third break is obviously people. The most important break.

Services has always been a people business and will always remain a people business. But the way you deliver service to your customers will change, and the value that people will bring to their customers will change. As Sebastian was mentioning, partnership. Every technician, if you talk to him, he takes a great pride in telling you how close he is to his customer, how closely he knows about his business. And I can tell you a lot of our customers, even before placing billions of euros of POs, they will talk to the service technician and they will get his advice.

Sarah Nicastro: And that's probably one of the reasons they're saying, "No, we want them here onsite, right?"

Ravichandra Kshirsagar: Absolutely.

Sarah Nicastro: They have that relationship. They have that comfort level with that individual.

Ravichandra Kshirsagar: And I think this is where the technology process will enhance the value he delivers to his customers. So you mentioned that we discussed about the fear in people. I think one of the fears is also, "Technology will replace me. It'll start doing my job, and I'll become redundant." The answer is "no." Technology will make you look even better, and that's what we need to help them understand. So when I look at a technician in 2025, 2030, the way they deliver service from going onsite and doing that break fix, to moving to condition-based maintenance, to completely an outcome-based service model. We are still on that journey of maturity, to finally a model where you have AI ubiquitously implemented in customer side. And where a technician is more like an analyst who's coming and helping his customer to further enhance the value. And taking decisions that he's not able to take. Even with AI, I mean, you look at the recommendations that are making, so you define the boundaries. And then it's recommending you certain things, where people need to press those buttons.

And even there, there is fear, right? And the role of technician changes from fixing issues to advising on issues. And helping your customer to take those decisions that will help them reduce carbon, that will help them reduce energy consumptions, that will help them become a better company in the way they deliver service to their customers. So that's how I see the role changing big-time from now until 2030.

Sarah Nicastro: So I like the shift that you've already made from calling them field technicians to service technicians. I think that's very, very smart. And I know another term that gets thrown around that people detest is "trusted advisor." Which I understand, but sometimes when we don't have a better term, we use what's there. So I'm personally very curious. Have you thought at all about as this changes in the ways that you explained, in 2030, is there something you might call these workers other than even "service technician?"

Ravichandra Kshirsagar: Probably, yeah. There'll be the huge shift. So first change is the operating model. The way you operate today with your customer base to the way you will operate in 2030 is very different. And we've already started that journey some six, seven years back. With the change in our offer, connection to digital, all of those things. And now bringing that at scale to our customers. So that's number one shift. With that, what changes is,. A lot of the data that you capture from site, you need to have a team that analyzes that data. So we already have that. We have something called global connected hubs that is in my team. We have those across India, UK, and US.

And then we helped, we explained that operating model to our countries. That this is how we are going to shift and these are the things that are going to change. So in that operating model, you have a team that delivers remote service. You have a team that is called customer success. So you are transforming that function as well. You have a team that helps understand, explains that report and outcomes to the customer. And the third, the final leg is your technician, who goes and then talks to the customer and finally executes some of those elements that come in. So that whole shift, that whole transformation is a massive journey. And then you need to take that into account in that whole ecosystem. Because the role of the technician is one of the role that will deliver the value that you are looking to build with your customers.

Sarah Nicastro: Yeah, it's really interesting to me and I don't think there's any universal answer. I mean, what that evolution looks like for Schneider versus a different industry, they're not going to be the same. But thinking about the fact that there will be multiple parties responsible for what it looks like and probably some different segmentation of work, some different titles coming along. I think it is something that it's really important to be thinking today about. Because these things are going to happen faster than we probably feel.

Ravichandra Kshirsagar: So we already started plotting what I was talking about, the operating model and the core rules over there. So the connected hub engineer, the analyst, the customer success engineer. And then started defining the role of technician in 2025 and 2030.

And there are some elements there that are variable. There are some elements there that will remain constant. So the engineer, the need for people will be constant. But what will be variable is the technology and how fast we are in deploying that technology.

So some of that technology exists today. For example, fault detection diagnostics. It's a simple anomaly detection system. In simple terms, anomaly detection is a system should work in a certain way. And you detect the variances that happen in that system, and you make decisions based on that.

So part of the technology there, we are already piloting AI. As I was mentioning, we did a huge project in Stockholm with a Stockholm school, which I also talked about. So AI is something we are launching in selected countries. And these are two technologies. And we are also looking at other technologies for our different segment of customers. So multi-site customer, multi-site retail. So we are looking at those technologies as well, which will help us build that jigsaw puzzle of technologies. So I believe that the 70%-80% of the technology that needs to be there for 2030 already exists in a way. Or at least we know where we need to go. Now it's important that with that technology, you need to imagine how a technician that is delivering value today will deliver that value in 2025.

So for 2025, we got that figured out. Because we are already on that transformation path. So we defined that out of the service plans that we have, these are the customer segments and the plan that move there. And we are actively talking with those customers, helping them understand the value and helping them make that shift. Because that takes time as well to make that change in their commercial contracts as well.

And then the third part, which is the most important, is people, the technician himself. So the competencies of technician that they have today and in our industry is HVAC controls, heating, ventilation, air conditioning in simple terms. And the controls part that exists over there. From there, that technology is now becoming more operational technology. So it goes on the same IT network as your IT infrastructure. So that brings newer challenges around networking, cybersecurity.

So we need to train our engineers around that. Dealing with cloud, cloud data. The question that customers are asking is, "Where is my data stored?" Data governance-related topic. So that is something we have launched in a few geographies now. What we did is we, out of the group of let's say a hundred technicians, we selected a group of 20 that will undergo that competency development. I'm sponsoring part of that, because countries don't have that budget as well. To make sure they make that shift. And then that becomes a competition. Every engineer wants to be on direct track. He wants to be part of that community. So that just steamrolls. That's the beauty of it. But again, it's really to think of it in a broader ecosystem, breaking that down into smaller problems and then tackling certain problems that need to be tackled today. And then paying attention to performance. Again, 2025 is like tomorrow for me. We're already in '23, '24, '25, and we have committed numbers that need to be delivered as well on that.

Sarah Nicastro: Yeah. So I think there's a couple of things you said that I want to come back to. One is I think it is still really important to reinforce that this shift or these technologies are not taking jobs. So for those of us here, knowing the talent shortages that exist, the capacity we need to fill, that probably seems pretty obvious. No one's trying to get rid of a bunch of technicians. We need more as it is. But in their minds, there is that fear. The second thing you said that I liked is this group of 20. You're kind of making it exciting for people to get involved early and that will help with the change management. But the other thing that I'm thinking about going back to the welcoming problems idea is, while this shift in what the role of the frontline worker will look like, it's challenging in the sense of managing change for existing folks. And helping them understand what that change will look like. But it also presents an opportunity to have these roles be more appealing for different candidates going forward.

So it's less mechanical, more technical work, probably more customer-oriented work. Like you said, less in a lot of scenarios, less travel, less time on site, et cetera. So these are all things that, when we start to welcome the problem and shift our thinking, become opportunities to think about how to diversify the candidates that we're presenting roles to, et cetera. So I think from that perspective, we need to not only be problem solving, but thinking about the positives of that as we go forward.

Ravichandra Kshirsagar: I think what is great in our industry is 40% of carbon emission comes from buildings. 30% of energy globally is consumed by buildings. 80% of the infrastructure that is in buildings is not working well. 50% of systems are not efficient. So there is a purpose in your job if you are working with buildings. And that's the purpose I like. And I share that with the rest of the team, which is we are working on something that helps us deliver sustainability outcomes to our customers, help them in that journey.

I think that's very big, and that's also created a challenge in a way that's an opportunity and a challenge. Challenges that, that purpose has caught on to many companies. Which is great for us, which is great for humanity, and that has created demand for people who understand those control systems and help them drive that sustainability, efficiency. So a lot of our customers end up recruiting our people, which is great. I would like our people to work in with our customers. They're our biggest ambassadors and supporters. So that's a challenge and opportunity that I see. And obviously when we are in a university campus or in the market, you are competing with whole lot of different industries out there. And your pitch has to be the best one to attract the new talent that is coming in the workforce from engineering colleges and the talent that already exists.

Maybe in adjoining industries, maybe there is an engineer working in process technology or in electrical side of industry. And I would like that they transition to controls. And I want to look at those guys and say, "Yeah, we need to attract them and bring them in the fold," so that the overall talent pool grows.

And this is where we are spending time. So two sides. One is on the university programs. I think that's the best place. I think if your purpose is clear, if your company is true to the purpose, then your brand should attract the best in the market. And for us, we just don't talk about it. And Schneider Electric was the most sustainable company in the world in 2021 by Corporate Knights. And that helped us because we are on this journey for a long time. We are able to tell people that you come to a building that I'm setting, it is the first ISO 50,001 building in the world, which is a benchmark for energy efficiency. Likewise, I was mentioning the building that we build in Grenoble is 113 out of 120 points on lead platinum certification. That's again highest in the world. So when you have done it in your own operation, you are more credible when you're talking to students, future talent that wants to join your company.

Having said that, it's still not that easy. I think the challenge remains. I think we still have shortage. There's so much demand. There's so much demand. I think that's a great part of it.

Sarah Nicastro: So I really respect the work that you're doing and your teams are doing to sort this all out, to put it simply, right? I think that for a lot of leaders it can be very daunting to carve out time to think longer term when you're really fighting a lot of immediate challenges. So do you have any advice for folks on how to balance the short term needs of the business with the necessity of innovation?

Ravichandra Kshirsagar: Yeah, I think short term is key. I'll tell you that. If your company is listed, you guys know. And you get a call before closing that, "Where are the numbers and where are you?" And I pay a lot of attention to short term, because my short term will define my long term. I'm not credible in front of management team if I'm asking for investment when I've not delivered the past investment that I've asked for. I pay a lot of attention over there. Now, having looked at all of that, I still prioritize where I want to spend time and where I delegate. I prioritize few topics that are on my list. Number one is obviously the performance. Performance is not optional. I mean, you need to deliver performance, and the P&L has to be on track. That I deal with directly. Second is technologies. I want to understand in deeper sense which technologies are out there in the market and where do we invest. I want to have a say over there.

And in our industry today, there are hundreds of startups, hundreds. That's so crowded, the startup space. But out of that, only three or four actually make annual recurring revenue more than 10 million euro. So that just simplifies your focus, where you want to be and who do you follow. So technology is the second thing.

The third thing is people. I want to have a team. And I build a team which is very balanced, obviously gender diversity, diversity in terms of where they're coming from in countries. And the third one is the intellectual capital. So we want to have intellectual capital that balances both experience and lack of experience. Because what happens sometimes with experience is you go down one path, which is about, "Oh, I know this, so it should happen like that." But I want somebody who should say, "Why is it happening like that? Why this way? Maybe we don't need all of that. We go this direction." That debate balances the team also. Everyone has a great seed, and I think the performance is much better.

So those three things, and what else? I mean, I use something very practical. I have this board on in my office, and I put priority and impact and I shuffle. Every Monday. I come actually and I shuffle the stickers on that. Which is top priority? And which one is going down the list? Or something going out in the dust bin? So I do some practical things like that as well to spend my own time.

I think the biggest resource all of us have is the time. I mean, time and mind space. Those are the two things. And I try to manage my mind space and my time. And I think mind space is the biggest because if you're not in your office, it doesn't mean you're not working. You are at home and you're thinking about work. You're thinking about work. When you are on weekends somewhere, my colleague, like that, or "I have this problem." So you are working. So that mind space where you focus on those three, four things is very important. If you choose the things correctly, then you will think very deep about it. You'll go deep on it. You'll try to ask five "why" questions. You'll go so deep that now intellectually you know that topic better than anyone, and you have the right questions.

It's not about knowing. It's asking the right questions. Because when you have the right questions, then you come to the right conclusion as a team. And my job is to ask the right questions, not to provide the answer. I want that people come to an answer together. Then it's shared, and then everyone says, "Oh, I built something. I contributed that to that solution. So I want to implement it." If I solve it and I tell somebody, then "Ravi wants this. I have to do it." And sometimes you have to push it, but most times you would like in a transformation journey that people come to those solutions together, very importantly.

Sarah Nicastro: Absolutely. Yeah, I think the point about listening and asking the right questions and not feeling like you have to have all the answers is really good advice.

So thank you so much, Ravi. Appreciate it.

Ravichandra Kshirsagar: Thank you.

By Sarah Nicastro, Creator, Future of Fied Service

Guiding a field service organization through new technology adoption can be a challenge for company leadership. Employees can respond to these deployments in a lot of ways - sometimes with excitement, sometimes with apprehension, sometimes with frustration, sometimes with fear, sometimes with a combination of all of these emotions and more.

Leadership style has a big impact on how successful a technology deployment will be. I recently spoke to Dr. John Chrisentary, former Director of Global Technical Services and Technical Fellow at Medtronic, about this intersection of leadership approaches and technology, particularly how a transformational vs. transactional leadership approach can impact projects.

According to Dr. John, there are three basic leadership styles. The laissez-faire model, which is very hands-off and basically involves leadership taking credit for everyone else’s work, is what he calls the worst of the three. More common is a transactional leader, which takes a carrot and stick approach – team members are motivated solely by rewards or avoiding punishment (like being fired or demoted). While that model has been the norm at a lot of organizations, it is quickly falling by the wayside because of generational shifts and technological shifts that have made it much less effective.

Transformational leadership, on the other hand, involves listening, collaboration, building connections, and figuring out what individuals in the organization really need to not only be successful, but also help make the entire organization more successful. “[H]ow can I influence/change a person's way of thinking about themselves, about a process – how can I encourage them? And then also, how can I get them to move to a higher level?” Dr. John explains.

Taking this approach is becoming critical for service leaders to meet evolving customer expectations and to help inspire their team members to meet those expectations. As Dr. John puts it, leaders must have a good grasp of the vision or purpose of what the service organization is doing. The team wants to know why you are changing technologies or processes, which can not only inspire them, but also help encourage urgency.

This can be a difficult transition for transactional leaders, because they feel like they are giving up control. They have used their position to empower themselves, not their employees. That approach will be increasingly difficult with younger workers (who are much more likely to chafe at that type of management) but also in origin with customers and partners in other countries.

“[I]f you're not a transformational leader, you're going to have a hard time working in the international realm because one of the things you have to create internationally are relationships. And this is where that transformational leader really comes into play because they understand that every person brings value to the process. And if they can help the person understand their value, that person has a higher probability of success.”

So how does this come into play for advanced technology deployments? I asked Dr. John how transformational leadership is better positioned to take advantage of things like artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, augmented reality, etc.

Technology requires leaders to understand how new tools will affect the workforce, how team members will use those tools, and what technologies might be required in the future. Getting that type of insight requires all of the communication and listening skills typical of a transformational leader. The leader also has to be able to help the team see that getting through these sometimes painful new technology deployments will help everyone be more effective several months to a year down the road.

AI presents a specific challenge, in that many people across an organization may fear the technology will render part of their workforce obsolete and may even be intimidating to customers. According to Dr. John, the important thing is to evaluate your customer base demographics and take that into account when deploying AI-based service solutions, the idea being that younger customers may be more open and accepting to this level of automation. But personal touch is still important, and as I have discussed before, too much reliance on automation can leave a bad taste in the customer's mouth.

Internally, AI and other types of automation need to be positioned as tools that will help the team do their jobs better – not technology that will take their jobs away.

“[P]eople want to do a good job if you give them an opportunity, and technology is a tool to make you effective. It is not a silver bullet to make your organization or even your position Kevlar-enforced. It doesn't work that way. You're using these tools to make your organization the best it can be, and you're providing opportunities for people to learn to master the tools.”

We covered a lot of ground in our discussion, and you can listen to the whole interview here.

Sarah welcomes Franklin Maxson, VP Field Services, North America at Socomec for an important conversation on safety. Franklin touches on what works well in terms of policy and leadership but also why a top-down safety approach will never be enough.

Sarah Nicastro: Welcome to the Future of Field Service podcast. I'm your host, Sarah Nicastro. Today we're going to be talking about what it takes to create a culture of safety in field service. I'm excited to welcome to the podcast today Franklin Maxson, who is the Vice President of Field Services for North America at Socomec. Franklin, welcome to the Future of Field Service podcast.

Franklin Maxson: Hi, Sarah. Great to be here. I appreciate the opportunity to spend some time with you on this topic today.

Sarah Nicastro: Yeah, I'm thrilled to have you here. Franklin and I had the opportunity to be together in person. What was it? Well, it was last month still. It seems like longer ago, at Field Service Hilton Head. Franklin was part of a panel discussion that I moderated, and so we caught up after the event and chatted about different topics that are top of mind. And safety is one that you are particularly passionate about, so I'm excited to have that conversation today. Before we get into the topic at hand, just tell everyone a little bit more about yourself, your role, and what Socomec does.

Franklin Maxson: Yeah, Sarah, so my background is I'm one of those weird ones that decided to go get a management degree. So have been in the management now for pretty close to 10 years. But really, I have been in field services for the last 20 years. So, I started out my career in telecom and then made a switch to field services with GE Healthcare. Spent almost 11 years with them in a progression of roles from a field service engineer, all the way up through a program manager.

And then I decided to change focus and get out of the healthcare environment, and go work with the critical power. So the last nine, 10 years of my career have been in critical power, primarily focused around data centers, and that type of an environment. So it's been a really interesting 20 years of learning how to operate in a remote environment, long before Covid forced everyone to operate remotely.

Sarah Nicastro: Yeah, that's great. And so when we caught up after the event, we were chatting about what we might do a podcast on, and you said that safety is a topic that is near and dear to you. So as I explained to you when we were chatting, I always like to ask people first, "What is it that you would like to talk about? What's important to you? What's top of mind? What are you passionate about?" Because to me, those are always the best conversations to have. So can you share a bit with me and with everyone, why is safety a topic that is important you?

Franklin Maxson: Yeah Sarah, and I think safety should be one of those things that all of us are constantly thinking about. For me, it really goes back to growing up with my father.

So growing up with my father, I always knew he was a little bit different, and I remember from an early childhood thinking about it, because his left hand had actually been amputated. His fingers I should say, of his left hand had been amputated. And so he had the majority of his thumb and his pinky, but most of the other fingers had been amputated in an industrial accident.

And so I grew up with that. And it's always very interesting, especially as a young child, seeing some of the reactions from some of your friends of how that happens.

Then later on as I started working, I actually had a close call with a conveyor. I had a tool that was sitting on a conveyor belt, and I was a teenager working on some electronics, probably 18 or 19 at the time. And I had a tool sitting on a conveyor. The conveyor turned on, and I quickly without thinking, reached onto the conveyor to try and grab the tool. And my arm got pulled, got jammed up. And thankfully I was able to jam it up against a piece of metal that didn't cut me, but allowed me to have the leverage to pull my arm out. I had a friction burn and abrasions on my arm, probably about a six-inch by two-inch nasty little spot. That was a really close call for me.

Then along the way, I became a private pilot, and safety is huge in aviation. Whether you're a private pilot, or even more so in the commercial world, but safety is huge, and there is a very strong emphasis and a mindset around safety, around checklists, around how do you remain safe in that environment.

Then as I transitioned and later on went into the leadership roles, we had a couple of close calls with employees that quite honestly could have ended in fatalities, and we were lucky they did not.

So over the years, I've had a long exposure to the results of what happens when things don't go well from a safety perspective. And it has become very much something that I'm very passionate about and that we discuss on a regular basis, almost daily basis with my team.

Sarah Nicastro: Yeah, wow. I didn't realize that it stemmed all the way back to the accident that happened to your father. And it's interesting because when we were speaking about doing an episode on this topic, it's one of those topics that it's not the flashiest, like at the event you and I were at last month. Everyone's talking about AI. I didn't notice any sessions on safety.

But what we spoke about is while historically I think in certain industries, it's been more of a conversation. You have certain industries, take mining for example, that just by nature warrants very regular, very serious conversations about safety.

What we were chatting about is in the world we're living in today, whether we're talking about navigating Covid and other things like that, or just societal things, etc. I mean, no matter what industry we're talking about in field service, there can and probably will be situations where employees will be at risk in some way. And so it is a very important conversation to have, yeah.

So let's talk a little bit about in the different experiences you've had, and in your perspective, when it comes to the company stance on safety, the official policies, procedures, communication, the top-down aspect, what's your take on what works well? What's important to consider? Let's talk about that aspect of things.

Franklin Maxson: Sarah, I think that's a very important piece of it. Because as we talk, there's different aspects to safety, and right now we're talking about the top down approach for safety. And I think that is very important, because from an executive perspective, we've got to drive the focus, emphasis, and attention that safety deserves.

You're right, it's not sexy. It's not nearly as much fun as talking about AI, or some of the other very cool stuff that's happening out there right now. However, at the core of what we do, especially from a service organization and a service perspective, service is about people, whether it's our clients, or our most valuable resource, which is our employees. So we have to maintain safety in top of mind.

And it was interesting talking a little bit aside with Roy Dockery when we were at the event, and he has a completely different set of safety parameters than I look at, but we're both still very focused on how do we keep the employees safe. I don't necessarily have to worry about some driver not paying attention running into my employees, he does.

But we could take a look across multiple industries and see that this is very much a requirement. And when we're talking about how does management encourage this, and even more importantly within a service perspective, how do we encourage and empower people when we're talking about employees that are often working alone? We are in a distributed environment. We're not seeing them every single day. We have reduced control of our environment, because we're often operating at a client's site. So we don't know necessarily what the safety policies are or how well they're implemented.

And so when you take all of that into consideration, and we take a step back from an executive level, and look at what is it that we're actually trying to accomplish with our safety policies, we have to make sure that it is embedded within our culture, within our vision, and our mission, and that it remains an active part of every conversation so that we can maintain that focus. Safety is one of those things that if you don't focus on it, you become complacent about it.

And so that is one of the key factors to setting the stage for being able to have a really good safety culture within the organization. I think it comes down to that, right? It's the policies, the procedures. The law doesn't really drive safety as much as the culture does.

Sarah Nicastro: Yeah. So that being said, I think it's a really good point that the role it does play is in keeping the conversation top of mind. Because like you said, it's not a sexy topic. Therefore, it is one that if you aren't intentional about it over time, you can take for granted. Just assume that people understand what the rules are or how they should react in certain scenarios, etc. So it is important from a top-down perspective to make sure you're reflecting on how often and in what ways are we reinforcing the importance of this. That makes sense.

Now, that being said, as you said, the official policy, or rule book, guidelines that the company develops and that top-down focus are not going to be enough. So can you talk about why that is?

Franklin Maxson: Because at the end of the day, we're all humans, and we have to remember that our employees are humans as well. And I don't know about you, Sarah, but I know that when I have to read T's and C's for a long time, yeah, I'm going to want to take a nap. And if we think about our safety manuals and our safety policies, it's just another set of T's and C's that we're all supposed to be out there reading and understanding.

So this is where you have to take advantage of psychology, peer pressure, and a cultural norm around safety. Because if you normalize safety, and that is actually the culture that the organization has, then that peer pressure, all of your teammates in your leadership are all focused around it, and thinking about it, and driving that. And it becomes much more of a grassroots effort.

The other thing that is critically important with this though, is you have to have that open door policy, and you have to be able to listen to the employees without judging. Because the whole judgment part can backfire on you very, very easily in a safety scenario.

And so as you think about a grassroots organization that's going to focus on safety, that is going to be able to do it, we think about, what are the safest organizations out there? And I'll go back to my roots in aviation.

If we stop for a moment and we think about how many people right this minute are actually sitting in an aircraft seven miles up in the sky, it's probably somewhere close to a million people right now, at any given moment around the earth. And if you think about the total number of travelers worldwide, and the fact that the accent rate is so tiny, we don't think about it. We jump on an airplane and we go, right?

But why does that happen? That happens because the entire culture that has been built around that. As a pilot, if you self-report an infraction, you realize, "Man, I just screwed up," and you self-report that, you're actually protected from punishment. Now, you may get some recommended remedial training that you may have to take, but you're protected from punishment.

And if we take some of those aspects, and we take some of these punitive aspects that have generally been found within the companies and say, "You know what? We're not going to focus on that. We're going to try and focus on what is our systemic approach, and how do we identify the systemic breakdowns that led to a safety incident." Then we can start to change that culture and that mindset, and develop that basically bottom up.

The other thing that I think is really important is at a grassroots level, you have to identify the people that are passionate about this. Oftentimes, unfortunately, as people that have either suffered injury or had loved ones suffer injuries. But if you can identify them and identify the folks that have that passion, and you can begin to create those little teams, and to borrow from General McChrystal's book, is eventually create some teams of teams that are focused around safety. They're not necessarily aligned within a normal organizational structure, but you just let that develop so that there's a lot of cross-pollination, a lot of discussion back and forth around what's happening with safety.

Field technicians working next to the factory team members and talking about safety, the factory team members understanding more about what the team in the field does, and the field team providing an outsider's perspective to what's happening inside of the plant. Those things can open up a lot of interesting perspectives that are not necessarily seen. And so when I think about, how do we develop all of this, it's a combination of all of this and creating this holistic approach towards safety.

Sarah Nicastro: I really like the point about withholding judgment, right? Because we know that there's so many aspects that we talk about today in service, where we're creating strategy up here, we're talking about innovation up here, but the reality is happening on the front lines.

And so the same way you would say... Let's say we're talking about technology. Have you gotten input from your frontline workers? What do they need? What are their challenges, etc. We know how valuable that insight is. But in this scenario, if they're fearful of being honest about what the issues are, then they're not going to share that insight, and they're going to keep it to themselves. And that's when you have problems that can arise. So making sure that they're comfortable sharing that.

The aviation example is such a good one. I get so frustrated when... Yes, I mean, everyone gets frustrated when flights are delayed and canceled, etc., right? You get on a flight, you might even be taxiing. "Oh wait, there's a light on. We're going to take you back. You're going to get off."

But there's people literally throwing temper tantrums, and it's like, would you prefer they take off? I mean, I don't know. There's nothing more important than the safety aspect of it. So yeah, it's an interesting industry to think about this topic through that lens.

So I think the idea is, how do you create this openness, this really transparent conversation? And I think you had shared with me when we were chatting, the example of where there are safety policies and procedures. I think we were talking about someone completing an inspection.

Do people around them know what's going on and why, and why it's important? Do people understand some of the situations that field technicians might find themselves in, and some of the risks, so that throughout the organization, that importance is understood?

Franklin Maxson: It's funny, because it becomes such a check the box exercise. And there's a couple of different scenarios that you can think about it. So in a factory setting, regardless of what kind of industry you're in, there are many times the monthly safety walks. And what are those generally comprised of? "Oh, well, let's go check that the aisles are clear. Let's go check that the fire extinguishers are still where they're supposed to be, and that they're within the certificate date of them, that the exits are clear," etc. And some of the things that I have found throughout my career is you go through and you're checking that box. You're doing all of that. For a field service organization. If you look at an NFPA 70E, it requires that you do a annual audit of lockout/tagout. And all of us that work in electrical, know lockout/tagout. We practice it, we can recite it in our sleep.

And so we go through and we start talking about the lockout/tagout, and we're going to do that check. And it can very easily become a check to box exercise. Across the board, that happens. And one of the things... I remember talking to Bob Baker who was my safety partner back at ABB, and one of the things that he really focused and helped to drive was, how do we change that conversation? How do we take it from a check the box exercise to a, "Hey, let's talk about lockout/tagout. What have you been doing with lockout/tagout? What are the challenges to actually implement lockout/tagout?"

And if you think about a field service organization that may be going to many different sites, for me it's electrical. But others may have mechanical, or hydraulic, or other things that have to be locked out, right? Well, there's a variety of breakers, variety of valves, variety of different things that you have to manage and control the energy around. And do we have the right kit to be able to do this? Do we have the right tools and equipment? Are employees having to use their ingenuity to figure this out, instead of actually having a really good engineered process to do this? And actually changing the focus to having that conversation.

Same thing if you're in a factory. If you are walking the factory floor, maybe instead of necessarily just going through as quickly as you can to check the boxes, take the time to actually go spend some quality time with those employees in that area and ask them about safety. How are things going? Not just check the aisles, and make sure that the fire extinguishers are good, and that the exits are clear. But really get to know what they're doing, how they're doing it, and get that feedback. And ideally, get that feedback in a systemized format that can be acted upon.

Sarah Nicastro: Yeah. I think even asking field technicians, "Is there a time in the last 12 months you've felt unsafe? And if so, why? And what did you do about it?" Not with the idea of, again, from a judgmental or a punitive standpoint, but just to really understand. You brought up the psychology of it. Do they feel safe?

And if yes, great. If not, what are the things that are coming up? So rather than this blanket or generic policy, you can look for the real challenges and make some changes. Yeah, go ahead.

Franklin Maxson: Yeah, I think within that perspective, is how do we empower people to have some quick little checklists of things to look out for, that will put you in an elevated state of mind around safety?

One of the things that I always talk to my team about is when something changes, you're prepared for a certain scope of work when you get to a site. And I'm sure many of your other guests have always told you that you get to the site, and your scope of work is supposed to be A through C. And suddenly we got D, E, and F added to it, right?

Well, when that situation happens, it's making sure that the team is empowered and really focused on, "Let's stop. Let's review our safety procedures. Do I have enough PPE? Do I have the right tools? Do I have the right processes in place to be able to cover the revised scope of work? Not just what I came here for, but the things that have been added to it." Because now there's a change.

And typically, what we find when we do the incident investigations, is something changed. Something went outside of the expected norm, and we weren't prepared for it. So how do we take that moment and say, "You know what? Let's take 10 minutes. Let's review our hazard analysis. Are we actually ready to proceed to do this, or do we have to take a step back?"

And if we have to take a step back, then it comes back to the leadership. We have to be able to support our field team members, because that customer may be upset at us. They may be upset about, "Hey, now we need another visit." On the flip side is, yes, we may need another visit. But going back to your earlier example around the aircraft, that light went on in the airplane as you're taxiing, and you really don't want to take off.

It's the same scenario with our clients. We have an alert, something we're not prepared to do, or we don't have the right PPE. We do not want to cause an incident on your site, or possibly put someone, whether it's our employee or one of your employees at risk, and possibly damage the equipment along the way. So it's being able to have those conversations to support the field team, while they do those types of reviews.

Sarah Nicastro: Right. And I think that was actually the next thing I was going to ask you, because I think empowerment is important in many ways today. But as we're thinking about safety, I think it's a term that gets thrown around a lot. And I would guess that it's a lot easier to empower employees around safety when it's something taking place in your own environment. If it's on a factory floor and they see something, "Speak up, say something, we'll fix it."

When you're talking about a field technician going to a customer site, and for whatever reason, feeling uncomfortable, feeling at risk, feeling unsafe, empowering them to say, "We're going to have to come back. I'm going to have to do this another time." It's a different conversation, and it's one that I think companies and leaders need to be really thinking about and talking through.

Because, I think that culture you want to create comes from how you react in those moments, not the ones that are easy to address. Do you know what I mean? When you're risking customer frustration, when you're risking increasing costs to serve, and you're still choosing safety over those things, that's what tells your employees, "I'm important to the company. This is important to the company."

So I think there's shades of empowerment, right? Because there's situations where empowerment is very easy, and then there's situations where it's a lot trickier, and there has to be consideration for that.

Franklin Maxson: You are absolutely right. I mean, this is a huge important piece of it. And when you said that the culture of greed's created in those tough moments. I couldn't have said that better myself. That is the absolute essence of what we're trying to drive.

So I'll give you an example. I have to protect some names, so we'll go with some generic names here. But a few years ago, we had some employees at a hyperscale data center. And it was in the middle of a construction job. Everybody on that construction job has liquidated damages for delays, etc. Okay? We did. So did the rest of the contractors. Again, this was one of those instances that makes me just to this day, the hair on my arm just stands up thinking about what could have happened.

But I had two employees at the site at that particular data center, in the middle of this project that was going on. One of them realized they had not grabbed a piece of test equipment that they were going to need. So while the preparations were still ongoing for that test by the second employee, the first employee left to go to their vehicle to grab that piece of test gear. On their way back in, they were walking by a lockout gang box.

So in lockout, you might sometimes have these large boxes for multiple teams working at the same time. And so typically, the way that this works is you have a single point of contact that maintains control of the entire lock box, and then you put your individual keys for your locks inside of that lock box.

So as my employee was walking back, he saw another contractor reaching into the box, prying the box open, literally prying it open to reach in there and grab his key. He tried to stop him. The employee was very rude and walked away.

He ran and got his partner out of the building, called his manager. I got a call within probably a minute to two minutes after this happened from their manager saying, "Hey, this is a situation. We really need to report this. But all of the LD's and everything, I don't care. Now people are at risk. I don't care."

I instructed the team members to go to the owner's trailer and find the safety manager there. Meanwhile, I placed some phone calls to some of my contacts. Within 30 minutes, Sarah, we had shut down construction on tens of millions of dollars data center, and the entire place went into a safety standout that lasted almost a week. I can't even tell you how much money that cost. It was probably in the millions by the time it was all said and done.

But at the end of the day, my team was commended by the general contractor and the owner, because they had the willingness to report this. And if we had not reported this, somebody could have died very easily in the scenario. There was a whole lot of retraining that had to happen across the board.

But it's those situations and it's those scenarios when you know what, I could have very easily taken a step back and said, "Well, maybe it's okay. Go find the supervisor," whatever. But if I did that, then what is my culture to my team? I preach safety every day to my team members. And if I can't back them up, then that culture doesn't continue to develop.

And I think that those are the key elements, is we have to support them. And when you said, "We don't control our environment in the field." When you're working in a factory and you have a supervisor right there that you can go to, you're right, that is a much easier discussion. But to empower the team members to possibly have a very upset project manager, a very upset general contractor, to basically put a job and completely stop it from proceeding, it is a different level of empowerment, and you're absolutely right about that. And it is something that quite honestly, takes courage on their part, on our field conditions part to be able to do that. And if they don't feel that they have the support from the executive leadership, they won't do it.

Sarah Nicastro: Yeah. And this is where it takes top down buy-in as well, right? Because ultimately, you need to have multiple layers of support to be able to do something like that. Right? So yeah, that's a really good example. We also spoke Franklin, about challenging assumptions. So we talked about the rules are the rules based on what you know, what you've encountered, what you've seen. But what about when something outside of that happens, or what about when something at odds with the rules happen?

So this is tied to empowerment, but I'm just wondering if you have any examples of employees feeling comfortable speaking out, challenging assumptions, so that you have more of this working relationship to continue to evolve those procedures, and not just let them get stale or become these checkbox exercises.

Franklin Maxson: So, I think that this is where that open door policy and listen without judgment really comes into play, because we can set up policies across the board to try and cover as many scenarios as we can think of. But you're right, things happen that don't fit a neat little box that we created. And I think it's having the employees be able to bring this up.

I'll give you an example. To this day, I go back and forth and we have open discussions with the employees. So for example, in our line of work oftentimes, we're working inside of a battery cabinet. And you cannot turn off a battery, right? It has stored energy. It's going to be there.

And so when you're having to, for example, check a bolt, or more importantly, put in a new bolt on a battery terminal, and you're having to wear your liners, your gloves, your insulated gloves, the rubber insulated gloves. And then you have your leather protectors over the top of it, you don't have any dexterity left.

And that's always been a tension point that we've had in the field as to how the heck do we do this, and how do we meet the guidelines? Because if you do a strict reading of NFPA 70E, you have to be in the PPE. There isn't a choice. But yet, if we're wearing the PPE, then now we're putting ourselves at risk by dropping the proverbial screw that may cross to ground, or create a ground short, and create a situation there.

So I went back to the employees and I said, "I hear you. Give me options." I'm like, "I don't know what the options are." Bob Baker actually, referring back to him, he and I were working on this together, and we were looking at different ways to do it. And so some of the employees said, "Well, we can lower the working voltage by separating the different trays." So they're built in a cabinet that has multiple trays. "So if we separate and isolate the tray, we can drop the working voltage. Then maybe we can go to a lower hazard standard."

So we looked at that and understood some perspectives. And then another employee said, "Hey, by the way, I found these cut resistant arc rated gloves." And we were like, "Well, okay. In this particular scenario, under these particular circumstances, if we reduce the working voltage, that makes sense." Because now we're still providing the cut resistance, but we're actually able to reach inside the cabinet.

The thing is though, everything has consequences. So now we opened a little bit of a door that we have to trust the employees, that that's the only time that we're going to use those gloves. Because to be honest, it opens up a bit of doubt from my perspective, from the safety leadership perspective of we've given them something else that if it's misused, it could end up in a big hazard. Because that arc resistant glove is great, because if it shorts, if something shorts, your hand will be protected from a burn. But it does not protect you from electrical shock. So you always have that dynamic tension, right?

Sarah Nicastro: Yeah. But I think what's interesting to me about that is, totally makes sense. And of course, there's always going to be risk with trying something different. But I think the other thing though is when you really focus on increasing empowerment, I think you also increase trust. Do you know what I mean?

And that's the thing is you've listened. You've allowed the employee to be not only heard, but part of the solution. And you have met their need, and you're trusting them to use it appropriately. You know what I mean?

And I think that because they were heard and they were part of the solution, the likelihood of them respecting that trust and using it the way they should is a lot higher. There's no guarantees, right? So I understand the concern. But I think we do have to understand that the more we can be collaborative and we can empower our employees, there is that mutual trust that grows as a result of that.

Franklin Maxson: And honestly, there's a lot more creativity that you can tap into. Right? So if you're looking for a solution to a weird problem, you've got to find sources of creativity.

So at that time, I had something like 70 field technicians that were trying to figure this out. That's a whole lot more brainpower than just having myself, and the safety manager, and maybe a couple of other people looking at this. It's that collective creativity, and getting them to look at different options, and try and understand how we could possibly get to a workable solution that opens up a whole lot of possibilities.

And again, it goes back to that grassroots team of teams approach of, "Hey, you know what? Let's try and understand. Let's work with different people. Can we come up with better tools?" And I think that there's always opportunities to engineer a better tool.

And some folks were working on that. We never came up with something that was satisfactory to all of us. Some folks were working more about, how do we reduce the specific risk in these situations?

Sarah Nicastro: Yeah. I also think it's indicative of a good leader, that they came to you with a problem, you listened. But you didn't know the answer. So you just said, "I hear you. I don't know what the solution is, so let's figure it out together."

There's this, I think really outdated mentality of, "As a leader, I need to have all of the answers." And that just really stifles that creativity, many times over.

So that was a really good example of one of the things I wanted to ask is, so we talked about the top down, and we talked about the grassroots. So you want to have the top down in terms of having formal policies of course, but also keeping the topic itself front and center, top of mind. But then you want to create this culture, and the culture really happens within the ranks. Right? How do you make sure those two are ultimately meshing? How do we make sure that we're all moving in one direction together, and not at odds with one another somehow?

Franklin Maxson: Yeah, that's a great question. And I call it the dynamic tension. It's a dynamic tension that we always have to watch for. And I think that there's a couple of different things. From a top down perspective, we've got to set goals, expectations. And how do we measure that? Are we actually moving towards the outcome that we want to have? Are we still going in the right direction? So we have to be able to measure that.

From a grassroots perspective, I like to always implement a mechanism where we document what is being found out in the field. And as we document those, you should call them hazard reports, or safety observations, whatever you want to call them. But we record those and we bring those in, and it's actually trying to get to what I call a close rate on those, where we're reviewing them all.

We may not be able to implement all of them. To be perfectly honest, some of them may not actually be something that makes sense. And we have to be able to have that candid feedback to the employees, and explain why it does not make sense, and what it was that they missed. And it gives you some opportunities for some really good discussions and some training from that perspective.

There are some that we have to close out immediately. These are obviously a big hazard. It is an immediate risk, and we have to put immediate focus and effort on it, and get it taken care of.

There are some that we're going to say, "You know what? We're going to put a project team around that and we're going to close that out." And there are some that we literally have to say, "You know what? We're going to watch this, figure out where it's going, what do we have to do with it?" And so there is several different buckets and categories.

But I think the important thing is being able to share back with a line team that we're looking at all of them, and here's where some of these ended up. Some of these we may not be able to do anything about because of X, Y, and Z. Some of these, we have a project going on, and it's going to take anywhere from six months to a year to close out. Some of these, we're working right now. And some of these others, we went back and had feedback directly with the employee and we're able to close them out. Don't have to say anything more than that, right?

But if you can create that feedback mechanism... And it really is being completely transparent, it's hard work for the leadership team. Because from the team leader, to the regional manager, all the way up to myself, we all have to remain engaged and focus on these things, and making sure that they don't languish, because it's too easy to let them just sit, because it's not revenue generating. So because it's not revenue generating, maybe we don't have the bandwidth to add to it. But if we don't have that bandwidth, then what I find is the culture begins to rapidly slide back. And I think I mentioned in our earlier conversation, that safety is one of those things that requires constant attention. Because otherwise, we slide back very easily.

Sarah Nicastro: And it's a very, I think important and honest comment, that because it isn't revenue generating, it would be really easy to push it. Because that is the pressure and the balancing act that service leaders are faced with all the time. Right?

But it is important. And I think doing that hard work of making sure that that feedback loop exists is the only way that those employees will continue to engage, challenge assumptions, give input, and be bought into that culture. Because you are showing you care by doing the work, which makes them engaged and care as well.

The minute you guys say, "Okay, well yes, this is important. But it's not as important as the money we're making, so we can't prioritize the time to do this." Not that you would say that, but they know that. And then it just sort of erodes. I mean, to your point, right? So yeah.

Franklin Maxson: Definitely. And I think one of the things... This is something that I was talking to my core leadership team about was, we know that there isn't revenue associated with safety. But if you think about the cost-

Sarah Nicastro: Associated with ignoring it.

Franklin Maxson: There is a huge cost right there. So one of the challenges that I've had, to both my team as well as the finance team, is how could we quantify this a little bit better? If we had an accident rate of whatever, what does that equate to from lost time, from insurance possibly, premiums that have to go up, from a health coverage that has to increase, etc.? And how do we actually quantify some of that?

I'll be honest, I don't have the answers to those yet. And hopefully, there are some out there that listen to this that actually have those answers. We'd love to hear from them how they've done that.

But I think from a leadership perspective, we really got to think about it from it's not revenue generating, but it is avoiding cost. And there is a huge implication. And the worst case scenario would be a fatality, and there's all sorts of things that come along with that.

But even if it's not a fatality, if we lose an employee because of a safety incident, and we have to bring someone new and train them up, in my industry, we're talking basically 18 months and probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $300,000 to get a new employee up to speed. That's a significant amount of cost.

Sarah Nicastro: Yeah. And I think, again, this is another point you're making that could be translated to a variety of different topics in field service. But this idea that we've historically perceived investments of time, money, whatever, based on making money in a quantifiable way, return on investment. But there is these different areas where there's this cost of doing nothing that is real, and significant, and presents significant risk, that we have to get better at talking about, prioritizing. Because it's relevant, like I said, to a number of different topics. So yeah, that's another really good point. Okay, Franklin. So what would you say is your biggest personal lesson learned related to today's topic?

Franklin Maxson: Do I have to limit it to one?

Sarah Nicastro: No.

Franklin Maxson: So, there's actually two big things that I think over the years, just have solidified in my mind. If you stop paying attention to safety, safety will erode. There is no doubt about it. I have seen it. Unfortunately, I have made that mistake, and have seen the results, and have had to come back from that organizationally. Just quick look away, and the next thing you know, there are things that are changing and that are not going the right way, because we stopped focusing on it. And it didn't take long, just a couple of months, and it started to erode.

And I think the other thing, and I'll credit Bob Baker, who I've mentioned earlier to this, is he once told me this. He said, "For all that we complain about the laws, and the rules, and the guidelines, we have to remember that every safety guideline, every safety law, every rule that is out there was written in the blood of those injured or killed at work." That is a stark reality that we have to understand across the board. It's something that I have shared with my team members.

Because at the end of the day, the question that I asked the team is, "How much are you willing to give for you at this company?" My dad gave his fingers. I think that my sweat and tears are enough. I don't want to shed any blood.

Sarah Nicastro: Right. Yeah, no, that's a really good point. Yeah, very good insight. And I think this has been a really helpful conversation around a topic that doesn't get enough attention. So I'm really glad we chose to talk about it, and appreciate you coming and sharing your personal experiences, and your lessons learned as a leader, and your thoughts on how to create that culture and keep it top of mind. So thank you.

Franklin Maxson: You're welcome, Sarah. It's definitely been a pleasure.

Sarah Nicastro: Yeah. We'll do it again sometime. But thank you so much, Franklin. I appreciate it.

Franklin Maxson: You're welcome.

Sarah Nicastro: You can learn more by visiting us at futureoffieldservice.com. While you're there, be sure to sign up for the Future of Field Service INSIDER, so that you get the latest content delivered to your email every other week. The Future of Field Service podcast is published in partnership with IFS. You can learn more at ifs.com. As always, thank you for listening.

By Sarah Nicastro, Creator, Future of Field Service

When companies are implementing new technologies or processes, or going through a digital transformation initiative, it can stir up all kinds of feelings among employees – everything from excitement and enthusiasm to fear, confusion or anxiety. And whenever there are strong feelings, you can wind up with conflict.

Most people do not enjoy conflict. Some people, in fact, go out of their way to avoid any conflict, at work or at home, or just about anywhere in between. But healthy conflict management can actually improve the work environment, at least according to author and executive Steven L. Blue. Steven is the president and CEO of Miller Ingenuity, a high technology rail safety systems company, and has written several books on business transformation.

I recently talked to him about how conflict at work can be a good thing, and what he sees as some healthy and productive ways for leaders and managers to address conflict.

How do companies generally manage conflict, and what are they doing wrong?

Companies generally ignore or bury conflict. A sure sign this is happening in your company is when in meetings with you, your subordinates say, “Let’s take this offline.” That generally means ignore it and hope it goes away. It never does. Buried conflict comes back to bite you time and again. And sometimes it bites you again years and years later. Buried conflict never goes away. It continues to fester.

I think we are all sort of conditioned that conflict is a bad thing, but clearly there are going to be disagreements in a work context, and for the sake of an organization you have to work through or resolve them. Are there types of workplace conflict that managers SHOULD discourage or avoid? Are there different types of conflicts that require different approaches?

Conflict is considered a bad thing only because most organizations do not know how to productively and effectively deal with it. Managers should never discourage or avoid it. Every conflict should be dealt with separately, because every conflict has different causes and solutions. The only common denominator in all conflict is either personality or organizational conflict. Personality conflicts are more difficult to resolve. Sometimes these can be resolved by replacing people or reassigning them. Organizational conflicts are usually rooted in different parts of the organization that have conflicting goals. As an example, the manufacturing department might have a goal of getting the product out the back door “no matter what.” At the same time, the quality department might have a goal of never letting anything out the back door that has a quality issue. The way to resolve this is to align the goals of all departments. The way I have aligned all department goals is by having every department share the only goal that matters, and that is profit.

Why should managers engage in conflict and encourage their teams to do so? What are the benefits in terms of team building and problem identification/solving?

Productively and effectively engaging in conflict produces superior profits, better teamwork, and smoother operations. Not engaging in conflict produces just the opposite.

Because of the point I made in my second question, a lot of people really do not have good skills when it comes to engaging in and resolving conflict. How can managers learn those skills and foster them in others? I mean, in some cases, conflict-avoidant people (or highly combative people) may have issues that date all the way back into their childhood, and it seems like a big ask to get managers to try and fix that. How do you help teams have better skills, and what boundaries do you need to respect?

I always engage the services of a professional industrial psychologist skilled in teaching and mentoring managers on the skill of conflict resolution. The question I always address is “not who is right, but what is right.” The idea is to be hard on the problem, but easy on the people. By easy, I mean always respect the person’s views and dignity. In cases of conflict, sometimes everyone is right while at the same time, no one is right. It is critical to listen with understanding of everyone’s views. Always affirm that their views are valuable. Your people always want to know you have understanding and empathy for what they are saying.

What about power dynamics in conflict? Working out a disagreement with a co-worker is one thing; finding a diplomatic way to do that with your boss is another. And for managers, they may not necessarily be getting an accurate picture of disagreements because their employees may be intimidated or worried about job security.

Therapists allow their patients to discuss what is bothering them in “a safe space.” Managers can learn from this. Give your people a safe space to air their views. Affirm that what they tell you is valid and is perfectly okay to feel and discuss. Don’t ever cut them off mid-sentence. The two worst words in the business language are what I call “ya-but.” Instead, managers should practice “yes-and.” If a manager manages by intimidation, you need a new manager. Management by intimidation died in the 80s.

Are there generational differences around conflict that managers need to keep in mind?

Absolutely. Younger people, especially millennials, won’t tolerate “old school” management techniques. Many baby boomer CEOs grumble that they don’t understand millennials. Millennials have different values than baby boomers. They don’t buy the old generational values of “work hard and the company will take care of you.” People today expect more time off than time on. CEOs should understand that and work with it, rather than grumbling and trying to resist it.

I think everyone has had a coworker at one point or another that engaged in fairly unproductive workplace conflict. How do you identify useful conflict versus unhealthy conflict? What do you do about the latter, without discouraging the former?

You can spot productive vs. unproductive conflict in meetings. Observe how people are speaking to one another. All human behavior is rooted in language. That is why I don’t tolerate foul or abusive language anywhere in the company. In meetings, you can feel the tension when people are speaking to each other. If the meeting feels uncomfortable, stop it and dig in. Ask questions as to why someone feels a certain way. Notice I said how a person “feels.” That can start to explain why they have a certain position. If a certain person is abusive or adversarial in the meeting, take them aside afterwards. Make sure they understand your policy of “hard on the problem, easy on the person.” They need to know you will not tolerate abusive or adversarial behavior.

Sarah talks with Dr. John Chrisentary, former Director of Global Technical Services and Technical Fellow at Medtronic, about the difference between transactional and transformational leadership, why transformational leadership is so important in today’s service landscape, and how advanced technologies like AI present distinct challenges – and opportunities – for transformational leaders.

Sarah Nicastro: Welcome to the Future of Field Service Podcast. I'm your host, Sarah Nicastro.

Today, we're going to be talking about transformational leadership in the era of advanced technology. I'm thrilled to welcome to the podcast today, Dr. John Chrisentary, who is the former director of Global Technical Services and Technical Fellow at Medtronic. Dr. John, welcome to the Future of Field Service podcast.

Dr. John Chrisentary: Hey, it's a pleasure to be here and thank you for having me. I'm very excited about this opportunity.

Sarah Nicastro: Yeah, I'm thrilled to have you. So I had the good fortune of moderating a panel that Dr. John was on recently at the WBR Field Service Hilton Head event, and also having the chance to sit in on his solo session that he did on transactional versus transformational leadership. And it was a great session and so I was happy when I reached out. I said, "Hey, can you come and share some of your insights on the podcast?" So here we are and happy to have you.

So at the event, you talked about this concept of transformational leadership, and we're going to get to in our conversation today how that relates to advanced technology, AI and some of the other themes that came up at that conference, of course. But before we get into that, let's go over some of the things that you spoke about at the event. So the first thing I wanted to touch on is how do you define transactional versus transformational leadership?

Dr. John Chrisentary: Wow, that is a phenomenal question. It's like, "Did you make this up, John? Where did this come from?" If we look back about 20 years ago, the thing that people were talking about, and you still use it as people manager, you're a really good people manager, and you have these soft skills, and there were actually colleges that added it to their leadership curriculum to understand this process called people management. But it's really transformational leadership, and this has been around for a while, but it was more or less defined between 1994 and 1997. There are many books about this but the main authors that people are aware of is Bass and Avolio. Now, hopefully I pronounced the last person's name correctly, but they had some documents that they wrote in '94 and '97 that spoke about transformational leadership. So I'll give you the traits.

The five traits of a transformational leader are one, they idolize the idea of influence by attributes and also by behaviors. So this works two different ways. It's what the leader provides and also what the person they're trying to influence has. And then how do they combine the two to make both work together? Those are two parts of it. They're inspirationally motivated, so it's not just, "Hey, let's do something. Let's move on. It's the way to do it. How can I get from A to B because I've traveled that road, so let me show you something shortcuts. Let me inspire you. Let me find out the things that you need that you're looking for and make it more attractive for you to be part of this process." And then they have individual consideration. And this is the hard part for a lot of leaders, you have to start to know your people on an individual basis. And so, this helps the transformational leader become more than just I'm in charge. They have a connection to literally everyone in the organization.

Now, that doesn't mean they have to sit with every person. If they have 200, 500 people under them, that's not going to happen. But there are ways that that leader will connect with their teams. Now, if you look at a transactional leader, this is different. It is a contingent award or reward. And what I mean by that is what I do for you, you give me something and if I give you what I'm stating I'm going to give you, you're going to do what I need you to do. There is no inspiration assigned to it. It's management by exception, which is active and passive. And what I mean by that is I don't have to do what I'm telling you to do, but I'll hold you accountable. So I'm not leading by example. I'm more or less leading by the power of my position.

So if I say, "Go and fix this widget this particular way," and because I told you that way and you followed my instructions and it didn't work, you're still held accountable. Whereas, if we were a transformational leader, you're going to find a way to make sure everyone is responsible from the top down. If the mistake occurs, everyone then addresses it. And it's more or less like a team effort or community effort to fix the problem versus saying, "You did the wrong thing even though I told you what to do." And if you look at these different leadership models, because people say, "Well, how many?" Because I've heard multiple views of what type of leader you can be. There are three key leadership models and then they have submodels. So you have the transactional leader, which we're talking about and the transformational leader. But the third one is the laissez-faire, and that's one... And I have not experienced this, but I've heard about it's the leader just listening. You just do what you need to do and I'll take credit, and if you don't do that, I'll hold you accountable.

And I think that's the worst of all the different leadership models. If you look in transformational, that's when you get into the charismatic, which a lot of people start to talk about and it has a bunch of other attributes that follow under it. But it is more linked to how can I influence change a person's way of thinking about themselves, about a process, how can I encourage them? And then also, how can I get them to move to a higher level? Once again, the transactional leader is, "I need you to get this done. And by doing so, the reward is you keep your job and I'll give you a bonus. You get your salary." It's very cut and dry. I equate it to what a politician does. Politician needs your vote. So they make a lot of promises, you vote for them. And of that list, you might get a half of 1% of whatever you voted for.

Sarah Nicastro: Okay. So then can you talk a little bit about how in the service landscape today, why is transformational leadership becoming increasingly important for leaders to understand, embrace, work toward, et cetera?

Dr. John Chrisentary: It's interesting. COVID, it was a serious condition for the entire world, but for business, it made everyone stop and take a look at how they've done things in the past and now what the future looks like. So everyone's working remote. It created a lot of havoc for a lot of leaders because they weren't used to not having the ability to walk up to someone and touch them on the shoulder and see what they're doing. Being remote made a lot of leaders nervous because it was new. What COVID has then caused is there has to be a new way of leading people because certain things are not going to go back to the way they were. So one is we're still on hybrid schedules, so we somehow have remote, some have a mixture, and there are quite a few people are going back in the office, but it's at a limited basis where they're doing maybe four days versus five. So you still have that remote aspect.

The importance now of leadership is to understand and influence and also come up with ways to drive an organization to be successful in the course of how business is done in the COVID environment or the post COVID environment, but also the expectations of the customer. One of the things we also found out from, especially from services is once we got through COVID, services fell off tremendously. So the customer expectation, it shifted, but now, we're more aware of the issues that we weren't thinking about prior to COVID. So having a leader that can provide this different mindset to get people to understand what the vision is, to live the vision, to make whatever their purpose, make it purposeful. Because normally in the past, the purpose and the vision landed at the leader's table and basically you just provide information to the team to achieve these different objectives.

Now, they need to know why. And creating that why then creates that sense of trust, but also sense of urgency and development. Because if you're telling me, "Oh, if I need to do this because the why is associated with my ability to help or to change the trajectory maybe from a medical device perspective, a patient at the end of this process, now you're giving me a value proposition that's beyond the idea of a paycheck." It is a purpose for why I'm doing my job every day. So that's why it's important to have that type of leader.

Sarah Nicastro: Yeah. And I think talking about purpose, COVID certainly was a big factor. I think the other factor here that is tied into that is just generational differences in what's important to the workforce, right? And so when you gave the example of COVID of you could go over and put your hand on someone's shoulder, I also think that what that makes me think of is it was a lot easier for leaders to control everyone when they were in close proximity to them, right? And then they found, "Okay, if I don't have proximity and control isn't as simple, now what do I do?" Right?

Dr. John Chrisentary: Right.

Sarah Nicastro: I need to up my game and I need to actually inspire and empower, et cetera. But then, on the flip side of that, you have younger workers where they're not motivated by the same simple exchange that worked for transactional leaders for a long time. So that makes sense.

So I asked a question at the end of your session, which I loved your answer. So I said, "What keeps a transactional leader from embracing transformational leadership?" And it was that term specifically you said it's control because transformational leaders often appear to have less control because they're focused on empowering others versus empowering themselves. I love this answer because we've been talking a lot on this podcast about this idea that the old school command and control leadership is becoming very outdated. And so, your answer was very much in line with this idea of, "I don't know if you want to call it ego or what have you, but these leaders who feel their success is tied to how much perceived control they have versus how much they're willing to give others." So what do you think will ultimately happen to leaders who fail to move beyond that transactional form of leadership?

Dr. John Chrisentary: I think we're in the storm right now. If you have asked me this question back in say 2020, right after COVID was really starting to really bump up, I would state it's going to be a 50/50 type of proposition. The person who's a transactional leader can still ride this thing out for a long time before we see that there's going to be change with the organization. Now in 2023, I see that organizations are starting to lean toward having that diversified leadership that a transformational leader can provide because the roles of a lot of leaders are now not just domestic, they're international. So I'm coming from a global role. A transactional leader doesn't work well in Europe.

Matter of fact, if you're not a transformational leader, you're going to have a hard time working in the international realm because one of the things you have to create internationally is relationships. And this is where that transformational leader really comes into play because they understand that every person brings value to the process. And if they can help the person understand their value, that person has a higher probability of success, not just in the role they're in where they want to go in their career, and it builds a different level of, and I keep using this word trust because it's key of not just the leader but the organization. And you get things done that way. The transactional leader creates a barrier, literally, between he or she and whoever they're leading because their objective is not known. It's not even provided to the person who's joined the work, and the person becomes more of like a widget and I say a widget in the fact of I'll just replace you with another widget. Well, the problem about replacing people like that is you lose the capability.

We also talk about tribal knowledge, right? Tribal knowledge is I think the thing that hurts an organization more than anything else because that person with tribal knowledge leaves and then suddenly you've taken away, let's say, 20% of the knowledge of the organization of how it runs smoothly. On paper, it looks like, "Oh, well, we just got a rid of so-and-so." Internally, that 20% is the difference between a successful rollout or implementation or a non-successful. 20%. And then you say, "Okay, I'll just hire another person to get into that position." Well, the issue is you literally go from say ground zero. When the person leaves, you go negative 50 because you've lost that capability. You hire somebody that doesn't create that same influx of information, that person still has to build expertise in your area. So they're slowly building. So there's a long period of time if you put this on the graph, you literally dropped it negative 50 and it's tracking at negative 50 for months. And as that person starts to become part of your organization, gets the knowledge that the last person had that slowly start to get back to zero.

And most leaders and especially transactional leaders do not look at that time, which could be six months, could be a year of ineffectiveness. The transformational leader understands that each person brings a key component to the process, but the key is the knowledge around the entire organization. You lose a person and you might lose if you do it right, maybe 2% because someone else has the same skillset, maybe not the expertise, and they'll step up into the next role because that is what you're providing, that you're feeding, you're nurturing the organization to do. So it creates a different dynamic than what we've seen in the past with transactional leaders where these common issues of people leaving now are not the detriment of the organization, it's just part of the way an organization will work.

But internally, that knowledge is what's going to keep the organization solvent and keep people happy to trust that leader, trust the organization, and in most cases, then you get to achieve these sometimes more difficult objectives as you're rolling out to make the company more effective and efficient in its vision, using this through the people who are doing the work.

Sarah Nicastro: Yeah. I'll tell you a quick story that I'm thinking of and it'll segue us into our conversation about technology. But I interviewed a woman, Trine, she leads logistics. So in a global role for a company, she's based out of Denmark, and she is a relatively young woman in a global leadership role. So already, there's layers of diversity more so than a lot of folks. But we were talking about leadership and she said it's very humbling today to be a leader because even when she came up through the ranks, she said the goal was to be the smartest person in the room. And not only is that not the goal anymore, it's not possible. When we talk about the way that digitalization has changed how we do business and everything that goes into those capabilities and leveraging data for business intelligence, it is not possible anymore for any leader to know everything. You are focused on accumulating a group of people that together are able to accomplish great things. No one person can be in that role.

And so she said, "That's a humbling change to go through as a leader and reconcile that it's not my job to know everything or to be the smartest person in the room. It's my job to help this group of really smart people accomplish this objective." So I'm just thinking back to that conversation and how it really parallels in the terminology we're talking through today. Her really witnessing that change from transactional to transformational, and I think it was just powerful to hear her acknowledge that that's humbling, that as a leader, there's some emotions tied to like, "Okay, it's not about me, it's about the team." Right?

Dr. John Chrisentary: Right.

Sarah Nicastro: So yeah, it's really interesting. So then let's talk a bit about the intersection of transformational leadership and advanced technology, okay? So you have all of these sophisticated tools today that are really changing the way we can do business, right? AI, machine learning, augmented reality, and so on, and so on. So it really demands leaders not only accept the change but become a lot more adaptable. So let's talk about how this factors into transformational leadership.

Dr. John Chrisentary: Okay. Well, one, the story you just told of the person overseas, I think that's a great example. The hard I think for leaders to understand is, one, you don't have to have total control. You don't have to have total control from the standpoint of how every gear moves. You just have to have control on when to move the gear. So it's a different mindset. If I have to know how every gear works, there's no way I'll be an effective leader. But if I understand the key components and I start to put people into those positions and allow them to grow and I can help nurture them to be that positioned player to move the gear, then I'm still being successful without having to know every dug on thing that goes on, right? The smartest person in the room is not the one who always is the ones talking. I was told this a long time ago.

Matter of fact, if you want to know who the smartest person in the room is, let everyone talk and wait to see who everyone wants to listen to. And normally, that person doesn't tell you everything that someone has stated. They give you two or three facts and that's it. So I say that before we get into the technology question. Technology creates what I call the agile mindset. And the agile mindset is going back from how software is developed, effective software or effective processes software development, whereas you're developing something for a company. And traditionally, if I told you I want my application to at the end be red, white, and blue, you tell the developer they do what they think you want. At the end, you get red, white, and pink. Now you say, "Okay, I want red, white, and blue." Okay, well, we'll create some updates and we'll get back to where you want to go. So day one, you're not where you want to be.

In an agile environment, the developer is coming back to you and say, "Okay, is this the red you want? Is this the color of blue you want? Is this the color white you want? Is this meeting your standards?" So by the time they give you your last, it's a final process or product, it's pretty close to what you're looking for. Now, does it take a little more time and the processes appears to at the end result, it does it because you're giving someone what they want at the end of the task, not having to fix it after the task, right? As a leader with technology, you're doing the same thing. You're seeing these new technologies come on.

One, you have to embrace them. As I already stated, the superpower of a leader is one, they have to empower themselves first, and then you empower others, and then you empower your community. And why do I state that? Because our technology is changing so rapidly now. AI is creating in the service world, opportunities I'll state like that we're not thinking about. It's also creating, I would call hazards. If someone's using say ChatGPT to write an email, and there's another AI that I just read about, actually I was testing it last week, where it writes your emails in a personal way. You don't know then if you're getting the person's information or an AI version of it, which also means is the knowledge there or is it the machine learning knowledge this person is presenting to you?

These are now new hurdles that leaders have to overcome. Now, as a transactional leader, you don't care. It seems like I'm getting the right thing from person X. We're getting our processes done. I'm meeting my objectives, let's move on. Long-term, you start to see kinks in the armor. The transformational leader wants to understand how are we working to achieve these objectives, but how are people using our tools and are our tools the tools we need for the future? So that leader starts to embrace this as the way to move forward and not a fear of this new skill or this new technology overtaking my capabilities. Now, will new technology affect the workforce? The answer is yes. It always has. If we look back before the use of laptops and even your phones, you had paper and you had people sending paper and we killed a lot of trees. We're still doing that even though with technology, but the process was slower, now you can get everything instantly.

I always equate it to when we really started getting into the internet, we used to use AOL. So everyone had to go through the process of clicking in, hearing the noise, and you would just thrilled to get logged in through this dialogue. And now if someone would provide that same level of service to you, you would say, "This is the worst thing ever had." So we have to look at technology as moving us from that dial up process to this high speed broadband process and to this gig process, to this five gig process. And as we're doing this, we're allowing our organization to move forward. Now, here's the caveat. The leader is the one who gets the team to understand the hurdle they're about to have to overcome preparing them for this. And even in being blunt, you need to do X, Y, and Z to be effective six months a year down the line, letting the people know and being honest about it.

Will everyone take that information and move with it? The answer is no. So you give them a way to move forward. You give them a roadmap that means the leader is the least adaptive. What is going on? They're really listening to what's out there from a technology perspective. And I would say in the service world, I don't know if leaders are really looking at this yet. From our conference, we saw various vendors that use AI. There's a whole lot more in development. Are leaders actually looking at this? And if they're not, their teams are not then being aware. So it's important as a transformational leader to be aware, don't have to be an expert and prepare the team because you're going to have people on your team that can fit these needs that you have, but they don't know they can fit them until that leader exposes them to what changes are coming along.

In my past roles, not just over technology, but even when I was with another company, I would have a six-month roadmap with my entire organization, letting them know where we are and where we're going to go in six months. And then here's what you need to be aware of and plan it out so that people are aware. So if we get to a point where we have to start saying, "Okay, we need these particular skills," and people have not done the work, have not taken the training, have they even asked for training. Then if they happen to lose their position due to their obsolescing themselves, the role of that or the weight of that falls on the person and not the leader.

I would prefer as a leader to at least let everyone know and in doing so, give them an opportunity to make the adjustments. And if they do that, provide them the skills, provide them training, but those that don't, at the end of the day, I can always say, I could sleep well stating, "Hey, I provided you this information. I wanted you to be successful." And you then decided not to make the move to move forward. At this point, we have to make changes.

Sarah Nicastro: Right. That makes sense. So that makes sense. But we know that change, especially when it's continual, is complex, right? It can bring about discomfort, fear, et cetera. So how does a transformational leader address that, I guess, if they're feeling it themselves and within their teams?

Dr. John Chrisentary: Well, you know what, I'm going to give you credit, so I'm going to put this out because this is what you stated during your opening to the conference. The difference of change management to change leadership. Right. Change leadership I think is what we're looking for now or transformational leaders, they have to want to understand and they will, as a transformational leader, they will understand that there is a need to make an adjustment. Now, depending on the environment, the adjustment may not be drastic. In other environments, it may be like a 360, right? They then have to start taking time to at least understand or demystify the technologies that are coming into their world. AI is probably one of the most scariest words, two letters you can tell someone because we've seen different versions of they'll take away the human aspect, but there are products that we use today that are based on AI, and no one tells you that, but you start to really think about how do we get to this certain point?

I mean, look at Google, and I'm not picking on Google, but they use AI. They've been using it for a while. But think about this. If you or me, we say, "Okay, we're looking for a pair of shoes, a pair of brown shoes. Just say, let me Google this." Right? Suddenly you get shoe ads all over the place, right? And you get shoe ads almost to the type of shoe you're looking for, right? It is using that machine learning. We don't think twice about that. It might make us more agitated. How do they do this? But we're not saying, "Oh my God, they're taking over the world." Right? It happens all the time, and you have different platforms that are coming along to offset that. Leaders have to start looking at this as a positive because it's not changing, and they have to then embrace enough to feel comfortable. So if they're using ChatGPT, use it in a way that you feel comfortable, learn how it works, then learn the other AI tools out there and use it to be comfortable.

So if you want to write a note, let me try ChatGPT to write a note. Let me see how it works. Once you start to get that, I would say interest, right? To get your foot in the water, just see if it's cool, if it's warm, if it's comfortable, you're more apt to put your foot in the water and then finally immerse yourself in it. It's like putting your foot in the ocean. When you first step in, it's cold. Stay there long enough, you get comfortable. Next thing you know, you're walking further and further out. Same thing that a leader has to do. It's across the board. If some are doing a really good job of embracing it, others are, "I don't know." And then others are saying, no, but it's a tidal wave that's coming, a tsunami that's coming, and it's coming a whole lot faster than what we're really anticipating. So the faster people get comfortable getting their foot in the water, I think then you'll start to see transformational leaders help their teams to adjust because they've adjusted.

Sarah Nicastro: Right. You're not going to stay dry, so suit up.

Dr. John Chrisentary: No.

Sarah Nicastro: Okay, good points. I think here's the thing. You talked about the fact that at the Hilton Head event, it was AI this, AI that AI everything, right? And I think there's a lot of ambiguity right now around the term, and I think that's one of the challenges, right? To your point, there are ways that AI is already being used in service organizations today and has been, and it just hasn't been referred to in a buzzword type of way, right? Then there are very ready and practical ways that companies could be adopting it today, and then there's a whole future coming that we really can't be certain of, right?

Dr. John Chrisentary: Yeah.

Sarah Nicastro: And so, to me, I think one of the biggest roles of a transformational leader when it comes to AI specifically is to not shy away from the fact that that tsunami is coming, right? And not be fearful of leveraging the attributes of the technology that can help the business, but also to protect the irreplaceable role of the human skillset, right? So figuring out how that puzzle works together in a way that accomplishes what customers need, right? Because we've heard many stories of companies that have gone too far in the direction of automation and have felt the effect of that because they've taken away from the human element that is essential really to service. So what are your thoughts, I guess, on things that they should be thinking about to strike that right balance?

Dr. John Chrisentary: I think we have to look at the demographics of our customer base. If you're looking at the baby boomers, the Gen Zs, the millennials, and Gen Xers, what percentage of your install based... Let's stick to baby boomers who are less likely to really embrace the technology as it's changing. How do you address issues with them? How do you make them comfortable? And this is where that human touch is required because that is something they've expected. If you could talk to a millennial, "Hey." They can get around it because technically savvy, and then if you get into a Gen X or Gen Z, it's not as prevalent as a problem for the baby boomer.

So if you start to customize a way to integrate your processes to address your customer base, knowing it's moving away from the baby boomer environment into the Gen Zs, Gen Xs, and millennials, then you still have that personal touch, I believe, and there's a vendor I deal with, not calling names, but they've used AI as their way of dealing with you, and it's the worst system. If you have a problem, you're literally in the queue for 20 minutes, and I'm savvy on how to work through the process. It still takes me 20 minutes to get to a person. Suppose someone's not, they'll get totally frustrated and not want to use their products. So now you have customer disloyalty to your brand basically. Not that the brand is bad, the service is bad, and so let's... Talking about as generating your revenue, that's a different topic, but it all falls in line and service is very critical.

If you are looking at technologies as ways to bridge the gulf between those that used to having that personal touch in a way to maximize the AI, cloud, virtual reality process, then you should start with the human factor and add tools that will help transition your customers over. This is where that transformational leader is really essential in sitting down of the C-suite to explain the need and also the benefit. There's a huge cost to make these changes and there's a paradigm shift, a cultural paradigm shift for an organization, but that transformational leader will be the catalyst to say, "This is the roadmap to success." So one, 30% of our custom base is baby boomers or how do we migrate them? We need to still have the personal touch, but how do we make our systems open to that person but not starting to shy away from the other generational needs as we're looking at Gen X and Gen Z, and then millennials and build it out that way?

So there is a way to contact me and talk to a live person. There's another way to use a QR code and it links to your landing page on your website, which directs it to a person. There is the AI component that will give you your commonly asked questions and answer those for you, or even give you the voice of prompts because it's assigned to these particular skill sets within your AI module. Each one then provides this level of service that the generational ways of communicating are there. Is it costly in the upfront? Yes. Long-term, no, because now it's going to adjust with your audience. So as you're moving into newer technologies, they will start to become accustomed because you can add components into what their regular world is that allows them to move into the new technology that you're looking for, especially from an AI perspective.

So it's coming with that strategy of developing what fits your current install base, looking at the different generational needs, and then starting to come up with ways. Phase two, moves this component a little further into the AI side. Phase three, we take the human factor of having them answer where say, 40%, we might be down to 20% because mow we're seeing people are using our QR codes and things of that nature. It becomes a definite business strategy that is long-term, it's like a five-year plan to get your customers to ride this new technology or this new way of communicating with me so that everyone's aligned versus just stating, "We're going to change everything on January one and you're going to lose your install base because you didn't think about the generational needs." It's more strategic mindset of that transformational leader, and once again, they're the persons, he or she that goes to the C-suite and explains this logically with evidence. It is out there already how to move your organization from where it is to it will need to be in five years.

Sarah Nicastro: Yeah. So I think one of the things that I think is interesting is let's say maybe it's the opposite of the leader who is not wanting to dip their toe in, right? I think another risk is for a leader to hope that these technologies can do the work for them, right? So they hope that they can put X, Y, Z in place to solve this huge problem, and that will be that. Maybe even that will take the onus off them to really embrace this transformational leadership, right? But in reality, it is just a tool, right? So what is the words of caution in terms of realizing that whatever tools are in your toolbox, you still have to do the work as the transformational leader?

Dr. John Chrisentary: I like to use analogies, so follow me on this. Every year in the fall, before COVID, and not even this year, we go into what's called flu season, right? And they advise everyone to go out and get a flu shot, right? And there's a percentage of people who get flu shots who feel that if they get the shot, they'll get the flu. There's another percentage that feel if they get the shot, they won't get the flu. And then you have a percentage that says, if I get the shot, it will give me the tools to minimize getting the flu. Right.

To your question, leaders fall into those three categories. Will the technology fix it for me? Others will say, "I need to do some work with the technologies for it to be effective," and others say, "It is not going to even happen. Very similar to the flu shot." I always look at it's human nature of when we're looking at leaders, we have to create or have to understand what is important to them. So if we look at the components of a transformational leader, we gave some of the traits, this idealized intelligence, which is the behaviors and also the attributes. We're talking about inspirational motivation and the intellectual stimulation. We did not talk a lot about that. All of these traits, if a leader has them, they're going to be in the middle ground where they're saying, "We'll use the technology to help us." If they hold some of these, say two of these traits, they may be on the fence of, "This will fix my world." If they have one of the traits, they're going to say, "This is not going to work at all."

So it's getting people to be more aligned with all of the traits, not just say I'm a transformational leader, but to actually live and breathe that mindset, to understand that people want to do a good job if you give them an opportunity, and technology is a tool to make you effective. It is not a silver bullet to make your organization or even your position Kevlar enforced. It doesn't work that way. You're using these tools to make your organization the best it can be, and you're providing opportunities for people to learn to master the tools. It's like another analogy. You buy something from IKEA and you get the schematics, it has like 400 parts to it, and they tell you you only need a screwdriver. And you say, "Okay, I'm going to do this with a screwdriver." And you don't have a lot of wrist strength to tighten each one of the screws, but someone else says, "Hey, I'll use my drill," and do the same work because they understand how to use the drill. They've been taught.

They have a skill, not a master skill, but they understand how to use that drill. They make that job easier. Now, it sounds like this, John, that's kind of bland how you explain that, but I want you to think about it. Watch someone who is not proficient with a tool at all trying to put something together versus someone else saying, "I'll just grab this drill and I'll make the adjustments as I need to and how fast they can build it." This is what we're talking about, these leaders. If a leader is not embracing being a transformational leader, 100%, they're going to pick up the screwdriver because that's what's provided to them, and then they get frustrated in trying to put this thing together. Whereas another leader who is a transformational leader understands, "I have a better way of doing it. I'll still meet the objectives. I might need some help. Let me start to help get some people and advise me sometimes on how to do a really good job."

The burden doesn't fall just on a leader, it becomes part of the corporate or the organizational mindset of solutions are built from one, not just the top, but from the bottom up. This is where that transformation leader really becomes beneficial because they find ways to make that complicated process and simplify it. So it's still using technology as a tool and not as a burden.

Sarah Nicastro: That makes sense. Okay. So if you think about what we've talked about today and then what might be next in terms of this evolution of technological capabilities, human soft skills, leadership, et cetera, what are your closing thoughts on what people need to keep in mind and be thinking of as we move ahead?

Dr. John Chrisentary: One, we're talking this topic of transformational leadership, like you can turn the switch and you'll be one in 24 hours. The answer is not. The answer is no, actually. The answer is you're going to have to work on this. Giving up your power, and now I'm going back to a transactional leader, your power of influencing a situation, creating that basically yes or no scenario, do this and you get that. It's hard, really hard for people to start to give the perceived power to a person. Understanding that we are better as a team when everyone has the skills, when more than one person knows how to do the things we need done and that everyone is going to learn at a different clip, some people are going to have a really great understanding of it and then use that to create the expertise that you need and others are going to be in the middle of the road. That leader then starts to see the value of making sure the community understands that because we're in this dynamic environment, it's going to cause a leader to either become or slowly become obsolete.

Now, I'm not saying it's going to happen in two years, five years, but at the rate we're going, people are going to start to feel it, and I'll tell you how you can tell. Can you adjust to change? Does it hurt you? Do you really go, "Oh, I hate this." Or is it what you feel is the norm? Right?

Sarah Nicastro: Mm-hmm.

Dr. John Chrisentary: If you feel it's the norm, you're going to move very quickly with the change. If you are those that state, "I just don't like change. I want things the way they are," you create your own obsolescence. And the problem is when you go back looking into other opportunities of employment, the things that we're talking about are... You'll see this on all the job boards. They're looking for transformational leaders. People who can drive an organization, influence an organization, create positive change in the organization, these are in job descriptions now. Organizations are currently looking for and not quantifying it as a transformational leader. So if someone doesn't see this as a value in a few years, it's going to be a problem for them. And those that embrace it, I believe it creates the longevity for the leader, but it also creates the positive impact for an organization, which then allows the company to be successful.

When I wrote my dissertation on this in 2013, it was linked to communities of practice and way before COVID about the virtual communities of practice. But the idea of leadership is not something that's new that I created. This has been really talked about since 1964 really put into this transformational mindset in the '90s and now is a way that leaders are looking at how to move an organization. So if it's not the train that people want to ride, you will come to a stop where you're not going to be able to go any further because it requires that mindset of really wanting to influence people in a positive way and knowing that and doing so, you then have a greater impact to the business and you become a great leader. Matter of fact, you'll want your people to grow up in the organization, move on to other opportunities that really then shows your level of leadership versus you're the only one who's in charge and no one grows under you. You have a stagnant organization.

Sarah Nicastro: I agree. And it's interesting being able to talk to different people in different industries, different areas of the world on this podcast week to week, you can see the change taking place, right? So I agree 1000% that it's the writing's on the wall, right? And it's just a matter of folks deciding whether or not they're willing and able to adjust. So really good. Well, Dr. John, thank you so much-

Dr. John Chrisentary: Well, thank you.

Sarah Nicastro: ... for coming to share your insights with us. I really appreciate it.

Dr. John Chrisentary: No, this has been fantastic. Thank you for having me.

Sarah Nicastro: Yeah, it was a pleasure.

Dr. John Chrisentary: All right.

Sarah Nicastro: You can find more by visiting us at futureoffieldservice.com. While you're there, be sure to sign up for the Future of Field Service Insiders so you get an email every other week with the latest content. We also have one more live tour event in 2023. That event is in Stockholm on October 10th. So if you're in the area, registered to join us for a great day of insight and discussion. The Future of Field Service Podcast is published in partnership with IFS. You can learn more at ifs.com. As always, thank you for listening.

By Sarah Nicastro, Creator, the Future of Field Service

There has been a lot of news generated around artificial intelligence (AI) over the past year, and back in March, I wrote about short-term and long-term ways that AI can benefit field service. Over the summer, I also talked to Alfonso de la Nuez, who is very bullish on how AI can improve digital customer interactions.

Field service tools are already beginning to incorporate generative AI into their workflows. The idea is that these AI algorithms can help better route customer service requests to specific technicians based on their skills or experience with a particular customer. This provides new functions that can help save time for technicians and improve service for customers, while also automating more the dispatch function so that the dispatchers can focus more on addressing emergencies or other value-added tasks.

However, these tools also provide much more granular visibility into employee activities, which for some, may raise concerns about increasing levels of employee surveillance. A few years ago, Google got into trouble because a calendar tool extension was seen as a way to monitor employee meetings and possible crack down on unionization efforts, and there has been consistent pushback in some industries around how AI can enable employee surveillance. In field service, particularly with a lot of younger technicians entering the workforce, concerns about “Big Brother”-style employee monitoring going to be a problem?

Visibility Vs. Micromanagement

There is a fine line between increasing visibility and insight using technology and enabling an invasive level of surveillance or micromanagement. For a lot of desk workers, this usually involves software that keeps track of their productivity and Internet usage. In some industries, companies use software to record and evaluate customer calls and other interactions.

There have been some studies that indicate heavy employee surveillance actually encourages rule-breaking or can be detrimental to productivity. This has gotten a lot more attention since the COVID pandemic created an influx of employees working from home. Gartner says the number of large employers using these types of tools has doubled since 2020 to 60% of firms and will probably rise to more than 70% in the next few years.

And various surveys show that, as you might expect, a lot of employees do not like that. This is especially true since, in some instances, worker surveillance is discriminatorily targeted more frequently at women, minorities, and workers in low-skill jobs. According to a report from the Institute for Public Policy Research, both non-unionized women and black workers are 52% more likely to face workplace surveillance, and young people in low-skilled jobs are 49% more likely to be monitored.

Field service is a lot different than the work-from-home desk jobs usually profiled in articles about workplace monitoring, and I suspect that young workers are probably less worried about it than their older coworkers because they have grown up in a culture of online data sharing. According to one study, just 22% of employees aged 18-34 were concerned about employers having access to personal information and activity on their work computers.

In field service specifically, workers are already used to a high-level of visibility. Routing and scheduling systems live and die on accurate data about location, job completion, and other data points. Field service organizations regularly evaluate data around drive times, time to completion, and other information, most of it related to SLA compliance, safety, and reimbursement.

What can sink a technology deployment that involves this type of visibility, though, is a lack of communication. Most technicians don’t mind this type of data collection, provided they know why it's being deployed, and how it can help them do a better job.

According to a study that appeared in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication this year: “Attitudes toward workplace surveillance grow more negative when there isn’t a clear rationale for collecting this more sensitive data, and workers may see this as an abuse of power ... Therefore, it becomes essential for employers to clearly communicate both the purpose for collecting data, how they will use that data, and constraints on future data use.”

If you have any thoughts on AI in field service, or how increased visibility is accepted by the technicians in the field, feel free to drop me a note about your experiences.

In a session from the Future of Field Service Live Tour in Paris, Sarah talks with Sebastien Garric, Director Service Liquid and Powder Technologies, France and Maghreb at GEA Group, about the company’s focus on mindset, customer experience, and operational efficiency.

Sebastien Garric: Sarah.

Sarah Nicastro: Come on up. Thanks for being here.

Sebastien Garric: Brilliant.

Sarah Nicastro: Go ahead and make yourself comfortable. I will try and do the same.

Sebastien Garric: Thanks.

Sarah Nicastro: I'm always nervous with a tall chair. I'll fall off in front of everyone. Let's hope not.

Sebastien Garric: I will take care of you. Don't worry.

Sarah Nicastro: Okay, thank you. That's good service. Okay, so what we're going to be talking about with Sebastien is GEA's transformation and some of the factors that are most important in that transformation, specifically mindset, customer centricity, and operational efficiency. Before we get into that, Sebastien, can you tell everyone a bit about yourself?

Sebastien Garric: Yeah. Thank you for being here. It's a pleasure and also to be here with all of you. Thank you. So my name is Sebastien Garric. I'm 45. I'm married with three kids, nice kids that I really appreciate. I started my career in a very small company. Its name is Coca-Cola. During 10 years where I'm at different roles, starting from logistics and then moved to production and project management in different plants. So, I had the chance to know a lot about transformation, organization, production efficiency, and what agility means.

So then I started in GEA almost nine years ago, and I'm pretty sure that we have to explain what GEA is doing.

Sarah Nicastro: Mm-hmm. Yeah.

Sebastien Garric: So we are a technical company, and we are also producing a line for our customers. What does that mean? Is that we are producing equipment and also solution engineering just to create some production lines for different applications such as in dairy, food, chemical, pharma, and so on. So we've got a diverse customer.

So today, I'm service director for GEA France and also some activity worldwide. Just to understand what we are doing in GEA, I think that we have to think about not doing only equipment for equipment or solution for solution, but we've got a social challenge. We are there to support our industry, to feed people, to heal people, and to make part of the transition in ecology, such as moving to some transformation and the lithium generation and production. So we are part of this sustainability development.

Sarah Nicastro: Great. So, I had the opportunity to attend GEA's Global Services Kickoff in Copenhagen in February, and they invited me to speak. When the gentleman Lucas, who reached out to me to speak there, sort of talked to me about why he wanted me to come, it was this idea that the legacy of the company is very much manufacturing and how he's really passionate about bringing service into the identity of the business. This is a really big challenge for organizations that are trying to embrace the potential of service because when you have this deep, rich legacy as a product manufacturer that's rooted in every aspect of the business, you're asking people to really change the way they think and also operate. So, let's talk a little bit before we get into what that means. Talk about how you would describe the opportunity that you see for GEA around service.

Sebastien Garric: You have to know that into our development items, service is central. We do expect that service roles will increase as high as new sales development. We do see service as a full potential for our customers because we are producing lines, and we are not on the B2B business. We're on B2C business. So that means that we are following our customer, not only as service provider, we are there as a contributor for them. We're there as trainer. We do, and they are doing. They expect to have some improvement opportunity from us, so our production line is made to have a lifetime of more than 17 years. So, that means that we need to contribute and collaborate. This is more a partnership business, and the service is key just to follow our customer production all over those years.

Sarah Nicastro: Okay. So, can you talk about that fundamental piece, which is the shift in mindset for so many people within the business?

Sebastien Garric: Yeah. So, I have the chance to have one experience from Coca-Cola to be on the customer side. This is really important for me because I know how difficult it is when you are under production just to manage what will happen in the next four hours, eight hours, one day, or even one week. So this is really a stretch on time, and you need to focus. The point is that when you are in an engineering company, then you have to think about what will happen in the next 15 years with your equipment. How do you put in place the key points or the key support that will enable your customer just to find a solution for the next 15 years? And you have to mitigate and combine both needs, and it's all about understanding what the customer is requiring.

So you need to be in really close contact with your customer, knowing more their requirements and the technologies in-house, and we'll not change our DNA completely as an engineering company. This is not what we're willing to do. But we have to understand how to support and give the support all along the lifetime of the production line. In terms of change, you have to make people understand what are the challenges of your customer in terms of quality, in terms of safety, in terms of production, in terms of yield, in terms of cost, and to adapt yourself. This is really key just to be able to think about what are your expectations. How, from my experience and my knowledge, can I support you as well, and how do I need to improve?

Sarah Nicastro: So, you mentioned it as what you're working on is combining your culture with the one that's required for your customer's needs.

Sebastien Garric: Yeah.

Sarah Nicastro: So, what do you mean by that?

Sebastien Garric: Customer need, one more time, is really we need to understand and be on the customer side to understand. Understand this is the main point. And to adapt our internal process, doing better every day. Try to develop the according service product that has also enabled us to develop their business. And one more time, this is key about collaboration. We do have to think about what are the goals of our customer, and we need to fix it, support them, and provide the right key service product that is enabling to be much more efficient. Can I just give one?

Sarah Nicastro: Yeah, go ahead.

Sebastien Garric: We are wondering if it makes sense, for example, just to send one field service engineer across France with one day travel to fix one issue during one day on one equipment and then to go back. Does it make sense in terms of cost efficiency? Does the customer have also the right experience, the right knowledge to do it by himself, or do we need to support? And how do we need to support? Do we need to stay, as you mentioned, on the standard service level, such as traveling by car, fixing screws, and so on, or could we move to a new remote support service? And this is where we are and what we are doing, and maybe premier info for you is that in our contract in France, we also integrate this remote support into our next contract in the coming days. So really experience and really willing to share with our customer just to propose the best experience and what is the best cost-driven solution.

Sarah Nicastro: Yeah. That makes sense. There was something I was thinking about when you mentioned understanding your customer's overall objectives, and you mentioned kind of taking a look at the entire customer lifecycle. So there was a gentleman I had on the podcast from Dell, and he gave a really good analogy that, hopefully, I can explain. So he oversees service, but historically, the different functions of service, the call center, field service, were all very siloed. And so what happened is you could have one doing a fantastic job, but from a customer experience standpoint, they were having a poor experience because one silo was succeeding, but it wasn't connected to the others.

So, he used the analogy of think rings, not trophies. If you think about, because this is a sports analogy. If you have a most valuable player, they get a trophy for being the best player in the game. When you have a team that wins together. So, in the US, we have the Super Bowl, we have the World Series, the whole team gets a ring. So his point is we need to stop focusing on being the best in our particular function or our silo and look more at how are we playing together as a team because that's what affects the customer experience.

Sebastien Garric: Sure.

Sarah Nicastro: And I think that's where your point about how much can we do or should we do remotely are the questions a lot of organizations are asking themselves right now. So we know again that the capabilities to do that exist, but how does that fit into your operation? How does that meet the needs of your customers? How willing are they to accept that transformation right now? All of those things are questions that I think a lot of people are sorting through.

Sebastien Garric: Okay. So we are already quite mature in terms of service. We do have some sales engineers dedicated for service splitted in our market areas, and they're already visiting the customer. That's why it's really key as you get the customer voice just to understand expectation. One more time, different type of industry and different type of application, and different type of customer are not expecting the same one or the same needs. Some of them are cost-driven. Some of them are performance-driven. And then we need to understand them, thanks to our sales team, and then provide the according service potential.

So, the key players are the people that are on the ground. Really, this is key just to understand what they're living every day. What are the experiences of the field service engineer? Also, to support them to be a provider of future service as a voice and what the customer is looking at. Being as well-trained as we could to be able to answer to them and make the transition and make them understand what's the customer requirement.

Sarah Nicastro: So, one of the other challenges you and I spoke about is the difference between selling products, which are tangible, and selling service, which is intangible. So what have you found related to that, and how are you enabling your teams to be able to articulate that intangible value?

Sebastien Garric: One more time, this is all about understanding what we could offer from our side. When you are offering one complete installation, for sure, you've got some KPIs to achieve, and then the production is running, and you are not part of the journey from the customer side. What we are willing to change into our mind is to be there on the prefilled sales because being at the pre-sales is enabling to follow the customer journey into their production. And this is also creating a changed mindset into our internal organization. Not being only provider for new installation and then preventive maintenance, corrective maintenance, spare part, and so on, but being there to support.

One more time, this is all about collaboration, understanding, and making the switch to sell the intangible. That means that we will be upfront to the customer and explaining to him just to be confident on us and use advanced service product as we could have such as remote support, but also our technical knowledge. This will be kept into our DNA. We'll not change it, but we will use it to better support and use the right tools and advanced tools to be more efficient.

Sarah Nicastro: We had an interesting conversation at the event in the UK last week. When we talk about the move to delivering outcomes, I mentioned in the introduction customers want peace of mind, and a lot of times, we think about that as the combination of the product and the service to make sure that we're delivering what we say we will, whether that's uptime, what have you. But what we talked about last week is there's a third component to this that I think some people are missing, which is what gives customers that confidence, builds that trust, which is the insight. So customers don't just want what you say will happen to happen when you say it will happen. They also want the visibility to know that it is happening. So, they don't want the intervention. They don't want to have to ask for the service, but they want the insight of what's happening and when.

So I think that's a piece that sometimes companies are missing, and it also helps make that intangible more tangible, in the sense of your showcasing, we may not have been on site, but here is everything that we've avoided, or here are the things that we did remotely, so sort of almost like a business review type of thing. Along with, in particular situations, sometimes the data that you're collecting also has use for them as a business, so you can incorporate that as well. So I think that's an interesting distinction.

So, you mentioned that you were formerly with Coca-Cola. What would you say you learned in that role that's helping you in this role?

Sebastien Garric: One more time, I've been in production for a long time, and what is key is also really true to understand how it is working. Because in Coca-Cola, we are using some gas equipment, so this is part of the bridge. I'm still in touch with some of my colleagues, that I really appreciate because we are really creating links in production, and this is the key point and create the link in between what is your experience and what is my own experience. I've lived during my career just to understand how it is running on the ground in detail. What is the focus? What is the expectation? What is the challenging, every day challenging? And then this B two B business in Coca-Cola it requires really strong agility, a really strong capacity to react really fast, being a quick decision maker, and one more time, taking decisions and risks, but also supporting the teams.

In my actual role, I do think this is really important for me to keep in mind how it is running on a plant, and every day, I'm wondering how do me and my team is serving our customer in the same manner. How do we need to react fast when there is a production stop in between us and the customer? We need to be there for them, find some solution, being a problem solver, trying to find the right people to understand this is how to support. And finding the right way, also sending one engineer or doing by remote.

There is a way, and this is a journey, meaning that from my experience from the customer and providing this experience to my team and my organization is really key. Because we know, when I started in GEA and starting to talk about meantime between failure, this is key standard in the production industry. Nobody was knowing what was that. And for me, it was really important just to make this transition and to change mindset in GEA. Just to understand and make my people understand, okay, you need to know how you support and service your customer, not only going on-site, fixing, going back. No, we need to be there and to know what is happening. After running intervention, call, "Is everything fine?" Collaborating, how to support, what could we propose? Okay, we are a technical company so our customer are expecting from us some technical solutions. So we need to be there on that.

Sarah Nicastro: Makes sense. Okay. So, if you think about some of the trends I mentioned in the beginning and the journey that you're on, where do you see GEA's business going over the next three or so years?

Sebastien Garric: There will be a lot of challenges into this transformation because we are not as mature as we are in all the countries, but we have a really good chance because we've got a full network that is existing, and we've got full of talented people everywhere. And a network is key to work as an ecosystem internally and externally just to ensure that we're providing the solution for the future.

Last week, I was in New Zealand just to collaborate with my peers in New Zealand just to see, okay, how could we combine strengths? And by doing that, then we will move to another step that will go into digitalization, advanced service product such as predictive maintenance. That will be the next step. And one more time, also, in other tools such as moving to what we are calling the GEA-verse by being able to use the digitalization to support our customer on their plant and explaining to them what they have to fix really in details and what and where.

Sarah Nicastro: Okay. A lot of challenges but a lot of opportunity. Right?

Sebastien Garric: Exactly. Exactly. Full of opportunity.

Sarah Nicastro: Yeah. And last question is, what would you say is the biggest lesson you've learned in your time as a leader at GEA?

Sebastien Garric: It is not only in GEA, but I will say that I think that for the service, we shall enjoy to solve problems every day with passion. I have a former boss that says, "Okay, you have to think into production. Welcome to problem." And this mindset is really key. Welcome to problem, is enabling you to solve problems every day. So you have to support and serve your customer, but you're also learning for you and make the change on your mindset. And one more time, we are more than a supplier. We are a partner. We are a partner. We are there to train. We are there to improve. We are there to fix, and we are there to support our customer into their journey. So, welcome to problem.

Sarah Nicastro: Yeah, I like that. I think that when we think about leaders or companies that are succeeding most at innovation, it's that they see those problems as potential. So they kind of get past the problem solving, which is the more immediate need, but then look at that problem as an opportunity for how can we change beyond addressing this in the near term, and how can that lead to innovation. So I think that's really interesting. Welcome to problem. I like it. All right, Sebastien, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

Sebastien Garric: Thank you, Sarah.

What Leadership Lessons Can We Learn from Non-Profits?

What Leadership Lessons Can We Learn from Non-Profits?

Share

Stay Connected

Related Content

What Does It Take to Thrive Vs. Merely Survive in the Experience Economy?

Are XLAs the Key Metric You’re Missing? Part Two

Automation vs. Autonomy: 4 Ways to Ease Concerns Around AI in Field Service

Most Recent

From IoT to GenAI and Beyond: Advice for Building Intelligent Connected Solutions

What Does It Take to Thrive Vs. Merely Survive in the Experience Economy?

Automation vs. Autonomy: 4 Ways to Ease Concerns Around AI in Field Service

Top 100 Service Visionaries: Awards Recap

Top 100 Service Visionaries: Awards Recap

Share

Stay Connected

Related Content

What Does It Take to Thrive Vs. Merely Survive in the Experience Economy?

Are XLAs the Key Metric You’re Missing? Part Two

Automation vs. Autonomy: 4 Ways to Ease Concerns Around AI in Field Service

Most Recent

From IoT to GenAI and Beyond: Advice for Building Intelligent Connected Solutions

What Does It Take to Thrive Vs. Merely Survive in the Experience Economy?

Automation vs. Autonomy: 4 Ways to Ease Concerns Around AI in Field Service

Keep Safety in Focus in Field Service By Prioritizing Culture Over Compliance

Keep Safety in Focus in Field Service By Prioritizing Culture Over Compliance

Share

Stay Connected

Related Content

What Does It Take to Thrive Vs. Merely Survive in the Experience Economy?

Are XLAs the Key Metric You’re Missing? Part Two

Automation vs. Autonomy: 4 Ways to Ease Concerns Around AI in Field Service

Most Recent

From IoT to GenAI and Beyond: Advice for Building Intelligent Connected Solutions

What Does It Take to Thrive Vs. Merely Survive in the Experience Economy?

Automation vs. Autonomy: 4 Ways to Ease Concerns Around AI in Field Service

Reimagining the Role of the Field Technician for 2025, 2030 & Beyond

Reimagining the Role of the Field Technician for 2025, 2030 & Beyond

Share

Stay Connected

Related Content

Future of Field Service Top 10 of 2023

A Service Transformation Deep Dive with Electrolux

Bringing Service into the DNA of a Historically Product-Centric Business

Most Recent

From IoT to GenAI and Beyond: Advice for Building Intelligent Connected Solutions

What Does It Take to Thrive Vs. Merely Survive in the Experience Economy?

Automation vs. Autonomy: 4 Ways to Ease Concerns Around AI in Field Service

Success with AI Hinges on Transformational Leadership

Success with AI Hinges on Transformational Leadership

Share

Stay Connected

Related Content

What Does It Take to Thrive Vs. Merely Survive in the Experience Economy?

Are XLAs the Key Metric You’re Missing? Part Two

Automation vs. Autonomy: 4 Ways to Ease Concerns Around AI in Field Service

Most Recent

From IoT to GenAI and Beyond: Advice for Building Intelligent Connected Solutions

What Does It Take to Thrive Vs. Merely Survive in the Experience Economy?

Automation vs. Autonomy: 4 Ways to Ease Concerns Around AI in Field Service

Creating a Culture of Safety in Field Service

Creating a Culture of Safety in Field Service

Share

Stay Connected

Related Content

What Does It Take to Thrive Vs. Merely Survive in the Experience Economy?

Are XLAs the Key Metric You’re Missing? Part Two

Automation vs. Autonomy: 4 Ways to Ease Concerns Around AI in Field Service

Most Recent

From IoT to GenAI and Beyond: Advice for Building Intelligent Connected Solutions

What Does It Take to Thrive Vs. Merely Survive in the Experience Economy?

Automation vs. Autonomy: 4 Ways to Ease Concerns Around AI in Field Service

Why Conflict Management is Important for Innovative Companies to Master

Why Conflict Management is Important for Innovative Companies to Master

Share

Stay Connected

Related Content

What Does It Take to Thrive Vs. Merely Survive in the Experience Economy?

Save Us from Ourselves: Breaking Industry Echo Chambers

Ecolab’s Remote Service Strategy