Avoiding negative resilience and ensuring LEAN sustainability

Fighting cultural antibodies that inhibit adoption

Resilience, only the other way around

Let’s begin by establishing common ground on a current concept used in such a plethoric way: resilience. And this I must because the notion is usually referenced for a positive attitude, one where a system (be it a person or an organization in this case) is able to recover from a particular perturbation. My case instead, claims that any LEAN transformation (or any intervention trying to achieve such a transformation) is the perturbation, as customarily, attempts to veer in this direction hugely challenge the status quo. 

I have often listened to inspiring statements regarding disruption, but somehow, have felt a deep disconnect. Why? I assume it’s just a matter of discovering, yet again, non-disruptive action plans pursuing average goals. And I must humbly highlight, I don’t mean this in a pejorative way, in fact, I’ve been that vibrant speaker many times! Here is what I mean by status quo: business-as-usual ideas disguised with greatness trying to establish themselves as strategic focus for a next evaluation period. That situation is where we are comfortable as certainty is a pleasant feeling indeed.

Suddenly, a true LEAN initiative comes around and abruptly nothing feels as comfortable as it used to. I must confess that after many years of watching good (and not so good) LEAN implementations I have come to a simple conclusion: LEAN thinking is mostly about changing mindsets and approaching problems differently, very little about learning tools, and certainly not at all about acquiring certifications (green belts, black belts and other very fancy diplomas[1]). Unexpectedly LEAN disturbs peace at the office, uncertainty shows up at the scenario and fear begins to drive executives’ and associates’ feelings and thoughts. Risk and reward play devil and angel in their heads only to render doubt triumphant. 

At the associates’ level the LEAN perturbation is just another demonstration of Newton's third law: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction: resistance makes its way, and the organizational autoimmune system begins deploying powerful “keep-it-the-same” replies. This is my portrayal of resilience working as it shouldn’t, making it hard to succeed for those leading the LEAN effort. Huge challenge, no doubt about it!

On the other hand, top management shall inquire what they always do: if they commit to this endeavor and better performance is attained, will it withstand? Is there not excessive risk in this gamble? After all, when everything is said and done, experts and consultants will no longer show up to defy the storm and the house of cards will come crumbling down. Things certainly might go back to where they used to be (or worse) and time and money will have been wasted… what a speech has the devil figure delivered!

Sustainability will flourish only from adequate foundations, beams and columns

What you see chez vous is the beauty of your good taste. What you don’t see is what holds that aesthetic in place. If the building’s structure is not designed to support the bulk and endure the ravages of time, all else becomes ephemeral. So will any LEAN improvement be if adoption is not the key groundwork. My answer to this dilemma is always the same:

First and foremost, at the very top conviction must reign. People at jobs will consistently behave according to what bosses ask (if they are asking then it must be important, right?), and that’s the whole point behind organizational hierarchies, especially where command-and-control is the name of the game. This rule of thumb will work for, or against any LEAN initiative. If top management is truly and consistently aligned towards becoming LEAN, then all will be good!

Derived from the above, low-hanging-fruit approaches are cancer, especially if low-hanging-fruits translate as reducing headcount. This is not only a disrespectful and unfair behavior towards people (openly conflicting with one of LEAN’s main principles: respect your people) but in fact, it turns out to be a menace to what is pursued in first place: sustainability. Why should anyone embrace what is manifestly harmful? Not only it is unnatural,  there is a twin law in most countries avoiding any person from self-incriminating (the fifth amendment in the case of the United States). Nobody will voluntarily consent inflicting self-pain, so if you exert authority to force new ways, of course, they won′t sustain. And yet, more often than it should, I see a dysfunctional behavior: top managers claiming a shrinking census at the payroll (frequently becoming the center of the LEAN initiative) but never understanding why people become averse and increasingly unwilling to adopt and implement transformations. 

A third condition is to let go of vanity. Organizational DNA must evolve, thus breeding a culture that embraces the existence of problems as an inevitable reality, and by doing so focusing towards constantly improving as folks try to decode such problems. Still, ego is one true pervasive enemy to LEAN adoption, but also protecting the paycheck against layoff threats can be too. People will consistently avoid reporting problems, a natural, human defense mechanism. And as long as they can get away with it, metrics will carry layers of makeup replacing accountability with a better, but misleading fitting in the performance picture. Due to one reason or the other, committees and reports rot with too many green lights, hence very few red ones, the latter usually faulted to others to be held accountable. Sustainability is nurtured exclusively by safe environments. Individuals presenting problems (and its corresponding treatment) should be praised not punished, unless, of course, the problem remains unsolved in time.

Another delusion that must perish (the sooner the better) is the easy apathetic delegation. If you buy a gym subscription, this alone won’t turn you fit, you are expected to sweat! Hiring an expert consultant and “empowering” someone else won’t make you LEAN, you must do the job! If, as I said before, LEAN implies shifting mindsets, you are the first who must change yours. Only then, others, processes and organizations will be encouraged to evolve sustainably too, consistently changing for the better we may say, paraphrasing another basic LEAN principle.

Wrapping up (and I’m sure you might imagine other key ingredients to support sustainability), I just want to mention a couple more misconceptions. Wishful thinking spores other dangerous ideas, or even worse, inconvenient and costly engagements. Some might lead to believe that technology will solve all issues (remarkably more now that we live in a high tech era) or that benchmarking will be a reliable shortcut handing copy-paste recipe solutions for every organization. The first will only increase expense, inflexibility and difficulty by automating suboptimal and misjudged processes and the latter, at most, will lead to standardize “best practices”, yielding a uniform, sterile, commoditized organization, non-differentiated from any other. None of these consequences are desirable.  

In short, beliefs, understanding, focus, creativity and drive aren’t replicable. They are exclusive, particular to individuals and organizations. They embody a characteristic culture we should rather say. If culture is LEAN oriented, sustainability will not be a concern, it will flow effortlessly and grow unrestrained.

[1] If you are not a pet, pedigree is irrelevant, and even if you are one, it might still happen to be insignificant to its owner. However, if you are a true LEAN practitioner, that is you are in ownership of a true LEAN mindset, then any tool and qualification you might achieve surely will add value. Acquiring knowledge as a means to strengthen your perspective while keeping open to new concepts and ideas is always a great advantage.