Empowering Teams to Exceed Expectations: A Lesson in Problem-Solving and Collaboration

Several years ago, I had the opportunity to work with a hardwood plywood company in Truman, Arkansas. It was a plant full of hardworking people, and my job was to teach them team-based problem-solving. At the time, the plant was producing around 2,400 panels of high-quality hardwood plywood per day, given the constraints of their equipment and process.

One day, I was sitting in the general manager’s office when a call came in from a customer with a request that could change everything. They wanted to increase their order significantly, pushing the demand to around 3,000 panels per day—something that would stretch the plant’s capacity. The potential benefits were clear: more business, better opportunities for the team, and a stronger reputation with this new customer. But the challenge was equally obvious: how could the team pull off such an increase?

The general manager was hesitant. He was worried that presenting this higher demand might feel like an unreasonable ask, and he struggled with how to approach the team about it. Should he push them harder? Should he ask them to take on more than they might be comfortable with?

I suggested a different approach. Rather than dictating what was needed, why not bring the team into the conversation? I encouraged him to explain the customer had requested a significant increase and then ask the team what they thought was possible. It wasn’t an easy sell, but eventually, the general manager agreed to give it a shot.

So, he gathered the entire plant team for a meeting. He explained that a new customer, likely to be a long-term partner, had a significant volume request that would stretch the plant’s capabilities. Instead of focusing on what management needed, he framed it as what the customer needed, asking the team what they thought they could do to meet that demand.

The team was engaged immediately. They asked detailed questions about the order— its duration, the size and types and what changes might be needed. Then, in a big surprise to everyone they suggested they could probably produce 3,200 panels per day with some small process changes. Their response blew us away.

With their ideas on the table, the general manager committed to working with them on the necessary changes. They also tackled external challenges like supply chain adjustments to ensure everything would be in place for success. Just a few days later, with a couple of tweaks in place, the team decided to test their limits. Without informing the leadership team, the production team leader and the team ran the plant hard, working through breaks and lunch, and hit a remarkable 4,300 panels in a single day.

Now, let’s be clear: 4,300 wasn’t a sustainable number—they knew it, we knew it—but that wasn’t the point. What mattered was what the team had learned in the process. They had proven to themselves what was possible when everyone pulled together. The experiment taught them about the power of setting their own high goals rather than having those goals handed down to them. They saw the difference between responding to customer demand versus simply meeting management’s requirements. And they learned how small, thoughtful changes in the process could lead to significant improvements in productivity.

But perhaps the most important lesson that day was about pride. The pride that comes from setting a goal—one that pushes you beyond your comfort zone—and then achieving it. It was a moment that shaped not just the team’s approach to work, but the entire culture of the plant. Involving the team in the goal-setting process wasn’t just a practical decision; it took a good team and make them great.

In the end, everyone walked away from that experience understanding that when people are trusted to solve problems, they often exceed expectations. And that’s a lesson worth remembering in any organization.

About the Author

Paul Doyle
Paul Doyle is the founder of LeaderWork. He brings more than 35 years of diverse business experience, including 15 years as a CEO, leading manufacturing companies. Paul has been active in North America with companies ranging from $20 million to $450 million in revenue.