Tag Archives: leadership

Dr. Deming’s Joy at Work, Happiness, & the High Performance Organization

Posted on by
8

w.edwards_demingDr. Deming was fond of promoting the idea that every employee should be able to achieve joy at work and that joy would lead to improved quality and a high performance organization. The research on happiness or positive psychology supports the value of his intuition. Seeking happiness is consistent with seeking a high performance organization.

“Management’s overall aim should be to create a system in which everybody may take joy in his work.” Dr. W. Edwards Deming

The cynic may picture workers sitting around with a drink in hand, party hats, and dancing around the workplace in a silly display of “joy.” But, obviously that is not what Deming was promoting. He was promoting the need and possibility of intrinsic reinforcement, joy from the job itself, the achievement, the self-satisfaction derived from the ability to improve and control one’s own work.

We have all experienced joy in our work. Whenever I have asked clients to identify the time they felt most joy in their work they are likely to describe a time when they were engaged in meeting a challenge and succeeding. That challenge might be learning a new job or developing and instituting a new process or product. Or, they may point to a time when they were working with a great team of colleagues who shared the same goal and determination. In other words, they were not partying, they were performing. Great parties are quickly forgotten, great performance is long remembered.

Happiness and the High Performance Organization

Dr. Deming’s instruction was based more on his own excellent intuition than on any research. However, in the past twenty years, the most popular area of psychological research has been in what is known as positive psychology, very simply the study of psychological wellness, rather than illness. The first book I read on this subject was Authentic Happiness by Martin Seligman and I recommend it highly. Since its publication there have been a flood of happiness books. I would encourage you to explore Dr. Seligman’s Authentic Happiness website where you can take a survey to find out how happy you are while at the same time contributing to his research data base.

So, what is the big finding of positive psychology?

“The belief that we can rely on shortcuts to happiness, joy, rapture, comfort, and ecstasy, rather than be entitled to these feelings by the exercise of personal strengths and virtues, leads to legions of people who in the middle of great wealth are starving spiritually. Positive emotions alienated from the exercise of character leads to emptiness, to in-authenticity, to depression, and, as we age, to the gnawing realization that we are fidgeting until we die.” (Authentic Happiness, p. 8)

In other words, if eating chocolate sundaes, sex and money resulted in authentic happiness you would find the happiest people to be those who have the most money, sex and ice cream. But, that simply isn’t so. They are more likely to be the most depressed and anxious. What does lead to happiness is knowing what your strengths are, developing and exercising those strengths; and exercising the virtues of character and strong social relationships. People who have a strong community of relatives and friends are happier than those who have few friends and only distant relatives. Those who are optimistic and have hope in achieving a positive goal are happier than those who are pessimistic or feeling helpless.

Happiness Findings and What You Should Do at Work

If you read many of the books that are based on research (below I provide a recommended reading list) you will find that there is a consensus view regarding the key factors that lead to a happy life and each of them has direct implications for creating a happy and productive workplace. Here they are:

1. Strong Social Relationships Lead to Joy

Forty percent of those who are married say they are “very happy” while only 24 percent of those who are not married report being very happy. That advantage holds for men and women, young and old. Very happy people spend the most time in socializing and the least time alone. People who are very sociable, good conversationalists, good listeners, tend to be happier and more likely to be married. It is hard to separate cause from effect because each of these factors reinforces the others. In other words if you are more sociable you are more likely to be married, and the reverse is true.

Religious belief and participation in a religious community strongly correlates with happiness. Religious Americans are less likely to abuse drugs, get divorced, commit crimes, or kill themselves. They are also physically healthier and live longer. There are several possible causes. One is simply that a strong moral code or value system provides guidance that directs one to behavior that is more satisfying and less the cause of unhappiness. Another possible explanation is that religion is often the basis of community life, a strong social network.

What does this tell us about creating “joy at work?” Joy is rarely derived alone. It is most likely to come from a strong social network, teams and teamwork, in the workplace. The family farm and early craft shop was a strong social relationship and provided security and happiness. The factories of mass production in which each worker was told “do your own work” led to isolation and alienation. The formation of unions, in which they called each other “brothers” was a natural act of psychological survival. Now we know that creating natural brotherhoods and sisterhoods, social bonds, in the workplace creates both happiness and leads to productive behavior. Almost all innovation is the result of trusting relationships and teamwork.

It is the duty of the manager to assure that no one is alone in their work and that everyone is a member of a supportive group, a social network or team.

2. We Derive Joy from our Strengths

Playing tennis does not make me happy. Dancing does not make me happy. Why? Because I suck at those things. Playing the guitar, and more particularly, learning a new tune on the guitar, makes me very happy. As you might guess, I am a decent guitar player (at least in my own mind and I ask you not to interrupt that thought) and a student of folk blues guitar. We all have strengths and a healthy workplace is composed of people with diverse strengths. Recognizing the value of that diversity, the contribution of each strength, provides the opportunity for joy. A great workplace is an orchestra comprised of individual competencies playing in harmony.

There is a close relationship between Toyota’s principle of “respect for people” and Honda’s principle that “the world’s greatest experts are on-the-spot” and the joy that comes from building and using your strengths. In every workplace, every member of the organization should be respected for his or her expertise. They should know that they are expert and have the dignity and the joy that comes from that self-awareness and from building that strength. Or, in my guitar example, from learning a new tune. Learning, building on strengths, brings joy.

Does this mean that weakness should be ignored? No. If an employee is weak at showing up on time or completing assigned work, those weaknesses must be addressed. But, we should identify individual strengths, employ, celebrate and strengthen those. This is what makes for a joyful workplace.

Recently I was in a manufacturing plant in which many line production workers had been trained to do only one repetitive job and had been at it for many years. What do you think happens to the mind when someone does only one job and does it day after day, year after year? It is deadly. These same workers can be trained to do every job on the line. This increases the flexibility of the manufacturing process and increases every workers ability to solve problems and improve the process. Multi-skilled workers are more valuable than single-skilled workers. And, where does the joy come from? It comes from being on an effective team and having developed multiple skills that allow the worker to help others in their work. The greater the ability to contribute to the team, the greater the self-worth of the individual.

3. Money Does Make You Happy… To A Point

One of the great myths of motivation is that money doesn’t motivate. For some reason I always hear this from the person in the organization who makes the most money. It’s rubbish! It is fair to assume that everyone is motivated to be happy. The question then is, “Does money make you happy?” Let me quote from Christopher Peterson’s excellent book Pursuing the Good Life:

“Research shows that income has a positive relationship with happiness (life satisfaction), although it is not a straight line. As income increases, its added contribution to life satisfaction becomes smaller. The impact of additional income is greatest among those who have little money, but it does not stop mattering, even after someone is able to meet basic needs.”

When the life satisfaction of people who live in poor countries is compared to those who live in wealthier nations there is a strong correlation of wealth to happiness. The least happy nations are the poorest. However, once a certain level of wealth is achieved, it matters little. As Seligman writes, “So, the Swiss are happier than the Bulgarians, but it hardly matters if one is Irish, Italian or American.” Once a basic level of wealth is achieved, there is little gain in happiness above that.

In other words, if a manufacturing level work can raise his or her income enough to be able to save for retirement and for a child’s education, that increase does bring greater joy. The additional money has real utility. If the CEO of the company gets a raise from ten million dollars a year to eleven million dollars a year, after a day or two of self-congratulations, he will experience no greater happiness. In other words, that investment was a lousy one in terms of happiness gained.

We also know that money, or any reward, effects behavior when there is a contingency, an if-then relationship between performance and money. You all have used “if you eat your vegetables, then you can have dessert.” Or, if you study hard, you will get a good grade. Those are contingent relationships. Therefore, if you learn these additional skills and can perform these additional job functions, you will earn X more per hour in compensation, does in fact motivate performance.

4. Altruism, Performing Work in the Spirit of Service, Makes You Happy

Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead) was wrong! In her promotion of the pseudo religion of objectivism she decried altruism and promoted self-interest as the highest ethic and displayed great misunderstanding of altruism.

“What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value… Time and again, I have found that the basic evil behind today’s ugliest phenomena is altruism. Well, I told you so. I have been telling you so since We The Living, which was published in 1936.” Ayn Rand

Unfortunately, Rand’s cynicism has permeated our political and social lives. You may choose between Ayn Rand’s view of ethics as the pursuit of self-interest or you can choose the virtue of the great religions: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” (Mathew 7:12). Or, “One should seek for others the happiness one desires for himself” – Buddha. In Taoism - “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” Let me suggest an even more practical argument. From a Darwinian, survival of the fittest point of view, this teaching of altruism has survived through the ages in every great religion. Its universality and survival is a testimony to its truth and utility. The study of ant hills and beehives has similarly demonstrated that service and sacrifice for the common good is an essential survival trait engrained in the genetic codes of bees and ants. It likely is engrained in our own as well.

Of course, Ayn Rand was an atheist who enjoyed the adoration (and book royalties!) of those seeking to justify their own pursuit of self-interest. But what every great religion taught as the Golden Rule is exactly what leads to a deeper and more authentic happiness. It turns out that doing for others, serving others, is ultimately in one’s own self-interest, an investment returned in happiness.

Much has been written about the pursuit of a worthy purpose in life, a legacy to look back upon. A worthy or noble purpose is never about oneself, but rather the good one may do for others. The knowledge that one is in pursuit of a noble purpose has the effect of ennobling oneself. One can argue that engaging in charity and service to others, sacrificing for others, is paradoxically, an act of self-interest because it leads to greater personal happiness.

All organizations have a responsibility to create a sense of meaning in the lives of those who dwell within its walls. Every great leader has understood his or her responsibility to ennoble their followers by holding up that which is worthy in their work and calling upon followers to sacrifice for that which is worthy, the good of the whole, the worthy purpose. In doing so the leader is giving them the gift of self-worth and meaning.

 5. Optimism and Creative Dissatisfaction Generate Performance

Norman Vincent Peal was right. The Power of Positive Thinking is one of the most popular management and self help books of all time. He had no scientific data to support his philosophy, but like Dr. Deming, he had good intuition and powers of observation. You can summarize its guidance in this quote:

“Formulate and stamp indelibly on your mind a mental picture of yourself succeeding. Hold this picture tenaciously. Never permit it to fade. Your mind will seek to develop the picture…Do not build up obstacles in your imagination.”

Today we might view this as somewhat sophomoric advice from a bygone age. But, it turns out, that today’s science proves that he was right on the money. Martin Seligman wrote a great book title Learned Optimism which followed his less happy book, Learned Helplessness. In it he sites a great deal of research that demonstrated that well functioning, high performing, individuals are essentially optimistic and not pessimistic.

“The optimists and the pessimists: I have been studying them for the past twenty-five years. The defining characteristic of pessimists is that they tend to believe bad events will last a long time, will undermine everything they do, and are their own fault. The optimists, who are confronted with the same hard knocks of this world, think about misfortune in the opposite way. They tend to believe defeat is just a temporary setback, that its causes are confined to this one case. The optimists believe defeat is not their fault: Circumstances, bad luck, or other people brought it about. Such people are unfazed by defeat. Confronted by a bad situation, they perceive it as a challenge and try harder.” Martin Seligman in Learned Optimism.

In other words – hire optimists and not pessimists! Create a culture of optimism, of hope, of belief in a positive future for your organization. Winning cultures and winning teams are optimistic. No football coach before the game gave a speech to his team in which he said, “Well boys, we have no chance of beating this team, so let’s go out there and take what’s coming to us!” And, subsequently won the game. Losers tend to believe in their own defeat.

The positive psychology research has demonstrated that “On average, optimistic individuals are healthier because they take care of themselves; optimistic students earn better grades because they go to class; optimistic insurance agents sell more policies because they make cold calls; and so on.” (Peterson, p. 89.)

Why a photo of Penelope Cruz? Because it is much more rewarding than the photo of Dr. Deming and you deserve a reward for reading this far. And, it may give my male readers some optimism. Or, depression. It’s up to you!

However, optimists also need what I have termed creative dissatisfaction in order to motivate high performance. In order for positive reinforcement to have its effect there must be deprivation and not satiation. Creative dissatisfaction is the awareness of the gap between where I am or who I am and where I could be or who I could be. I could have a best selling book. I could get that promotion. I could get that better job or learn that new skill. On the other hand, I will never play in the NBA or make love to Penelope Cruz. I am pretty sure of both of those things, although if Penelope wants to contact me that would be nice.

It is a core function of leadership in every organization to generate both optimism or hope and creative dissatisfaction. Where are we going and why will it be great when we get there? How will we get there? What must I do to help us get there? Effective leaders provide the answer to these questions and generate both optimism and creative dissatisfaction.

So, to summarize how you can instill joy and high performance in your organization:

  1. Build great teams! Be sure that every employee serves on a well functioning team with knowledge of its purpose and its performance. Encourage celebration of winning team goals and setting records.
  2. Build internal social networks. Build social networks around common interests and competencies. These become learning networks that provide both the joy of social relationships but also the joy of learning.
  3. Be sure to practice respect for people and recognize that the world’s greatest experts are those who are on-the-spot, with their hands on the work. This builds their self-esteem and encourages learning.
  4. Institute a process of gaining flexibility through multi-skilled, cross trained employees who can optimize the effectiveness of their teams.
  5. Stop wasting money where it doesn’t pay off and spend it where it does. Pay employees for gaining skills and achieving performance. Value high performance by paying for it.
  6. Know and promote the worthy purpose of your organization. Ennoble your employees by connecting them to a spirit of service. This is the essence of leadership.
  7. Hire optimists and not pessimists. Generate hope and optimism by clearly stating where we are going and why it will be great when we get there. Generate creative dissatisfaction in yourself and your employees.

If you do these things you will be applying much of the current research in positive psychology and it will fulfill Dr. Deming’s guidance to provide joy at work.

Recommended Reading: (You can quickly order through the Amazon links at the bottom of this page.)

  • Authentic Happiness by Martin Seligman
  • Pursuing the Good Life by Christopher Peterson
  • Happiness and the Good Life by Mike W. Martin
  • Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert

The Practice of a Lean Management System: Achieving Economic Efficiency and Social Intimacy

Posted on by
1

Many years ago one of the first books I read on management was Peter Drucker’s The Practice of Management. In it Drucker defined and extolled the virtues of the management profession and gave credit to Alfred Sloan the longtime CEO of General Motors for developing the model of professional management in much the same way we speak of Toyota today. The system that Alfred Sloan created at GM was built on the theory  of management as a distinct profession, separate from engineering and other specialties.

Womack’s View of Modern vs. Lean Management

Jim Womack’s (founder of LEI Institute) recent book, Gemba Walks, contains a number of interesting and helpful short essays. These are Womack’s more recent meditations on the implementation of lean management. One of the more interesting, in my view, is his essay on Modern Management vs. Lean Management in which he contrasts the system of management build by Sloan at GM and lean management as it was built at Toyota.

What then is the contrast between the “modern management” of Sloan and the lean management of Toyota/Honda? These are the contrasts that Womack describes:

This is a great list and you could literally write a book with a chapter on each of these contrasts. Let me make a few comments on these contrasts by putting them in the context of a matrix I have long used to describe the transformations of organization cultures from the family farm forward.

Modern management at General Motors created a social class system, a disunity or social strata, and that disunity was the ultimate cause of collapse, as it has been in every civilization.

Social Intimacy and Economic Efficiency: The Miracle of Lean

Those of you who have participated in one of my seminars have no doubt heard me discuss the idea of sociobiology, that there are not only physical, but behavioral characteristics that are genetically passed on because of their contribution to our survival. For most of human history, beginning on the Serengeti Plains of Africa where we hunted antelope in small tribal groups, human beings have worked in family units.  The family farm and the small craft shop structure are only the more recent examples of work systems where there was high social intimacy, high interdependence, and high trust.

This so-called modern management that Womack speaks of began at Ford with the specialization and separation of work and management, the separation of doing versus deciding, and the isolation of workers who were instructed to “do your own work.” This instilled fear and created the loss of the social intimacy that had become the “natural” work environment for the human species over the previous millions of years. The work system and organizations of both Ford and Sloan had become contrary to human nature. This led to the natural rebellion, the need for association, the need for “brothers” in the union as inner city youth seek the safety and security of their brothers and sisters in gangs. Seeking security in groups is healthy psychological survival behavior in the presence of isolation and fear.

The industrial revolution and the revolution in management and organization had created great gains in productivity, economic efficiency, but had destroyed the social intimacy necessary to well functioning human beings and well functioning social systems.

Each of Womack’s contrasts between “modern management” and lean can be seen in this light. Decisions being made remotely versus decisions on the spot is another way of describing the class system, the alienation of leader and led, top to bottom, which almost always results in rebellion from below. The same is true for “staffs improving the process versus teams and those close to the work” improving the process. Similarly, standardization by staff groups versus standardization by line managers and those doing the work is another symptom of the this vertically disengaged culture. Experiments by those doing the work, versus imposed plans from above is the same. Each of these contrasts described by Womack illustrate how lean management is solving the social and psychological alienation created by both Ford and Sloan.

Lean Could Follow Modern Management: Pride Precedeth the Fall

While I generally agree with Womack’s analysis he does leave out an important historical context. The system of production created by Henry Ford was a great advance over craft-shop production in economic efficiency. Resources were made more productive – capital, labor and materials. However, as that system conquered the world of manufacturing it led to the excess of specialization or fragmentation of work, the dis-empowerment of workers, inhuman working conditions, bullying supervision and the natural response of unionization as a counter force. Ford’s system, still extolled by Toyota, became barbaric.

Similarly, there was much initial good in the system of management created by Alfred Sloan. Ford’s system did not provide for the management of a large differentiated organization and the integration of diverse and complex functions. The General Motors system added this capability by creating accounting and control systems that enabled the design of a diverse range of cars, sharing many parts, and utilizing shared engineering and production facilities. GM developed a superior system of administration and this is why GM overtook Ford and became the leading manufacturer of automobiles. It wasn’t until Ford hired Robert McNamara and “the Wiz Kids” after World War II that Ford developed its own system of management.

General Motors not only developed a system of integrated organization, but they promoted and developed professional managers. An entire hierarchy and departments of professional managers emerged. Power and decision making shifted from the engineers to the professional managers, accountants and strategic planners. However, just as happened at Ford, excess pride in their system led to the assumption that all things could be solved by professional accounting and strategic planning systems. Unfortunately for GM, none of those systems of “modern management” as Womack calls them, could engineer a superior car or produce one with few defects. Both GM and Ford grew to place excess faith in their accounting and administrative systems and failed to focus on the core skills of engineering and manufacturing.

This historical context is important because each management theory or system has its day and makes its contribution. And then, their methods tend to become mechanical, bureaucratic, a set of standardized and unthinking procedures that blind their followers to new methods. And are there no signs of the same in lean implementation? Is 5S, standard work, and other methods becoming bureaucratized? Are lean practitioners a little too certain about what they think they know?

Pride and arrogance always precede the fall, whether in civilizations, companies or management methods. Lean practitioners beware!

The Miracle of the Lean Management System

The miracle of lean organizations is the achievement of both economic efficiency and social intimacy. This can truly be labeled “the high performing organization” because it not only serves the needs of customers but also the needs of the people within the organization. It achieves not only business performance, but it enables the realization of human potential. It is not only a technical system, but a social system.

The power of well functioning teams, at every level, is that they are the key to creating unity of social intimacy and economic efficiency. Teams are the family unit of modern organization. Having done some work at both Ford and General Motors I can tell you that the psychological isolation was not only symptomatic on the factory floor, but in senior management ranks as well. They were not safe environments. Isolation, whether a worker at one machine in the factory, or within the confining walls of an executive office, leads to fear and distrust. The elimination of walls and silos must be both horizontal, between departments, as well as between levels of management and employees. Disunity must be replaced by social unity.

At this same time I was involved at Honda in Marysville and the social unity between leaders and led was obvious and in stark contrast to the alienation at GM and Ford. The arrogance of “professional management” was gone and replaced by a deep respect for those who did the value adding work on-the-spot.

I am seeing lean implementations that address front line work processes, but fail to recognize the social illnesses that have been created over many years of fragmented organization, the dead carcass of so-called modern management. The principles of lean management that Womack articulates can heal that illness.

Straight Talk: Avoid the Con of Quick and Easy Lean

Posted on by
7

Lean is a strategic initiative that will require at least three to five years for any organization of size. It is a lifestyle change, not a diet.

(The following was published earlier today in Industry Week’s Continuous Improvement newsletter)

I recently spoke to the head of lean implementation at a large European-based manufacturing and engineering organization. He is discouraged. Contrary to his advice, the senior executives just agreed to purchase the services of a major consulting firm to implement lean.

What they bought were a series of quick and simple kaizen events in which the participants would do A3 problem-solving, and the consultants guaranteed quick financial results. The executives were assured that it would require no burden on their part, just verbal and financial support (for the consultants) and the consultants would handle everything else.

Simple. No problem.

These executives were led to believe that they would then be “doing lean,” Toyota Production System and all that good stuff. There is one thing I can absolutely guarantee you, in addition to the sun rising tomorrow. They will NOT be doing lean or TPS!!

Quick and easy solution = quick and easy sell. Unfortunately, more and more executives are being duped into what is essentially a scam.

Let’s be honest about this problem. Many senior executives suffer ADD (attention deficit disorder) and lack the tenacity, vision or as Dr. Deming would say, the “constancy of purpose,” to implement significant change in the culture and processes of their organizations. Feeding them quick and easy solutions is like selling dope to a drug addict.

Here are some clues to avoiding the scam:

  • If you want to achieve short-term financial gains by just cutting head count, don’t pretend it’s anything associated with lean. And don’t imagine you need a consulting firm to help you. Just do it! Then work on the important stuff.
  • If someone comes into your office and promises you short-term financial results and claims it’s “lean management,” throw him out of your office and tell him never to come back! Check to see that your watch is still on your wrist, first.
  • If someone claims that lean is doing 5S, an A3 or A4 problem-solving sheet or PDCA, they do not know lean and are appealing to your ADD. Tell them to stop insulting you, you have already taken your Ritalin for the day!
  • If someone tells you that you can implement lean “down there,” while you and other senior managers remain unscathed, avoiding effort or pain, tell them you have seen enough late-night cable-TV commercials telling you how to lose 50 pounds without breaking a sweat! It ain’t gonna happen!

On the other hand, here is some straight talk about implementing lean:

  • Lean is a strategic initiative that will require at least three to five years for any organization of size. It is a lifestyle change, not a diet.
  • It requires active leadership. Mr. Toyoda and Mr. Honda were both directly involved in shaping the culture, driving what was important in the organization and recognizing success. They did the gemba walk, were on the spot, where the value-adding work gets done, learning from those who are expert in the work.

Ray Kroc did it too. Ray Kroc spent half of his time visiting McDonald’s locations, and when he did, if the bathroom was dirty, he grabbed the bucket and mop and cleaned it. That was when he was chairman, with tens of thousands of stores. You may think he was crazy, but he did it. He built one of the most significant corporations in the world around a few core values (quick, clean and courteous), and he demonstrated their importance through his own behavior.

You need to do it!

  • Knowledge of lean is more important at the top than at the bottom. The cost of waste is far higher in the poor decisions made by managers and executives than it is on the front lines. Time and again I have seen senior executives making multi-million-dollar decisions without following any disciplined decision process — little fact finding, little brainstorming of root causes of problems, little brainstorming of potential solutions, etc. Adopting lean management means continuous improvement in management processes and behavior, as well as the processes and behavior on the front lines.
  • Consultants cannot do it for you. Use experienced consultants to develop internal capacity and competence among internal change agents and then work themselves out of a job at your company. You need to own the capability to continuously improve. You do not need to continuously employ consulting firms. Consultants should also be willing to deliver straight talk to senior managers. It is hard for internals to look you in the eye and tell you that you need to change! But, that is often the truth, and an external consultant must be a truth teller.
  • Lean is a culture, not an acronym or a workshop. Certainly 5S, A3s, etc., may be part of lean implementation, but they can also be an excuse for not doing the really important things like knocking down significant walls in the flow of work through the organization. Those walls are management walls. Lean requires the development a healthy value system in the organization, and that cannot happen in the short term. It can start tomorrow, but it must be pursued continuously by the leaders of the organization.
  • Lean management is both a social and a technical system, and both need to change together.Yes, lean is just-in-time inventory management, continuous-flow or interruption-free processes, the adoption of IT solutions that enable the process flow, etc. That is the technical system. But it only works if the social system — the trust in employees, the empowerment to make decisions and improve processes at the first level, teamwork, the respect for those who are on the spot, and the recognition and reinforcement of positive behavior — are all aligned to the new work processes. One without the other is likely to lead to short lived success.

And, one more thing: Straight talk, absolutely honest, frank and open conversation about both problems and successes, is a necessity of developing a lean culture. In fact, it is an absolute necessity of any healthy organization, family, community or country. It requires straight talk both to and from leaders.

Comment:

If you detect a note (or a shout!) of sarcastic annoyance in the above you are right. That is a response to a pattern I have seen over and over again from the most prestigious and largest consulting firms. During the TQM days I was working at Inland Steel and one of these prestigious firms was employed there claiming they were implementing TQM. They formed teams of employees to do little more than identify how many heads could be cut. That was their goal, not any change in process or culture. It didn’t take long for employees to catch on. And, they called it TQM. It was nothing of the kind. Now I am seeing that exact same pattern from that same firm and others. I am frankly sick of this exploitation. It needs to stop and someone needs to call them on it. If they really want to implement lean or TQM then they should learn what it really is and have the intellectual honesty to confront the executives of their clients with the real commitment and change in behavior that it will require of those executives. And, that will not appeal to those addicted to quick and easy solutions. It is a fundamental of consulting ethics that you do not simply sell a client what they think they want. You have a moral obligation to tell them what they need, which is often much more difficult and a harder sell.

Also, this is not a condemnation of consultants in general. After all, I am one. And, I know and would recommend many other consultants who have integrity and skill and are not appealing to this quick and easy addiction.

Well, I am glad I got that off my chest!

Have a great day!

 

Lean Leadership – The ONE Quality that Matters Most

Posted on by
9

I have thought for a long time that there is a profound relationship between the personal qualities, even spiritual qualities, of leaders and the management practices of the organization. When we implement lean management we tend to be focused on value stream maps, leader standard work, problem-solving skills, etc., all of which are important, but all of which produce little if they are not accompanied by one essential personal characteristic.

Rupert Murdoch: Humble or Hubris?

Watching bits of the testimony of Rupert Murdoch and son before the British Parliament I was struck by his planned and deliberate comment that this was the most humble moment of his life. I have no doubt that was true. Rupert Murdoch is a man well known for bullying his way through business dealings and using his media empire to manipulate and bully political figures toward his own ideological view of the world. Humble is not a word likely to be used to describe Murdoch. Nor was humble a word that would have been used to describe the former leaders of Enron, General Motors, Tyco and many of the Wall Street investment banks that led us into an economic tsunami. Rather than humility, it is hubris that better describes these leaders and the entire culture of their senior management.

On the other hand, my involvement with Honda and some other truly great companies has convinced me that the one single most important quality essential to creating lean culture is the quality of humility. Jim Collins in Good To Great documents leaders who possess this quality of humility. He describes what he calls Level 5 Leadership: “We were surprised, shocked really, to discover the type of leadership required for turning a good company into a great one. Compared to high-profile leaders with big personalities who make head-lines and become celebrities, the good-to-great leaders seem to have come from Mars. Self-effacing, quiet, reserved, even shy – these leaders are a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will. They are more like Lincoln and Socrates than Patton or Caesar.”

Typifying this at Honda, the former President, Iri Irimajiri, sat at his desk in the open office area with all other managers, walked the floor every day to learn, not to speak, and wore the same clothes as every hourly employee. And, at senior management meetings when solving problems, a vice president would offer a suggestion and someone else would ask “Yes, but have you been on-the-spot to talk to the experts” those doing the actual work.

Humility is the Antecedent to Learning

Arrogance and hubris are the destruction of learning and learning is no where more important than at the top of the management process. It is the most important leadership quality.

Why is humility so important? It is all about learning, listening and inspiring.

First, lean culture is the result of attitudes of science, not ideological points of view. The leaders that built the Toyota Production System did not begin with a religious like belief that they then sold and pushed through the company, an approach common in our corporate culture. It was the opposite. It was the process of scientific inquiry. Don’t “get religion” – get science!

TPS or “lean” is the result of a thousand experiments. The lean leader watches the data and let’s the data speak. The subject of an experiment, or the dependent variable, is never wrong. B. F. Skinner used to say to his students “The pigeon is never wrong!” Pigeons respond to stimuli (independent variables) the way pigeons respond. It is YOU who must adjust your methods. Watch, listen and learn from the data. Learn to read the graph! The pigeon is teaching you more than you are teaching the pigeon. Every classroom teacher understands this same principle of interactivity between teacher and student, manager and employee, customer and supplier.

The customer is never wrong, as Dr. Deming would say. Listen to them. It is you who must change your methods to meet their needs. Too many times I have seen companies develop a new way of doing something, a significant change in their work processes, and then be personally invested in this new way. The manager’s ego is determined to make this new way work! To the degree that this is true, they do not watch the data and let the data speak. Experiment! Try a new method on a limited basis and watch the data. See the results and learn from those results. Do not pile on mistake after mistake when something is not working. Invest enough to learn, and then invest more based on what the data is telling you. Do not get “invested” from an emotional standpoint and then feel the need to make something work when customers and the data is saying something else. This is one of the forms of “waste” most often created by leaders.

The idea of a “learning organization,” as promoted by Peter Senge in his book Fifth Discipline, is not something different from lean management. Rather, it is embedded within lean management. A learning organization is an organization in which individuals and teams watch and learn, make changes, experiment, and then learn from those experiments. This should be going on every day within every team at every level.

  • What are you learning today?
  • What experiment are you conducting today?
  • What is the data telling you today?

These are the questions that should be asked of every team, including every management team.

One of the best articles on lean management, in my opinion, was an article published in the May 2004 issue of the Harvard Business Review by Steven J. Spear, titled “Learning to Lead at Toyota.” It describes how a new, but relatively senior manager is integrated into the Toyota culture. Bob Dallis, the new manager is assigned a coach, Takahashi, who leads him through his learning process.His integration will involve 12 intensive weeks in the U.S. engine plant and ten days working and making observations in a Toyota plant in Japan.

Listen to his first experience: “Bob Dallis’s first assignment at the U.S. engine plant was to help a small group of 19 engine-assembly workers improve labor productivity, operational availability of machines and equipment and ergonomic safety. For the first six weeks, Takahashi engaged Dallis in a cycle of observing and changing individual’s work processes, thereby focusing on productivity and safety. Working with the group’s leaders, team leaders, and team members, Dallis would document, for instance, how different tasks were carried out, who did what tasks under what circumstances, and how information, material, and services were communicated. He would make changes to try to solve the problems he had observed and then evaluate those changes.”

In other words, this manager’s first fourteen weeks at Toyota were spent “on-the-spot” learning to observe, conduct experiments and evaluate those experiments. Put another way, he was learning to engage in continuous improvement. This is the essence of lean management.What Bob Dallis was learning at Toyota was, more than any skill, the attitude of humility which is the antecedent to learning and improvement.

Now compare this to what happens when you hire a new manager or give a new assignment to a manager. How many times have you hired managers who entered their new jobs, not with humility, but with an attitude of demonstrating their superior knowledge and ability? How many times have you implemented new programs or practices with an attitude of determination to make it work, rather than with an attitude of continuous improvement and learning – an attitude of science?

Lean cultures are able to engage in rapid improvement because they make changes with an eye on the data. They experiment and like any good scientist, they are willing to toss aside changes that don’t work. They can then quickly move on to another more productive experiment.

This humility, I believe, is the one most important personal quality of lean leadership.

President Lincoln and the Victory of Humility over Hubris

The reference to President Lincoln in Jim Collins’ quote is worth a moments meditation. Lincoln was a man who suffered chronic depression, at the time called “melancholy” so severe that he cried frequently and feared that if he carried a knife he would use it on himself. But one author, Joshua Shenk, argues that this suffering purposefully prepared him for the role he assumed. His opponents in the great Civil War, Lee and even more so Stonewall Jackson, fervently believed they were doing God’s will and prayed for his assistance against their enemy. They rode into battle believing they were God’s warrior and that God would surely assist them in their efforts. And it was this hubris in battle, particularly at Gettysburg, that led to Lee’s defeat.

On the contrary, Lincoln said “I shall be most happy indeed if I shall be an humble instrument in the hands of the Almighty, and of this, his almost chosen people, for perpetuating the object of that great struggle.” Lincoln prayed that he might be a humble instrument of God’s will, rather than praying for God’s help in doing his own will. This is not a small distinction and is part of his moral leadership.

It was also not coincidental that Lincoln was required to, and willing to, make change after change until he found the two generals, Grant and Sherman, who would lead his armies to victory.

Hubris lost, as it inevitably does, and humility won.

 

Survey Results: Execution and Importance of Lean Culture and Leadership Factors

Posted on by
4

I recently solicited the opinions of lean implementers regarding the progress they have made and the importance of what I felt were key factors when implementing lean culture or management. The individuals who responded were either those who read my own blog, those who participate on the NWLean Yahoo discussion forum, or members of the Lean/Six Sigma LinkedIn forum. It is safe to say that all of these individuals are engaged in the process of implementing lean, either as an internal change agent or an external consultant. A total of 82 individuals completed the survey.

To download the complete report please go to my “Papers, Etc.” page and click on the report to download a PDF file that presents my analysis of the data. You can also download the complete data set if you like.

How can you use this data? All of those who implement lean practices are in the business of influencing, convincing or changing the behavior of both managers and employees. I think this data can be helpful in making the case for changes in behavior and practices that are essential to lean implementation.

Who are the participants in the survey? 63% work in the manufacture of “things”; while 9.3% are in chemical or liquid manufacturing. Only 2 were in healthcare and only one was in sales or marketing. 25% were in service organizations.

All surveys simply report the perceptions of those taking the survey, rather than some absolute measure. The pursuit of “lean” is often described as a journey. I felt it was worthwhile to ask where these practitioners perceived their organizations to be on their journey.  It turns out that they have a fairly humble view of their progress. About sixty percent felt that they were no more than 25% of the way on that journey.

One of my own biases is to view the lean journey as containing two parallel tracks:  the technical track of modifying factory layout, inventory processes, and other technical aspects of the work; and, the social track – all of the issues around the engagement, motivation and management of people. I asked the participants whether they felt they had made more progress on the technical or social aspects of lean implementation. Thirty one percent reported that they “have made little progress on either.” Twenty seven percent said they had made significant progress on the technical side, but little progress on the culture, while only 12.5% felt that the reverse was true. Almost thirty percent felt that they had made equal progress on both the technical and social sides of lean.

Progress on Technical vs. Social

 

I then asked which would be most important in the coming year or two. Only 7.3% felt that progress on the technical side would be most important. 45% felt that progress on the social side would be most important and 50% said they would be equally important. (Note: I do realize that those percentages don’t exactly add up! But that is the way SurveyMonkey reported them.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which Factors Are Most Important?

Factor                                                                                    Importance               Execution

Creating a sense of purpose (5)                                                            89                    53.4
Managers have instilled a spirit of teamwork (53)                          84.4                 50
Promoting strong values  (7)                                                                83.8                 54
Leaders are effective at engaging team members (13)                    83.5                 49.4
Leaders have created employee empowerment (15)                       83.5                 47.2
High trust between employees and managers  (17)                        83.2                 44.8
Leaders act with urgency (9)                                                               82.7                 52.2
Managers focus on improving the process (31)                               80.6                 47.2

Which Factors Are Most Deficient in Execution?

Now let’s look at the items that got the lowest scores for how well they were executed or performed in the organization.  Again, this is entirely arbitrary, but we will take scores below 45 as a cutoff.

Factor                                                                                            Execution       Importance

Managers have defined leader standard work (63)                          30.8                 67.9
Most manager engage in disciplined problem solving (11)             36.6                 72.6
Managers are able to follow a disciplined PS model (61)                38.3                 76.6
Every employee is a member of a team (57)                                       39.9                 75.6
Managers can show a visual map of their processes (35)                40                    66.6
Managers are competent at motivating employees (21)                  41.8                 79.7
Feedback from customers to employees (25)                                    43.4                 70.4
Managers are competent at facilitating meetings (59)                    43.5                 73.7
Each team has defined their customers (27)                                      44.1                 71.6
There is high trust between employees and managers (17)            44.8                 83.2
Managers are good at motivating employees (47)                            44.9                 77.8

One of the more interesting set of factors, in my opinion were the comparison between performance and importance for the two items (19) “Managers are highly competent in the technical work for which they are responsible;” and (21) “Managers are well trained and competent at motivating and developing employees.”

Click on the following images for a better view.

There is a lot more data and analysis in the full report that you will find on the “Papers” page. You are welcome to download this and you may use the data as you wish, and do your own analysis.

For myself, it reinforces the need for managers to “be the change” by practicing the methods of lean culture personally. It also points to serious training needs in regard to problem solving and motivating employees. One of the greatest concerns in this data is the poor rating of trust between managers and employees. However, this may be explained by the other data. If managers are not practicing what they preach, this alone will lead to low trust.

I welcome any different interpretations or suggestions for future surveys of lean practitioners.

 

Sustaining Lean – The Power of Beliefs

Posted on by
12

How to Sustain Lean Culture and Practices

This past week I was at one of my favorite clients, a Merck pharmaceutical plant in Pennsylvania. They have been on the lean journey for more than sixteen years, long before anyone called it “lean.” One issue that they are now addressing is the issue of sustainability. Every company faces this issue sooner or later. In our Western culture we are used to jumping on issues, methods or fads for a period of time, going through a training process, and then declaring ourselves DONE!

Of course, there is great satisfaction in being “done.” But, “done” is a direct contradiction to continuous improvement and lean is continuous improvement. Honda and Toyota are still seeking the next level of improvement. They are not done.

To address the sustainability of the lean process we are looking at this model that defines the different components of a culture. At the core is the system of beliefs among the members of the organization. On the outside is the external environment with changes in technology, economics and other trends to which every company must adapt. The sustainability of any system is based on both its ability to adapt to a changing environment and its ability to stay on the course of its core values.

A key issue faced by this client is how to maintain a system of beliefs that encourages and motivates its members to engaged in the work of continuous improvement.

Promoting or maintaining beliefs or a value system of an organization is a key function of leadership. If you were to recommend actions to leaders, or the organization in general, what would you recommend?

Here are a few actions that leaders can take:

1. Promote Creative Dissatisfaction:

In behavioral psychology it is understood that a level of dissatisfaction is required for motivation. In other words you can satiate a behavior. Someone may be motivated to work for ice cream, for example. If you give someone enough ice cream, as much as they might love ice cream, after a period of time of gorging themselves, they will yell “Enough!” They will achieve a state of satiation. If we are satisfied with the state of ourselves or our company, we are likely to slow down our improvement efforts. Some level of dissatisfaction is required.

There is always a gap between where we are and where we could be. No matter how smart, how successful we are, there is always a higher level of achievement. To the degree that we are aware of the gap between current and potential state, we are not satisfied. We become creatively dissatisfied. In other words we have a drive to improve and move toward the better condition.

Leaders have to do two seemingly contradictory things at the same time. They must reinforce the good work and success of improvement efforts. At the same time, they have to raise the bar, and point to the gap between where we are and where we could be and state clearly that we will close that gap by practicing our core beliefs.

2. Learn from Church – The Need and Power of Repetition:

I was with the president of a major transportation company and we were discussing his role in managing the culture. He said that he had communicate the desired culture and values more than once and didn’t understand why employees couldn’t “get it.” Without thinking deeply, I spontaneously asked, “How often do you go to church?” The moment it came out of my mouth I realized it was probably a dumb thing to say. He looked stunned also.

Every religion, in every part of the globe, throughout all human history, has had a Sunday church service. It may not have been Sunday and it may have been in a synagogue, mosque, tent, or home. But, every religion has a regular drum beat, a regular meeting to remind people of their core values and “right” behavior. God must know that it takes us about seven days to forget what is important. If every religion does this same thing, it must say something about our human nature. Why would it be different in large or small organizations?

As bothersome as it may be to leaders, beating the drum, conducting regular “church services” is your job. It is your job to frequently and regularly remind your followers that putting the customer first is a core value; or that continuous improvement is a core value. There are a hundred ways this can be done, through public meetings, company newsletters or video broadcasts, you can communicate what is important. If we can’t remember the Ten Commandments (can you?) why do you think employees will remember your ten core values?

3. I Once Was Lost, But Now I am Found – The Power of Testimony

I know some readers may cringe at this, but think about it. In many churches, and in other religions, there is a practice of “testifying.” I was blind, but now I see. I sinned, but now I am redeemed. Why was this important? What about it worked?

If you have studied social learning theories, particularly of Albert Bandura, you know that there is a great deal of research about modeling, learning from the behavior and consequences of others. If we see that someone was in a bad situation, then they did something to change, then they experienced success and happiness, we learn from that sequence and we are more likely to be motivated to do the same thing. This is what it means to be a model. And it is why the preacher called upon the person who was once the town drunk to stand and testify to the evils of his ways and his new found life. If he can do it, I can do it.

How can this apply to sustain lean?

At my Merck client they have regular “face-to-face” gatherings at which the plant manager addresses and updates employees. This is a good occasion to promote the core beliefs of lean. As we formed the team structure around work processes, we found that there were a number of administrative people who did not fit on natural work teams. So, they were formed into an admin team. At first, they didn’t understand why they were a team, or how scorecards, process mapping or others lean methods applied to them. However, they discovered opportunities to improve processes and they did. At a recent face-to-face their story was told and they were recognized for their effort and success.

Other teams have wondered whether there was any real contribution they could make. This example, this testimony, is motivating to the doubting Thomases sitting in their pews in the back row.

4. Define the Game – Declare the Heroes and Heroines:

Everyone is trying to figure out the rules of the game and what will define winning in their situation. As a leader in your organization it is your job to define the rules of the game. But, more important it is your job to recognize, celebrate, shout about, the winners or heroes of the game.

Can you imagine the broadcast of a Super Bowl and it comes to end with the announcers pointing to the score and saying, “Well that’s it folks.” That wouldn’t be very entertaining or motivating. The broadcast crew is always ready with camera and microphones to immediately interview the most valuable player, someone who set a record, or scored the winning touchdown. We want to see their faces. We want to hear from them what happened and how they experienced it. We want to share in their emotions. Without that, its boring!

In your plant or your company, who are the heroes? Who set a record recently? Who won the game? How were they celebrated? Believe it or not, you are the broadcaster. You are the producer and announcer of the show. It is your job to celebrate the winners and put them on TV for everyone to see. If there is no celebration of heroes, do not expect heroic efforts from your people.

We all learn vicariously. We learn from the success and celebration of others. It is the job of leadership to make it matter for all employees. This reinforces the core beliefs of the organization.

How have you sustained lean by promoting the core beliefs in your organization? What have your leaders found to be successful (or not)?

 

Beyond Tahrir Square: Managing Large Scale Change

Posted on by
Reply

In my previous post on this subject I suggested lessons from the Egyptian revolution to the world of corporate leadership. Now I do the reverse.

I would like to address the ruling military officers of Egypt and the other leaders who are now finding themselves in the midst of turmoil in the Middle East. They all are confronted with the problem of “managing large scale change.” This is not a new thing. It is also not something military men are likely to be good at because it is not about command. It is about the psychology of democracy. It is about creating a feeling of ownership and participation by a very large number of people. Many company and countries have been through this before. So… here is an open letter to the Generals of Egypt, and to all others to whom it may apply.

Dear Generals of Egypt: What Now?

Your country has passed through the beginning phase of a large scale change in culture and management practices – we sometimes call this “creative destruction.” Yes, I know. The youth and other protesters in the square think they did the hard part. But, they actually did the easy part and left you with the great challenge of creating a new system, a new culture. It won’t feel as exhilarating as marching and chanting in the square.

As it happens, I have been involved in changing the culture of large corporations over the past thirty-five years. I’ve messed it up quite a few times and succeeded at other times. In doing so, I have learned a few lessons that might prove useful. I offer them for your consideration.

1.       Communicate, Communicate, Communicate

Did I repeat myself? I said communicate… often. It will seem an unnecessary waste of time since you have serious work to do. They should be more patient, shouldn’t they? But, patience is a rare commodity when there is the excitement of major change. Your followers will want to know what the plan is. Where are we going? How are we going to get there? Where are we in the process now? Communicate by television, radio, newspapers, and… have you heard of Facebook and Twitter? Use them all! I hear that some of your citizens log in occasionally. Those who gain their news from the Internet expect to hear something new every few days. It doesn’t seem that it should be your problem. But, it is!

2.       Engage as Many as Possible – Let them Own It!

This will be very difficult for any well trained and rational military officer. You know how to make decisions. That is why you were promoted. So, why shouldn’t you make the decisions? The answer is simple. The citizens won’t just obey commands like good soldiers in an army. They think it is their revolution. They made it happen. Now, they want to participate.

I know this will seem strange advice. But, I suggest you form participative conferences in every village, in every district of city. Have someone facilitate. Have someone take notes (not on who said what, but on the recommendations that come forth). Believe it or not, I worked with one of the largest oil companies and helped them design their organization. They involved thousands of employees, gaining their input into the design.  Did they all know the right answers? No. But, by contributing, they felt that the final outcome was in some measure their own work. And because of this they were eager to implement the final design.

Your problem will be less designing the ideal system of governance, than gaining acceptance, commitment, and ownership of that system by the people. The “mess” of involving thousands of people will pay off as they agree to adhere to the final result.

3.       Think Whole-Systems: Everything Will Interact With Everything Else

This sounds like something complicated, but it is really very simple. Organizations, and countries, are like the human body. The larger system is comprised of sub-systems. For example, something going on in the brain may affect the stomach. You might be experiencing this now. In other words the human body is a system, made up of several different “sub-systems.” The digestive system, the cardio-vascular system, the nervous system are all different, yet all constantly interacting with one another. The human body cannot function in the best way unless all of the sub-systems are healthy and assisting one another.

Similarly, this thing we call democracy is a system comprised of a lot of different sub-systems. Of course, we think about the election system. Yet, this is only one sub-system of the whole-system, the culture of a democratic nation. I know this is very complicated. But, you must align all of the subsystem to the same principles if they are going to function well.

What principles? You can start with freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom from injustice. I am sure you can think of others, but those are good ones to start with. Now, the election process must conform to these principles. But so to must the education system, the communications systems of the press, television and Internet. The justice system of the police and courts must conform to the same principles. Business and commerce will thrive under these principles. But, you must seek alignment of your systems. You cannot have free elections, democracy, and not have a system of free press and free expression. You cannot have either of these in the absence of a justice system that operates on similar principles.

So, building this “whole-system” is a big job. It takes time in large companies. It will take a long time in your country. But, my recommendation is that you form a “steering team” to oversee the entire process of designing the new Egypt. Then this steering team can appoint “design teams” to design each of the sub-systems. You can involve a lot of very smart people in this process. And, communicating this process to your citizens, making it transparent, will encourage them. This will create trust between you and your citizens, and there is nothing more important to a leader than gaining and keeping this trust.

4. Introduce Continuous Improvement

The people of Egypt have proven that they are not children. They have proven that they have a great deal of understanding about how the world really works. It is a childish idea, that you or anyone, can design the one best and right way that things should be done in the future. My own United States Constitution was designed for continuous improvement, not for a one right final solution. Remember that the way it was originally written did not include women as full citizens and denied full rights as human beings to a large portion of our population. In truth, the Founding Fathers didn’t get it right the first time. But, they assumed that it would be improved and provided the mechanism for that improvement.

What your people want from you now, is not the final solution. They want a starting point and they want the ability to gradually improve your system of governance as people mature and gain greater understanding. You can give them this.

Well, dear generals, these are just a few ideas that have worked well in large corporations. These are essential ideas to creating lean management and culture, I think they will work in Egypt, too.

Most Sincerely,

Lawrence M. Miller

The Principle of Compromise

Posted on by
7

Governing the Ungovernable

There is one principle of our democratic republic that has been betrayed. It is the principle of compromise. When compromise becomes a forbidden word, a sign of disloyalty to a party or particular interest group, achieving the consensus necessary to govern becomes impossible.

Those who reject compromise and reason in favor of rigid adherence to party dogmatism are the American equivalent of radical Islam. It is said that there is no word in Arabic for compromise. My son spent a year in Iraq helping to develop the election process there. After working with election officials and politicians in Iraq I asked him whether or not he felt the new democracy could succeed. He said, “Yes, if they learn to compromise.” That is no small challenge to overcome. In Iraqi culture to compromise is to lose face, a form of dishonor that is not forgiven. Six months after the most recent elections there is no new government formed. Why? They can’t bring themselves to compromise. If they fail to compromise their democracy is doomed. And we may be following their example.

Corporate managers might have some empathy for those in government.  No CEO would want to lead a company in which the stockholders have expectations that are impossible to meet. And, in which two competing factions raise money to undermine the efforts of the other and their devotion is more to their party than to the success of the company. It is a prescription for failure.

A study of the rise and fall of civilizations demonstrates that in the emerging periods of growth and integration the citizens have a long range view. They will sacrifice for the “cause.” In decline the focus is increasingly inward, on self and short term. “What’s in it for me now?” In the later days of the Roman Empire, Caesars were given only a few years to right the ills of Rome, an impossible task that soon resulted in their rejection. The field of combat is increasingly within, civil warfare, rather than against an external enemy that unifies the energies of the citizens.

The citizens appear to have expected the economic crash of two years ago to be “fixed” by now; unaware that Roosevelt required eight years and a world war to pull the country out of economic downfall.  The failure of a young President to perform miracles has resulted in declarations of failure and calls for his head. Without debating whether his policies are the best or not, I am more concerned that the very system of governance in the United States is in a process of disintegration. This disintegration is fueled by ignorance and false mythologies  concerning our country’s founders.

If you listen to the Tea Party candidates you would believe that at our founding there was some conservative Garden of Eden in which the Founding Fathers prayed to Jesus and unanimously agreed to a government that did not tax its citizens and maintained the most minimum powers to govern. This claim is ignorance of immense magnitude.

The idea that the Founding Fathers were “conservative” is absurd. If they had truly been conservative they would have been Loyalists to the King. They were not merely “liberal”, they were radical revolutionaries. They believed in change, progress, and creating a new and better way to govern. Thomas Jefferson even proclaimed that “Revolutions in human affairs, like storms in the natural environment, are from time to time, a necessary and desirable thing.” In another place he declared that they should occur about every twenty years; hardly the mindset of a conservative.

But, more importantly, the idea of rigid ideologies, or party loyalties, would have destroyed the country at its beginning. The Constitution itself required a “Great Compromise” that settled the dispute over how large and small states would be represented in the legislature and resulted in both a House of Congress and a Senate. In George Washington’s first term as president he confronted two opposing views of the Federal government, a dispute that had not been resolved in the Constitution itself. The very men who authored and signed the Constitution did not agree on its meaning. On one hand was Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton who felt the need for a strong federal government and a national banking system. On the other side was Thomas Jefferson who preferred minimal Federal government and strong state government (until he was elected President, of course!).

How can modern day politicians boldly proclaim that they know the intentions of the Founding Fathers when they disputed it themselves?

The argument about the role of the Federal government, particularly in matters of finance, was so intense that it led both men to align themselves with newspapers (the FOX News and “mainstream media” of the day) and fed them rumors and personal insults to undermine the other. The dispute was settled only by Washington himself and he came down on the side of Alexander Hamilton and supported the need for a strong Federal role in the economic affairs of the nation. But, the important element was not who won. Rather it was that these great men were able to argue their points and then agree to move forward and implement the position that prevailed. They were willing to compromise for the good of the country.

Washington’s Farewell Address

When George Washington finally retired, he gave a Farewell Address to Congress. In it he warned against what he viewed as the two greatest threats to the success of the new Republic. One was entanglements with foreign powers. The second was the “spirit of party.”

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy….

So, what are the lessons for our corporate leaders?

First, good governance results from thoughtful and strong willed individuals who are willing to argue their points of view forcefully, but… then are willing to compromise and achieve common ground for the common good. This is the essential requirement of participation on a leadership or executive team.

Second, know the facts and base your arguments on real facts, not on dogma or mythology.

Third, labels are destructive of intelligent analysis and sound decision making. It would serve our country well if our leaders at every level restrained themselves from labeling any opponent as either liberal or conservative, labels that have come to have little meaning in today’s complex world. Argue for specific programs or the elimination of programs. Labels do not lead to sound decisions about which defense or social programs need to be cut; or which taxes need to be increased or decreased. Labels only inflame the “spirit of party.” Both parties agree that the budget needs to be balanced. It is neither a liberal or conservative idea, merely a fundamental principle of economics and sound government. Get on with it!

Remember that the defeat of corporations and civilizations comes from within, from disunity, when the energy expended toward internal combat exceeds the energy expended in the common good.

Obama’s Gulf Leadership Lesson: The Limits of Power and the Power of Empathy

Posted on by
7

I admire President Obama. I support him. He is smart, has a world view and understanding that makes him well suited to the modern world. Unfortunately, in the past few weeks we have not experienced his finest hour. There are times when intelligence, analytic ability, is far less important than urgency and empathy. It is the difference between leadership in combat and leadership in a court room or academic setting.

Some readers may be familiar with my situational leadership model described in Barbarians to Bureaucrats, following Toynbee’s lessons of the rise and fall of civilizations, leaders and cultures go from the imaginative and creative “Prophet” to the conquering “Barbarian” and into the more mature periods in which systems, structure become more important than personalities.

You may remember that great scene in the movie Patton in which George C. Scott, playing Patton, visits the beds of his wounded men, kneels down and prays with them. He then literally leaves his jeep and marches gleefully through the mud with his troops as they race to relieve the surrounded 101st Airborne Division. Of course, Patton is playing Alexander the Great who did the same. Patton believes he is the reincarnated spirit of Alexander. He is the Barbarian, the conquering hero who demonstrates his love for his soldiers and receives their love in return. And, this love, what we call “loyalty” in organizations, is not the result of deep analysis, intelligence or good policies. It is the result of emotions. It is the result of the leader demonstrating the same emotional sensibility of his soldiers, their urgency for the battle, and pure empathy for the fear and pain they are asked to bear.

Having consulted with Shell, Exxon, Texaco and Amoco in years past, and having coached senior teams at those companies, I have some appreciation for the process of deep water drilling. It is a fact that no one, in either government or industry, knows a sure solution to the tragic flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

I am somewhat amazed at news commentators who want Obama to take charge of the efforts to cap the well and stop the flow as if he had some unused magical powers. The U.S. Navy, Coast Guard, or anyone else in government has no answer to this. There is no power that can be commanded into action by the President to stop the flow. In a real sense, the president is helpless and must rely on the best efforts of BP and the other companies involved. Perhaps he could command more forces to the clean up effort.

But, that is not his problem or his failure. His failure is to perform the great theater of leadership in which the leader does as Alexander did, as Patton did, when they visited the tents of the wounded men, kneeled and prayed with their followers, and demonstrated the emotion of love and empathy for those who are in pain. There are little limits to the power of empathy, the power of letting those in pain know that you are with them, you are feeling what they feel, and that you will be by their side in their suffering. This is what George Bush failed to do in the aftermath of Katrina and I am afraid it is what Obama is failing to do or understand in the present case.

John Adams, speaking of the American Revolution, said that “A whole government of our own choice, managed by those persons whom we love, revere and can confide in, has charms in it for which men will fight.” He did not speak of intellect or analysis. He did not  speak of factually correct decisions. He said that men will fight for leaders in whom they can confide, whom we love. And, we love those who demonstrate empathy and understanding for our own situation; who demonstrate the urgency that we feel; the fear that we feel. The tragedy of the BP Gulf spill may be more in the loss of affection for this president, a loss at his own hands, than for the coastline that in time will recover.

So What Happened to Toyota???

Posted on by
3

With the rash of recalls, deadly accidents and a pending congressional investigation into Toyota’s quality problems an entire industry of consultants, book publishing, and training has been thrown into disarray.

Last week I was at a client and I was explaining some point of lean culture and I used an example from Toyota. The union president who was in attendance stood up and said “I’ll tell you one thing, you better not tell us to do anything because Toyota did it. Ten people in the past week have come up to me and told me that we aren’t doing anything because Toyota does it.” That about sums up the sentiment out there.

I was tempted to reply that my relationship had been with Honda anyway and I didn’t see why Toyota got so much credit, but I restrained myself… wisely, I think.

So the question is… has all the adoration, the pursuit of the Toyota Production System (TPS), aka “lean manufacturing”, “lean thinking” and anything else “lean” that might make a good book title, been a completely mistaken pursuit? Have we all been misled?

The short answer is an emphatic “no!”

Every automotive company, in fact every manufacturing company worth a darn, has adopted TPS to some degree and would benefit by adopting more. Honda freely acknowledges that they copied TPS and have developed their own adaptations and innovations, as have others. The essential elements of eliminating waste, reducing throughput times, creating a high involvement-high responsibility workforce, continuous flow assembly and continuous improvement, are indisputably effective.

What went wrong at Toyota has NOTHING to do with the factory floor operations. What went wrong was entirely a problem of senior management failing to respond in a timely and effective way. What happened to Toyota is what happens to virtually every great company.

At this risk of appearing to shamelessly promote my own book, in Barbarians to Bureaucrats, I described the parallel of great companies to the rise and fall of civilizations. In achieving greatness the leaders most often also achieve hubris, the arrogance of success and power. Humility is an essential element of learning and improvement and its antithesis, arrogance, is the assassin of success.

The problem with unpredictable acceleration has been in the lap of Toyota senior managers for years. They engaged in self-denial, halfhearted measures to fix the problem, and hoped it would go away. When executives become so certain of the success of their company they lose a healthy paranoia. Andy Grove was right: Only the paranoid survive.

I feel deeply sorry for the tens of thousands of Toyota workers and front line managers who everyday are working to make the best possible cars, continuously improving their product and process. They had nothing to do with this. It was a design problem and a leadership problem. I also feel sorry for any manufacturers who take glee in this and choose to dismiss all of the many valuable lessons that can and should be learned from Toyota, Honda, and other lean companies.