Lean and an Attitude of Science
The primary task of a manager is to think. The primary task of a lean leader is to think with an attitude of science. The future success of the organization is dependent upon his or her ability to think clearly, critically, and creatively.
The greatest enemy of continuous improvement is arrogance, particularly on the part of leaders, and the opposite quality of humility is a requirement of learning and improvement.
It might seem that empiricism and humility are two different things, but let me suggest that they are necessary corollaries.
Last night I watched the Charlie Rose interview of Jeff Immelt, the CEO of General Electric. I recommend the entire interview to you. It is insightful and intelligent. But, toward the end Charlie Rose asks Jeff Immelt what is the one piece of advice he would give to MBA students today if he was speaking to them at the Harvard Business School. His answer was “Humility and the curiosity that goes with it. The big mistakes you make are when you stop asking questions. But, if you are always hungry and digging for that extra piece of knowledge, that is how the world works.â€
I think you would be hard pressed to find a better piece of advice for any executive or manager.
Correlation, Causation, or None of the Above?
Continuous improvement, or lean management, is built on the ability to discern fact from fiction; causal relationships from correlative relationships; anecdotes from data trends and statistical analysis. Unfortunately, our culture is doing a very poor job of helping students, and the population at large, develop these abilities. China, and many developing countries are outscoring the U.S. in math and science education with the U.S. ranked as low as 31st in math scores. This is a frightening trend with dramatic economic consequences.
Here is just one small example of this disability. Well.. actually, it isn’t that small!
It is constantly argued that lower taxes produce economic growth and higher taxes reduce economic growth. This is repeated so many times in the public press and political discourse that it is assumed to be true. The fact is that there is no demonstrable causal relationship between economic growth and tax rates. According to a study by the Congressional Research Service, a non-partisan body, there’s no evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth.
If anything, the chart below demonstrates a slight correlation (not a causation) between higher growth and higher tax rates. Don’t misunderstand, I like low taxes as much as anyone! But, what I like, is completely irrelevant to the facts. And your ideology or political leanings don’t change the facts! The facts are easy to demonstrate, but the facts are rarely looked at and given very little regard in the public discourse. Why is this? It is because we have become more ideological in our thinking and that frees us from the burden of analyzing the facts.
Dr. Deming’s 14 Points and an Attitude of Science
Dr. Deming was constantly preaching that we must manage by the “factsâ€, by the data, not by slogans, objectives, or other efforts to create fear or intimidation. He was, of course, a statistician and he believed in the power that comes from understanding your data.
I began my career in behavioral psychology which is heavily research and data oriented. B.F. Skinner used to say “the pigeon is never wrong.†In other words, when you conducted an experiment and the subject (a pigeon, for example) behaves in a way contrary to your expectations, the actual behavior trumps any theory you might have. It is the equivalent of saying, the employees are never wrong, in regard to their level of behavior or motivation. They are responding to the nature of contingencies, the consequences to behavior in the real environment. As the manager of those contingencies you are, therefore, responsible for their behavior. This is an attitude of science or empiricism.
My earliest work in textile mills in the South involved getting plant supervisors to post graphs that demonstrated rates of quality, waste, etc. and then have the supervisor lead a team meeting when they would discuss the data, ask why it was going up or down, reinforce improvement, and discuss what they could do to improve in the coming week. It was simple, but effective. Seeing the data on a graph, even by hourly workers, who in some cases were illiterate, had a powerful effect on their behavior. They responded to feedback, the visual display of the facts of performance. And, they could analyze data in its simplest form.
Scientists are humble because they know that they are not determining reality, they are merely discovering it, and most often after many, many failures. When Benjamin Franklin conducted his famous kite and key experiment to explain that lightening was electricity, he did so in a world in which the predominant view was that lightening was the anger of God punishing us for our sins. Franklin replaced superstition with science. That is exactly how most of human progress has been made and it is how most advances in production or other business methods are made. Unfortunately, in many of our organizations we are are still burning witches, rather than studying the data and experimenting.
As you go on your Gemba walk through production areas, in meetings with managers, ask for the data. See the data graphed! Ask “Why?†Teach them to become scientists!
Hi Larry,
Good points…particularly the one emphasizing the importance/value of empirical thinking over ideological thinking. I can also see the principles and practice of the Deming/Shewart PDCA cycle embedded in your message. Continuous individual and organizational learning are – by my experience – the key to continuous improvement. On-going, enterprise-wide, rapid/adaptive problem-solving is a core competency I have found to be in short supply in many organizations; particularly as an enabler of accelerated organizational learning. It’s a competency that needs to be nurtured continuously so as to inculcate it into the intellectual/mental fabric of the organization. And as you aptly point out, arrogance is a major enemy enemy of continuous improvement. I’ve seen that arrogance you’re referring to act as a drag on the ability of an organization to accelerate its learning process. In this regard, I’ve witnessed many instances where an organization’s core competencies ultimately become their core rigidities; decelerating the learning/innovation process and inhibiting continuous improvement of both the kaizen and kaikaku orientation.
In addition to a change in attitude within the ranks of organization’s leadership – particularly within those organizations experiencing this type of drag, there’s also a practice, or discipline, or kata that might be employed to counteract the drag. Specifically, in addition to the practice of PDCA, I would include the practice of DSRP (Distinctions, Systems, Relationships, Perspectives), which fosters a more open-minded way of looking at problems/opportunities and the potential countermeasures/solutions for implementation. For more information on DSRP, you can get a quick overview using the Wikipedia website and by watching a YouTube video at the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUqRTWCdXt4. The video is actually a recording of a TED talk given by Dr. Derek Cabrera (Cornell U.) at TEDxWilliamsport.
Regards,
Jay
Thanks, Jay. Good points all. And the video was worth watching.
As always, nicely done. Your columns are a pleasure to read.
Hi Larry,
As someone who used to be a physicist, and then had (as one of my many accountabilities) Reliability Engineering in R&D in P&G, the role of data is key. And, as you write in your other blog, it’s all about looking at the whole system.
For those who are interested in people … training them, helping them change their behaviour, enabling employee satisfaction etc.; getting a data-based handle on the whole system is still data-poor vs. other major expense items. Not an area that most HR professionals are trained in!
There data that is easily obtainable, and gets continuous improvement of people development processes by applying lean principles.
First, make sure you’re clear what the best performers actually do. When you look at them doing their job well, what do you see them do?
Second, make sure all learning interventions, behavioural change programmes, even mergers, are created to go all the way to change what people do. Not just create learning.
Then, measure the behaviours desired before and after the intervention.
Measure the brakes in the organisation that limit people’s ability to put new learning into practice. (See out website for more details on how the learning transfer system inventory does this. http://www.tetrald.com/node/220?id=485)
Finally, look at the change in behaviours; turn this into an RoI estimate; and plot a control chart of the RoI across courses to track progress!
Have a look at our video for a quick overview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GocqVaMqLeo
And explore our website for more details.
Regards
Graham