by Lee Fried, on 25 Nov 2007 04:12 pm
The Journey
Contrast in Culture
One of the interesting parts of my job is I get to work with teams in different states of their Lean journey. Working at a large company with 10,000 employees the contrast is quite large given that some teams have been deeply engaged in Lean thinking for several years where others have had little or no experience at all.
During my first two years of Lean work I was primarily focused on working with mid-managers and front-line teams. As we began to change the daily work of teams we would go through a similar cycle of change management and then excitement as teams began to realize how much empowerment they had been afforded. As measurement and incentives were changed the teams would begin to shift from individual to team focused management where peer pressure would become the primary driver of performance. Additionally, with the application of Lean tools work would become more visible, more team focused. Within months of changing their work the teams would be operating very differently then similar teams that had not begun their Lean journey. Being at the front-line the contrast was very noticeable.
Lately, I have been primarily working with teams of senior leadership and it has been interesting to view this contrast at a different level. In fact, I would argue that the contrast may be even greater then the difference between front-line teams. Here are a couple of my observations about senior leadership teams with more experience in Lean:
- They tend to have very different ideas of what is important. This is most visible in how they spend their time. Moving from conference rooms to the workplace.
- They tend to ask more questions and make less statements.
- They tend to be less reactive when problems arise. They ask for data and cause as oppose to jump right into action.
- They tend to be more humble. They realize how much waste there in in their areas and how much better they need to be.
- They are far more critical about their own work. They are more open in talking about problems in their areas and there is less “happy talk.”
- They become more an more inpatient with the organization. Its like they have stepped out of the box and not only are they no longer to step back in, but they want everyone else to step out, soon.
It will be interesting to see if this contrast grows smaller as we work with more and more teams.
on 26 Nov 2007 at 3:22 am 1.Rob said …
Great observations, which I agree with. Culture is so important to embedding any philosophy of continuous improvement in a company. Long after the consultant go home, the people who have to make the changes remain! I see there is a Liker book due for launch soon on the whole subject: Toyota Culture: The Heart and Soul of the Toyota Way [http://tinyurl.com/yq9uu5]
Should be an interesting read!
on 26 Nov 2007 at 1:32 pm 2.Anand said …
You nailed it when you mentioned “As measurement and incentives were changed the teams would begin to shift from individual to team focused management where peer pressure would become the primary driver of performance.”
Following up on that comment, if peer pressure becomes the primary driver of performance, then within a team, indivuduals need to be measured at an individual level rather than at a team level. I agree that the work would become more visible. What evidently becomes visible is who delivers and who does not. I’m a total believer in differentiation and the 20-70-10 principle and wish this is applied at all levels.
It is great to know about the contrasts in culture. It would help if you could also shed some light about contrasts related to measurements and incentives.
on 29 Nov 2007 at 9:48 pm 3.Kevin said …
Anand, I would try a slightly different approach than you suggest. Hard on the process, not the people, right?
It seems key that most performance measurement takes place at the team level. Focusing on individual measurements is the way we used to do things. There is still a need to measure individuals, but that isn’t through productivity goals and measures.
I think the best way to measure individuals is to audit their use of standard work. We need to make sure they’re really using it and using it well, and modify the standard work (for everybody on the team) if problems are discovered.
Does that make sense?
on 30 Nov 2007 at 10:40 am 4.Anand said …
Kevin,
I don’t think we ever had any measurements at an individual level. In my opinion, the performance management system that we have is flawed. Most of us give a 4 or a 5 and there is no real way to track who delivers and who does not. I agree with you about measuring individuals on following standard work. It is not only standard work. It is also their behavior. I’m looking forward to the HPA performance measurement that is supposed to include behavior assessment of individuals.
You also mentioned “Hard on the process, not on the people”. I disagree to a certain extent. Management also needs to be hard on people as well. When change happens, 95% of the whiners will keep whining. Maybe 5% will change for the good. I think that performance needs to be checked regularly, perhaps every quarter, and the people who don’t deliver need to be let go. We are all working for money. We are not volunteers. The organization pays us to do our job well. Only by letting go of people who don’t deliver regularly we can build a high performing team. This way we can also avoid big layoffs and avoid having to lose good people just because their project is scrapped. In the end, it is all about the people. It is all about the RIGHT people. If you don’t have the right people on the bus, it is time to sell your stocks.
Anand
on 30 Nov 2007 at 11:19 am 5.Lee said …
Guys,
I wanted to write and support Kevin’s point of view. In my experience the audit of standard work is the most important way to measure performance in terms of productivity and behavior. If management ensures that standards are in place and improved often then anyone who follows them will meet production. If they don’t follow standards then there is either a problem with the standard or they are just choosing not to follow them which is a choice and reflects on behavior.
I agree that there is a small % of people that will never be supportive of a team and they need to find other places to work, but it is a very small %. In my experience, when you focus on the procsss, implement standards and measure in the right way many of the people that would be considered “whiners” are suddenly stars. As the team starts to become more self-managed the performance issues work themselves out through peer pressure.
Thanks for the great discussion,
Lee