Have the leading figures in the lean community walked the “Respect for People” talk? Not in my view.
ADVERTISEMENT |
Most of these leaders have only recently begun to understand and embrace the “Respect for People” principle. Although there are many dimensions to the “Respect for People” principle within lean, the one that is superordinate in the minds of employees is: “As we become lean, will you lay me off as a result of our continuous improvement program?”
I wonder, have the leading figures in the lean community been sufficiently vocal in their opposition to companies (and leaders) who lay employees off as a result of continuous improvement? Doing so is, obviously, the ultimate in disrespect to employees. Have the leading lean figures visibly, vociferously, on the record, consistently, and repeatedly stood against this type of human abuse and suffering? By my estimation, they have been largely silent.
Why? Maybe because they didn’t recognize, didn’t understand, or ignored the “Respect for People” principle, despite it being a bedrock principle of progressive management practice for more than 100 years. “Respect for People” is embraced now because it is something new that can be packaged and sold as the next lean tool.
Whatever has been done by lean leaders to denounce fake lean hasn’t been nearly effective enough. There is a long, long history of managers laying off workers as a result of continuous improvement. This is not a secret—it is the normal outcome. During the past 25 years, fake lean has likely displaced a million or so workers in the United States, and even more globally. That’s not the reward employees expect for their hard work.
Being leaders of a movement requires acceptance of the good with the bad. No movement consists solely of upside—there are downsides that must be quickly acknowledged and vigorously responded to, even if the harm is done by others. Within that lay moral ambiguity and ethical dilemmas that must be handled responsibly. Denial of one’s responsibility for the purpose of avoiding painful truths is not leadership, yet leaders of the lean movement preferred to look the other way, hoping that those responsible for hiring and firing would someday recognize, on their own, that laying people off due to lean stops continuous improvement. Some have, but most have not.
I can’t follow anyone who is not solidly behind the idea that lean must do no harm. It’s noteworthy that some people in the second tier of the lean movement are far more committed to this than the leading figures who occupy the first tier. Bravo! Apparently, their minds were open to many other sources of influence. In addition, perhaps they have been closer to the problem, as I have, and have seen firsthand how people have been affected by fake lean.
Lean, done right, helps improve the human condition, especially for employees. Yet, promoting lean while remaining silent about the negative effects that fake lean has on employees is incongruous and clearly self-serving. Is lean itself, and the stature of those who lead the movement, more important than people? Definitely not.
The leading lean figures, including those who lead nonprofits, have made millions by promoting lean. Financially, they feel no pain. Their income has been steady and uninterrupted. Nice for them.
Connecticut has a great manufacturing history. A few Connecticut manufacturers were among the first in the United States to adopt real lean, taught to them by Shingijutsu kaizen consultants. Over time, the practice weakened due to changes in management, and fake lean became more prominent. Some Connecticut businesses, widely praised for their lean efforts, have actually been fake lean shops from the start, as are most organizations. The consistent result of continuous improvement has been continuous layoffs. That is wrong.
I have seen the effects of fake lean up close and personal, as a manager in a large manufacturing company and later as a professor teaching graduate students at area universities. The effects that layoffs have on people are frightening and ugly:
• Loss of confidence and self-esteem
• Erosion of work-related skills
• Divorce and broken homes
• State assistance for food
• State assistance for re-education
• Chronic stress
• Depression
• Substance abuse
• Suicide
Layoffs have serious consequences, but the leading figures in the lean community looked the other way instead of confronting this problem head-on, apparently thinking that some improvement is better than no improvement—that the advancement of lean is of greater importance than the harm done to employees.
Sometimes, getting laid off is a blessing in disguise. It gives some workers a reason to pursue a different career, one that better fits their interest and capabilities. However, that is the exception and not the rule.
What I have seen apparently isn't the same as what the leading figures of the lean movement see. Likewise, my students, full-time working professionals, don’t see what the leaders of the lean movement see. Instead, they see a huge gap between how lean should be practiced—how Toyota practices lean—and how the leaders of their companies practice lean. They are not comparing their actual situation to a theoretical ideal—they are comparing their situation to Toyota and similar examples of real-world organizations that practice lean well.
I expect much more from the leading lean figures and organizations dedicated to improvement: change for the better. They must, themselves, improve. We know that the lean community’s leading figures cannot compel the top leaders of a company to do anything, no matter how right it may be. They can, however, embrace a clearly articulated policy statement on this matter:
“In our efforts to advance lean management, we recognize two longstanding, inviolate principles: ‘Continuous Improvement’ and ‘Respect for People.’ Fundamental aspects of the ‘Respect for People’ principle include assurance by top management that no employee will suffer unemployment as a result of continuous improvement, and the establishment of a ‘no-blame’ policy. Stakeholders (e.g., employees, suppliers customers, investors, and communities) shall not be treated in zero-sum (win-lose) ways because doing so is inconsistent with lean principles and practices.”
I challenge the leaders of the Lean Enterprise Institute, The Lean Enterprise Academy, Lean Global Network, Planet Lean, Shingo Institute, Association for Manufacturing Excellence, Society for Manufacturing Engineers, Center for Healthcare Value, Lean Education Academic Network, and all similar organizations in the United States and elsewhere to adopt this policy in its entirety and without modification. The next step is to walk the “Respect for People” talk: Bring the policy to life through concrete actions by the leaders, employees, members, and customers of these organizations.
I hope you will join me in challenging the leaders of these organizations to adopt this policy statement, and feel free to adopt this as your personal or business policy for your lean efforts.
© Bob Emiliani. First published Oct. 13, 2014, on Bob Emiliani’s Innovative Lean Leadership blog.
Comments
Does lean mean zero spending?
It seems so. Companies' and organizations' stakeholders are everywhere exception made on the shop floor and at employees' level. Most leaders are known for having wasted huge money in catastrophic campaigns that led their companies and organizations to put thousands of former employees on a road: is this lean leadership? Surely not. If leaders want to respect themselves and the definition of their role, they should also roll up their sleeves and get working.
Fake vs Real Lean and respect
The biggest driver I see is fake lean touts cost reduction and real lean creates capacity. Said another way, real lean is about growth, value creation, and development. Fake lean is merely cutting....
When a focus is cost reduction, a senior executive(fake leader) can justify reduction in workforce as"being lean" or even worse "trimming the fat". Whereas a true practiononer sees the added capacity as a way to leverage the potential of the company to seek new opportunities and increase the value of the organization, e.g. GROW.
I truly believe with the right focus, true leaders do the right thing. I believe our challenge is to get the true message into the hands of true leaders and watch the growth.
Add new comment