By Heinz Bloch, P.E., Editor
If you’ve ever wondered how good Reliability Managers groomed their successors in the 1960s and 1970s, read on. I have written and spoken about this topic many times over the years.
The following information is taken from a one-day teaching and networking session that I am planning to conduct for the Institute for Industry-Education Collaboration (IIEC), at McNeese State University, in Lake Charles, LA. It sums up what I consider to be a “Best Practice” approach for today’s operations (and one that can be adapted and leveraged by managers in areas other than reliability).
In what are
now called the “good old days,” a manager made sure the people he or she managed had several essential documents in their files:
1. A mutually agreed-upon training plan.
2. Training details that encouraged sharing the cost of training.
3. A sequenced tabulation of goals to be reached at the end of employment years 1 through 5, followed by years 8 and 11. Examples: At the end of employment year 1, the employee would know if there is an API Standard for twin-screw compressors. At the end of year 2, the employee would
know the size and operating experience and average run time between overhauls of water-filled 5,000 kW twin-screw compressors in dirty-gas service.
4. A role statement that clearly defined the job functions. Example: Say the manager were to ask something along the lines of, “Which of our large recip compressors are scheduled for turnaround eight months from today?” Or, “What components of the equipment would be different if the machines were being built as we speak? Or, “Which ‘new’ and presumably
upgraded parts should we order now for a turnaround eight months down the road?” Offering answers to such questions would have been one of the employee’s roles. He or she would have been expected to already know these details before being asked.
5. A notebook or folder filled with monthly achievements and estimates of “value added” by the employee.
The primary incentive for managers to pay close attention to the grooming of their successors was two-fold: Doing it right was a prerequisite for a Reliability Manager to be promoted the next step up the ladder. Furthermore, the manager would be promoted only if a qualified successor were in place.
With the above as the framework for managers 40 and 50 years ago, we leave it to the reader to determine if how it’s done today is an indication of progress.
BOTTOM LINE
If you're a manager, why should you worry about grooming your successor? There are several good reasons, starting with the fact that an unqualified successor will render his or her former boss ineffective. That could present real problems for the individuals involved. But it gets worse. Without competent successors, entire organizations often spend time re-discovering what others have known before. In today’s competitive industrial environments, how many operations can afford
that luxury?
I look forward to hearing from you about the grooming of successors in your operations.
