Service
Leadership & Organizational Development
Industrial-organizational psychology applied to the plant floor: job and role analysis, selection criteria, workload and shift structure, supervisor development, and workforce planning. The discipline behind why a change holds or reverts.
What you get
Deliverables at each stage
- Job and role analysis grounded in what each position actually demands
- Selection criteria built from the attributes that predict performance in the role
- Shift, workload, and staffing structure evaluated against error and output data
- Supervisor development built for the role they were promoted into
- Behavioral measures tied to the operating metrics you already track
In more detail
This service applies industrial-organizational psychology, the research discipline concerned with human behavior at work, to manufacturing operations. It is the least common capability in this field and one of the reasons our implementations hold: a process can be engineered correctly and still fail because of how the work was designed around the people performing it.
I-O psychology gives that problem a method. Job and role analysis establishes what a position actually demands. Selection criteria are built from the attributes that predict performance in that role rather than from a generic job posting. Workload, shift rotation, and staffing levels are evaluated against error and output data. Supervisors, most of whom were promoted off the floor, are developed with training built for the role they are now in.
Everything is measured against your operating data. Rework by role, procedure adherence, turnover in specific positions, absenteeism, and the output difference between shifts running identical equipment are all quantifiable, and all of them respond to design. The work runs inside most engagements by default, and it can be engaged on its own when the process is sound and the results still are not holding.
- A well-engineered change that crews quietly worked around
- Procedures written one way and consistently performed another
- Two shifts running identical equipment with different results
- Persistent turnover concentrated in specific roles or shift patterns
- Supervisors promoted from the floor with no support for the new role
- Changes that revert once the person who championed them moves on
- A staffing model built on assumption rather than demand
- Hiring that keeps producing the wrong fit for a critical role
How it runs
A clear path, four steps
- 01
Discovery call
A short conversation about what’s going on and whether we’re a fit.
- 02
On-site study
Time on the floor to see the problem in its actual conditions.
- 03
Plan & build
A prioritized plan, then engineered changes sized to your line.
- 04
Validate & hand off
Proven on every shift, with ownership transferred to your team.
It is the scientific study of human behavior in the workplace. In a plant it means designing the job, the shift, the selection criteria, and the supervision around how people actually perform, so a technically sound change holds after the engineers leave.
Yes. The capability is in-house rather than subcontracted, and it works alongside the engineering team on the same engagement.
Both, and it is built for your operation. Generic leadership curriculum does not transfer well to a plant floor.
Both. Adoption is decided by the crews running the process, so they are part of the work.
Against operating data: rework by role, procedure adherence, turnover in specific positions, absenteeism, and shift-to-shift variance on the same equipment.
Talk specifics
Have a line where this is the problem right now?
Tell us what you’re seeing and we’ll tell you whether this is the right service, or point you to the one that is.