Tag Archives: Lean

10 Transformative Acts of Human Dignity

Posted on by

I find it an interesting dichotomy that some social ideas can be both widely known and widely misunderstood.

Turn the other cheek. “Not me,” you say. “I have no plans to let someone else take advantage of me. I won’t tolerate any mistreatment.” But, is allowing someone else to abuse me and then ask for more what Jesus meant?

In His famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught a series of transformational behaviors; including this one “…if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” As with any illustration, it is important to understand the social context of the example. In the society of Jesus’ day people used their left hand for unclean acts associated with daily care and therefore never used their right hand in public. So, in order to smite someone on the right cheek, the offender delivering the blow had to strike the other person with the back of the right hand. This act was a power move designed to communicate or force submission. The act of turning the other check says to the offender, “I’m here. I’m ready. If you want to go any further, you will have to treat me as an equal.”

In the same passage from the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus used another illustration, “And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.” According to the laws of the day, the soldiers enforcing Rome’s rule could require local inhabitants to carry their armor for a mile. That second mile meant, “You can make me carry that load for the first mile, but I’m going this second mile by an act of my own will. My sense of self-worth is intact.”

The Civil Rights movement in this country provides a more recent illustration of this transformative power where non-violent expressions of human dignity forced the culture to accept blacks as equals.

One of the sad legacies of the Industrial Age is the dehumanizing nature of modern corporations. These larger organizations force people into increasingly narrow and repetitive roles that dull the mind and sap the spirit. Large organizations also give rise to bloated bureaucracies and a stifling conformity imposed by reams of rules and policies. We can either respond to these unhealthy environments by descending into the petty mindset of a victim or react from a well-spring of self-dignity.

Many articles and books on organizational or cultural change focus on the role of the leader. I don’t want to minimize that vital responsibility, but always waiting for the leader is a victim mindset. The transforming power of human dignity compels us to ask, “What can I do to change this situation.”

One of the distinguishing elements of the lean enterprise philosophy is respect for people. This is not just about managers respecting employees or employees respecting those in organizational authority but a culture of multilateral respect. We cannot have a healthy and genuine respect for others unless we first respect ourselves. Absent self-respect our thoughts in any circumstance quickly turn toward our own needs and hurts. We evaluate every action in light of its impact on us. We harbor resentment from slights that offend us. We respond with a vengeful spirit that destroys respect and relationships.

One of the intriguing quirks of humans is our ability to behave our way into a new way of believing. So, rather than attempting to determine what motivates me and the others around me, I encourage you to begin behaving with human dignity. The power of the following ten simple acts to transform a family, a team, a company or a community will amaze you.

  1. We fulfill our responsibilities
  2. We volunteer to help others
  3. We identify and solve problems
  4. We defend the weak
  5. We give of our time and money to help others
  6. We show up on time out of appreciate the value of others’ time
  7. We resist the urge to lash out in revengeful responses
  8. We honor our commitments
  9. We take care of our bodies with proper nutrition, rest and exercise
  10. We acknowledge the limits of self-reliance and associate in community for a richer and more productive life experience

10 Signs Your Capital Investing Strategy May Be Upside Down

Posted on by

Since the design of the first tool, men and machines have experienced a dynamic interplay characterized at various times by harmonious synergy and contentious strife.

The Middle Age craftsman was both owner and laborer and oversaw the manufacturing process from start to finish. The craftsman viewed the manufacturing process and the machines within that process from a holistic perspective. He decided to build or buy machines based on the impact to both the machine and his labor; not the machine or his labor. He also considered how any machine might better leverage his time and talent to improve the quality and/or quantity of his finished product (not just any particular step in the manufacturing process).

The Industrial Revolution severed the relationship between owner and labor and also introduced a new layer into the decision process, the professional manager. The Industrial Revolution also disaggregated the craftsman’s role across multiple individuals who only performed discrete steps of the entire manufacturing process. These narrowly constructed roles separated laborers from the output of their work with adverse consequences for everyone. Laborers felt stymied in their ability to contribute and stopped thinking (“just do what you’re told”). Unsurprisingly, managers began viewing laborers as low-value, interchangeable elements in the manufacturing process and used people only to perform work which they had not yet figured out how to automate. This disrespectful mental framework sank to such a depth that for much of the past few decades some industries chased cheap labor all over the world. I call this the Human Capital Paradigm.

In attempts to improve manufacturing some firms turned to an alphabet soup of new techniques and tools — 5S, TQM, TPM, PDCA, QIS, DMAIC, SPC, DOE, etc. Most of those efforts failed, because manufacturing leaders continued to apply those tools from the mental framework of the Human Capital Paradigm. What’s needed is a Human Capital Paradigm, which is best explained by comparison to its failed predecessor in the table below.

Financial Capital Paradigm Human Capital Paradigm
Improvements achieved by investing financial capital (money) Improvements achieved by balancing investments of human capital with financial capital
Discipline/repeatability for high quality sought through machines; managers do not believe people can be disciplined Discipline/repeatability for high quality achieved by people using reliable processes (as the late Bob Galvan of Motorola was fond of saying “People may make mistakes, but teams can be perfect.”)
Machines designed for high repeatability, but offered low flexibility (hard automation) Machines designed for flexibility (easily reconfigurable and capable of performing a range of tasks)
People perceived as highly flexible (able to perform a wide variety of tasks), but with low reliability People are highly disciplined without losing flexibility
Managers think; Laborers do Every team member expected to think and contribute toward continuous improvement

 

In the Human Capital Paradigm machines provide flexible discipline and people contribute disciplined flexibility. The challenge of building such a culture has implications that touch almost every aspect of designing, staffing and running an organization of any size. That challenge is too large for this post. However, I will close by sharing a sample list of attributes you might use to assess how your organization stacks up against the capital investment paradigm? While not an exhaustive list, these behavior-based markers can provide clues to your progress along this journey. I encourage you to use the list below to expand or jump start your own list of markers:

  1. Expectations and related consequences established by agreement, not edict
  2. Accountability for meeting expectations belongs to individuals, not managers
  3. A focus on what we want, not what we don’t want; managers focus on catching people doing things right and recognizing them for it; not discovering and punishing wrongdoing
  4. Team members measure themselves, rather than a manager or third-party
  5. Indicators of performance visible to everybody; most notably those performing the work
  6. Opportunities for improvement often identified by people doing the work not just engineers or managers
  7. Customer-driven variety, not changeover considerations predominately influence production scheduling
  8. Disciplined adherence to standard work procedures facilitates reliable outcomes
  9. Processes highlight abnormal process variations and trigger corrective action
  10. Repeatable processes used to test and verify the efficacy of ideas before widespread implementation

Don’t Spin Your Tires

Posted on by

My project is stuck. My team is under performing. We are falling behind the competition. We are missing our earnings projection. Why? What is the problem? Where do I start?

There are five discovery factors an effective leader must assess before launching any countermeasures to get a project/team/business back on track.

Before I proceed, please understand that I strongly support using one of the powerful problem-solving methodologies developed and rigorously field-tested over the past several decades; including the Lean Plan-Do-Check-Act or the Six Sigma Design-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control. Those methods define a series of effective process steps for continuous improvement. However, they do not tell you where to start. While the discovery nature of those methodologies and related tool sets would eventually discover the root cause of your team’s poor performance, the urgency of the business situation typically allows for few, if any, false starts.

Even the best processes perform more efficiently (i.e., quickly uncover the root cause) when we seed or start the process by first assessing the most likely problem areas. If you discover oil in your car’s radiator (as we did recently in our household), it is a waste of time investigating the car’s electrical system. Instead, you will focus attention on the automobile fluids and look for sources of cross-contamination.

Where do I start when my project/team/business is under performing? Two fundamental principles undergird the elements and sequence of the five discovery factors I have developed and used over the years; one, people want to do a good job; and two, the selection of your team heavily influences the fate of your team/organization/business.

So, what are those five elements? Where should we begin an evaluation to identify the root cause of under performance?

  1. Talent. Do we have the right players on the team? Even the most well-intentioned person will fail in certain circumstances. I watched the movie “Lone Survivor” with my son last night and was again struck by the realization that there is no way I could become a Navy Seal. Their combination of mental and physical determination makes them a breed apart.
  2. Target. This is a combination of strategy and priorities. In short, are we working on the right stuff? If a particular baseball game requires the team to play “small ball,” but my batters are all trying to hit a home run, that’s a problem. If I am spending my team’s resources on improving the distribution system when we have a problem of product quality, we are focusing on the wrong target. The more typical problem is that everything is a priority, which means nothing is a priority.
  3. Tactics. Evaluate our processes. Do individuals or teams use their own work methods? Are performance standards widely deployed and rigorously tracked? Do we have documented processes for performing repetitive functions, including how to solve problems? Do we have documented processes that we frequently ignore?
  4. Training. Do we explicitly know the skills (as distinct from talents) necessary for high-performance in a particular project or organization? Do we know how team members’ skills align with those success factors? Have we provided appropriate training to fill in the gaps or cross-training to build sufficient depth and enhance flexibility.
  5. Time. Is the team investing enough time? More bluntly, are they working hard enough? This factor is intentionally last, because the answer to a business problem is rarely work harder. However, there are circumstances where solution requires working faster and longer. So, don’t ignore it.

The next time you find your team stuck, pull out this list and use it to start your own assessment of why the team is spinning its tires.