Search...

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

November 13, 2023 | 3 Mins Read

An Organizational Scientist’s Take on Team Building

November 13, 2023 | 3 Mins Read

An Organizational Scientist’s Take on Team Building

Share

By Sarah Nicastro, Creator, Future of Field Service

On a recent podcast, I spoke to Dr. Josh Elmore, Principal Consultant at Court Street Consulting and Adjunct Professor at both Columbia University and the City University of New York, about how industrial and social organizational psychology affect leadership and team building efforts.

We talked about the history and evolution of organizational and industrial psychology, and how the focus had shifted from managing environments to understanding motivations and incentives among employees and team members along different tiers of interaction. When it comes to getting teams to move in one direction toward an organizational goal, this type of analysis can be helpful in terms of finding ways to achieve buy-in and avoiding burn out.

I asked Josh about the concept of team facilitation, which in his work as a consultant often involves getting leaders to regularly check in with team members and really listen to what they are saying about new policies, workflows, communication, and decision-making processes and roles. This is especially critical for teams that may be working remotely or in a hybrid environment.

Leaders also need to give team members space to talk about some of these issues that are not part of their daily work processes. 

“Oftentimes that space needs to be intentionally developed,” Josh said. “[H]aving some support and having the ability to get folks together and start coordinating your effort and building that continuous practice of just checking in and making sure that … you're all heading towards the same destination [is important], and also creating space to where people can think creatively and bring up challenges as they come along so it doesn't build up.”

Josh also outlined some best practices for what he calls team hygiene. Leaders need to make sure that teams are coordinated, that there is sufficient communication, that members are delivering on their agreed upon goals, and that no one feels like the effort is not evenly distributed. 

The Importance of Continuous Listening

He also described a model for change management built on continuous listening. That means team members have the ability to provide feedback while the change is ongoing. This builds a conversation and gradually helps everyone get on the same page. 

“However you frame your change management initiative, you're always going to have pushback,” Josh said. “Where are you going to have resistance? Where are you going to have folks that are on board and championing the change? And as you build out this apparatus, this scaffolding for the organization, which is out of your leadership in change, you can test ideas.”

In many organizations, there is seemingly constant change and evolution as companies innovate and reorganize around those innovations. Josh recommended that leaders reframe the environment as fluid and dynamic, so that everyone can come to terms with the non-stop evolution. 

“It doesn't necessarily make sense to frame things as stable if they're not,” he said. But instead of having that instability make the team nervous or anxious, it can be presented as an opportunity for growth and innovation. “Things are happening here, and it can be exciting. It could be a motivator as opposed to something you should be afraid of.“

As a lot of other experts I have spoken to emphasized, Josh said that regular communication is critical to this process. The more you involve team members and employees in the process, the more you (as a leader) are going to learn to improve how you introduce and deploy new procedures and technologies. 

“I think being in that process of evolution is not easy. And if it's not easy for you, it's not easy for everyone else,“ he said. “And so if you're a leader, how do you make it easier for everyone else, or at least make them feel bought into the process?“

You can listen to the entire podcast here.

November 6, 2023 | 6 Mins Read

The Importance of Field Service Career Development Strategies for Employee Retention

November 6, 2023 | 6 Mins Read

The Importance of Field Service Career Development Strategies for Employee Retention

Share

By Sarah Nicastro, Future of Field Service

Gone are the days that field technicians would gladly stay in their same role for ten, fifteen, even twenty or more years. Today, retention of talent is increasingly important – and the approach must be far more intentional and layered than what retention demanded in years past. When we talk about what is imperative for retention in today’s talent landscape, one of the topics that often arises is career development strategies. 

Career development strategies can help to keep employees engaged, give them opportunities for promotion or growth so that they see a future with the company beyond what they’re currently doing, and allow your business to map various talents, skills, and drive to not only different roles within field service and service at large, but throughout the company. In fact, many organizations have begun using field service as a way to bring in and nurture talent to feed into other areas of service as well as sales, product, operations and beyond. 

A focused career development program can attract younger workers to an organization because it makes them feel empowered to take the lead of their own career journey. I spoke to Jennifer Morehead, CEO of human resource outsourcing and consulting firm Flex HR, about ways companies can improve career development initiatives, even at smaller service organizations that may not have a lot of traditional paths for promotion.

How do you define career development?

I think that when you are looking at a job description and you hire someone for that job, you want to be continuously mindful of all the elements that are required within that job. That way, you can train and continue to train your employees for all the different elements mentioned in that job description. 

Look at the organizational chart of your company and think about who shows promise in terms of perhaps moving into management at some point. Think about what may be ahead for them and train them on those duties as well. That really gets to career development. Honestly, if an employee stays on a fairly similar track in your company, and maybe they stay in one position for a long time, there are a lot of changes in every industry in terms of technology and how we work with clients. There are things they need to be trained on even if they are not moving up, or if you need them to stay where they are.

What are some mistakes you see companies make when it comes to career development?

Mainly it is not offering development. The new generation of employees coming to our workforce is very interested in training. They want to know more, and they want to learn more.

That's a challenge for people running a business. It is already challenging to meet the needs of your clients. It's easy to get into a mode of thinking an employee is doing a good job, and you don't need to train them anymore.

I would challenge business owners to say no, your employees really want that training and will look for it one way or another, so it might as well be you providing that training to them.

What are some ways you have seen organizations successfully embed this idea into their company culture?

I think the process that allows for it to happen includes one-on-one meetings with every manager and their direct reports on a regular basis, ideally weekly. You have a meeting to understand where the employee is, their mindset, how happy they are in the company, what they do need in terms of development, where do they feel like they are not being trained enough. That cycles up to an executive manager meeting that should be once or twice a week.

Look at who is ready for a promotion. If we need this person out in the field because they are so good, how do we get them into a training role where they are training their coworkers? In a small company, anything under 200 people, there are a lot of opportunities where you can create these positions for people that are incredibly customized for them, where they can feel like they have more responsibility or have more autonomy in what they are doing. 

Let’s have this person train his colleagues in customer service, maybe give them a bonus to do that. There are lots of ways to be creative in terms of career development in a small business. It may not be as vertically aligned as in a larger company, but you can be creative in terms of ways you give leadership opportunities to your people.

How do you incorporate development into performance reviews?

I would nominate a few people in your business to put the performance reviews together. But a performance review is less important than the one-on-one meeting where you are giving feedback specifically and in real time.

We are not in an economy as employers who are desperate to find employees, where we can sit there and go a whole year and give them a two out of a five score and expect them not to quit. You have to be nuanced about it. The real feedback comes in the regular meeting where most of the time should be spent focusing on positive feedback. You talk about what they are doing well, and then point out what they can improve on.

You need to acknowledge and appreciate all the things they do right. Employees really want to be seen. They want to be acknowledged for the good work they are doing. 

How can companies identify candidates internally for promotion or advancement? 

I think a lot of people in a small organization who are going to be promoted potentially are not going to have had management experience. Just because they are a good employee doesn't mean they are automatically going to be a good manager. The person promoting them needs to understand that. Things you are looking for are the ability to be comfortable while being uncomfortable. You have to step outside of your comfort zone. You have to think on your feet and look for a problem-solving attitude. While you are teaching your staff to be problem solvers and investigators, you watch to see who is really showing that talent. Look for employees who are bringing new issues to you with solutions attached. That is someone who can succeed well in a manager role.

What about employees who are happy in their roles? How do you encourage development, when promotion really isn't part of their plan?

I think you have to look individually at what makes them tick. What motivates them? If it motivates them to work a straight-eight and go home and not think about anything outside of work., that's a great employee in 2023. They enjoy doing what they do, do a good job, but don't have aspirations for growth. You can still get in front of them with different ideas or maybe you create on your own a customer service training program. 

When we talk about walking into a customer's home in 2024, what's new? A lot of people are working from home. How do we get in there and provide service without disturbing them? Be mindful and thoughtful of what we are seeing out there and how we can coach our people with this, so they aren't left in a lurch when they are on a job site.

What is important for them? What gets on their nerves? We can be proactive and get in front of that before they quit in a year. They might want to see nice solid wage growth if they do a good job. Maybe they don't want to deal with issues outside of working hours. You can continue to sell to them, so they know there are growth opportunities available to them if they are interested down the road, while letting them know you are happy to have them where they're at right now from a work standpoint.

You can also find responsibilities outside of the main technical work they are doing where they can have some leadership – like organizing charitable work or company events.

You can also have company-wide employee engagement meetings where you ask what kinds of training they would like. What do they want to see? Just having that open communication with employees can uncover a lot of opportunities.

Most Recent

October 30, 2023 | 4 Mins Read

Is It Time to Internalize Change Management?

October 30, 2023 | 4 Mins Read

Is It Time to Internalize Change Management?

Share

By Sarah Nicastro, Creator, Future of Field Service

One of the themes I have revisited here at Future of Field Service over and over again is that service organizations are faced with what feels like perpetual change – digital transformation is never a one-and-done project (or it shouldn't be). Changes – both technological and operational – are constant. They can also be hard on field service teams, or at least some members.

Change is a key focus for Sara Smith, Director of Global Service Change Enablement at Waters Corporation. Waters is a leading specialty measurement company (they are big in liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry), and service accounts for about a third of the company's revenues annually.

While many companies rely on outside consultants and vendors to help them with project-based change management, Waters made a point to create a long-term, internal position to lead their change management efforts. Sara's background is as both a field service technician and a manager, and she transitioned into the change management role after working with an outside consultant on a technology project.

To help the Waters team navigate big changes, Sara said she relies on a few different management approaches. One of them is ADKAR, an acronym created by Prosci that outlines the five states a person needs to achieve for a change to be successful - Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability and Reinforcement.

The awareness component is a critical first step, because it helps team members understand why a change is occurring. “Have you ever been sent to a training class, and you have no idea why you're there?” Sara said. “I bet you didn't retain much from that training class. We need to understand why we are here and what's the goal.”

Desire requires that team members get to a place where they want the change to occur, while the knowledge phase involves training and educating the team. Ability refers to the capacity for team members to actually put their knowledge into practice.

The final piece, reinforcement, is one of the most important, and the element that often falls apart if a company doesn't have a long-term change culture in place. “We need to reinforce that positive behavior and make sure that it sticks long term,” Sara says. 

Sara said the company takes other approaches depending on which team members are involved. Senior leadership, for example, usually has the Why are we doing this? part down, but often need some help communicating their vision to the rest of the team. She also said that celebrating short-term wins was important for successful change management, as well as understanding how change can affect employees emotionally.

I also asked her about change fatigue, since new projects and initiatives seem to be coming at field service organizations at a much faster pace.

At Waters, Sara said two things that have helped are, first, acknowledging that change is exhausting and if everyone seems tired of it, that's okay. She also said that the company uses quarterly surveys to gauge how well employees are adapting. The employees appreciate the opportunity to be heard.

“That alone has created such a positive influence,” she says. “Just the fact that they have an avenue, they know somebody's listening and somebody cares. It speaks volumes to employees to have their voice heard and actually have someone follow up with them as well. It's huge.”

Experiences As a Female Field Technician

In addition to her change management strategies, I also talked to Sara about her experiences as a technician and manager in a largely male-dominated field. She’s faced some common challenges – having coworkers or customers question her proficiency, for example. But a bigger challenge is really communicating where women in the field might struggle and getting coworkers and leaders to understand the negative experiences women can face in the field.

“I think there's a lot of areas that some of our colleagues don't realize where women struggle,” Sara explains. “There are the kind of more obvious things, but there are these examples where you're just like, "Really? That happened to you like, oh my gosh." Throughout my career journey, I've had people ask me for a lock of hair. I have had people photograph me because they thought it was funny that I was pregnant while being in the field.”

I recently spoke to author Lauren Neal about ways to bring more women into the service industry (and retain them). Sara said that there are some more local ways to encourage and support women in the industry. Those include raising awareness with peers about some of those challenges and engaging with the community. “I'm a big proponent of getting in front of our younger generations and normalizing women in service, women in field service roles,” she said.

As you can tell, we had a pretty wide-ranging conversation; take a listen to the whole thing on our podcast.

Most Recent

October 23, 2023 | 5 Mins Read

Expert Advice to Engage and Elevate Women in STEM

October 23, 2023 | 5 Mins Read

Expert Advice to Engage and Elevate Women in STEM

Share

By Sarah Nicastro, Creator, Future of Field Service

With service organizations struggling across industries and geographies with staffing and recruitment, creating a more diverse workforce is a critical step just to make sure there are enough technicians, trainers and managers on the team to keep up with demand. Moreover, companies who understand diversity as the driver it is for greater creativity, innovation, and customer appeal recognize that the reasons to put it (and keep it) in focus goes far beyond meeting today’s staffing needs. 

Yet as it relates particularly to the area of gender diversity, field service seems to struggle. Organizations remain largely managed and staffed by men, with what seems to be an agreement that recruiting and retaining women in service jobs is key but challenging. Leading organizations are getting creative in not only reflecting on their role definitions, job descriptions, and recruiting practices but also in some cases re-imagining what the role could look like to increase appeal. And they are, of course, always open to advice and insights to help their efforts. 

Lauren Neal

To that end, we’ve asked some advice from UK-based engineer, Lauren Neal. Lauren has recently published a book called Valued at Work: Shining a Light on Bias to Engage, Enable and Retain Women in STEM and is also the founder at Chief Programme Creator of Valued at Work. Lauren has worked in the energy sector since 2005 offshore, onshore and onsite, most recently at bp.

After her years of experience, she feels strongly that gender equity is far from where it should be. Her book shares real stories from women working in STEM and presents a look at some of the challenges women face as well as advice for strategies for managers to help improve things. 

Here Lauren shares some insight about retaining women in STEM and technical professions as well as field service.

For background, can you explain what led you to engineering, and how your experience working in that field shaped the writing of this book?

I always enjoyed math and computing at school and finding solutions to problems. I studied Electronic and Electrical Engineering, specialising in computer engineering, at university, then as I lived in Aberdeen, I ended up working in the energy industry. Now I’ve worked in energy for over 18 years and while I have had my share of experiences with bias and behaviours, it wasn’t until I started opening up to others that I noticed trends, particularly when people from under-recognised groups hit mid-career. I decided I wanted to use my voice to raise the profile of this issue as so many aren’t aware it is still happening today.

What are some of the elements in traditionally male-dominated STEM and technical fields that make recruiting and retaining women challenging? Are those things changing as we shift from one generation of managers to another?

I think recruitment can be challenging due a lack of women role-models at different levels – it’s difficult to see a career path for ‘someone like you’ when there isn’t anyone like you there. Retention is another issue entirely. Women face disrespectful comments on their competency, bias on their behaviours (even if they do the same as a man would), and often gate-keeping from other women! You can have the most confident and competent women joining organizations, but if they aren’t included in their teams, they will leave. I don’t think these things are changing very quickly, as too many aren’t aware they are happening in the first place.

In field service, there is a staffing struggle in general -- there are not a lot of young men entering the field for a variety of reasons either, so organizations are trying to cast a wider net. What are some ways organizations can adjust their recruitment/retention strategies to make the field more attractive to women?

Illustrating clear career paths and progression would help. If it were me, I would want to know where my career could take me (i.e., is there travel?), what typical roles could I get now and next, what are my options for moving forward – can I change disciplines, can I lead or manage others, etc.? I would like to hear from others about their biggest challenges and successes in their roles. Also, listing a likely salary along the career path would also help.

The majority of managers/leaders at these types of companies, today, are men. What are some of the challenges in shifting the mindset and processes at organizations to take a new approach to recruitment/retention, or even recognize there is a problem in the first place?

I think most people have experienced being excluded – say if you’re trying to order a drink at the bar and the bartender continues to ignore you. It’s not a great feeling. I have met some brilliant men in my career who were completely oblivious to the experiences of women, sometimes in their own team. Women don’t often speak up about it as they wonder if it's ‘just them’ and definitely don’t want a label saying they are ‘difficult’ or ‘noisy’. Without being told about an issue, how would you know it’s happening?

What are some key strategies for retaining women in these fields once they have been hired?

For any change, it starts with acknowledging the real issues – these are the behaviours they experience (from both men and women), whether women are utilized for only admin or their specialist technical skills, and hindrances in their career development to leadership roles. And the best place to start? Have real conversations with these women to find out what they are experiencing, and acknowledge that it will be different from your experience.

Diversity efforts can fall prey to not being well designed or executed, or face pushback.  How best can a company frame these efforts to get buy-in and gain traction?

I like to start with why DEI efforts are required – for example, sharing the studies that show diverse teams perform better and are more profitable for the business. Showing the cost of recruitment to replace people who have left the company and how poor behaviours can contribute to this. I also like to get everyone involved. Lots of companies have safety observation quotas to meet (e.g., one observation per month) but I would love to see inclusion observations being recorded. This is something very simple to get everyone involved and start testing how well they understand inclusion.

Most Recent

October 16, 2023 | 4 Mins Read

What Leadership Lessons Can We Learn from Non-Profits?

October 16, 2023 | 4 Mins Read

What Leadership Lessons Can We Learn from Non-Profits?

Share

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. 

Most Recent

October 9, 2023 | 4 Mins Read

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

October 9, 2023 | 4 Mins Read

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

Share

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.

Most Recent

October 2, 2023 | 4 Mins Read

Success with AI Hinges on Transformational Leadership

October 2, 2023 | 4 Mins Read

Success with AI Hinges on Transformational Leadership

Share

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.

Most Recent

September 25, 2023 | 5 Mins Read

Why Conflict Management is Important for Innovative Companies to Master

September 25, 2023 | 5 Mins Read

Why Conflict Management is Important for Innovative Companies to Master

Share

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.

Most Recent

September 18, 2023 | 3 Mins Read

Will Generative AI Increase Big Brother Concerns Among Field Service Organizations?

September 18, 2023 | 3 Mins Read

Will Generative AI Increase Big Brother Concerns Among Field Service Organizations?

Share

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.

Most Recent

September 11, 2023 | 4 Mins Read

What the History of the Barcode Reminds Us About Introducing New Technology

September 11, 2023 | 4 Mins Read

What the History of the Barcode Reminds Us About Introducing New Technology

Share

By Sarah Nicastro, Creator, Future of Field Service

When we talk about technology here at Future of Field Service, we are usually looking forward. But a new book about old technology – The Barcode, by former IBM engineer Paul V. McEnroe – got me thinking about some important lessons from the past. 

Primarily, the fact that you never know exactly what kind of response you are going to get when you deploy a new technology, even one that seems to have some pretty obvious benefits.

McEnroe was one of the engineers who developed the UPC retail barcode – the one we still use today at most checkout counters. Other types of barcodes existed in the early late 1960s and early 1970s when McEnroe and his team began their work, but the UPC was specifically created to help retailers improve efficiency at the checkout counter and for inventory. The retail industry worked closely with IBM and cash register manufacturers to create a laser scanner/register combo that could communicate with a server in the back of the store using the available networking technology of the day.

After years of development and several live tests, the team was ready for a full-scale launch at a Giants supermarket in Virginia in 1974. McEnroe waited to hear word from his technician on site to find out how the launch had gone, but when the phone rang his colleague told him that the store couldn’t open.

Anyone who has been involved on a big technology installation knows that things can go wrong. But in this case, the problem wasn't technical. The store couldn't open because there were demonstrators picketing the store and telling customers not to enter – because the prices were no longer marked on grocery items.

What happened with the UPC rollout was a common mistake – the engineers had not done a good enough job of letting actual users know why they were deploying the technology, and how it would help them. In fact, not only did retailers get pushback from customers, but retail unions also objected to the new barcodes because they feared more automation would eliminate jobs. There were safety concerns about the lasers in the scanners, as well.

Within the first year of the roll out, popular talk show host Phil Donahue had railed against barcodes on TV, and there were eventually Congressional hearings about customer concerns.

McEnroe and the team at IBM, as well as retailers, had to go on the defensive and educate employees and consumers that the lack of price marks was actually a good thing. For the checkers, they could do their jobs faster. Customers also now had an itemized receipt that not only showed them what they paid, but exactly what each item had cost. There were tests conducted to prove the lasers were safe. 

Eventually, UPC codes made their way onto more goods, but the technology was not ubiquitous in retail until the late 1990s. One major retailer, Hobby Lobby, still doesn't use UPC codes at the register.

There are few lessons here for any big technology or digital transformation project:

  • Involve all the relevant stakeholders at the beginning of the project. The IBM team felt a bit sandbagged by the consumer backlash, because up until that point they had primarily been talking to retailers, packagers, and manufacturers about how to make the scanning system work. If they had involved customers and retail employees from the start, they would have been able to address those concerns earlier.
  • Communicate the why of the project. I have heard this from lots of guests on our podcast. Team members and customers want to know why you are deploying new technology, not just how it works. The UPC was meant to improve efficiency at the store, make life easier for staff, and improve service for customers. The developers should have been beating that drum from the start.
  • Be prepared to answer hard questions. Concerns about labor cuts were not entirely unfounded, and in the 1970s there was a lot of talk about replacing employees with what at the time seemed like sci-fi style machinery. Even if the IBM team could not anticipate that issue, the retailers involved should have seen it coming and had answers ready. 

Like a lot of new technologies, the UPC had ramifications beyond its original application. Barcoding revolutionized inventory management, and with the introduction of other types of barcodes, those benefits eventually spread throughout the supply chain. Barcodes play a key role in product recall efforts. Customers can scan barcodes with their phones in the store or at home to compare pricing or look up product information. 

The technology solutions that organizations are deploying in the field service space present those same types of opportunities – provided that companies communicate the benefits and address concerns for employees and customers alike.

Most Recent