Integrating Lean Six Sigma and Automation -- Is It Always a Struggle?

Earlier this month, I spoke to Marciano Hermo about his new book -- Integrating Lean Six Sigma and Automation: A Framework for Transforming Processes in the Digital Age -- which, through a structured integration cycle, real-world examples, and field-tested tools, demonstrates how improvement and technology reinforce, not replace, each other.

During our conversation, I asked him: "Why has it been a struggle to integrate Lean Six Sigma and automation?" Here is his complete answer:

The struggle to integrate Lean Six Sigma and automation is not because the two are incompatible. In fact, they are highly complementary. The difficulty is that organizations have often treated them as separate disciplines.

Lean Six Sigma traditionally sits with operational excellence, quality, or process improvement teams, while automation is commonly driven by IT, digital transformation, or technology groups. Each brings different expertise, priorities, measures of success, and even language. As a result, improvement and automation initiatives can proceed in parallel rather than as part of one transformation journey.

Another challenge is sequencing. Organizations are understandably attracted to the speed and scalability promised by automation. But automating a process before understanding and improving it can simply make waste, complexity, and poor decisions happen faster and at greater scale.

As I emphasize in the book, the objective should not be to automate a process simply because it can be automated. First, understand, challenge, simplify, and improve the process; then use technology where it can create additional, sustainable value.

There is also a human dimension. Lean Six Sigma and automation both change how work is performed. Integration therefore requires more than analytical tools and technology; it requires leadership alignment, cross-functional collaboration, new capabilities, and attention to how people experience and adopt change.

This is why I see Lean Six Sigma and automation not as competing approaches, but as complementary capabilities. Lean Six Sigma helps organizations determine what should change and why. Automation can then help scale, accelerate, and sustain the improved process.

Bringing the two together creates the opportunity to move beyond isolated improvement projects or technology deployments toward a more purposeful approach to process transformation.

Do you agree with Marciano's perspective? Have you tried integrating Lean Six Sigma and automation in your organization? What struggles did you face? 

The Gains Achieved from Performance-Improvement Initiatives -- What Prevents Organizations from Sustaining Them?

Just this month, Dr. Mohammad Al-Rifai published a new book entitled Sustaining Business Improvement Gains: A Framework for Embedding Continuous Improvement Into Your Organization’s Culture.  This book tackles a problem that every operations leader knows too well: organizations work hard to achieve improvement -- but far too many struggle to keep it.

When I spoke with Mohammad this past week, I asked him, "What most often prevents organizations from sustaining their gains?" He quickly pointed to a pattern he has seen across industries for more than two decades. Here is his complete answer:

The daily pressure of operations creeps back in… enthusiasm fades… small deviations go unchecked. Before long, the hard‑earned improvements slip away.

The reasons are remarkably consistent.

• Leadership attention drifts. After initial wins, leaders often shift focus to new priorities. Without visible, ongoing commitment, improvement becomes a “project” rather than a way of operating.
• Culture doesn’t evolve. Teams may adopt new processes, but if underlying behaviors and mindsets don’t change, old habits quietly return.
• Communication loses clarity. Messages become inconsistent, progress isn’t visible, and people lose sight of why the change mattered in the first place.
• Silos persist. Improvement requires shared ownership. When functions retreat to their corners, gains stall.
• Capabilities plateau. Teams may know how to execute improvements, but not how to sustain them. Confidence fades, and problem‑solving becomes reactive instead of proactive.
• Operational discipline weakens. Reviews, routines, and metrics are inconsistently followed. Standards drift. Issues go unaddressed until they become crises.
• Knowledge disappears. Lessons learned aren’t captured or shared, forcing teams to relearn the same problems.
• Recognition is sporadic. When people don’t feel their efforts matter, motivation declines -- and so does sustainability.

As Mohammad Al‑Rifai emphasizes, sustaining improvement “is not about luck -- it’s about building a system that embeds continuous improvement into the organization’s everyday rhythm.”

Do leaders and practitioners reading this post see these same barriers in their organizations? If so, what have you done to overcome them?

When Managers Can't Collaborate Effectively -- What Is the Main Cause?

Earlier this month, Andrew S. Humphries and Linda McComie published a book entitled Why Managers Don't Collaborate: Revealing the Myths and Truths. The purpose of this book is to dispel the baseless myths that are preventing managers in organizations from moving forward and reaping the benefits of collaboration. 

When I spoke with Andrew this past week, I asked him: "What has been the main cause preventing managers from collaborating effectively?" Here is his complete answer:

The main cause preventing managers from collaborating effectively is their belief that no special arrangements, skills, or structures are needed to collaborate. Our book makes this point repeatedly and forcefully.

Across the underlying research, managers consistently claim they are collaborating, but in practice, they behave exactly as they always have: “they have claimed they are collaborating, but in reality, it was not happening,” and this false confidence forms the First Big Myth. Managers assume that existing processes, governance, and attitudes will somehow deliver collaborative outcomes, even though these were never designed for joint working.

The Second Big Myth reinforces the problem: managers “believe that they do not need to make special arrangements to collaborate successfully.” They fail to recognize collaboration as a professional discipline requiring investment, leadership, relationship management structures, and new ways of working. This leads to avoidance, excuses, and a reliance on habitual practices that undermine joint performance.

The book explores the deeper drivers behind this misconception:

• Short‑termism and management myopia, where immediate operational pressures overshadow long‑term value creation.
• Organizational resistance to change and fear of losing control, especially in governance-heavy environments.
• Vested interests in functions like sales, commercial, and finance that resist new ways of working.
• Over‑reliance on technology as a substitute for relationship management.
• Lack of champions and leadership, leaving alliances without direction or accountability.

In conclusion, the real fault lies with senior leaders “who do not understand the power of collaborative management,” leaving managers unsupported and unprepared to adopt the additional responsibilities collaboration demands.

In short, the main cause is a pervasive misunderstanding of what collaboration requires, leading managers to believe they are already doing it -- or that it is unnecessary -- while failing to invest in the structures, skills, and leadership that make collaboration succeed.

Do you agree with Andrew's perspective that managers fail to collaborate effectively because they do not understand that collaboration requires a distinct professional discipline? That is, a discipline that demands long‑term thinking, structural investment, behavioral change, and dedicated leadership, and instead relies on myths, assumptions, and excuses that keep them locked into traditional, siloed management practices.

If so, have you seen managers make this mistake in your company? Were these mistakes corrected?

New Business Leaders -- What Are Their Common Mistakes?

Back in February, Julian M. Allen published a book entitled Operational Leadership Uncensored: Real Talk for Burgeoning Manufacturing Leaders, which is geared to young business leaders who are seeking to accomplish real results, greater responsibilities, and career advancement. This book presents both fundamental and sophisticated leadership approaches, including occasional moments of levity, to advance career management and interpersonal competencies for emerging leaders. These principles transcend generational boundaries and maintain their relevance throughout the evolution of organizational leadership.

When I spoke with Julian this month and told him I'd like to include his thoughts in a blog post, I asked him, "What are the most common mistakes new business leaders make?" Here is his complete response:

Hey there, current and future leaders, especially those stepping into manufacturing or operations roles. I’ve led through four facility startups, multiple expansions, and high-stakes turnarounds across 17 sites. Trust me, I’ve watched plenty of talented new bosses flame out fast. The crazy part? Most of their mistakes are 100% avoidable if you catch them early.

Here are the three that show up most often (and that I tackle head-on in Operational Leadership Uncensored):

1. Chasing personal glory instead of team wins. New leaders often obsess over the title, their power, or the biggest paycheck. They become “chaos creators”-- the ones who care more about their own trophy case than lifting their crew.

2. Falling into the classic “three-year shuffle." Year one: lots of big talk, zero results. Year two: blame everyone else. Year three: grab credit for the smallest win and jump ship before the wheels fall off. It’s predictable… and preventable.

3. Tanking credibility through poor communication or “spinning.” Bad breath, jargon-heavy emails, or stretching the truth to look good -- any of these kills trust instantly. Once your team starts fact-checking everything you say, you’re done.

Here’s the straight truth I share in the book:  

“Here’s the secret sauce of leadership: it’s not about you. Seriously. If you’re more worried about your own trophy case than your crew’s wins, you’re toast.”

Leadership isn’t about being the smartest person in the room; it’s about being a decent human with real empathy, clear communication, and the humility to put your people first. My book gives you the uncensored playbook: real stories from the floor, simple tools, and reflection exercises so you can skip the rookie mistakes and start winning from day one.

Ready to lead like the boss your team actually deserves? Grab Operational Leadership Uncensored and turn those hard lessons into your unfair advantage.

What’s one mistake you’ve seen (or made) that still makes you cringe? Drop it in the comments -- I'll read every one. Let’s learn together.

What do you think of Julian's perspective? Do you agree with his assessment of common mistakes? Did you make any of these early in your career?

Do Managers Truly Understand How to Measure Critical Success Factors (CSFs)?

Earlier this month, I spoke with James H. Dobbins about his latest book, Critical Success Factors: How to Effectively Identify, Measure, and Apply CSFs, which equips managers with a practical framework to accurately identify, measure, and apply their critical success factors (CSFs). Unlike previous efforts that relied on broad surveys and statistical analyses intended to generate generalized lists of CSFs, this approach honors the foundational definition of CSFs and provides actionable guidance tailored to each manager’s unique context.

During our conversation, I asked James, "What are the biggest mistakes managers make when trying to measure critical success factors (CSFs)?" Here is his complete answer:

The biggest mistake managers make when trying to measure critical success factors (CSFs) is failing to understand what CSFs are in the first place. Managers turn to the results of research by others, projects often done by academics in the pursuit of an advanced degree. The research objective is to produce a list of generalized CSFs.  Once the list is published, the research is completed, the degree is granted, and the researcher goes on with their life. No measures are suggested. Many researchers worldwide, all with the same objective, have published different sets of CSFs. There is no guidance on which list to use. The biggest problem is that all the research was conducted using surveys of large numbers of managers, and there has never been a valid list of CSFs produced from surveys. Using surveys to identify CSFs has several fundamental flaws.  Some, noted in the Introduction to the book, are:

• The assumption that project managers know how to identify their CSFs,
• The failure to recognize that CSFs are contextually relevant to the manager, and therefore, the elimination of anything not generalizable, is contrary to the definition of CSF.
• The failure to understand that Critical Success Factors are, in fact, critical for a specific manager, and that all must be done well.  CSFs are not something you pick from a menu, like a survey result, hoping you chose the right ones.
• The absence of any longitudinal studies. There was no follow-up with any of the managers surveyed to validate the study's results or to determine whether and how they utilized the CSFs identified in the survey.
• There was no attempt to identify measures for the identified CSFs to help managers track their success in meeting the CSFs.  

Does your company actively use and apply critical success factors (CSFs) in its operations? Does your organization rely on surveys to determine which CSFs to prioritize? And do you agree with the mistakes James H. Dobbins identifies in this area?

Has Navigating Change Become More Difficult?

Mitchell Kusy co-authored a book with Mike Valentine and Gilles Benoit entitled The Playbook for Leading Change: Proven Strategies for Success, which was published this December. This book explains how leaders continually receive multiple messages on how to lead successful organizational change. The confusion created by these multiple messages has contributed to a high failure rate in change initiatives, as organizations struggle with watered-down approaches that offer generic solutions instead of tailored, practical guidance. This book functions as a compendium of simple, easy-to-implement change strategies that work.

When I spoke with Mitch earlier this month, I asked him, "Why has navigating change become more difficult? What are the major challenges?" Here is his complete answer:

Ever tried spreading peanut butter on toast? You know how it goes. Every inch gets the same layer, whether it needs it or not. That’s the way some organizations approach change: a one-size-fits-all method that doesn’t consider the unique textures of the situation. But change isn’t toast, and a blanket approach rarely works.  We created this book with three goals in mind: 

• Beat the odds for change success. Too many change efforts fail. We help you succeed. Even in unfamiliar change territory, we help you understand what's needed, why, and how.
•  Cut through the “noise” of change with confidence. Change can be messy. Let’s bring some clarity to the chaos and give you the confidence to tackle it.
• Keep it practical with strong evidence. No heavy theories—just real, research-backed strategies that we distill into everyday practices you can actually use. 

One of the many experiences we have had helping organizations and teams lead change is that leaders sometimes bypass three important dimensions of change: 

• Self as the Instrument for Change. How can each person’s commitment fuel success? 
• Team as the Instrument for Change. What’s the team’s role in making the change happen? 
• Organization as the Instrument for Change. How well is the change aligned with the system that needs to carry it? 

Some researchers have demonstrated a 60% to 70% failure rate; others have 50% to 75%. “Why does change fail so often?” Sometimes, leaders don’t realize how complex change really is. Other times, they may fail to link their big vision to real execution. Maybe they forget to involve the people who need to bring the change to life. In some cases, they include people too late. And often, they miss the chance to connect change efforts with larger business goals. Sometimes leaders focus so heavily on the change itself that they neglect the transition people must go through to make it work. These are just some of the many issues that fueled our book. 

In the Playbook, we share how to address the four major change challenges leaders face:

• Organizational and team transitions/restructures. 
• Strategic alignment.  
• Team development and the capacity for change. 
• Work culture change, especially toxic work cultures. 

What has been your experience with change management and team building? Do you agree with Mitchell's points? What were some of the mistakes you saw with the initiative within your organization? 

Brain Science -- How Can It Help An Organization Succeed?

Just this past week, Christianna Hayes published an innovative new book entitled Wired for Excellence: Harnessing Brain Science for Organizational Success, which brings together the fascinating world of neuroscience with the practical tools of organizational excellence, giving leaders a fresh, science-backed way to build thriving workplaces. Essentially, it’s a real-world guide to understanding how the brain shapes behavior, decisions, and culture, and how leaders can use that insight to drive performance, trust, and long-term success.

When I spoke with Christianna recently, I asked her, "How can brain science actually help an organization succeed?" Here is her complete answer:

When organizations talk about improvement, they often focus on tools and processes. But those systems succeed or fail based on one thing -- the human brain. Every decision, reaction, and relationship runs through that three-pound organ we all bring to work each day. When leaders understand how it functions, they can design environments that bring out people’s best thinking instead of triggering defense mechanisms.

When people experience uncertainty or unclear expectations, the brain’s alarm system -- the amygdala-- interprets that as a threat. Energy shifts from problem-solving to self-protection, and engagement drops. The solution isn’t to push harder; it’s to design clarity, safety, and progress into the work itself. When the brain perceives purpose and predictability, it releases dopamine and oxytocin -- chemicals that reinforce focus, trust, and motivation. In other words, success happens when people’s brains feel safe enough to contribute and rewarded enough to keep going.

In Wired for Excellence, I use a framework called the BRAIN Model -- Belonging, Resilience, Autonomy, Insight, and Nurturing -- to help leaders translate neuroscience into daily practice. These five elements remind us what the brain needs to stay engaged. When organizations meet those needs, performance isn’t forced -- it flows.

As I often tell clients, “The brain is both the barrier and the breakthrough.” Once we learn to work with it rather than against it, excellence becomes less about control and more about design.

What do you think of Christianna's perspective? Is "brain science" a consideration in your organization when process-improvement initiatives are implemented? Do you think it could affect the overall workplace culture? 

Change Management and Continuous Improvement -- Is There a Disconnect Between the Two?

This past month, Kyle B. Stone published an interesting book entitled The Change Agent’s Field Guide: Mastering the Intersections of Change Management and Continuous Improvement, which helps anyone involved in leading continuous improvement within an organization better understand when to apply the change management techniques necessary to achieve successful outcomes. Many continuous improvement efforts fail because those leading changes do not recognize when to pause and evaluate critical intersections needing change management tools. This book provides clear guidance on when to pause, what to do, and how to navigate these intersections successfully.

When I spoke with Kyle this month, I asked him, "Why is there a disconnect between change management and continuous improvement?” Here is his detailed answer:

My premise on why continuous improvement efforts sometimes “stick” and other times do not is that many leaders of these efforts fail to understand the importance of change management and the critical intersections between people and process improvement.  My desire with this book is to offer a guide for leaders of continuous improvement and how to anticipate, manage, and measure change while engaging in continuous improvement. There are seven intersections that I describe that help close the disconnect between change management and continuous improvement.

1. Develop systems thinking skills
2. Triage Change
3. Make a plan
4. Manage the handoffs
5. Communication
6. Counselor
7. Political engagements and interactions

Managing these critical intersections is key to successful outcomes for planned or unplanned change initiatives. My intent is not to address all the various types of externally managed continuous improvement methodologies since most externally managed “accreditations” are based on alignment with standards generally designed to drive continuous improvement within the organization. The goal of this book is to provide a foundation of knowledge in both change management and typical continuous improvement methods so leaders of change can navigate the nuances and triage the challenges typically encountered whenever you are asking people to change the way they perform their work, which is a common outcome of most continuous improvement efforts. 

Following the foundation-building chapters, examples of how to identify and manage the intersections between those affected by change and the continuous improvement efforts are provided, assisting the leaders with anticipating and addressing critical junctures. Ignoring these intersections and plowing forward is a common failure during many continuous improvement efforts, often resulting in a lack of engagement, resistance, and sometimes sabotage. 

What do you think of Kyle's perspective on the relationship between continuous improvement initiatives and change management? For those who have led Lean and continuous improvement efforts in your organization, how was change management addressed? Did it improve buy-in and understanding among colleagues? 

"Elemental" Leaders -- Can They Benefit Your Organization?

Last week, Tyler Comeau released his new book, The Elemental Leader: Unlocking Your Potential Through Values, Perseverance, Adaptability, and Innovation. This comprehensive leadership development guide reimagines the classical elements -- Earth, Air, Water, and Fire -- as metaphors for foundational leadership principles. Designed to help leaders unlock their full potential, the book grounds leadership practices in these elemental concepts:

• Earth represents core values and a grounded mindset.

• Air symbolizes perseverance and the ability to overcome adversity.

• Water reflects adaptability and skillful navigation of change.

• Fire embodies innovation, motivation, decision-making, and risk-taking.

Through a blend of personal anecdotes, case studies, research, and actionable strategies, Comeau offers a holistic framework for leadership growth that is both practical and inspiring.

When I spoke with Tyler this week, I asked him, “What are elemental leaders, and how do they benefit organizations?” He began by sharing this passage from his book and then distilled his thoughts:

“As you ignite this journey, remember that the most effective leaders are not those who rigidly adhere to a set of rules but those who are adaptable, resilient, and open to new ideas. They are the ones who dare to take risks, learn from their mistakes, and constantly evolve their practice. They are the elemental leaders, the ones who understand that leadership is not just about imparting knowledge but about igniting a spark within each colleague that will burn brightly for a lifetime.”

At its core, elemental leadership is about cultivating versatile, grounded, and deeply human leaders. These individuals:

• Create organizations where values are not just words on a wall but active guides for decision-making (Earth). 

• Foster cultures that treat setbacks as opportunities for growth (Air).

• Lead teams through transitions with openness and flexibility (Water).

• Embrace bold opportunities and calculated risks (Fire).

Organizations benefit from elemental leaders because they model wholeness rather than rigidity. Rather than relying on a single leadership style, they bring a dynamic toolkit that adapts to diverse challenges. This versatility fosters trust, strengthens workplace culture, and sustains long-term momentum.

In a world defined by complexity and constant change, elemental leaders don’t just endure -- they empower their organizations to thrive.

What are your thoughts on Tyler’s approach? Does your organization cultivate leadership that enhances engagement and builds a resilient, values-driven culture?

Kurt Lewin's Change Model -- Does It Benefit Businesses?

In July of this year, Gilmore Crosby published a new book titled Leadership and the Frontline Workforce: Lessons from the Targets of Change. The book explores methods of organizational change through the real-life experiences of frontline workers. While leadership and management theory have traditionally been written from the top down, Crosby highlights a notable exception: Kurt Lewin, whose action-research demonstrated that those on the frontlines are often best positioned to initiate and sustain meaningful change.

Through a series of interviews, the book captures the voices of workers who lived through Lewin-style transformations -- before, during, and after the change process. Their stories reveal the full spectrum of experience: the good, the bad, and the often-overlooked challenges of being the targets of change within complex systems.

When I spoke with Gilmore in August, I asked him, “What is Kurt Lewin-style change and how does it benefit a business?" Here is his complete answer:

As noted in the book, Kurt Lewin’s change model is in many ways simple and often misunderstood. It begins with the simple premise that everyone wants to influence the systems they are in, at work and outside of work.

Lewin conducted simple research to test his theories. With group after group, he demonstrated that when people were told what to do without any chance to influence, they were less likely to do it, or if they did it, less likely to do it well.”

The book goes on to give examples of Lewin’s work, including when the government wanted farmers to irrigate differently during the Dust Bowl years.

The farmers who were simply lectured at did almost none of what was suggested. The farmers who engaged in group dialogue, who were genuinely allowed to influence, and who thought about their own solutions, implemented a high percentage of what they came up with. The same results occurred in all of Lewin’s studies, including with workers in an industrial setting.

The results of his studies were and continue to be groundbreaking. When people come up with their own solutions, they are far more likely to be committed to them.

The consistent result is higher morale and productivity. The book illustrates how, through interviews with executives and with hourly workers who went through change efforts led by me, my father, and my colleagues. The interviews bring to life conditions before, during, and after such a change. The methods can be applied to any organization and to society. 

In a nutshell, most leaders and consultants try to do most of the thinking. They fail to tap the knowledge and pride of the people who are actually doing the hands-on work. Furthermore, because they over-function in terms of thinking, leadership is further handicapped by the dilemma of handing off, imposing, or selling their solutions to the organization. The entire approach is a huge mistake, resulting in crappy implementation of potentially effective solutions, tension, blame, and low morale. This book teaches a better way.

What are your thoughts on Gilmore’s perspective? Are the leaders and managers in your organization familiar with Kurt Lewin’s change management methods? Do frontline employees have meaningful channels to share their insights and suggestions for process improvement?

Servant Leadership -- How Does It Help Achieve Organizational Excellence?

At the end of May, Robert. B Camp published a book entitled The Servant Leader: How to Create a Productive Organization By Serving Those Being Led -- a compelling exploration of servant leadership in practice. The book delves into how truly effective leaders prioritize humility, foster growth in others, and remove obstacles to enable success. A servant leader, Camp asserts, sets the vision and paves the way for others to follow.

When I spoke with Robert this month, I asked him: "What is 'servant leadership,' and how does it benefit an organization?" Here is his complete response: 

Lean is about leadership.  

When employed effectively, Lean works from the top of the organization down.  While conventional "command and control" leadership can get a Lean transformation off the ground, it can’t sustain one.  Sustainable Lean is achieved when leaders set direction and goals, then use their authority to remove obstacles from the paths of the people they hold accountable for achieving those things.  This demands a mindset shift: leaders must see themselves not above, but in service to, their teams.

In this upside-down way of looking at leadership, one realizes that leadership isn’t about power and control.  It’s about clearing the path for one’s subordinates so that they can do their jobs more effectively and excel.

Early in my book, the reader meets Thomas Harding, a director endeavoring to be a servant leader.  We learn that, as a leader, “Thomas feels his highest calling [is] to grow those below him; to prepare them to be the best they possibly [can be].  As a result, he [is] far more worried about his people’s careers than his own.”  

The reader also learns that Thomas adheres to a strict hierarchy of principles:

• His priorities are: 
• Morality (following a moral code)
• Organization (achieving the best outcome for his company)
• Subordinates (clearing their paths so his people can shine)
• Self (Striving to be his best in service of others)
• He always completes assignments, but often well beyond expectations.
• He seeks to make his people’s lives easier by eliminating bureaucratic obstacles.
• He listens to his people, but also communicates what’s going on.
• He strives to develop subordinate leaders who mirror his own behaviors. 

Robert’s perspective invites reflection -- What do you think of his view of servant leadership? Is servant leadership part of your organization's culture? Is it part of your Lean initiative? 

Healthcare Executives and the Mistakes They Make Regarding Decision-Making and Leadership

In April, Linda Henman and Deborah Perkins published a book entitled Healthy Decisions: Critical Thinking Skills for Healthcare Executives, which challenges the status quo, arguing that the success of healthcare organizations hinges not on abstract concepts like "culture" but on the concrete decisions executives make. Drawing from real-world experience with large systems like Mercy and Banner Health, specialty hospitals like Ranken Jordan Pediatric Bridge Hospital, insurance companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield, and nonprofit elder care systems, the authors provide a practical guide to help healthcare executives make the tough decisions they can’t afford to get wrong.

When I spoke with Linda this month, I asked her: "What are the biggest mistakes healthcare executives make regarding decision-making and leadership?" Here is her complete answer:

The single most catastrophic—and astonishingly common—mistake healthcare executives make is undervaluing their workforce. Not on paper, of course. On paper, they wax poetic about people being their greatest asset. In practice, they slash staffing, ignore burnout, and treat frontline engagement as optional.

Let’s look at the wreckage.

Hahnemann University Hospital collapsed under its own weight in 2019. Leaders gutted staffing and fiddled with spreadsheets while credibility—and then patients—walked out the door. This resulted in a full shutdown in a city that needed that hospital.

Ascension Health, one of the largest systems in the country, thought it could cut its way to profitability. That meant layoffs and razor-thin staffing, even in clinical settings. They didn’t get the results they intended. Instead, the decision caused lawsuits, strikes, and a shattered reputation.

Providence faced strikes and the massive exit of nurses because executives didn’t listen. Executives suspected burnout, but they ignored the warnings for too long. Travel nurse overreliance, plummeting morale, and public embarrassment resulted.

Even public systems like NYC Health + Hospitals remain hamstrung by hiring delays and morale freefall. If you can’t staff behavioral health in New York City, you don’t have a workforce problem; you have a leadership problem.

And then there’s MetroHealth, where the headlines address lawsuits, not life-saving care. When the executive team implodes, culture does too.

Some of these organizations have changed leadership and slowly started the recovery process, but others never will. In turbulent times, no one will recover from hiring mistakes, inaccurate strategic focus, or underdeveloped succession planning.

Executives don’t create culture at a board retreat. Culture forms when executives use advanced critical thinking skills to solve problems they’ve never faced before. They must first start by seeing their workforce not as overhead but as a leverage point. Underinvest there, and you’re not saving money—you’re setting a match to your margins.

Start with the best people delivering the best care. Ignore that, and you’ll join the list above—not as a cautionary tale, but as a case study in how to lose an empire by winning a spreadsheet.

What do you think of Linda's perspective? Do you agree with her regarding the mistakes made by these health providers? Have you worked in organizations that have made these mistakes?

The Toyota Production System (TPS) -- What Are the Misconceptions?

Earlier this month, Sarah K. Womack published a very interesting new book entitled Toyota's Improvement Thinking from the Inside: From Personal Transformation to Organizational Transformation, which describes how Toyota, through its coaches and leaders, develops its members’ capabilities through a series of continuous improvement (kaizen and problem-solving) activities. For many members of Toyota, this process results in a personal transformation that ultimately leads to organizational transformation.

When I spoke with Sarah this past week, I asked her: "What are the biggest misconceptions about Toyota’s continuous improvement methods and management system?” Here is her complete response:

The biggest misconception I personally had about Toyota’s continuous improvement methods and management system was a degree of personal development and deliberate challenge required to learn how to improve.  It was a journey of mastery of improvement tools, business needs, and how to work with members of your team to accomplish daily objectives.  For most members, that mastery was deeply personal and demanded humility and continuous reflection to transform our mindsets.  And, while there was some talk about Toyota’s philosophy of respect for people, respect is a social construct and difficult to understand from outside of the group.  Once I was inside, I saw how much emphasis there was on reducing team member burden towards the end of reducing waste and creating value for customers. 

More generally speaking of the field, I find many misconceptions about how the entire system works together.  Organizations tend to over-emphasize or de-emphasize the Toyota Production System (TPS) tools for improvement when a successful approach lands at a healthy balance.  The TPS tools are good entry points for people development and continuous improvement.  Value stream mapping, for example, is a tool to chart how material and information flows within a system, show waste, and tell a kaizen story (of waste reduction).  Even if a system is not very complex, learning it through deep study then articulating that learning visually is a special skill set developed over time.  You can feel confident in your skill set when you are able to use such a tool to tell the story of your improvement work.

Finally, I would highlight the misconception around standardization.  Many organizations, within and outside of manufacturing, think it is too rigid to work successfully.  However, Toyota and others have shown that by deeply studying processes and standardizing them, continuous improvements in safety, quality, and other performance outcomes are achievable.

What do you think about Sarah's experience? Has your company implemented a Lean initiative based on the Toyota Production System? Was is transformative?

Leadership Development -- What Is Lacking?

Back in January, Geoff Ribbens, Mark Abraham, and Alistair Cumming published a new book entitled Team Leadership: How to Define, Apply, and Measure It, which presents a unique, people-centric, and scientifically researched theory of leadership linked to an accurate data-based assessment and diagnostic product. For individual leaders looking to maximize personal development and results or for organizations wanting to analyze leadership and its effects across an entire structure or business, this book redefines understanding and development.

When I spoke with the authors this month, I asked them a series of questions starting with "What is currently lacking in leadership development?" Here are their responses:

In our book, we start by identifying four major errors that have held back leadership development and understanding for many years. No doubt all of us have made some, or all, of these errors in the past.

The first error is looking at the leader to understand leadership. Eminent social psychologists have stated that this "leader-centric" approach is “deeply flawed” and not at all useful. We expand on why it is so flawed in the book. We conclude that it is much more useful to concentrate on the perception of those being led.

The second error is to assume that the term "leadership" means the same in a multitude of different contexts such as political leadership, moral leadership, organizational leadership, and team leadership. Different contexts obviously require different definitions and approaches. This is why the book concentrates on the "leadership" of teams.

The third error is to assume that "business success" equates with leadership. This approach only states what the writer hopes leadership will deliver, not what it is. It also assumes that the only people who have leadership are senior managers and CEOs.

The fourth error is simple. Nowhere in our research do we find a definition of the term ‘leadership’ that was objective and measurable.

MS: “So what is the solution to all these myths, assumptions, and lack of definition?”

All the assumptions and errors above have been solved by our innovative approach called Emergent Team Leadership (ETL). We focus on the leadership of teams, whether it is the executive team or the team on the factory floor. We show that all team leaders at every level, have the potential to have "leadership" and it is now measurable.

ETL measures the degree to which team members "willingly and enthusiastically accept their team leader." By examining how team members perceive their leader we created a 12-point profile. The profile is created by the team members, it might not be how the leader perceives themselves or is perceived by the organization. The profile is a simple radar graph and is easy to understand.

MS: “So why focus on teams and team leaders?”

The relationship between the team and the team leader is fundamental to team and organizational performance. If team members "willingly and enthusiastically accept their leader’" then the team leader is more able to deliver positive results because the team supports them. Also, team and team leader well-being is achieved, and there is less disagreement and conflict.

MS: "I can see the improved well-being of the team and team leader but are there any other benefits?

The simple 12-point profile indicates to the team leader what they need to do to move from merely managing their team to the true leadership of that team. The profile is not based on the leader’s personality but on the team’s perception. What is important is that the leader can change that perception. The leader is not a ‘servant’ of the team but can increase their influence by understanding how their team perceives them.

There are many benefits for the team, the team leader, and the whole organization. One obvious benefit is that for the first time leadership training, coaching, or appraising can be tested and retested, and progress can be measured. Our research also found that team leaders themselves found the 12-point profile powerful and relevant, more relevant than other leadership assessment processes they had experienced. If an organization uses ETL this can have a profound positive effect on the organization’s whole team leadership culture.

What do you think of the authors' (Geoff Ribbens, Mark Abraham, and Alistair Cumming) view on the current state of leadership development? Do you agree with what the authors perceive as errors and their proposed solutions?

Mentorship Programs Within Organizations -- What Are the Benefits?

In December, Matthew Aslett published a book entitled Fundamentals of Effective Mentorship: How to Develop Intellectual Capacity and Healthy Workplace Culture, which discusses the facilitation of mentorship programs and the development of mentorship relationships based on experiences from a practitioner lens. The ability to encourage two-way learning relationships through mentorship can help organizations to improve effectiveness. A mentorship program can empower mentors, mentees, and program leaders to share best practices. The mentorship process is integral for promoting the professional and personal growth of stakeholders within an organization. 

When I spoke with Matthew this month, I asked him, “What are the prime benefits of mentorship and how can managers start mentorship programs within their companies?”  Here is his detailed answer:

The prime benefits of mentorship can be considered from three perspectives. First, mentees can establish new relationships with diverse individuals who may provide opportunities to accumulate knowledge, skills, and experiences. Mentees can increase self-belief with encouragement and personalized guidance from counterparts. Mentees can enhance goal-setting abilities with the exploration of priorities, specification of action plans, and co-construction of success strategies.

Second, mentors can develop communication skills in verbal and written domains to convey critical perspectives in understandable terms based on counterpart needs. Mentors can delve deeper into introspection with an awareness of novel viewpoints and personalized philosophies for decision-making. Mentors can engage in talent identification of candidates for prospective positions and opportunities through knowledge of unique abilities. Mentors can achieve self-actualization or personal fulfillment through participation in the vocation and bidirectional exchange of diverse best practices.

Third, communities can proceed with lifelong learning as individuals, teams, and organizations may explore perspectives in collaborative inquiry activities. Communities can improve equity and inclusivity, which represent fairness and belongingness, through active listening, examination of taken-for-granted assumptions, and recognition of improvements. Communities can cultivate intellectual abilities for engagement, productivity, and creativity when members participate in dialogue and pinpoint actionable recommendations.

A manager can start a mentorship program within the company using seven steps. First, initiative goals based on the values, vision, and assembled data can guide the focus. Second, selection criteria about mandatory or voluntary participation and manual or automated matching can influence planning. Third, resource strategy considers financial, human, intellectual, physical, and technological elements for implementation. Fourth, data collection mechanisms can capture quantitative and qualitative insights for decision-making. Fifth, an opening message can specify formal expectations and announce an orientation meeting. Sixth, an ideation session can explore aspirations and success factors. Seventh, interaction norms about frequency, relationship length, and modality can clarify learning preferences.

What do you think of Matthew's views on organizational mentorship programs? Does your company have one? Has it been effective in improving employee engagement and workplace culture? 

What are the biggest obstacles to an effective and sustained Lean initiative?

At the beginning of November, Bill Artzberger published a new book entitled Powering the Lean Enterprise: How to Streamline Operations, Improve Quality, and Gain Customer Loyalty, which introduces basic Lean rules and principles in a variety of simulated case studies drawn from the author’s professional experiences as a Lean coach, trainer, and manager. 

When I spoke with Bill this month, I asked him: “What are the biggest obstacles to an effective and sustained Lean initiative?” Here is his response:

While there are many things that can constitute an obstacle, here are three big ones to be wary of:

1. Rules before Tools! 

Lean tools are powerful aids to improvement. However, you must first understand Lean thinking and learn the key Lean principles before using the tools. This is the only way you will be able to select the correct tool (of the hundreds available) for your application and know how to correctly use the tool in your environment. Lean is not a tool or collection of tools, it is not a tactic or simple cost-reduction program; it is a way of thinking and acting for an entire organization. 

You must create an enterprise-wide customer-focused learning organization to be successful in creating a long-term, sustainable Lean organization. You don’t get “Lean” or get “Leaned out.” Lean is not a destination – Lean is a journey. The learning process is the key to process improvement and the key to Lean. This is the one thing you must know to be successful in your Lean journey. If you do not figure out how to do your job better, then your competitors will.

2. Intention/Action Disparity

Key systems or people can sometimes provide roadblocks to the success of the Lean program in an organization. Typically, this boils down to interpersonal issues. 

One example of this would be an organization where a handful of departments have adopted Lean methodology, but other areas have not. This can stymie the progress the Lean-oriented departments are striving towards. Another example of this might be an organization with political or leadership issues. If a leader at an organization acts in opposition to the Lean strategies or behaves in a way that builds roadblocks to the progress of those strategies, the Lean program will fail. 

The key to avoiding this obstacle is to ensure that all members of the organization are invested in the success of the Lean methods being implemented. This includes the organization’s leadership.

3. Sustaining Lean Methodologies

Even when organizations overcome the first two obstacles, it is very difficult to implement and sustain a culture change that spans the entirety of the organization. This obstacle might not be immediately evident, especially because many of the systems and processes might be running well. 

This obstacle most often affects organizations that decide to identify and train a few subject matter experts rather than investing in the whole organization to sustain the Lean culture. When a subject matter expert turns over, Lean systems start to break down. When organization leaders do not take the time to invest in developing the organization’s desire to improve, the Lean journey will start to lose momentum. 

This can be a constant battle for companies who make it to this point. It often leads to ebbs and flows in work management and system sustainability.

The only way to avoid this pitfall is for every member of the organization to feel invested in the Lean journey. This means accepting the fact that the Lean journey is a continuous development and learning process and embracing the work that comes with it. 

How long has your organization been involved in a Lean initiative? Is "Lean thinking" part of your workplace culture? Do you agree with Bill Artzberger's overview of the common barriers to success?

Can Business Leaders Learn to See the "Invisible"?

In October, Michael Bremer published a new book entitled Learn to See the Invisible: How to Unlock Your Potential as a Leader, which describes four key foundations and 25 different actions leaders can practice to become more effective in training their eyes to see things tomorrow that are currently invisible. It helps leaders and managers to become better observers of their current reality by practicing getting better at getting better. 

When I spoke with Michael this month, I asked him directly: “What does ‘learning to see the invisible’ mean regarding leadership, and how does it actually benefit leaders and their abilities?” Here is his complete answer:

Let me begin answering your question with a short story.  

You and your spouse go to a big box shopping center with a large parking lot.  Right after you exit your car, you trip over one of those concrete blocks intended to block car tires. Your spouse looks at you and asks, “Are you OK?”

What is your response?  If you are like me and the 1000s of other people with whom I’ve asked this question, you respond, “I’m OK!”  Even though your toe is killing you.  Why?  You feel like an idiot, and you are embarrassed.  Plus, a host of other emotions.

It’s a very similar challenge inside an organization when a leader asks, “How are things going?”  Even when our intentions are good, there are a variety of reasons that people do not openly share their thoughts.  If a leader truly wishes to better understand the actual reality of what is happening, it requires some effort.

"Learning to see the invisible" in leadership means developing the awareness and skills to recognize factors, patterns, and dynamics that are not immediately obvious but that profoundly influence team performance, organizational culture, and decision-making. These "invisible" aspects lay hidden due to assumptions, biases, unspoken issues, underlying motivations, and systemic inefficiencies that might be overlooked in the daily flow of work. Leaders can make more informed, empathetic, and effective choices by learning to see these hidden elements.

How Does "Seeing the Invisible" Benefit Leaders and Enhance Their Abilities?

1. Improved Decision-Making: Leaders who can see beyond the surface make more informed and nuanced decisions. They understand the broader context and implications of their choices, which leads to better outcomes for the organization and their team.

2. Greater Empathy and Connection: Leaders build stronger relationships by recognizing their team's true needs and motivations. Empathy fosters trust, increases engagement, and enhances collaboration, as team members feel understood and valued.

3. Increased Agility and Adaptability: Leaders who are aware of invisible factors are better prepared to adapt to change. They are attuned to internal and external shifting dynamics and can pivot strategies or approaches in response to new information or challenges.

4. Empowering and Developing Others: Leaders who understand the hidden potential in their team members can provide targeted support, coaching, and growth opportunities. This empowerment leads to a more capable, engaged workforce, with team members who are better equipped to take the initiative and contribute in a more meaningful way.

How Do You Unlock this Potential to Become a Better Leader?

When you look at professional athletes who become champions in their sport, how do they get there?  They get there through hours of practice and constantly strive to improve the way they play their sport.  If your profession is leadership, shouldn’t you also consciously practice getting better at what you do?  

Learning to See the Invisible lays out four foundational elements for leaders to practice:

Step 1: Reflection – Understand how you currently lead and identify your starting point. 

Step 2: Unifying Purpose – Create a meaningful purpose that motivates and guides change. 

Step 3: Build Relationships – Foster trust and open communication while empowering your team. 

Step 4: Visual Leadership – Implement visuals that inspire improvement and facilitate discussions about progress against the purpose you seek to accomplish.

The book lays out 28 different actions leaders can practice to get better at doing the above. 

Leaders who adopt this transformative mindset can improve their relationships and take decisive steps toward becoming a champions. They exhibit a vulnerability through their curiosity and willingness to learn.  That vulnerability creates space inside an organization where other people can feel more secure in responding to the questions they are asked. 

The world needs better leaders, and I genuinely hope readers embark on this journey.

What do you think of Michael's perspective on leadership awareness and its effect on decision-making and workplace culture? What is the state of leadership in your organization? Are they making choices based on assumption or "confirmation bias"? Or are they truly understanding some of the hidden aspects that might be driving the true workplace culture of their organization?  

Humility -- Does It Affect Leadership Effectiveness?

In August, Andrew J. DuBrin published a book entitled Leadership Humility: A Characteristic that Enhances Professional Effectiveness, which describes an opinion about the most relevant aspects of humility as it applies to leadership and professional effectiveness, yet the emphasis is on leadership. Humility as it relates to leadership and professional effectiveness is covered from many angles. Among these topics are the many meanings and components of humility and how leadership humility impacts group member performance and behavior.

When I spoke with Andrew this month, I asked him:  “How does humility actually increase leadership effectiveness?” Here is his complete answer:

An appropriate degree of humility is essential for leadership effectiveness because today’s effective leader is expected to demonstrate humility in addition to standard leadership attributes such as self-confidence, high-level cognitive skills, creativity, charisma, and the ability to articulate visions. Leadership effectiveness is enhanced when interspersed with other key leadership attributes including assertiveness, a sense of humor, and strategic thinking ability. Many brash, aggressive, and successful leaders would be even more successful if they sprinkled their leadership approach with humility.  

Another way in which humility increases leadership effectiveness is that being a little humble has an impact on performance. The performance, or results, could be at the individual, group, or organizational level. Leadership humility can improve a leader’s decision-making. Intellectually humble leaders are likely to gather multiple inputs before making a decision because they do not think they have all the answers. Leaders who express humility often enhance the creativity of group members because they set up a climate conducive to imaginative thinking. A humble leader will often create a psychologically safe environment, meaning that staff members feel safe to take the risk of making a mistake. The person who feels psychologically safe believes he or she will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes.

A leader with humility helps establish a group climate in which people can learn and develop. A climate of this nature enables group members to invest more of themselves into their jobs, and therefore be engaged in their work. Leadership humility often has a big impact on team performance. The humble leader seeks the cooperation of all team members, shows openness toward their ideas, and encourages them to become actively involved in solving problems the team is tackling. One of the many ways in which leadership humility improves organizational performance stems from workers observing that their strengths are appreciated.

What do you think of Andrew's perspective on humility and leadership? What role does humility play in your company's leadership and management training?

The Mental Well-Being of Colleagues and Continuous Improvement Culture -- Are They Intertwined and Mutually Reinforcing?

At the beginning of June, Chris Butterworth published a new book entitled Why Care? How Thriving Individuals Create Thriving Cultures of Continuous Improvement Within Organizations, which contends that to create a sustainable culture of continuous improvement there must be an organization-wide focus on mental well-being at the individual level. A culture of continuous improvement nurtured in the right way, however, will indeed support mental well-being and help create a thriving organization.

When I recently spoke with Chris about his book, I asked him: "How are mental well-being and a culture of continuous improvement intertwined and mutually reinforcing with an organization?" Here is his complete answer:

Today’s ever-increasing VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous) environment means that organizations must be more adaptable and flexible than ever.  Organizational performance depends on the collective psychological capacity (emotional and cognitive energy) of everyone in the organization.  Without high levels of mental, or psychological, well-being individuals suffer, organizational performance is stifled and continuous improvement (CI) is throttled.

Creating high levels of mental, or psychological, well-being means starting with an inside-out perspective focused on mental well-being at an individual level.  Like the nucleus of an atom, high levels of individual psychological well-being unleash psychological capacity. This precious resource is critical for people to be able to do their work effectively and continuously improve their work. It provides the organization with the energy and agility to prosper. 

However, individual psychological well-being is not enough on its own.  High levels of psychological well-being without a robust CI system limit people’s potential to fully utilize their psychological capacity. Both systems are essential to a thriving organization. Psychological well-being and CI working together create a thriving high-performance environment, where individuals feel they matter, are cared for, and can grow and develop.  Together they create environments where teams can solve problems, innovate, adapt, and grow generating sustainable organizational success. In our book Why Care? we explore how to do this at different levels – individual, team, leader, and organizational and the foundations needed, such as diversity, equality, inclusion, belonging, and an understanding of the brain.

The CI system must be co-designed to leverage the available psychological capacity of everyone in the organization.  In Why Care? we illustrate how the CI system and tools can be reorientated to engender and maximize psychological well-being and how continuously improving work also increases levels of psychological well-being.  Not only are the two intertwined but they are mutually reinforcing.  We believe this is not just a nice thing to do. It is critical to the future of every organization and its people.

Do you agree with Chris' statements? Does your continuous improvement initiative include the psychological capacity of colleagues? 

Toxic Workplace Cultures -- Can Organizations Recover from Them?

Just this past April, Seth Allcorn published a new book entitled Managing Toxic Leaders and Dysfunctional Organizational Dynamics: The Psychosocial Nature of the Workplace, which explores work-life dynamics and the effects toxicities and dysfunctions have on members of organizations.

When I spoke with Seth this past week, I asked him: “How can organizations deal with toxic cultures and recover from them?” Here is his complete response: 

Leaders and organization members can become contributors to creating a toxic workplace that includes a wide range of dysfunctions and oppressive organizational dynamics that limit creativity and productivity. This is regrettably common and limits what the organization can achieve. Healing a toxic organizational culture begins by acknowledging its presence. This opens it up for inspection, “What is it like to work here?” However, like many if not most organizational problems, calling an organizational toxic culture into question can threaten leaders who may be a part of the problem. Organization members may also identify with these leaders and contribute their own harmful behavior. This process of “selecting-in” to these organizational dynamics by organization members creates a like-minded group who defend the toxicity. As a result, when striving to create positive change, a sense of threat may arise for advocating for change. Even so, taking up this challenge is to be applauded. However, the threats associated with creating change may lead to engaging a “disposable” psychosocially informed organizational consultant. 

The consultant should begin by first listening to organization members and then locate a meaningful and as near as possible non-threatening plan for change to avoid resistance to change. If the sense of threat is not too great, a group of motivated organization members may step forward to support the consultant and facilitate the change process. The consultant should also, after listening to a cross-section of organization members, engage the leadership group in a discussion of the findings and facilitate their development of a non-defensive plan to respond to the findings. The plan should be designed to safely engage everyone in a process of no-fault change. The direction of the change process should be toward creating a more open, inclusive, collaborative, trusting, and respectful culture.

What do you think of Seth Allcorn's perspective? Have you worked in organizations in which the culture would be considered toxic? Did the organization take steps to improve it? Was it successful?