Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
William D. Quinn
Southwestern College
Managing Change and Conflict in a Hostile Work Environment 2
Abstract
The follow paper will provide a real world example of a change initiative undertaken at
an aircraft engine repair facility. Within this example there will be a step-by-step
breakdown of the processes and strategies used to battle conflict amongst the employees
in the shop and to ensure a successful change initiative. Through the use of Kaizen
meetings, lean six sigma tools and modeling and conflict resolution a group of employee
ranging from engineers and project leaders to shop floor employees were able to identify
and begin implementing changes in the shop all the while reducing their interpersonal
unit in Arkansas City, Kansas. At our facility we are responsible for the maintenance and
repair of three commercial engine lines. These engine lines include CT7/T700, CF34 and
CFM56. My specific role within the company is as a Six Sigma Black belt for our Small
Commercial engine lines (CF34 and CT7). My primary job function consists of studying
the processes and materials used in the repair of an engine and finding ways to improve
flow and reduce cost. If we spend money on something, it is my job to figure out a way to
As a general routine I walk the shop floor and try to learn as much about a process
as I can, often following a particular engine part from the time that it is removed from the
engine to the time that it is put back on. Sometimes I choose the areas that I walk based
upon shop data, sometimes I pick them at random and as is often the case, a conflict
arises in the shop that requires my attention and analysis. For the purpose of this paper, I
would like to discuss a recent conflict that occurred within the shop and discuss how I
went about analyzing the problem, diagnosing a cure for that problem as well as
managing the conflict that arose from both that conflict and the changes that I would be
implementing.
The conflict began as a result of a $50,000 mistake in our rotor stator process. A
part was ground incorrectly and was subsequently scrapped, forcing us to purchase a new
unit. As a result each area of the shop floor began blaming each other for making the
mistake that lead to the scrapping of the part. The employees on the shop floor are all
very proud of the work that they do and the quality of the work that they produce, thus
there is a lot of tension every time a major quality issue arises such as this.
Managing Change and Conflict in a Hostile Work Environment 4
This is where my change process begins. My first task was to walk the
Compressor Rotor and Stator process. The process involves two parts, the rotor and the
stator. Both parts are measured on different machines and then the rotor goes on to be cut
and ground and swapped out to match the required tolerances to fit inside of the stator.
To begin the process the inspector physically marks a zeroing point on the rotor in order
to have a baseline for each measurement. They then insert a dial gauge and spin the rotor
slowly, looking for the highest measurement point at that specific location. Once they
find it they write the measurement down and move on to the next measurement location
and then repeat the process. Once this inspector completes each measurement they take
out a sheet of paper and a calculator and calculate the tolerances for that specific part.
From there the other part, the stator, is measured on a separate automated machine across
the shop. Once the machine and computer finish their calculations the inspector use the
measurement data to manually calculate the limits on the stator. Once both parts have
been measured, the hand written and calculated tolerances of each part are compared and
a machinist calculates what changes will need to be made to the rotor in order to get it to
perfectly match the stator. Once this is done, the machinist enters the measurements into
a machine that tells it where and how much it needs to grind off of the rotor. Once this is
complete the parts are mated together (assuming everything fits correctly) and processed
on to engine assembly.
After completely walking the process there were a few glaringly obvious
problems that I noticed that could have led to the above issue or may lead to future
problems. The first potential problem that I saw was that a lot of the measurement limits
were being hand written and hand calculated with a calculator. The problem with this is
Managing Change and Conflict in a Hostile Work Environment 5
that it leaves room for a “fat finger” error when making calculations. The other problem
with this is that these hand written calculations had to be passed on to the next person in
the repair process who often had trouble reading the other person’s writing. The next
problem that I noticed was that we were using a dial gage to take measurements on the
rotor. While the dial gage is perfectly accurate the dial can potentially be miss-read. A
miss-read dial means an incorrect measurement and tolerance calculation. The next issue
was the fact that the rotor inspector had to calculate the zeroing point every time they
took a measurement. While the inspectors are very good at their jobs, any shift in the
zeroing point between measurements could create tolerance errors down the road.
In addition to the potential problems that I identified, I also noticed a few process
problems that could be improved upon. The first is again due to the handwriting of
calculations, as this takes additional time every time a measurement is taken and a
calculation is made. The second is that the calculation sheets must be carried across the
shop and handed off to the next person in the process. The thing that I noticed was that
because all of the calculations for the rotor were done by hand there was no digital record
of the measurement and therefore no ability to easily store and access the measurement of
other rotors and stators for swapping purposes between engines. The third thing that I
noticed was that there was no digital communication between any of the areas involved in
the total repair process of the rotor and stator. All of the information was passed around
on pieces of paper. If one of those pieces of paper were to get lost, the part would have to
go back to be re-measured. The last thing that I noticed was that each of the three
different locations where work is performed on these parts is spread out in three different
Managing Change and Conflict in a Hostile Work Environment 6
corners of the shop. This creates unnecessary queue time when you have to wait for a
parts handler to come get the part and transfer it over to the other areas of the shop.
Now that I had a good understanding of the process and some of the potential
issues that could be causing errors I wanted to sit down with the shop and kick off a mini
“Kaizen” event. The purpose of the Kaizen event was to get the process owners together
and work to solve the problem and iron out the conflict between the areas and shifts as a
group. As Todd Jick and Maury Peiperl state in their text Managing Change: Cases and
the top” (Jick, Peiperl pg 236). The first step in setting up the event was to go to the
Business Leader to get his blessing and to go over some the things that I had found
during my initial process walk. This is often the most important aspect of beginning a
change process because top management will ultimately have the final say in how things
are done, what changes are made and how funds are spent. Furthermore, their blessing on
a project can be very influential in getting buy in from both the members of the group
working the change and also the rest of the shop. After getting his blessing to provide any
help that I needed I pulled in process owners from each area of the shop floor from both
shifts that touched the rotor or stator, the area supervisor and the process engineer for that
area. All said and done we had a team 8 people including myself.
I chose this group for three reasons, the first being that they are the ones that work
the process everyday and they would be the ones ultimately responsible for implementing
any changes to the process. It is my firm belief that if you are going to make a change to
a process that will affect other people, you must have their involvement in the change
process. Changes that are forced down upon people will receive less initial buy in, will
Managing Change and Conflict in a Hostile Work Environment 7
take a longer time to implement and will turn them off to the idea of any future change
initiatives. I have seen and heard people on the shop floor speak of these types of change
initiatives as being upper managements “flavor of the week” and that they will be “here
The second reason that I chose this group, and specifically the mix of the
members of the shop floor, was because they were each the unspoken leaders in their
areas. By convincing them of the changes needed, everyone else in their areas would
follow.
The third reason has to do with the conflict that we were experiencing between
the different areas of the shop as well as the conflict that existed between shifts. This is
why I chose individuals from both shifts and each area. I wanted to force them to come
together and work as a group, and in doing so, hopefully work out their differences. This
is a tactic that many change leaders will shy away from or even consider an error. One
might ask, why bring added conflict to a change process? My answer is that if you
believe in your skills as a leader and more importantly your skills as a mediator, you can
accomplish two things at once. Change a process for the better and solve an ongoing
conflict. A united group will accept and implement a change more quickly then a divided
one.
Now that I had my team together I kicked off our first initial meeting by having
the Business Leader come in and explain the reason that we were having the event and to
show his support of the work that we would be doing. Getting him to do this was
important to me because it would give me, the project leader, a certain level of indirect
power and showed the group that I was an extension of his position. Project managers can
Managing Change and Conflict in a Hostile Work Environment 8
often find it difficult to lead a team when they have no immediate power over the process
or the people involved. Rather then try to gain power through force I prefer to gain it
through passive linking as I did above. William Wilmot and Jason Hocker’s text,
Interpersonal Conflict explains how detrimental the use of force can be to gain power in
a conflict or change situation. They state that “the more you struggle against someone,
the less power you will have with that person.” (Wilmot, Hocker pg 139). My technique
of passive linking involves linking myself to the strategies of upper management and
explaining that they want to see the change and what their expectations are. By doing this
the people involved with the change understand what my position is and what function I
am there to serve.
Once the Business Leader finished his introduction I reiterated his statements and
began to discuss the goals and objectives of our mini Kaizen event. Our goals were
simple. Identify the areas of the process that could be improved upon, discuss potential
tools that could be implemented to make their jobs easier and come away from the event
simple and to the point. This would not be a complicated change and thus I did not
wanted to have a complicated set of goals. My strategy was to identify the problems and
go out and fix them. Furthermore, I made it clear to everyone that I was not there to try
and cast blame on any group for the recent error that had spawned this event and that the
purpose was not to point fingers at anyone. Often times when an error occurs in the shop
and an event like this is pulled together people become defensive when we start
discussing where potential problems may lie. Digging into any process will expose
Managing Change and Conflict in a Hostile Work Environment 9
problem areas and it is important that you, as a leader, make sure that everyone in the
group understands that they are there to make the business better and not to find blame.
As we began digging into the process I immediately noticed that there was some
tension in our group between two of the shop floor employees. When one would say
something, the other would disagree almost immediately. While they weren’t directly
hostile, their body language and subtle remarks made it easy to see how they felt about
each other and their negative attitude was rubbing off on the other members of the group.
To combat this I tried to get each member to explain themselves and why they agreed or
disagreed with the other person in the group. By doing this it forced them to think for a
minute and actually try to put a reason behind their negative attitude. A snide remark is
something that is easy to come up with, but when you have to try to explain why you
made that snide remark, it often makes people realize that are speaking irrationally and
without grounds. In using this technique I had to be careful that I did not push these
individuals into silence, as that was not what I wanted. They were knowledgeable
members of the team and I knew that they would provide positive input; I just had to
break down the barriers that they had put up. In order to continue breaking down these
barriers and pull them from going into a silent disposition, I worked to remind them the
reason that we were there and that we had to continue to improve our quality and
234).
My next attempt to bring the group together and defeat the conflict between the
shop floor employees was to turn to their vanity. As I mentioned above I explained to
Managing Change and Conflict in a Hostile Work Environment 10
them the importance of this event for the business and then explained to them that they
were they key members of the group and that they were the ones that worked the process
everyday and knew its ins and outs. I wanted them to know that I was not there to force
something down upon them. I was there to help bring out ideas. They were the experts
and they held the power. I wanted to empower them by explaining to them that we were
(Wilmot, Hocker pg 122) amongst themselves and with me. Often times, hourly
personnel can develop feelings of powerlessness because they feel that they are there
only to turn wrenches and to be told what to do. I have heard employees say that they had
simply stopped suggesting ideas that could potentially improve the shop because they
were tired of no one doing anything about it or even looking into it. Furthermore, many
viewed events such as these as an excuse for management to make a bunch of changes
and further force things upon them. I wanted the individuals in the group to know that
this was not the case and that they were there as equal participants in the event.
Slowly but surely the team started to come together and the individuals that had
intensified the conflict by making snide remarks were now working together and
expanding upon ideas or providing valid constructive criticism. While we had spent
almost a day and half crawling through the beginning stages of the event because of the
initial conflict, I felt that it would pay off in the long run when we try to implement our
changes. Avoiding conflict can often be a good strategy and can make an event run
smoothly with great idea generation, yet when you go to implement the process you may
quickly find out that because you did nothing to address the existing conflict between the
employees that were purposely left out you will have an extremely difficult time getting
Managing Change and Conflict in a Hostile Work Environment 11
any of your changes to stick. The conflict between employees can often intensify when
you have one set of employees trying to implement a change and the other side resisting
it simply because they do not like them. Every project leader must understand the
dynamic behind the process that they are tackling and the group of employees that they
Now that we were beginning to act like a team we began going through some of
the project management tools that would help us understand the process and identify
areas of concern. Our first task was to create a process map. Many times people become
so transfixed on their small sphere of influence and the job that they are working that they
do not see or understand everything else that is going on around them. The process map
is a great tool for the team to see the entire process laid out step by step. The idea behind
a positive process map is to lay out each step in the process and identify how long each of
those steps take, how long the queue time is between those steps, where decisions need to
be made along the process, who is responsible for making them and where process
variation may exist. Once everyone in the group had an understanding of the process we
began to expand upon each of the areas that we identified as having variation. Process
variation is the downfall of a lean process thus it is important to identify where it exists
and how it comes to be. From there we went on to discuss who the owners were of the
sub-processes where the variation occurred and began brainstorming ways in which we
could fix the causes of that variation. By identifying the owners of these sub-processes
we were able to narrow in our focus as to how the variation could come to exist and how
With our variation identified and our brainstormed ideas written on sticky notes
pasted all over the wall I lead our team on to the next exercise known as an Impact to
Effort chart. This is a very simple exercise that uses a two-axis graph, with the measure
of impact upon the process on the y-axis and the measure of effort required to complete
the task on the x-axis. The idea behind the chart is to place each brainstormed idea on the
chart in accordance with how much positive impact it will have on our process and how
much effort it will take to implement it. I created a graph for each of the different areas of
variation and then asked the group to direct me in where to put each of the idea sticky
notes. Once this was completed we had an easy visual picture of the quality of each idea
and we were able to identifying which ideas we wanted to work towards implementing.
In total we felt that there were four changes that we could implement that would
improve the quality of our measurements and communication as well as improve our total
process. The first was to purchase a digital probe with a data port connection. The digital
probe would provide an easier to see readout gage for the inspector, and the data port
connection would allow the measurement data to be stored directly onto the computer.
The second idea was to purchase a data processing tool called Lab View. Lab View
would allow us to automatically record hundreds of measurements and identify where the
high and low measurements are located. Lab View would also allow us choose a zeroing
point on the first measurement that would remain consistent no matter where we took the
measurement on the rotor. The last positive thing about Lab View is that all of the data
can be stored on the computer in an excel file that would allow us to write a macro
program to auto calculate all of the tolerances that we had previously been calculating by
hand. The next change was to work with IT to link each of the computers in the areas
Managing Change and Conflict in a Hostile Work Environment 13
where the rotor and stator are worked so that the measurement data taken in one area
could be transferred automatically to the next step in the process. The inspector would be
able to automatically transmit the tolerance data calculated through Lab View to the
machinist’s machine where the rotor would be routed to be cut. The last change that we
decided upon was a data storage program that would allow us to store all of the
measurement data from each of the rotors and stators that we had in the shop. From there
we would write a program that would automatically select the rotor and stator in the
system that were the best match for each other. By doing this we would be able to reduce
the amount of parts that we would have to replace and the amount of material that we
have to grind off in order to get the rotor and stator to match.
Now that we had thoroughly thought out each of the changes that we wanted to
implement, we focused our efforts upon the actual implementation and control strategy.
Implementation is the most important part of any change and a poor strategy can easily
derail any project. Many projects leaders and teams are often so focused on trying to
come up with solutions to their identified problems that they forget to discuss how they
will implement their changes and what controls they will put in place to keep the change
going. In order to implement the digital probe, all we needed to do was to fabricate a
probe tip to fit our existing measurement rig and the extra digital probe that we sitting in
our calibration lab. From there, the control was as simple as taking the dial gauge probe
out of the shop. To implement Lab View (which we were already using in other areas of
the shop) we would have to load the software onto the necessary computers and write the
programs to make the necessary calculations. Once this was in place we would
discontinue the use of hand written tolerance sheets by taking the templates off the floor
Managing Change and Conflict in a Hostile Work Environment 14
and writing a Quality Control Work Instruction (QCWI) that would require the use of the
Lab View generated tolerance sheets. The final two changes would be implemented over
time as the IT resources became available. These changes could be implemented easily
In order to combat any potential push back from the shop floor we agreed to first
make the computer programs almost completely self automated so that the employee
working them would not have to work their way through any confusing screens. Second,
we would tie in all of the changes by offering additional computer and tooling training to
the employees in each location so that they could understand how to use the new digital
probe and the associated computer programs. Often the most common gripe that
employees have about new changes is that they are confusing and that they are pushed
out with little to no training. With representatives from the shop floor on the team we
were able to brainstorm and head off any areas of potential conflict and adapt their
After four days of Kaizen meetings we presented our findings to the shop in an
open forum type of setting. We split the presentation up amongst each member of team,
ensuring that the members from the shop floor were responsible for describing the
changes that we had planned to introduce. By making them present the changes, it told
the rest of the shop that they had had representation in the event and that they agreed with
So how did everything turn out? We are currently in the process of programming
the Lab View software to be able to record and translate the data in the manner that we
would like. We have the digital probe ready to go and have already made it available for
Managing Change and Conflict in a Hostile Work Environment 15
use on the shop floor. Currently it is not connected to the computer, but we have received
positive feedback on its ease of use and the easy to read digital display. All of the
computers in each area are now linked to a stored drive on our network server and are
ready to transmit and store data. The rotor and stator “best fit” program is still on the
drawing board as we are waiting for the IT resources to become available. As a team we
feel that we were not only able to fix our quality concerns and improve the overall
process, but to also help resolve much of the conflict that existed between work groups
and shifts.
Managing Change and Conflict in a Hostile Work Environment 16
Reference
Wilmot, W. W., Hocker J. L. Interpersonal Conflict 7th Ed. New York, NY: The
Jick, T. D., Peiperl M. A. Managing Change: Cases and Concepts 2nd Ed. New York,