 Our most immediate challenge is the impact of privilege-based management upon the field of industrial engineering. The efficiency engineering aspect of this study was well set by 1940, but has been a constant challenge to senior leader culture. The field has evolved away from the traditional performance studies based on the constant and consistent discouragement of senior leadership. The focus of education shifted more and more towards applying management programs designed to meet the goals and objectives provided by senior leaders. We will be addressing the basic efficiency work in traditional applications. It will focus on the knowledge and wisdom that was applied to give technical support to the foreman in the design and implementation of teaming and in elimination of waste. First, we need perspective. The engineer serves repetitive work, not one-time or infrequent efforts. The business invests in the engineering effort where the cost of putting an engineer to the task will be much less than the benefit expected from applications. Following Taylor's scientific management techniques, engineering starts with the study of work process, often doing the work of the office environment, to find a best way to accomplish a group effort. This goes down to the details of the effort of each worker, how to do each task, and best assure that it is completed successfully. The engineer's basic orientation is to doing the work, not improving some established performance process that has been working to good effect. The purpose served by the engineer is design of process rather than correction. I also have to note that the engineer is not in charge. That is the realm and authority of the foreman who actually is charged with assuring performance through the efforts of workers who perform under his or her direction. Foremen tend to be highly experienced with the type of work to which they are assigned, and usually do a first teaming and work arrangement effort on their own. The industrial engineer is called in to first observe how the group supervisor has things working to see an arrangement that does function. Knowing how things can be done is often an aid when starting the study of a process. The engineering effort includes the design of the workplace so that the work can be efficiently and effectively performed. It includes the placement of materials and selection of design tools needed for the task, and supporting tools such as a production belt for moving material to and from the worker. Again, the foreman is likely to be very familiar with these tools and to be well able to appreciate the use of the right tools. It includes the design of the working group, how many workers will be needed with placement so that they can maintain coordination with each other and handle a planned flow of product. The engineer does not do something different than the foreman, but performs much of the work of management again using focus and tools that the foreman does not have the time and opportunity to use. The foreman is not expected to do the engineering, but to direct workers to their coordinated efforts and to handle any threats to their performance efforts. The working relationship between the engineer and the foreman is also teaming of a sort. The very purpose of the engineering effort is technical support for the foreman to get the greatest result from the efforts of his or her coordinated workers. The engineering effort can also include the design of work facilities where production areas will be located and when and how to service each effort with pathways for supporting people. It includes receded materials for the facility warehousing and support for distribution. It includes adequate area for housing management and the technical support that is most useful for assuring the flow of product to those outside the facility. The industrial engineer does not build facilities, but can provide technical support for those who do facility design and construction. For another technical support, we have the actual measurement of work, determining the real capacity for performance through time study measurement and pace rating for what is normally expected of workers. This, when properly done, provides an excellent planning tool for performance managers, along with the reasonable assurance that the competent workman could accomplish the design result on a continuing basis. This was dealing with people as performance units and people are both variable and with variable personal needs. The expertise included expectation of the needs of workers for periodic rest from their efforts and support for when they had to be absent from their workstations. Worker supports could also be planned and set in place. What the engineer did was design a team effort and the intent was for the foreman to set that team in place using the production design to build on that mutual trust between workers. Each worker could trust the engineered process to allow them to succeed in their designed efforts. A normal worker was assured that the process they learned from the foreman would allow them to succeed at the design pace for the work group. Each worker could trust the worker before them to succeed in what they were doing so that the in-process products were there for support of their own efforts. They could trust that each worker in the group did their part the group would accomplish its assigned productive result. And then they could trust that the foreman would be there watching over the process and handling most of the things that could interfere with the group's performance efforts. The group effort was designed to support teaming. And as a side note, there was no basis for conflict, confrontation or competition. The group effort was performed by a coordinated team using a design process that would support their success. Also, teams tended to be self-regulating and not all that responsive to even the foreman's authority. The worker who would not perform to standard is likely to be turned on by the other workers. The team will expel the one who refuses to team. Administration has felt compelled to step into this situation to assign authority to the foreman to police his production crew. There seems less chance of legal consequences from having a foreman take official action on behalf of the business than letting the workers see to their own needs and wants. Disempowering workers by empowering the authority figure is seen as good administrative management by those running the corporate business. Also, we have internal support efforts as part of the design team. The workers are able to best concentrate on their individual performance success when they have a group level support. This is not just the foreman, the one who keeps everyone on focus and exercises central group authority. It is the material handler who assures that each worker has what they need to be a success in their coordinated efforts. It is the utility operator who is ready to step in and take over a production effort if the worker has to temporarily leave their work station. It is the foreman who intercepts visitors to the production area, keeping them from interfering with the successful operation of group workers. With the technical support of the engineer, the production effort is designed to be a success and this is generally supported by the people who work in the group. To this we have to add an ancillary management team. This includes at least the foreman and engineer and will often include a quality control inspector. These team members work in coordination to assure the success of the performance team. I separate the management team out for the purpose of contrast. The administrative understanding of management is built on authority and assignment. It sees the efforts of the industrial engineer or quality inspector as separately authorized to interfere with the operation of the performance group as needed for higher authority purposes. The actual design of the group effort involved in these set of principles that developed along with industrial engineering. Perhaps the best recognized group performance principle is addressed as work balancing. This is a recognition that there is a planned flow of product that will yield the valued productive output for the group. It is pace for group operations. That becomes the design criteria for each worker's individual effort. There must be a process that can move the product through the production effort at the desired pace. This not only limits the amount of work that can be done at any individual workstation, but helps define what work has to be done by each worker. Work can sometimes be shifted from a more heavily worked station to one that is less burdened. In specific, you should note that there is nothing in this based on treating workers equally. Some workers will be working harder than others. What we have is assurance that each workstation effort can handle the work that is aside and succeed in supporting the larger team effort. Again, the utility operator, the one who can fill in for any worker, may be standing around doing nothing for large parts of the day and also is better paid than those who are consistently doing the work. Then further, where the task is long and cannot be shared, it is usually possible to have it divided so that each longer effort is undertaken by dividing the workflow among multiple workers. The foreman does not have time and usually not the skills to do this balancing task, but relies on the engineer to assure efficient and well-balanced work efforts that still reasonably assure performance potentials. Again, the engineer is the one who can ensure sufficient rest and relaxation to best support worker ability to continue performance at a reasonable pace. It was early performance engineers, not management or unions, that initiated work breaks. They are not provided as a benefit for workers, but in recognition of human limitations and variations, tired people make mistakes and tend to do poor work, workers who have to concentrate deeply or have tension in their work. They need time away from their efforts to keep that concentration. Think back to the first day and the materials we covered. You do not get more work by beating your horses. Driving workers to work harder and longer is a consistent direction of effort for administrative leadership. Then there is the learning effect. In production, it is usually best to restrict what each worker has to do so that they rapidly develop expertise in the limited efforts they have to perform. If their individual tasks are unique and complicated, it takes them longer to get up to speed on their performance, limiting what they produce for the employer while they learn, and possibly slowing an entire group production effort while they come up to speed. In common language, the result is a work cycle. It can be anywhere from a few seconds to many minutes when doing highly repetitive group efforts. Where there is challenging work to be performed in a cycle, it is common for the foreman to assign that workstation to only one or two fairly consistent workers so that only a few have to learn it, and will almost always be there to support team effort. What is important here is that it all has to work together to assure the group effort that accomplishes its performance. That performance requirement may be part of a larger production effort that has to work in concert with promised product delivery schedules. It all has to work together. It is not a matter of getting the most possible work from each worker. It is completing the performance cycle with business customers. The teaming comes from working together, not from the fulfillment of contract requirements. We also have principles for the design of a human workplace. This is not just a matter of the workplace itself, but also the design of the worker's performance process and later the potentials built into the workstation. It all has to come together for efficiently gaining the desired result. If the worker can reach out with both hands together, even if in different directions, they get less tired than reaching out with one and then the other. If parts and materials can be pre-oriented so that they can be grasped by the worker without having to actually look at each one, it is both easier and faster. It is common to arrange the workplace so that the work is positioned most effectively for the worker's application. When there is a long-term work process, this orientation of parts and materials will often justify pre-orientation by mechanical means. A hand cannot be efficiently used to hold an object in position. A hand does not make a good vice or clamp. Workers who can sit or stand, shifting between these, get less tired than those whose tasks require them to keep in one position only. Hands and fingers can move much quicker than shoulders or hips. The more central motion can serve better where strength is required. The use of tools is especially important, as the use almost always multiplies the ability of the worker to perform assigned tasks. Even a mechanical stop point, a position for a piece of work, eliminates any need for the worker to look at the object to see where it is. It will always be in the same place and with the same orientation. They can concentrate on other things, such as grasping a tool or getting some part to apply to the object before them. The foreman is not just a team leader for the workers, but a team leader for management and support people as well. When someone wants to know about the work group and what it's doing, they come to the foreman who is the center of it all. The performance expertise of the industrial engineer was developed in response to an expanding need to complete with other businesses. That same expansion was also creating havoc in management. In specific business had traditionally been a family matter. And this was largely replaced with corporate business entities. While they were owned by people, privileged government leaders created new privileged legal persons. Instead of family being in charge saying to the welfare of family members through operating a business, it was hired managers leading corporate efforts that had the purpose of profitable operation. The entire nature of business rapidly shifted from personal to economic welfare. Instead of family purpose, there was investor purpose. The family seeing to family needs was largely removed from the concept of business performance. So how could we manage something like this? Government had its own privilege based answer. We had the military example where large groups of people could be coordinated under an officer's direction. We had the feudal example where rulers could rule by taking ownership of the corporate resources that represented wealth. We have leaders such as Henry Fayol who had developed and published his own principles of administration giving a general methodology for structuring a manageable authority system. It was a way to bring order into the chaos left by the loss of guiding family purpose. This approach served leadership in operating even the largest and most encompassing of corporate organizations. The very purpose of business was changing from the welfare of the family to the harvest of privilege that came with running the business. Where family owners had the privilege of ownership, these new leaders had privilege assumed by offices they held. It challenged the very concept of ownership. What was the relationship to owners and investors? Were they also privileged? Were they outsiders to the business? Were they to be treated like customers or like employees? The answer is in the nature of privilege with its historical family foundation. The leadership in the corporate business accepted themselves those hired into positions of corporate leadership as corporate leader family with the privilege of running their corporate businesses. This immediately denied any natural owner privilege that might otherwise reside in the investors. They were outsiders. Were to be treated as beneficiaries of the corporate leadership's actions. It was the corporate family that was in charge in rule over the business operation. They were hired to apply their skills and effort to properly run their organizations. But then we have the introduction of Taylor's scientific management with its sudden enforcement of profitable performance. The startling increase in performance was the intrusion of an unwanted reality. The very value of privilege was put to the test by these hired commoners who showed no honor for leader authority. And that increase in performance was only one of the challenges that this raised. The workers were also becoming more valuable. They were more effective in both personal terms of doing less work and increasing what they accomplished. And they harvested personal satisfaction through teaming with others. It was workers demanding that their increased value be recognized by leadership. Leaders having to answer to worker demands. That was the opposite of privilege for leaders. It was like the workers had their own sense of privilege. It was the very workforce that the leaders had hired for their purposes putting requirements back on them. It was unwanted reality when leaders tried to run these subordinate areas as was their right as corporate family. Performance suffered. Their exercise of privilege had a visible cost that challenged their value as business leaders. And the more they tried to demonstrate the value of their leadership the higher the cost. The comparison of performance management and what they did as an official expert in running the organization was worse than confusion. Their knee jerk reaction was that expected. They treated this new upstart management approach like a social disease. They quarantined it. They worked to keep it from infecting their privileged honored management systems. Instead of directly running performance areas they did their best to hire and promote the right people. Those who would honor their privileged leadership they promoted workers to be foremen who would honor their leader goals and objectives as the value of having the right people running things. In short, the corporate business has been created and empowered as a feud based on leader privilege over resources of investors. Their attempts to apply their privileges were resisted by workers who actually did own their own time, wealth and energy. Citizens were not like slaves, indentured servants or even peasants leasing federal property. American citizens were in fact owners even if this was in contrast to the perspectives of business leadership. There was a secondary impact from the disruption of family business and it was in terms of the change from privileged based leadership in England to citizen based leadership in the still new Republic of America. They both recognized the importance of family. In the feudal system it was the family of those with privilege as supported by the productivity of peasant families. Even as pre-revolution American colonies there was the society of commoners without the presence of barons without having the support of those inheritable privileges. It was not so much the burden of support that changed as the equality among others. This was a new level of freedom. There was the confusion of being able to advance beyond the station of a citizen's birth family. There were many families that had been living in the Americas for more than a century with parents and grandparents who lived and died in the colonies. There were new people being mixed in coming from England and other European nations. There were imported slaves and there was the chaos of growth and expansion. What then was the purpose of family? Was it to own and operate the family business, the farm, the store? Was it to prepare the young to work and prosper? The old sense of stability was under severe pressure. Revolution was just an addition to this disrupting even the continuity of governance. Into this we have a new factor in the steam-powered transportation and industry. Quite suddenly, the family-owned business had competition in other families that lived in nearby towns and cities. Businesses grew and morphed into corporate entities. Society itself was changing from owner-operators of businesses to workers in businesses run by others. This was a massive change in the relationship between citizens. It reestablished class distinctions, it caused social disruption on a grand scale. The available model was feudal. It was barons of industry with workers as commoners. There was some level of comfort in this. It was stability. But family had always been the foundation in feudal privilege. And that was missing in the new corporate feud. Leadership was not hereditary, but was by employment. The cure was a leader family, a family of those who ran the business. But it was even more stable because the corporate family leader got to pick their own membership. Privilege was seized to run the business and to do all that privilege allowed within the confines of the corporate feud. The other change was where these new corporate feuds did not have to support the commoners. They could be treated as replaceable units. If one left, there were others to take their places. But there was even more in that there was no family purpose set upon corporate leadership. It could and did hire people to do the corporate performance. And it hired the lower level managers to manage over that corporate performance. It was a new sense and purpose and privilege. The privileged leadership faced only one great challenge. And that was the loss of family purpose. That central concept that had driven business for all known history and it was no longer the purpose for business leadership. The new family worked for salary and for harvesting from the productive earnings of workers. Why not set new purposes on these workers as the feudal barons have done in antiquity? Employment was becoming necessary for their survival and leaders had full privilege in who would be employed in their businesses. The rise and potency in corporate structure was welcomed. It just set the privileged leadership that much more in charge. They hired and employed middle managers to operate the structure they had set in place. It was an expansion of privilege as these middle managers were also corporate employees. They were every bit as replaceable as the workers. The division between owners and employees just reached a new level. There was a glass wall between them. It was invisible but it was also family. Leadership could invite new people into the family. But middle managers were skilled commoner employees who ran the business as directed by corporate family. Yes, it was hard on employees but after all they were just commoners. They were not family. They were hired to work for the business. The leaders ran it. For a deeper understanding of this situation we also have to address the common worker, the employee without privilege. They worked for a living even as commoners had in the English approach to civilization or the feudal rule that preceded it. They just did not have any real interest in the business that hired them. What they got was pay for selling their time and effort to the business. It was a bondservant arrangement, a business relation where they offered up their freedom to work for themselves for some stated period of time and received pay for accepting temporary privilege of others to direct their efforts. This had nothing really to do with performance. Performance was, as it had always been, a matter of relationship to customers. Workers owed nothing to customers and got no direct benefit from contributing to the operation of the corporate business. That was being harvested by others who held privilege. Workers had a lot more in common with other workers than they did with either the corporation or its leaders. Their only source of loyalty to leadership was what they were paid to have. What had grown to be normal was workers taking care of each other and voluntarily limiting their working pace to a norm that did not threaten each other's continued employment even if one did have a bad day. Workers commonly did only what they had to do and avoided exceeding it. Meanwhile, the leadership family developed along a different path. The extent of privilege in feudal society was the feud, the land that the family controlled. In like fashion, the extent of privilege in business was controlled by the value that corporate business could direct. The bigger the corporate resource base, the greater the privilege. There was significant pressure to grow the corporation. That's a way to increase personal privilege. Even those who just directed an area of management saw the advantage of growing the staffing of their area that answered to them growth in a body of employees was developing as a corporate goal for leaders. This, of course, challenges the very concept of performance. It is rewarding the increase in cost to the business with increase in privilege. It was a purpose that was antithetical to the general purpose of management. Is there something for us in this student-teacher relationship? Part of this is so obvious that it has been reflected in law, the doctrine of enloco parentis. It is a concept that teachers are stand-ins for the parents and can exercise parental authority. The relationship between young children and their parents is obviously set by needs. The child's welfare depends upon the actions of parents and parents have all the privileges of directing children and their family. In the classroom, especially in the younger years, the teacher takes on a parent-like role directing the efforts of the children with the expected support of parents to do so. As you have grown to near adults, the relationship has changed accordingly. You are still ultimately answering to instructors in the classroom, but have considerable leeway in expressing yourselves as independent people. Development of corporate business was in the opposite direction. It was long-term conversion of family members who owned and operated their own businesses to employees who answered to corporate leader directives. I have skills in exercising these lessons of performance as had been established in the early 1900s. This can have value only as I can provide technical support to those who have things to accomplish. In this course of study, you are the ones who are to be empowered, to be more able to clearly define what it is you will value and to gather resources to accomplish your own valued results. This course represents performance development with examples of what yields performance by people and what interferes with gaining valued results through their efforts. The challenge to be met in this course is inherent in understanding the confusion in human relations that resulted from the introduction of steam power in society, multiplying what a person could do through controlling machines instead of trying to harness human and animal efforts. Our purpose is empowering you, who are the owners of this nation, to see and exercise the natural privileges of ownership. The very purpose involves a massive disruption in accepted position-based privilege. Our traditional purpose sees competent and expert leadership directing the time and effort of people like yourselves. The leaders often see themselves as owners deciding when and where commoners are to act. Again and again, you have been informed that change will be treated as a cost and your empowerment is a massive change, not only for you as individuals but as corporate owners of the United States. Having to answer to commoners is a massive change for political leaders. Having to answer to owners will be a massive change for the barons of industry and asking others to see the value of such things will be a massive change not only for you but for those who you contact. The value is there to bring people together. It is just an unrealized potential. It is not just value for the peasants, the commoners, the citizens and the disenfranchised owners of corporate America. It is also value for our political leaders, our economic and social leaders as well. They too are part of the people. It is still early in the course and these things should already be apparent. One of the first and most basic lessons in the work is that you are not alone. You are also us in ways that can empower all people to receive what people value. To this point we have just hinted at how truly powerful you are as one of the owners. We have yanked the door open and the shadows of an understanding that I would pass in these first few lessons has hammered the door in place. It will not close again. You have come to see some of the remarkable efforts that will be put forth to slam that door again and with the clarity of hindsight we will soon examine these in even more detail. What privilege has accomplished is remarkable. Privileged approach has accomplished things that have been of great scope and effect. These are worthy of study even if they have not served people. They are part of the consistency that is the reality we have to work with. What has been accomplished is always a lesson in what can be accomplished in the future as well as an indication of how we are able to accomplish something else. We are not committed to repeating what we have accomplished in the past. We are the owners and can exercise what we will subject only to agreement upon what we corporately determined to be the appropriate direction. As owners we are the only real party in interest. As humans we have the freedom to choose our own direction of action, our own priorities to serve. We are not peasants addressing the property that belongs to some king or baron. We are not political commoners who are subject to aristocracy determinations of what is best for us. We are not children answering to parental expertise of educators. We are the United States. There is no other United States. We have a nation that was designed to serve we the people but we failed to bring it to fruition. It was our ancestral failure to team with each other as the only party in interest and it was no failure of intent so much as a failure to come to agreement among we the people. We are not defeated but are merely allowing ourselves to be distracted from seeing to our own benefits. Whether the change was just too great or the knowledge of our potentials was yet to be realized, the reality is that we the people did not harvest the potential. Instead, our knowledge of performance awaited the chaos of our industrial revolution to provide a forum for development. But this application like that of the family was restricted by exercise of privilege and leadership. It was denigrated. It was quarantined. It was denied. We have continued an effective isolation from each other. That doorway into performance has been opened again. You are now being offered the choice of whether to enter and urge to address both the benefits and the costs associated with taking steps in that direction. There are potent lessons for us in our history. It is the lesson of the growth of business management relative to the stability and size of organizations. It is the lesson of alternative purposes damaging performance. It is the lesson of privilege-based leadership creating privilege-based legal corporate persons instead of empowering citizens. Even more on point, we see the blindness to performance that comes with recognizing the privilege of leadership. It is seen in that most telling and most remarkable division and higher business labor. It is witnessed in the inability of leadership to even see that management purpose is being replaced for them with their own self-assigned purposes. It is witnessed in labor by the establishment of privilege and union leadership, which also works to its own purpose instead of any business purpose that would bring all the people in the corporation to focus on the same performance purposes. When we see these, see political leadership setting their own goals and objectives for government implementation that are different than those of the citizens they were elected to represent. We can see the same sort of challenges. These are not just lessons in business. They are lessons in human behavior. They are lessons in how we come together to accomplish what all can value. Our next lesson will expand upon the lessons presented here in terms of seeing even more clearly how people in privilege leadership consistently deal with performance realities that do not support what they have determined to do. We have every reason to expect the same sort of reactions to what you learn in this class. Nothing is likely to change in what we accomplish unless something changes in what we are doing.