TQL Forum

This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected.  Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies.  Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue.  The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.

As commanding officer and executive officer, the authors attributed the success of the Coast Guard buoy tender Woodrush to innovative leadership practices, endorsed by total quality management.

In the spring of 1990—just six months after the completion of an eight-month ^re-engining project—the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Woodrush (WLB-407) scored a clean sweep at U.S. Navy Re­fresher Training at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, earning an “E” for excellence in every area of evaluation. In addition, the crew of the Woodrush earned record overall scores in damage control and in setting •ttaterial condition Yoke and Zebra. Dur­ing the six months after the yard period, the ship and crew also serviced more than 450 aids to navigation with only one outage attributed to Personal error. A certifying officer from the Coast Guard 17th District said, “Not only •s [the] Woodrush ready for sea, she is the best ship I’ve ever seen in the Coast Guard.”

Total quality leadership has changed military views on Otanagement and leadership, but many of its principles are not new—they are common- sense leadership practices that have been used by good mil­itary units for years. Success stories of quality military Units provide valuable lessons On implementing the princi­ples of TQL.

On board the cutter Wood- ^rush, we experienced such a success story. The leadership principles We developed, called “Woody’s Way,” are difficult to separate—one leads into another—but for this article they are de­scribed individually.

Treating People as Responsible Adults

Military leadership too often involves game playing. Leaders frequently play games to catch their subordinates doing Something wrong, and, in turn, their sub­ordinates accept the challenge to get away With as much as possible. The Woodrush's leaders worked on the assumption that every crew member was a responsible adult who wanted the ship to be a suc­cess. They applied the “Golden Rule of Leadership”: treat the people you lead the way you would want to be treated.

Loose-Tight Organization

Leaders in a loose-tight organization do not try to drive the organization in a straight line from one point to another. Rather, they handle the organization like a sailboat, with each member pushing toward a common goal and the leader providing gentle course corrections as necessary—and with the understanding that some tacking may be required.

The Woodrush’s leadership realized that to accomplish the mission they had to allow the crew to make independent decisions about how to get their jobs done. To do this, the commanding offi­cer and executive officer worked to in­still two essential values in the crew: do the job right and do the best job possi­ble. As long as these values were fol­lowed, the crew was given the freedom to innovate to get their jobs done the best way possible.

By and large, the crew accepted these values and excelled at their jobs. Some crew members did not accept these core values initially, but as they observed the success of their peers, most fell in line. Only two or three of the 58-member crew never accepted this program. We made every attempt to counsel them and help them become part of the team. Once their disruptive activities made it clear they chose not to live by Woodrush values, how­ever, action was taken to separate them from the service. There was never any question about the Woodrush's commitment to the core values.

Team Building

One of the most im­portant leadership tech­niques practiced on board the Woodrush was team building. The CO and XO understood the power that could be generated when all members are doing their part for the success of the team.

The most important as­pect was communication. Because every crew mem­ber was an important part of the team, each individual needed to know what was happening. Communication started each day following morning muster. That was when the Plan of the Day was discussed and questions answered.

Because the Woodrush was a small ship, the CO usually attended quarters after the noon meal, along with all the of­ficers and chief petty officers. After de­partment heads had a few moments with their personnel, the crew fell out and gathered around the CO and XO for brief questions or comments. While this might not be possible for commanders of larger ships, it can be done with their division or department heads. Each question or comment was taken seriously and ad­dressed as fully as possible. The CO and XO found that the opportunity for ques­tions and comments at all gatherings was essential for team building.

The two-way flow of information had multiple benefits. It assured the crew that they were important members of the team, and it gave the leadership a great deal of credibility. With the Woodrush's hectic schedule, plans were often changed. The emphasis on communica­tion assured the crew they were getting all the information available.

Communication went beyond explain­ing schedules and taskings. Because each member of the team was expected to con­tribute to the success of the ship, every­body was expected to come forward with ideas about doing the job better. The crew constantly was asked how they could improve their performance. And if a crew member had an idea, resources were made available to try it out.

Team building took several other forms. Sporting events—such as a weekly bowl­ing night during the shipyard period, softball games, and shooting matches— fostered team spirit. Ship’s parties strengthened the social ties among all members of the Woodrush team. Most of the crew purchased Woodrush jackets from the ship’s store and wore them on liberty.

Management by Walking Around

The Woodrush’s commanding officer and executive officer also practiced man­agement by walking around. Once or twice a day they literally would wander about the ship. This served several pur­poses. First, it allowed them to inspect the ship informally and to observe the work going on. Tours also allowed them to speak with the crew in an informal set­ting. Many times they learned about prob­lems directly from the people who had to deal with them.

The crew also developed a sense of ownership of their spaces and systems. They knew that the CO or XO might show up unannounced at any time and ask them about the work they were doing. They also knew it was an opportunity to explain an idea for improving the way they did their work.

Management by walking around ex­tended to servicing aids to navigation as well. On every servicing trip, an officer or chief petty officer accompanied the servicing team. In Southeast Alaska, this often meant long, wet boat trips, climb­ing rocky cliffs while carrying batteries, and an occasional encounter with a bear.

It turned out to be a powerful message to the crew that the senior leadership was interested and committed to doing the job right. They appreciated the willingness of their leaders to spend many cold, wet hours with them getting the job done. This program also facilitated a great deal of interaction between the crew and the leadership.

This type of management resulted in the elimination of formal material in­spections. This was not intentional at first. Inspections were scheduled on a regular basis, but they always seemed to be de­layed because of operations. After several months of missed inspections, but in­tense informal interaction, the command­ing officer and executive officer agreed the ship would not be in any better con­dition even if material inspections had been held. As a result, weekly material inspections no longer were scheduled. Visitors to the Woodrush, impressed with the condition and cleanliness of the 46- year old ship, were shocked when they found out the ship did not hold material inspections. The elimination of routine in­spections was truly in line with total qual­ity leadership principles.

The leaders on the Woodrush found that one of the biggest advantages of management by walking around was that it forced them to get involved. They got to visit with the crew and chat about what was going on. They also got a chance to celebrate successes as they happened or help redirect jobs that were in trouble. The CO and XO learned that doing pa­perwork at their desks accomplished much less than getting out and interact­ing with the crew.

Investment

The CO and XO knew that they had to invest time and money in providing tools and training for the crew to truly excel. The Woodrush went to signifi­cant lengths to provide the necessary re­sources. If a department needed a tool or service to do the job, the CO and XO found the means to make it happen. While this often entailed extra work preparing procurement justifications, it showed that the ship was committed to doing the job right.

One example of this was the purchase of laptop computers. Installation of Coast Guard standard work-station computers for the ship had been delayed, so the Woodrush sought and received permission to use unit funds to purchase five laptop computers, one for each department. This resulted in innovative and highly produc­tive uses, such as computerization of com­partment checkoff lists. After the yard pe­riod, the damage-control petty officers got together to correct the checkoff lists. They quickly realized that because there had been so many changes, the best way to ensure the lists were complete was to start from scratch. They formed teams, one per­son recording on a laptop and two or three others checking for fittings. In a matter of a few days, the checkoff lists were com­pleted and posted. The lists were so ac­curate that Refresher Training inspectors were unable to find a single discrepancy- The real moral of this story, however, is that the project was conceived, organized, and executed by six petty officers and one seaman.

The Woodrush also made a strong but difficult commitment to training. Train­ing, always emphasized in the military, requires a lot of resources, especially time. But the Woodrush’s leaders real­ized training was essential and gave it a priority equal to other mission activi­ties. They allowed crew members to take formal training even though they missed scheduled trips or took time from mis­sion activities. While the ship was un­dergoing its re-engining, training was conducted through a program dubbed Woodrush University. Three times a week, people were taken from shipyard work to attend instruction on a variety of subjects, including computer training, first aid, rules of the road, navigation, dam­age control, and aid to navigation ser­vicing. Anyone could apply to take any course. Departments were expected to have about 25% of their people taking training during these sessions.

If members of the Woodrush’s creW were expected to behave like profession­als, they needed to live and work in pro­fessional surroundings. During the ex­tensive shipyard period, the crew was challenged to improve the habitability and professional appearance of the ship for themselves and future crews. Funds that would have been spent on consumable⁵ if the ship had been operating were redi­rected to set up a fund for self-help ren­ovation work. The crew developed plans for the work and submitted them to the executive officer for funding. Most of the plans were approved and the results were incredible. Every compartment in the Woodrush was repainted. The berthing areas received new mattresses and net" rack curtains. The mess deck, ere"' lounge, chiefs’ mess, and wardroom all received upgraded entertainment equip' ment and new furniture. For greater ef­ficiency, and to increase professional ap' pearance, quartermasters redesigned the layout of equipment on the bridge boatswain’s mates set up a new aids to navigation servicing shop, subsistence specialists redesigned dry stores for bet­ter access, and engineers upgraded theh work spaces and spare parts storage. An^ these were only a few of the projects. Th^e CO often was asked how he was able t° accomplish so much ship’s force work during the intensive yard period. The an­swer was easy: he gave the crew the re­sources and authority to make the im­provements they thought were needed.

Recognition

The CO and XO took every possible opportunity to recognize each crew mem­ber. These opportunities often were as simple as recognizing birthdays or the successful completion of advancement courses. They also worked hard at giving crew members formal recognition. Un­fortunately, crew members often were transferred before they received an award earned on board the Woodrush. To make recognition more immediate, an informal awards program called the Orca Award— named after the ship’s killer whale mas­cot—was established. The program was designed to allow crew members who Were first class petty officers and below to recognize fellow crew members for ac­tions taken to improve the ship. After the XO verified the merit of the actions cited, the CO formally presented the person With an award certificate citing the ac­complishment; the process usually took two days. The program was very suc­cessful and often resulted in the CO and XO learning about actions they otherwise would never have heard about. The pro­gram also provided immediate positive feedback to the crew.

During our eight-month re-engining project, the unit also established a pro­gram to recognize yard employees for their efforts to improve the Woodrush. Once a month, the crew nominated and selected the yard worker to be recognized. The worker received a certificate and a ship’s hat and was made an honorary crew member. The program was im­mensely popular among the shipyard em­ployees and management. The crew of the Woodrush firmly believed that the quality of work performed by the ship­yard for the ship was improved by this recognition program—no warranty claims were submitted after the multimillion dol­lar availability.

Some readers may view the leadership practices used on board the Woodrush with skepticism. The ship’s leaders had their doubts as well, but the results speak for themselves. One of the greatest chal­lenges for the CO and XO was imple­menting practices they did not yet firmly believe in. Some of the crew did not be­lieve a seaman could be trusted to com­plete a quality job without strict supervi­sion and inspection. However, experience showed that once the seaman understood the job and was given the tools and the responsibility, the quality of work ex­ceeded the most optimistic expectations.

There was a common phrase on board the Woodrush that best summed up “Woody’s Way”: Handle it! Those two simple words probably did more to em­power the crew than all the programs, in­vestments, or awards. The crew had to take ownership of the problems; the suc­cess or failure of the ship rested with them. Leadership supplied the tools and encouragement and sometimes a little cor­rection to the course, but in the end the crew was expected to handle it. Leaders were able to do that because they were firmly convinced that the crew was as committed to excellence as they were.

Lieutenant Larzelere, a graduate of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, left the Coast Guard in 1991 and joined the Department of Energy, where he is the program manager for defense programs’ high-per­formance computing technology transfer. He was ex­ecutive officer of the Woodrush from 1988 to 1990.

Commander Smoyer commanded the Woodrush from 1987 to 1990. A graduate of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, he currently is the assistant chief of the Coast Guard First District Aids to Navigation and Waterways Management Branch.

Win $1,500

The United States Naval Institute and the Vincent Astor Foundation take pleasure in announcing the Twentieth Annual Vincent Astor Memorial Leader­ship Essay Contest for Junior Officers and Officer Trainees of the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. The contest is designed to promote research, thinking, and writing on topics of leadership in the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

FIRST PRIZE: $1,500, a Naval Institute Gold Medal, and a Life Membership in the Naval Institute.

FIRST HONORABLE MENTION: $1,000 and a Naval Institute Silver Medal.

SECOND HONORABLE MENTION: (two to be awarded) $500 and a Naval Institute Bronze Medal. The first prize essay will be published in the U.S. Naval Institute Pro­ceedings. The Institute’s Editorial Board may elect to publish any or all of the honor­able mention essays in any given year, but is not obligated to do so. The Editorial Board may, from time to time, publish collections of the award winning essays and other essays in book or pamphlet form.

The contest is open to:

1.   Commissioned officers, regular and reserve, in the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard in pay graded 0-1, 0-2, and 0-3 (ensign/2nd lieutenant: lieutenant (ju­nior grade)/1 st lieutenant: and lieutenant/captain) at the time the essay is submitted.

2.   U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard officer trainees within one year of re­ceiving their commission.

ENTRY RULES

1.                                             Essays must be original and may not exceed 4,000             words.

2.                                            All entries should be directed to: Executive Director (VAMLEC), U.S. Naval Institute, 118 Maryland Avenue, Annapolis, Maryland 21402­5035.

3.    Essays must be postmarked on or before 15 February 1994

4.    The name of the author shall not appear on the essay. Each author shall assign a motto in addition to a title to the essay. This motto shall appear (a) on the tile page of the essay, with the title, in lieu of the author’s name and (b) by itself on the outside of an accompanying sealed envelope. This sealed envelope should contain a typed sheet giving the name, rank, branch of service, biographical sketch, social security number, address, and office and home phone numbers (if applicable) of the essayist, along with the title of the essay and the motto. The identity of the essayist will not be known of the judging members of the Editorial Board until they have made their selections.

5.    The awards will be made known and presented to the successful competitors dur­ing the graduation awards ceremonies at their respective schools, if appropriate, or at other official ceremonies. Mrs. Astor or her personal representative will be invited to present the first prize each year.

6.    Essays must be typewritten, double spaced, on paper approximately 8I x 11". Submit two complete copies. (If typed on a computer, please also submit the entry on an IBM-compatible disk, indicating word-processing software used.)

7.    Essays will be judged by the Naval Institute's Editorial Board for depth of research, analytical and interpretive qualities, and original thinking on the topic of leadership. Es­says should not be merely expositions or personal narratives.