By Kevin Roberts

It is not hard to understand the principle of taking ownership, “take care of the rig as though it were yours.” The practice, however, requires a detailed and nuanced approach. Let’s start with the basics.

One of the areas in which I train my own technicians and office staff is in the use of the English language.

For example, we often avoid using the word “the” with our customers when describing a likely cause of the symptom they experienced. We tell them we have found “a” problem. We cannot know if it is “the” problem until we repair it. This will verify that both the symptom and the root cause have been properly addressed. In this age of complexity and adaptive computer control, it is not unheard of to get symptoms only when you have more than one fault.

Another example is the use of the active or passive voice. This one has presented more of a challenge. With some it is just a habit, with others it may be a sign of something deeper.

Consider: “The drop-down chains were removed.” That is the passive voice and simply refers to a fact about the drop-down chains. If we change that to the active voice, we find either: “The customer removed the drop-down chains,” or “the technician removed the drop-down chains.” This is not a minor distinction. The active voice conveys significantly more meaning with only one more word than the passive voice. I may need to know if the rig was brought into the shop with the drop-down chains missing. If this seems like too much work: learning more about the English language, I will address that in future articles. For now, I only hope to convey the idea that small practical differences in the use of the English language can make your communication both simpler and more effective.

What does this have to do with taking ownership of the rig?

There are, it has often been said (passive voice, by the way), three kinds of people. Those that make things happen, those that watch things happen, and those that don’t know anything is happening.

Recording “the drop-down chains were removed,” was likely written by the person who is in the habit of simply watching. To take ownership, one must develop the mindset that “I need to make things happen”. Once the technician does this, he can simply report “the technician removed the drop-down chains”.

In addition, the tech that can say, “I did that”, is also the tech that can say, “I made a mistake” (active). An alternative might be, “Mistakes were made” (passive). Words fail me to critique that last statement. It is insipid, weak, inexcusable, and a famous line from an infamous politician. Which is one reason why politicians have such a terrible reputation. Rather than “taking ownership”, they simply acknowledge the failure without assigning blame (to themselves). This is how you can tell if a politician is at fault. If he does not assign blame, he is almost certainly guilty. If he blames someone else, he is merely probably guilty. This may also be seen in the reporting of news. When a journalist reports, “It has been said that…” (passive) you can be fairly confident that he has an agenda. Otherwise, he would report, “a member of the company named John Smith” or “a member of the company who wishes to remain anonymous” has said (active). Simply reporting that “it has been said” might refer to that journalist with an agenda having had a conversation at the water cooler with an associate. Recognizing what is said, and how it is said, will make you aware of possible underlying motives. 

Besides all the obvious character flaws that are shown this way, there is an important concern that I am becoming more and more aware of. Taking ownership leads to varied and positive results.

• It promotes trust.

How can I know when someone is honest and therefore worthy of my trust? When he comes to me unbidden to notify me and explain to me his mistake. Too often we fear that admitting mistakes will make people think ill of us. More detail on this in a future article.

• It saves time.

When you get to be my age, you recognize the value of time.

Trying to figure out who did something when they are unwilling to admit it on their own is why the job of a detective is so difficult. I don’t want to be a detective. I don’t have time to be a detective. Everyone makes mistakes. Own up to it and let’s get back on track. Life is too short and our work is too important for us to play these games. My own mindset is, “I hate being wrong, but I love being corrected”. Let’s say I am in front of a class and I either misspeak, or I am misinformed. If a student notices the mistake and keeps silent about it, he is not taking ownership of his part in the class. If I refuse to listen to a student attempt at correction, I am not taking ownership of my part in the class. Certainly, I try hard to neither misspeak nor be misinformed, but I am no more perfect than anyone else. This must work from both sides in the shop. The tech must be willing to “own up”. The manager must develop an environment that supports techs that do so. As with many human interactions, it can devolve into each being so committed to self-justification that they simply focus on the flaws of the other. Taking ownership, whether you are in charge or not, can have a profound effect on those you work with.

Another practical idea.

Taking ownership does not mean you micromanage others. Yes, there are times in which you look over the shoulder of a trainee to monitor, direct, and encourage. But, if you need to micromanage, either you or your tech is not qualified for the job.

Tell your tech something once and walk away. Give him the opportunity to take ownership. If he does not, correct him and then give him another opportunity. Then decide how many opportunities you are willing to give.

This brings me to the final point. If you want your technicians to take ownership of their responsibilities, you must take ownership of yours. You must set an example of admitting mistakes while tolerating other’s mistakes; of establishing boundaries and living with imperfection; of finding that fine line between being a pushover and a tyrant.