By Bob Emiliani
This article is from the Superfactory Archives, an archive of content from the Superfactory website that existed from 1997 to 2012.
Since 1998 I have authored or co-authored eight books and over two dozen journal papers on Lean management. My focus from the outset was critical aspects of Lean management that others had neglected or made only limited progress. Specifically, I expanded our understanding of Lean leadership and the many specific ways in which the beliefs, behaviors, and competencies of Lean leaders differ from the leaders of conventionally managed businesses [1].
Along the way, I provided historical context that showed how progressive Lean management was the product of a 100+ year evolution in thinking and practice among innovate management practitioners. I also clarified the social, political, and economic impact of progressive management on organizations far beyond what had been done previously, and how these relate to sustainability. And I further contextualized the importance of daily practice among executives, showed how to avoid repeating history's unfavorable outcomes, and articulated effective strategies for Lean management success [2].
My focus on these less studied yet very important aspects of Lean management turned out to be a wise decision because my work has given people around the world (thanks to the Internet) important new insights in how to correctly practice and sustain Lean management.
I am thankful that many people - executives, consultants, trainers, educators, and workers - find my work to be very innovative, practical, and highly informative (for example, the way I re-purposed value stream maps [3]). I am truly honored when people commit their precious time to reading my books and papers, and even more honored when my work is used by others in their Lean consulting and training work.
But my modest success is not without problems.
A main tenet of Lean management is to see reality as it actually is, no matter how ugly it is. This tenet, which I learned on day one of my Lean training starting in August of 1994, has always guided my writing. The result is that I bluntly call out bad management, which can make some executives and others feel uncomfortable or even personally offended. I write what many executives do not want to hear [4]. I know this because I get feedback that says I could “attract more bees with honey.” In other words, more people would read my books if I sugar coated reality.
My observation is that the sugar coated approach as well as the direct approach I use are imperfect and each has limitations. In general, managers, like any other person, filter out what they do not like or pump in more of what they do like, regardless of the approach employed by the author. I chose to be consistent with Lean principles and practices and just present stark naked realities, knowing that managers’ filters and pumps were not in my control.
Nearly all non-profit and for-profit organizations that promote progressive management throughout history sugar coat reality in different ways and to greater or lesser extents, especially during the first 15 to 25 years of the cycle [5]. This makes their customers think that progressive (Lean) management is easier to practice than it really is, which is misleading (and why the "Respect for People" principle is usually left out). They do this mainly to perpetuate their self-interests. My situation is different; for the last 11 years I have worked full-time as a university professor, not as a consultant [6], precisely so that I am not forced to perpetuate a narrow self-interest.
Therefore, I tell it like it is. My pain - truly, my pain - is your gain.
Organizations and authors that sugar coat the personal and organizational challenges of Lean management diminish their credibility and force managers to do re-work when they finally become aware of the realities. Most managers do not like to engage in rework, especially if they must confess that they misunderstood something from the start. As a result, they will typically allow the practice of Lean management to stumble along, replacing it with a new “program” or “initiative” when the opportunity arises.
The problem with sugar coating reality is that it ignores downsides that managers should be made aware of, sets managers up to fail, and is inconsistent with the “Respect for People” principle. The sugar coated approach means that most managers will engage in Fake Lean from the start and for many years thereafter, which is bad for all stakeholders. It also gives Lean a bad name, which, over time, will surely turn off future generations of managers.
If I tell senior managers the truth they may decide to not adopt Lean management. That is their informed choice. Or, they may decide to adopt Lean management realizing what they are committing themselves and their organizations to doing. Either way, information has flowed to them, rather than having been selectively filtered or blocked by narrow self-interest.
If my writing makes you uncomfortable or personally offends you – if it makes you realize that you are not a good manager – then I have surely done a better job than if my writing did not offend you. It means I am close to the truth. Accepting the truth can only help you learn and improve and contribute to the long-term success of the organization. It is better to improve than be offended [7].
Notes
[1] B. Emiliani, Practical Lean Leadership: A Strategic Leadership Guide for Executives, The CLBM, LLC, Wethersfield, Conn., 2008
[2] See my REAL LEAN series of books, Volumes Two, Three, Four, and Five.
[3] See reference [1], Chapter 5, "Using Value Stream Maps as a Leadership Development Tool."
[4] Most managers suffer from confirmation bias, in which they accept information that supports their view and immediately reject information that does not. It is the un-questioning, uncritical "yes-person" in our head. For example, favorable performance appraisals, promotions, etc., are seen by a manager as high quality empirical evidence that they are smart and doing the right things. Managers who do not succumb to the confirmation bias would instead think: "Favorable performance appraisals and promotions are not necessarily evidence of intelligence or good management." Indeed.
[5] The perspectives of these organizations evolve over time, usually becoming less forgiving (i.e. less sugar coated) as the principals begin to realize that their clients, senior managers, have simply been using the tools of progressive management to advance long-established conventional management practices and goals. In other words, top executives have not led as they should have to install the new progressive management system. For example, the leaders of The Taylor Society became more critical of executives and their leadership capabilities beginning in the late 1920s, around 20 years after the start of organized promotion of Scientific Management. The leaders of non-profit and for-profit organizations that promote Lean management are beginning to recognize the same problem and will no doubt also become more critical of executives' leadership shortcomings. The criticism always starts out mildly so as not to stray too far from past sugar coating. See, for example, "The Mind of the Lean Manager," e-letter to the Lean community by Jim Womack, 30 July 2009, http://www.lean.org/common/display/?o=1083.
[6] I am a teacher and trainer, not a consultant.
[7] Not improving is much more offensive than being called out for bad management.