In-house study sessions that motivate employees and solve problems at the same time

　

Why don't study groups and improvement activities that bring together employees continue?

1. When the president participates, it inevitably becomes a solo performance by the president.
2. Even when only employees participate, the significance of these activities has not been widely understood, and they cannot be continued because they are driven by the convenience of the current business.
3. The results of activities by employees are not in line with management policies and are rejected by the president and executives.

Employee study sessions of two to three hours per session will motivate employees and solve their problems!

This service is recommended for both presidents who say, "We can't seem to solve the problem by leaving it to the employees," and executives and employees who lament, "The president doesn't properly evaluate our efforts." 

Planning of Study Sessions and Management Services

1. We interview the president to ascertain his/her awareness of the issues and crisis, and the employees to hear about issues at the frontline level.
2. Based on the results, the theme and direction of the study session will be determined after making adjustments.
3. The president is informed of the management policy prior to each meeting.
4. During the workshop, we will ensure an accurate understanding of the issues and the significance of the improvements.
5. We will also ensure that the themes are digested and lead to discussions on the implementation system afterwards.
6. After the meeting, we ask participants to submit minutes of the meeting.

Q1: How many employees should be involved in a study session?

It is difficult to say, since it depends on the form of the "study group" and the company's organizational structure and shift issues, but I would venture to say that 4 to 8 employees is a desirable range. If there are two people, it will just become a meeting to reach a consensus. If there are three members, it is easy to lose the discussion after it becomes two to one, so we would like to set the minimum number of members at four. However, the basic question is whether or not it is possible to operate without generating "customers". If you want to avoid having participants who do not have to express their opinions at all and sit in a position where they can see each other's faces, the maximum number of participants should be around 8. Recently, the number of employees that each client company wants to have participate tends to increase, and in some cases we compromise slightly and say 7 plus or minus 2.

Q2: Should the president participate?

After considering the advantages and disadvantages, this is also decided on a case-by-case basis. The president is the ultimate decision maker, so in a project team, for example, it is very positive to have a president who can immediately reflect decisions in the line of work. The presence of a president within a project is also very positive when the number of project members is limited but the impact of the decisions is spread throughout the entire company or elsewhere. On the other hand, it is also true, as a matter of course, that the presence of the president alone makes it difficult for employees to express their opinions. If the president lacks discretion, thoughtfulness, and consideration, he or she may quickly draw his or her own conclusions, ignoring the space for employee opinions and discussion.

Q3: How are participating members selected?

This is also a case-by-case basis. In cases where the problem-solving aspect is clear, the president often selects a mix of members who are expected to contribute in terms of skills and experience, long-time employees who are expected to coordinate within the company, and especially young employees who are expected to grow in the future. In cases where the problem-solving aspect of the assignment is less important, we will make our own decision based on the relationships within the company, and in some cases, the members may be changed at a later date.

Q4: How do you consider absences from work?

Since we invest valuable management resources such as time, we believe that members should be able to participate with all possible expediency according to work orders, and that absences without the permission of the person in charge of making decisions should never be tolerated. In addition, in a discussion-based "study group," a high quality meeting is one in which "a large number of people and a variety of opinions are expressed," so those who are absent should be prepared to take responsibility for the quality of the meeting on the day they are absent and make up for it. The following are some of the comments we have picked up from managers and participants regarding absences in the past.

Q5: How is this different from coaching or facilitation?

It is our understanding that coaching and facilitation are very effective in drawing out the subject's strengths and guiding them in the direction they should be. It may be an ideal way for the subject to solve problems. However, in a company, especially a small to medium-sized company led by an owner-president, it is not always possible to select this optimal solution. This is mainly due to the following reasons.

We still have a long way to go, but our customers' awareness is changing rapidly. In addition, our rivals, the big companies, are coming at us in greater and greater quantities. In the end, if we want to compete, we have no choice but to change the mindset of our employees as fast as we can. We have to tell our employees, 'Even if you do the same work perfectly as you did yesterday, it only means that you have completed 60% of your work. You can only get a perfect score of 100 points by reflecting on whether it was really good enough and constantly improving it. If you can't give yourself a perfect score of 100, you must attend a study session," said a manager.
I don't think a company that can't maintain a single study session will be able to achieve its goals. Otherwise, I think the employees will only have a sense of being losers. I thought it would not be good for the employees if I did not show that attitude, so I once told an employee who said, "I have to miss a study session because I have to go see a customer," to "attend the study session and I will talk to the customer, so call him right now and turn him over to me. Then, as expected, the employee said, 'I'll take care of that myself. I think that more than half of what employees say is 'important' is like this.
When we did QC activities in the past, they eventually fizzled out because everyone was looking at each other's faces and trying to make things convenient for everyone else. I think it was a complete waste of money. That is why this time we are determined to keep going. As long as we keep trying, our evaluation will never be fixed, so there is no room for failure.
"I changed jobs from a major company to a company with this many people, but participating in a study group like this has greatly changed the negative image I had of the training I received when I was at a major company. I like the fact that I can set themes at my own will and have the discretion to make things around me better. Since such discretion is given to me, I can't help but feel that the company should tell me not to take time off" (Participant)

As a practical matter, when employees of small and medium-sized companies are asked about their views on management, society, and their careers, they often do not give satisfactory answers, and internal motivation and the development of skills and knowledge often cannot be achieved without thorough "teaching," which is a preliminary step to coaching and facilitation.
From the perspective of the CEO who bears the cost of the "study group," coaching or facilitation that relies heavily on (or is influenced by) the existing abilities and thinking of the participants tends to be very slow to develop and is not highly valued in terms of cost and performance.
There is a tendency on the part of owner-managers to view motivating employees as "playing to the employees" or "being scared to death of the employees", and they are emotionally reluctant to adopt coaching and facilitation.