using the best processes available. This would not be possible if there wasn’t the constancy of purpose and high level of training that is expected at Toyota. With these items in place, Toyota is able to continually impact their Key Performance Indicators and sustain the improvements.
Contrast this to the ‘typical’ thinking that we encounter in other companies. We find that most publically-traded companies are intently focused on the next quarter’s numbers and are busily managing projects that have a calculated ROI high enough to warrant implementation. To implement these projects, a core group of staff-based ‘lean’ experts are quickly drafted, superficially trained, and then deployed to ‘lean out’ parts of the organization to get the fastest cost reductions. The impacted areas are the focus of intense blitzes using a lean toolkit, often with little involvement or understanding of the people in the designated area, which leads to superficial im- provements that cannot be sustained over any period of time.
Barrier 2: Underlying View that Sees Organizations as Machines
The pervasive view of lean as nothing more than a toolkit for delivering slash-and-burn results is driven by a unique view of how the world actually works. We call this type of world view “machine thinking.”
that is measured against metrics set by staff experts. In this world, it is critical that we maintain a firm grasp on the organization through autocratic methods and focus only on delivering bottom-line results regardless of the means used to achieve them. This management style creates a risk-averse culture where the mantra ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t touch it’ rules the day and any and all changes to the organization are man- aged by the team of staff experts.
The opposite of this “machine thinking” is best described by the phrase “systems thinking.” It’s important to note that while quality guru W. Edwards Deming is credited with the widespread adoption of statistical quality control tools, a closer inspection of his work reveals that he was really advocating adopting a systems-thinking approach. This way of think- ing sees the world as sets of interdependent and interactive systems. The environment is in a constant state of change that needs to be embraced and the organization must have the flex- ibility to respond to changes as they occur. The people within this organization are viewed as the only appreciating asset with- in the company and their job is to continue to think creatively to improve themselves and their work. Internal self-regulating subsystems are the method of control in this environment and the management style is participative and collaborative. Society in general, and people in particular, are also critical areas of focus for the organization beyond the simple bottom line met- rics. Controlled risk-taking is encouraged as the most effective learning comes through experimentation and changes to work processes are managed at the work-group level.
Barrier 3: Fundamental Misunderstanding of What it Takes to Learn and Improve
Machine vs. systems thinking.
It’s characterized by strongly held beliefs that the world is a rather simple place, with linear cause and effect relationships. The environment can and must be controlled and all changes need to be buffered from the organization as a whole. People are seen as simply extensions of the machines that operate on a daily basis and that they’re nothing more than interchange- able parts of the larger system. We can control them by using a supervisor to reward and punish based on performance
Deeper study of the machine-thinking paradigm reveals that it makes it impossible to understand the value of people, much less appreciate what is required for them to learn and grow. Absent also is an awareness of how to provide the moti- vation and the commensurate creativity that is demanded in a continuous-improvement environment.
Any undertaking to develop people is most often superfi- cial and follows a generic path that is suited neither to the per- son’s needs nor the organization’s. Training happens mainly in the classroom and lean and Six Sigma training leads to formal certification with limited directed experience. A developmental assignment is nothing more than a brief and basic exposure to a new department or function where the learning is not deep enough to be of benefit. The person is looking forward to their