Extreme Ownership on the Plant Floor

In maintenance and reliability, we often focus heavily on technical topics. We talk about condition monitoring, lubrication best practices, root cause analysis, and reliability engineering frameworks. Those things absolutely matter. But in my experience working with organizations around the world, the biggest difference between successful reliability programs and struggling ones usually isn’t technical knowledge. It’s leadership.

More specifically, it’s ownership.

One of my favorite books on leadership is Extreme Ownership by former Navy SEAL Jocko Willink. The premise is straightforward: everyone owns the outcome. Not just the person at the top of the organizational chart, and not just management. Everyone.

And this is not one of those “when everyone owns it, no one owns it...” scenarios, like Milton Friedman once said. I’ll explain why.

Over the years, I’ve noticed three specific leadership behaviors that consistently make the biggest difference: owning communication, empowering people to contribute their strengths, and clearly demonstrating the value of reliability. 

 

Ownership Starts with Communication

Most problems any organization faces can be traced back to a breakdown in communication. Anyone who has worked in a plant environment understands how easily information gets distorted as it moves through an organization. The telephone game would appear crystal clear compared to today’s reality. We’re all humans with our own biases. Distractions. Stresses. Technical backgrounds. Personal judgements. The original intent of a message or vision can easily be skewed with the every day nuances.

Leaders often assume communication is primarily their responsibility when direction is given. They believe that if they’ve explained the mission, the team should understand it. But extreme ownership challenges that assumption. Ownership of communication belongs to both the sender and the receiver.

Leaders must take responsibility for clearly explaining objectives, priorities, and expectations. At the same time, the people receiving those instructions have a responsibility to ensure they truly understand them. If something isn’t clear, it’s their job to ask questions and confirm the purpose behind the task.

Understanding the “why” behind a decision is critical in reliability work. Without that context, even well-intentioned employees may begin to improvise.

For example, when someone looks at a lubrication procedure and thinks, “This step seems unnecessary,” or “There’s an easier way to do this.” The shortcut may feel efficient in the moment, but it has the potential to undermine the entire objective. Whether that objective is contamination control, precision lubrication, or consistent condition monitoring practices, you need to know “why” and make an effort to align with it.

Reliability programs depend heavily on consistency. Whether it’s lubrication routes, oil sampling procedures, or vibration monitoring intervals, deviations introduce risk and degrade the data collected. Extreme ownership means making sure everyone understands not just what they’re doing, but why doing it a particular way matters.

At the same time, leaders must recognize that communication will always be difficult. It’s not something you solve once and move on from. Every shift, every new employee, and every operational change introduces new opportunities for misalignment. Strong leaders simply accept that reality and continue working to improve communication every day. 

 

Clear Ownership Builds Stronger Programs

Now, let me flip this around. Sometimes you hear phrases like “reliability is everyone’s responsibility.” The intention behind that statement is good. Reliability absolutely requires collaboration between operations, maintenance, engineering, and management.

But there’s a risk hidden in that idea. In this context, there still needs to be a central “owner” to maintain focus.

Lubrication provides a good example. In many facilities, lubrication responsibilities are loosely distributed. Operators may add grease. Mechanics may change oil. Reliability engineers may specify lubricants or sampling intervals. Over time, those responsibilities can blur.

Eventually, no single person feels fully accountable for maintaining the overall standard.

When that happens, small problems begin to accumulate. Lubrication intervals drift. Contamination control practices weaken. Oil analysis reports aren’t reviewed closely enough. Equipment failures begin appearing in maintenance logs as bearing failures, overheating motors, or premature gearbox wear.

The connection back to degrading lubrication practices is often lost.

Clear ownership helps prevent that drift. Every reliability initiative (whether it’s precision lubrication, condition monitoring, or root cause failure analysis) needs defined accountability. Someone must be responsible for maintaining the standard, tracking performance, and driving improvement.

At the same time, leaders should recognize that teams evolve. A reliability program built ten years ago may have been perfectly suited to the people who designed it. But organizations change. Employees retire, new hires arrive, and teams bring different backgrounds, better aptitude with new technologies and fresh experiences.

Trying to force every new team member to work exactly the way a previous team did can limit progress. Change must be tolerated with changes in personnel.

The fundamental principles of reliability remain consistent. Especially with understanding “why” we implement solutions for contamination control, proactive maintenance, and condition monitoring. The core is what matters. How we get there might changes, and the way teams implement those principles can improve as new ideas emerge.

Many of the best improvements come from people who bring experience from other industries or facilities. When leaders encourage those contributions and allow people to lean into their strengths, reliability programs grow stronger. 

 

Turning Ideas into Action

One of the most common frustrations I hear from reliability professionals is that their ideas don’t always get traction within the organization.

A technician, engineer, or supervisor may identify a better approach -perhaps a new monitoring technology, an improved lubrication practice, or a more effective contamination control method. They present the idea once, and the conversation moves on.

It’s easy to assume the idea was rejected. In many cases, that isn’t actually what happened.

Leaders and managers often juggle dozens of priorities at any given time. An idea may be heard and even appreciated, but other urgent issues take precedence.

This is where persistence becomes important.

If someone brings an idea forward once, it may be noted but then forgotten. If they bring it forward again, maybe next time with research, data, or a small pilot example, it starts to stick out and hopefully showcase the “why”.

I sometimes describe this as “standing on the table.” Not literally, of course, but figuratively. It means advocating for an idea with enough passion and persistence that people begin to pay attention.

In some situations, the best way to demonstrate value is simply to take action on a small scale. If someone believes a different lubrication practice will reduce contamination, they might test it on a limited group of assets. If the results show improvement (lower particle counts, reduced wear metals, longer component life, etc.), those results become powerful evidence.

There’s a phrase my dad has repeated for years that has always stuck with me: the world rewards action.Ideas are important, but execution is what ultimately creates results.

 

Demonstrating the Value of Reliability

Reliability professionals often face another challenge: demonstrating the financial value of proactive work.

Many reliability initiatives focus on preventing failures before they occur. While that’s exactly what organizations want, it creates a perception challenge. When something doesn’t fail, it can be difficult to prove what was avoided.

That’s why documentation and case studies are so important.

Whenever a failure occurs, it presents an opportunity to learn. Root cause failure analysis can reveal whether the problem stemmed from contamination, improper lubrication, misalignment, fatigue, or other causes.

Once the cause is understood, the full financial impact becomes clearer.

The cost of failure goes far beyond the price of a damaged bearing or gearbox. It includes lost production, labor, overtime, expedited parts, safety risk, and potential quality issues. When organizations document those costs, reliability improvements become easier to justify.

At that point, reliability initiatives shift from being perceived as expenses to being recognized as investments.

For example, implementing contamination control measures such as better filtration, sealed lubricant storage systems, and high-quality breathers requires upfront investment. But if those measures prevent repeated, expensive gearbox failures, the return soon becomes obvious.

Condition monitoring technologies like oil analysis, vibration analysis, and thermography play an essential role in this process. Without reliable data, organizations struggle to measure progress or demonstrate improvement.

There’s a common saying in management: what gets measured gets done. Reliability programs become far more effective when teams track meaningful metrics such as contamination levels, equipment health indicators, and failure rates. That data allows organizations to continuously refine their strategies and find the right balance between proactive maintenance and operational cost.

 

Reliability Leadership Belongs to…

Earlier I warned about a phrase you hear a lot in industry: “reliability is everyone’s responsibility.” The problem is that when responsibility gets spread that broadly, it often ends up meaning nobody really owns it.

So yes, I realize what I’m about to say next sounds a little hypocritical – bear with me:

Reliability leadership really does belong to everyone.

If you’ve ever seen the movie Ratatouille, there’s a moment where the food critic realizes he misunderstood the chef’s famous line, “Anyone can cook.” What it really meant wasn’t that everyone can become a great chef—it meant that a great talent can come from anywhere.

Reliability leadership works the same way.

The work itself still needs clear ownership. Lubrication routes need assigned technicians. Condition monitoring programs need defined analysts. Root cause investigations need someone accountable for driving them forward. Without that clarity, reliability programs lose structure quickly.

But leadership can show up anywhere. It shows up when a technician questions a shortcut that could introduce contamination. When an operator flags abnormal vibration before it becomes a failure. When an engineer stands on a table to pushing forward an idea that could improve the program.

Extreme ownership means not waiting for a title to take initiative.

The plants that build strong reliability cultures aren’t just the ones with the best technology or the biggest budgets. They’re the ones where people throughout the organization take ownership of reliability and help move it forward together.

When that happens, reliability stops looking like a maintenance expense.

It becomes a driver of performance, safety, and long-term success.