This month, David Veech published a very interesting new book called Leadersights: Creating Great Leaders Who Create Great Workplaces. This book addresses an important need: How organizations can create a leader-development system that defines, builds, and reinforces critical leader behaviors. When I had the chance to speak with David about his book, I asked him: What is the biggest problem with current leader-development systems and how can they be improved? He provided an insightful answer:
I'm not sure there are problems with leader-development systems that would threaten the livelihood of organizations, but as with everything else in our continuous-improvement community, there are always parts we can improve. I’ve centered and focused on a couple of areas, and I’ve tried to simplify things a bit as I try to communicate with people about becoming better leaders.
After years of studying the Toyota Production System and other companies that demonstrate consistent success, specifically those profiled in Jim Collins’ books Good to Great and Great by Choice, I have come to believe that the key features of any leader-development program must be built on a platform of servant leadership. I get a lot of agreement with this from people, but there are lots of pieces to becoming an effective servant leader.
The most significant of these pieces is the structure of the workplace. If we have an organization structure that is based on traditional, functional silos, and one that bases compensation of the accomplishment of self-set goals, that structure forces leaders into a particularly results-oriented focus, regardless of their personal leadership style preferences. The system affects their leadership behavior. When a leader assumes a new role, the subtle (or not-so-subtle) competitive pressures implied by the results-oriented system force that leader, out of self-preservation, to either undo what previous leaders have done, or make a change that has their fingerprints on it so they can stand out a bit from the crowd. In most organizations, leaders rotate through key positions moderately frequently (sometimes as little as 18 months between roles), and they get conditioned to this kind of activity even though personally they may be humble and very people-oriented. Lean helps because we try to change the work structures for better performance, and because we focus on the development of people as the primary outcome.
Changing the fundamental structure of the conventional organization is a large undertaking, so I have tried to outline something of a more subversive approach than blowing things up and rebuilding from the rubble. We’ll need to first identify what behaviors are truly important to us as a workplace. Empathy. Listening. Encouraging. Correcting. Coaching. These we describe and operationalize in our statement of corporate values, which with our vision and mission set out our operating philosophy. Then we tie these to performance appraisals and bonus compensation. These are hard to measure, so this is a leap of faith for most workplaces. More importantly though, we must have systems and leaders who model and teach these behaviors, and as with other skills we want to develop, these need to be set out in the leaders’ standardized work. I think this might be the biggest departure from what most of us talk about when we describe leaders’ standardized work. Where most of us use this tool as a checklist and reminder of the key things we must complete daily, weekly, and monthly, we don’t articulate how to be empathetic; how to listen; how to encourage. I think we can fix this be setting out standardized work for these types of skills and reinforcing these skills through frequent coaching as a task within Short-Interval Leadership.
Ultimately, leaders only need to do three things: Decide to love, continue to learn, and let go of the control they think they have over the workplace. Those skills I mentioned are all components of these three decisions/actions/ habits. These allow us to integrate various leadership styles in our daily work, including the “go out and get noticed” piece that I call “connecting”. But I have to take this back to the structure conversation. Without key changes in the way we describe, hire, evaluate, and compensate leaders; and without key changes in how the work is structured in the workplace away from batch-and-queue, lots of handoffs, and transaction-driven and toward flow, it will be very difficult to build these types of leaders for the future.
What type of leadership-development system exists in your organization? What are the major factors affecting your leaders' behaviors?
Showing posts with label standardized work. Show all posts
Showing posts with label standardized work. Show all posts
11.14.2016
Global Lean -- When the Gemba is All Over the World
For many organizations, manufacturing processes were once contained within specific areas and defined locations, and most managers and supervisors could see and observe the entire work area -- the gemba -- by merely taking a walk.
Currently, however, with globalization, many manufacturing processes have been dispersed over thousands of miles, across oceans, and different time zones. Sam Yankelevitch, in his new book -- Global Lean: Seeing the New Waste Rooted in Communication, Distance, and Culture -- demonstrates how to use Lean thinking to uncover and reduce waste in the interactions required in today's global organizations.
During a recent conversation with Sam Yankelevitch, I asked him: "To succeed globally, what are the substantially new obstacles organization now face?"
Here is his response:
Many companies try to copy and paste the success they’ve had in their natural, local environments when they expand their operations internationally. My experience managing global companies, has shown me otherwise and, in my new book, I’ve tried to share some key items companies and their leaders should be aware of to avoid financial losses.
As the title of the book suggests, communication, distance and culture should be taken seriously. Just labeling these factors as “soft” will not make them go away. “Soft” can have very “hard” impact on your execution and results. A positive point is that Lean thinking applies just as well to reducing or removing these obstacles.
Starting with distance, this is a factor that is related to trust and cause and effect. It is hard enough to establish trust with some of the local stakeholders and being physically separated also creates a mental distance. Furthermore, when cause and effect happen with a longer interval, problems might not be easy to solve because the source is tough to pinpoint.
Culture is, of course, a very abstract topic, but it affects the way your requests and expectations are perceived by someone outside of your normal circle. One point is sure: “our way” is not always the best way or the only way when dealing with people from a different culture.
And then there’s communication. Distance and culture are of course factors that influence how a message is sent and received. But it is evident that because communication precedes action, it’s best to figure out how to do this effectively across continents to improve your chances of success.
Success in the past can sometimes turn out to be a big obstacle because circumstances that helped and hastened success previously have significantly changed. It's important for leaders to see new situations in a new light and not be trapped by routine.
Here's a short video of Sam Yankelevitch speaking about the topics covered in his new book:
7.23.2014
How the LEGO Group Built a Global Learning Organization Using TWI
Patrick Graupp, the foremost thought leader on the topic of Training Within Industry (TWI), has authored an important new book titled Building a Global Learning Organization: Using TWI to Succeed with Strategic Workforce Expansion in the LEGO Group. He wrote the book with two coauthors, Gitte Jakobsen and John Vellema, both employed by the the LEGO Group. The book completely outlines the actual organizational and planning models used by the LEGO Group to build a true Global Learning Organization.
I recently met with Patrick at the 2014 TWI Summit in Nashville and asked him: Why should a multinational company develop a Training Within Industry (TWI) program? What makes LEGO’s unique? Here is his complete reply:
Companies struggling to achieve and sustain gains from their Lean programs have come to realize the vital role Standardized Work plays here and just how difficult it is to achieve. It takes tremendous amounts of skill and effort to get literally everyone in an organization performing tasks in the same way. When this vision of consistent processes and performance expands to include facilities in different countries, with varying languages and cultures, the complexity magnifies exponentially. However, as the LEGO Group recognized when they began to rapidly expand their worldwide production, children don’t care whether their LEGO pieces are made in Denmark, Hungary, Mexico or China, but they have to all fit together perfectly and this requires stable quality across all production sites.
What the TWI programs, especially the Job Instruction element, give to this multinational effort is a “common language” around which leaders and operators can communicate effectively. By creating a simple but clear structure for “breaking down” a job into its essential elements, the What and the How and the Why, and then providing an effective “4-Step Method” by which any person can be trained in that job, TWI has allowed any LEGO associate regardless of where they live or what language they speak to learn the job identically to any of his or her counterparts, even in facilities in separate countries. While employees are being trained in their various native tongues, of course, the content and methodology of the training is consistent following the TWI method.
What is truly unique and special about the LEGO Group is that in implementing their global training system they made the conscious decision to regard equally all LEGO employees around the globe thus abandoning the old culture of “headquarters knows best.” This was no easy task. But it embodied the Lean philosophy of Respect for People in the most fundamental way -- across borders and cultures. As one top executive is quoted in the book expressing this new approach: “Any employee of the LEGO supply chain should be able to move from any factory to any other factory and notice nothing else but the language and the local temperature.”
In my own personal experience teaching the TWI courses around the world, everyone understands and agrees with the principles embodied in the TWI methods. In other words, they transcend differences in cultures and attitudes and represent what is fundamental to people from any society. With these foundations in place, TWI skills allow leaders in any country to effectively lead people by building strong relations that lead to good results. When a multinational company attempts to implement their own vision of leadership and business overseas, they would be wise to bring these methods with them.
What do you think of Patrick's reply? Has your organization instituted any type of TWI program?
I recently met with Patrick at the 2014 TWI Summit in Nashville and asked him: Why should a multinational company develop a Training Within Industry (TWI) program? What makes LEGO’s unique? Here is his complete reply:
Companies struggling to achieve and sustain gains from their Lean programs have come to realize the vital role Standardized Work plays here and just how difficult it is to achieve. It takes tremendous amounts of skill and effort to get literally everyone in an organization performing tasks in the same way. When this vision of consistent processes and performance expands to include facilities in different countries, with varying languages and cultures, the complexity magnifies exponentially. However, as the LEGO Group recognized when they began to rapidly expand their worldwide production, children don’t care whether their LEGO pieces are made in Denmark, Hungary, Mexico or China, but they have to all fit together perfectly and this requires stable quality across all production sites.
What the TWI programs, especially the Job Instruction element, give to this multinational effort is a “common language” around which leaders and operators can communicate effectively. By creating a simple but clear structure for “breaking down” a job into its essential elements, the What and the How and the Why, and then providing an effective “4-Step Method” by which any person can be trained in that job, TWI has allowed any LEGO associate regardless of where they live or what language they speak to learn the job identically to any of his or her counterparts, even in facilities in separate countries. While employees are being trained in their various native tongues, of course, the content and methodology of the training is consistent following the TWI method.
What is truly unique and special about the LEGO Group is that in implementing their global training system they made the conscious decision to regard equally all LEGO employees around the globe thus abandoning the old culture of “headquarters knows best.” This was no easy task. But it embodied the Lean philosophy of Respect for People in the most fundamental way -- across borders and cultures. As one top executive is quoted in the book expressing this new approach: “Any employee of the LEGO supply chain should be able to move from any factory to any other factory and notice nothing else but the language and the local temperature.”
In my own personal experience teaching the TWI courses around the world, everyone understands and agrees with the principles embodied in the TWI methods. In other words, they transcend differences in cultures and attitudes and represent what is fundamental to people from any society. With these foundations in place, TWI skills allow leaders in any country to effectively lead people by building strong relations that lead to good results. When a multinational company attempts to implement their own vision of leadership and business overseas, they would be wise to bring these methods with them.
What do you think of Patrick's reply? Has your organization instituted any type of TWI program?
3.03.2011
What About Standardized Work?
I recently spoke to Timothy D. Martin and Jeffrey T. Bell, who recently published a book titled New Horizons in Standardized Work: Techniques for Manufacturing and Business Process Improvement, about the role standardized work plays the performance of processes. I asked them flat out: "What would be the most important point that you want to make about standardized work?" Here is their unedited reply:
Over the years, we learned quite a bit from the many mistakes that we made as well as our successes in applying standardized work in many diverse processes. We also found that others were often very interested in how we “saw” ways to apply standardized work. To ensure that we did not lose these experiences, we tried to summarize and capture the thinking behind our adaptation efforts. This is one of the reasons behind the idea of “new horizons”. We felt it was important to share these experiences and hopefully offer more detailed information on standardized work itself. Although there are a lot of books about the Toyota Production System (TPS) and lean manufacturing, standardized work often appears in limited detail. We felt that this might have led to some of the common misconceptions that we were running into about standardized work.
One of the main misconceptions is that there appears to be a common belief that standardized work applies only to manufacturing processes with short repeatable work cycles. We believe that standardized work principles can be applied to virtually any situation where work is involved. Toyota has taught us that we should not blindly copy what they have done, but rather that we must instead strive to understand the thinking behind TPS so that it can be adapted to our processes. This thinking, which includes standardized work, can be adapted to processes used in the office, on a construction site, in the kitchen, in an operating room, or even in the board room. The extent of these principles and philosophies is limited only by your determination."
Do you agree with Tim and Jeff? Can standardized work really be effective off the manufacturing floor? Do you think it would work with long work cycles? Is it dangerous in some particular professions to standardize work?
Over the years, we learned quite a bit from the many mistakes that we made as well as our successes in applying standardized work in many diverse processes. We also found that others were often very interested in how we “saw” ways to apply standardized work. To ensure that we did not lose these experiences, we tried to summarize and capture the thinking behind our adaptation efforts. This is one of the reasons behind the idea of “new horizons”. We felt it was important to share these experiences and hopefully offer more detailed information on standardized work itself. Although there are a lot of books about the Toyota Production System (TPS) and lean manufacturing, standardized work often appears in limited detail. We felt that this might have led to some of the common misconceptions that we were running into about standardized work.
One of the main misconceptions is that there appears to be a common belief that standardized work applies only to manufacturing processes with short repeatable work cycles. We believe that standardized work principles can be applied to virtually any situation where work is involved. Toyota has taught us that we should not blindly copy what they have done, but rather that we must instead strive to understand the thinking behind TPS so that it can be adapted to our processes. This thinking, which includes standardized work, can be adapted to processes used in the office, on a construction site, in the kitchen, in an operating room, or even in the board room. The extent of these principles and philosophies is limited only by your determination."
Do you agree with Tim and Jeff? Can standardized work really be effective off the manufacturing floor? Do you think it would work with long work cycles? Is it dangerous in some particular professions to standardize work?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)