Each and every day, we encounter phrases that express the difficulty with which work gets done. We talk about jumping through hoops, herding cats, or (egads!) pulling teeth.
All of these phrases express a frustration with the woeful inefficiency we must deal with in order to unravel contradictory policies, unclear direction, internal political competitions and personality conflicts. Unfortunately, these issues are rarely dealt with at their root and, instead, a new batch of inconsistent, contradictory directions, policies, and processes and intermingle with the old ones. Despite this amazing degree of inefficiency, work still gets done, however, making the apparatus we’ve developed still effective, but woefully inefficient.
- It might take a while, but it works. I hope.
The processes that constitute the backbone of “this is the way we’ve always done it” cultures tend to look something like a Rube Goldberg machine. They get things done, however, they do so only through outlandish, wasteful and inefficient mechanisms. While they might be entertaining to watch, they certainly aren’t entertaining to perform. Those stuck within the machine either desperately yearn to get out or, unfortunately, find a way to make themselves a part of it in order to demonstrate their own “value” to the functioning of the machine.
But what is value? The terms Waste and Value are the cornerstones of Lean, in that the purpose of everyone in the organization is to eliminate waste and maximize value in the eyes of the customer. When applied to less tangible processes, however, the concepts of waste and value may help us to understand some of the behaviors that created our Rube-Goldberg style work environments. As a Leader, you add value and eliminate waste when those you are supposed to be leading receive clear direction, grow personally and professionally, and achieve more than they would have without your involvement. You create waste when people are left wondering what to do, or why, or make mistakes as a result of unclear direction. Consider this breakdown of Lean’s 7 Wastes when applied to what some consider “Leadership:”
Transportation: Sending that new policy out to everyone in the company through your secretary, via her email address. Ignoring for the moment that the policy itself might be a waste of effort, sending your draft to the secretary, who then sends it to the world, contributes nothing to your message. It’s even worse when the message is expected to be printed out and tacked up for all those without email access. Talking with employees as directly as possible by getting out and explaining your decisions adds value.
Inventory: Hoarding knowledge and storing it in your head is a waste. Knowledge needs to be passed on to as many people as possible in order for it to become useful, and applied in innovative ways. You add value when you teach or coach others to do at least as well as yourself.
Motion: Calling a meeting, especially if you make sure to book that really nice corner conference room, adds no value to the meeting’s purpose. You also don’t add value by inviting as many people as possible and having half the office attend a conversation that only 3 people need to be a part of. You add more value if you are going to where the problem is, so that you can see it first hand, than you do by moving others away from the problem and into a sterile environment just to discuss a problem that is occurring someplace else.
Waiting: Ever had an employee make a request or answer a question that you are simply too busy to deal with? Has that problem ever dropped off your radar until, days later, the same employee asks about it again? While the employee waited for your response, the problem they were trying to resolve sat, unattended, and probably grew bigger. Forcing people to wait is waste. If you’re too busy to help, you need to examine the wastes you’ve created, or are forced to deal with due to your own management’s behavior. Problems, no matter how trivial, can’t be left to fester. Empower people to make decisions. If you don’t think they have enough know-how to make those decisions, then train them, and eliminate this waste.
Overprocessing: This is, essentially, the waste of micromanagement. If you’ve hired good people, you don’t need to spend time making sure they’re doing what they have been asked to do. If you must stand over their shoulders and double check everything, you’ve created a situation where 2 people are paid to do the same job. You add value when you provide the environment that yields the desired result every time, without having to validate the activity.
Overproduction: Busy work. Asking an employee to do something that isn’t really needed, but keeps them out of your hair for a while, is a waste. Why spend that person’s time, or the company’s money to pay them for their time, doing an activity that adds nothing? When downtime occurs, send the person to training, or train them yourself, or offer up cross-training activities so that your employee can add more value by working in a department that is overly busy. Don’t create unnecessary work.
Defects: Ever rushed through a hiring process just to get a warm body on board? Was that person a good fit for the position in the first place? If you make a “good” hire but then give them few resources with which to learn the job, and they become frustrated and leave, you’re creating defects. You are systematically bringing in people who can’t do the job for which they were hired, all because you’re not taking the time to build in quality to your reqs and interviews. You will get bad hires and, if they mange to stay in your organization, you’ll get bad attitudes. Of course, then you’ll have more problems to deal with, which will only make things worse. When you encounter problems, you have to get down to the root cause – even if that means you’re it. Otherwise, you’ll just keep getting the same results over and over again.
I’m certain there are more examples of Leadership and management waste out there. Please post your experiences!
Policy, procedure, and bureaucracy tend to build as an organization grows in size: revenues, market share, employees. I’ve seen much of the process and procedure burdens in organizations that are trying to manage and mitigate risk. The bigger they get the more risk they assume to deliver product, to increase production, to assure quality, they feel [or actually do] need more process, procedure, and/or hierarchy to manage and mitigate risk.
While a small company may have flexibility, the more people they add, the more those original interactions of a smaller team are stretched beyond an expectation to do things consistently the “way things are done around here”; also known as culture. You can’t count on culture to snap someone into shape – for better or worse.
It seems policy and procedure are intended to make up for management by walking around or management who knows each and every employee, their role, their responsibility, their capability, their limits.
So, in absence(s) of effective management, policy is the believed panacea.
If the wheel is wobbly at 5mph it is teeth rattling at 65mph. The Internet is a good example of the speed element, just because I can do something faster, does not mean I should accelerate my output. Organizations should grow and cultivate the culture for resiliency, flexibility, rigidity, and flow (incoming employees as well as selective pruning of employees who no longer fit the future-state culture needs of policy and procedure).
Business process re-engineering was the intended autopsy for radical review of process and burden. What happened to BPR along the way?
Policy, procedure, and bureaucracy tend to build as an organization grows in size: revenues, market share, employees. I've seen much of the process and procedure burdens in organizations that are trying to manage and mitigate risk. The bigger they get the more risk they assume to deliver product, to increase production, to assure quality, they need more process, procedure, and/or hierarchy to manage and mitigate risk.
While a small company may have flexibility, the more people the add, the more those original interactions of a smaller team are stretched beyond an expectation to do things consistently the “way things are done around here”; also known as culture. You can't count on culture to snap someone into shape – for better or worse.
It seems policy and procedure are intended to make up for management by walking around or management who knows each and every employee, their role, their responsibility, their capability, their limits.
So, in absences of effective management, policy is the believed panacea.
If the wheel is wobbly at 5mph it is teeth rattling at 65mph. The Internet is a good example of the speed element, just because I can do something faster, does not mean I should accelerate my output. Organizations should grow and cultivate the culture for resiliency, flexibility, rigidity, and flow (incoming employees as wells as selective pruning of employees who no longer fit the future-state culture needs of policy and procedure).
Business process re-engineering was the intended autopsy for radical review of process and burden. What happened to BPR along the way?
I really enjoyed this article, and its a nice use of the 7 wastes with reference to leadership style. I shall be tweeting this to my followers, as its an insightful and enjoyable read.
Thanks so much! I try to demonstrate how discussions that occur in the worlds of innovation, change management, leadership, lean, etc can cross-applied. I think there are fundamental aspects of each that can be used to broaden and deepen the understanding of the others.
While I think it’s fairly well understood that, to be lean, you have to accept change and develop different leadership styles than are traditionally practices, I also think there’s a lot that practitioners of oter disciplines can gain by embracing the concepts of Waste & Value.
Thanks so much for your comments. I enjoy reading your blog as well!
Toby,
Thanks yet again for an articulate and thought-provoking comment! I always look forward to these as they give me a chance to learn.
I’m a bit wary of BPR, as it tends to be an approach that relies on an outside “expert” to design the process for you. It’s a bit like asking someone to rearrange the furniture while you’re out. What works for them doesn’t necessarily work for you, and you’ll inevitably end up with a few smarting sores from bumping into things.
While I can’t count on culture to snap someone into place, I can count on culture to make the the un-snappable un-hired. It’s a cliche, but those exist for a reason: “I can teach you skills, but I can’t teach you personailty.”
In trying to mitigate risk, the policies become more complex – almost guaranteeing an inability to understand those policies, and creating a risky situation. A simple fact needs to be embraced: No policy or process document ever reduced risk. Providing a “warm fuzzy” is not the same as understanding a process – which is what genuinely reduces risk. As you say, more mgt walking around and knowing the work, and the people, is a greater risk-reducer than any document ever generated.
It’s a shame that the complexity of large companies creates a perception that they are simply too large for senior management to know individual employees personally. I’ve been fortunate enough to work with a few who truly do know their people (as well as unluck enough to work for a few who don’t, and don’t want to). It’s not a fact of life that execs can’t know their people, it’s more like a matter of choice.
I really enjoyed this article, and its a nice use of the 7 wastes with reference to leadership style. I shall be tweeting this to my followers, as its an insightful and enjoyable read.
Thanks so much! I try to demonstrate how discussions that occur in the worlds of innovation, change management, leadership, lean, etc can cross-applied. I think there are fundamental aspects of each that can be used to broaden and deepen the understanding of the others.
While I think it's fairly well understood that, to be lean, you have to accept change and develop different leadership styles than are traditionally practices, I also think there's a lot that practitioners of oter disciplines can gain by embracing the concepts of Waste & Value.
Thanks so much for your comments. I enjoy reading your blog as well!
Toby,
Thanks yet again for an articulate nad thought-provoking comment! I always look forward to these as they give me a chance to learn.
I'm a bit wary of BPR, as it tends to be an approach that relies on an outside “expert” to design the process for you. It's a bit like asking someone to rearrange the furniture while you're out. What works for them doesn't necessarily work for you, and you'll inevitably end up with a few smarting sores from bumping into things.
While I can't count on culture to snap someone into place, I can count on culture to make the the un-snappable un-hired. It's a cliche, but those exist for a reason: “I can teach you skills, but I can't teach you personailty.”
In trying to mitigate risk, the policies become more complex – almost guaranteeing an inability to understand those policies, and creating a risky situation. A simple fact needs to be embraced: No policy or process document ever reduced risk. Providing a “warm fuzzy” is not the same as understanding a process – which is what genuinely reduces risk. As you say, more mgt walking around and knowing the work, and the people, is a greater risk-reducer than any document ever generated.
It's a shame that the complexity of large companies creates a perception that they are simply too large for senior management to know individual employees personally. I've been fortunate enough to work with a few who truly do know their people (as well as unluck enough to work for a few who don't, and don't want to). It's not a fact of life that execs can't know their people, it's more like a matter of choice.
HI Dave, Managed to reflect my personal leadership gaps.
Thanks for writing GREAT post.
Ganesh,
Thanks! The system is, as in most cases, the key. Fire fighting leads to haphazzard-ness, and a lot of shortcomings in development.