Managing with a LEAN mindset

The impact of adoption on culture, strategy and execution and an introduction to B2E and Anointed centric S2S 

Radical cultural transformation

Let’s begin by rebaptizing as The Anointed[1] any customer, client, end user, distribution channel, patient, beneficiary or any other category of the external entity that enables a product or service to exist by making a purchasing decision. As it turns, any profit expectation will only emerge when such choice is made. Further down the line one may aspire to spread bottom line forecasts through price, volume and/or cost/expense oriented undertakings, but still, one must remain slave to The Anointed. Understandably, we should be market-worshipping this persona and putting all efforts towards gaining his appreciation. 

Now, how is it that we have come to fearfully revere the shareholder among any other organizational character? And in doing so, the boss’s figure - as the investor's vivification in the everyday institution’s life - has been uplifted to virtually hero status (at the risk of sometimes becoming a villain). If The Anointed statement is true, shouldn’t we be focusing our honoring efforts towards The Anointed? Strangely, we aren’t. 

Not so strange though when you jump to unravel the paradox. We have been living under a false dilemma, this employability notion where we must do our best to keep our jobs, or build advantage towards future working opportunities by making our superior look good. And it certainly works, at least up to a point where the narrow pyramid will put a final ceiling. Why is this? 

In my opinion, a perfect wave of long continuous knowledge acquisition has come together. On one hand, most of us humans are on a quest for certainty. Vagueness is uncomfortable and frightening, so a cozy place to be is where accountability is not a threat, and stability[2] is not in danger. Put differently, when decisions are made above, accountability is placed elsewhere, hence we are not to be responsible and liabilities are namely low. On the other hand, and seemingly contradictory, yet luckily, humans begin to pursue psychological and self-fulfillment needs once basic ones have been met, the yang! The yin: issues surface when ego and ambition drivers serve individual rather than common goals. Consequently, some humans exercise power over others who consent and complying becomes a safe passage.

And this is how the centenary bureaucratic-like employee is born. Multitudes seek jobs that pay bills and crowds are not willing to endanger this sense of well-being. Yes, so we conform. Perhaps we are not happy, perhaps accomplishment is not our acquaintance, perhaps we don’t feel creative, and so on. But we trust we are protecting our welfare (and our loved ones’ too), and that is worth it. It certainly is! So I believe this perpendicular relationship between boss and employee, which I will label as boss to employee (B2E), is built over shared, practical, but frequently mutual destructive ground. It is a functional affiliation established by area of expertise (financial, sales, marketing, manufacturing, human resources, etc.), however a dysfunctional one in terms of candor and  savvy boldness. Perhaps the yes-man personality has been nurturing in this command and control soil.  

B2E has made acceptable, furthermore, has rendered merit to organizational stratification, almost like a caste system at work within the same four walls represented by a particular brand. Such imbalance of power mainly rewards showing off self-importance to consenting leaders and “lesser” coworkers, even if artificial. An attribute that is at heart a misconstruction that creates a self-fulfilling perpetual spiral at the core of professional behavior.

Beyond the social implications[3] of boredom, low self-esteem and/or unhappiness, among other underlying concerns, B2E emasculates radical transparency and creativity, undermining workforces’ possibility to attain true potential, thus jeopardizing the establishment's pathway towards its vision as well. Indeed, from an economical perspective, B2E is nothing but a huge opportunity cost: unempowered and/or incompetent teams wont build differentiation nor productivity. Is this not just plain and simple wasteful reasoning?

So what should therapy look like for this organizational illness?

From my standpoint, it’s conceptually available (everyone knows), apparently easy to implement (everyone says) however disappointingly elusive in truth (countless grieve). We must place The Anointed in everybody’s top of mind, prioritize him intensely and unfailingly,  enable those who toil for him (the true stakeholders undertaking critical activities) by providing purposefulness, direction, tools and support. In other words, constructing a transversal array of team members who, regardless of perpendicular report (the boss is irrelevant unless he is a mentor and a facilitator), cooperate relentlessly until accomplishing solutions that The Anointed genuinely values. This state of mind I shall call Anointed centric Stakeholder to Stakeholder (S2S). 

Anointed centric S2S is the seed that will grow into a rock-solid collaborative environment, a proper culture that will stand the test of time, and regardless of whatever pressure may be faced, most certainly, and consistently, will achieve expectations. Ranks won’t matter, performance will, straightforwardly and with nearly no resistance. Suddenly, collective thinking, solving and performance abilities matter. Command and control is swiftly replaced by ideas, support and teamwork. Culture shifts from subtracting to multiplying in a glance, thereafter becoming the real unreachable advantage. No amount of money, no breakthrough technology, no latest gadget will ever replace Anointed centric S2S collateral effects. They are unsurmountable. 

Radical strategy and execution transformation

Top management has usually established that processes worth improving are all except their own: optimize manufacturing, optimize warehousing, optimize transportation, optimize selling, optimize accounting, and the list will go on. So improvement is expected from direct reports. They often will delegate and go back to an extremely busy, business as usual scenario: strategic thinking, power wrestling, influence grappling, budget lobbying, keeping quiet, not-me finger pointing and so forth. This will occur until the next monthly follow up meeting (if monthly) where high hopes will be placed on improvement fulfilment by subordinates held accountable. And top management will keep operating on the same leadership approach, of course, only this time administered top down. Astonishment and praise will emerge if goals are met, but when not, more persistently than desired, excuse making and finger pointing will prevail in the landscape. 

The issue arises, as I must expose, at the C-Level, where, the main process subject to improvement is almost always denied. In fact, strategy and execution may not even be considered a process really. Perchance that is where trouble stands. As a LEAN mentor and coach I shall highlight that it is, in this condition that the root cause rests. 

If in LEAN the Anointed is the designated value criteria patron, and if strategy & execution is a process, then the syllogism need recite that strategy and execution must add value to the Anointed. Therefore, anything that C-Level executives invest time in that won’t add value must be eliminated. From the former list (strategic thinking, power wrestling, influence grappling, budget lobbying, keeping quiet, not-me finger pointing) it appears that only strategic thinking (excluding strategic divagation) might actually add value, not the rest, which by the way can’t be considered incidental[4], so should disappear. On the other hand, execution mentoring and facilitation is not explicitly in the C-Level job description, so it’s not really considered a thing, but without question should be added. Accordingly, a high level strategy and execution VSM[5] would really resemble those words: Think Strategy -> Mentor Execution -> Facilitate Execution, and back again to Thinking Strategy, in an infinite continuous improvement loop. Kaizen[6] at its best, and an autonomous team where it must!

Consequently in doing so, a positive collateral effect will emerge for financial stakeholders. It’s not the other way around. Shareholder centric strategy & execution, although well intended, unfortunately is merely vertical oriented noise increasing dysfunctional leadership in demise of the Anointed, putting the organization in a catch-22, wanting to much the prize and never getting it situation, not ever knowing how to break such vicious helix of negative reinforcement. 

So, straightforward and unapologetically I précis: hands on, horizontal, Anointed centered S2S strategy and execution culture at the top, will conceivably yield a true, sustainable, always improving, world class organization that thrives in uncertainty while enjoying the ride, successively producing world class folks that replicate winning attitudes and powerful concepts in current and future walks of life!

[1] The metaphor invites the reader to consider The Anointed as the supreme authority in any for-profit (or even non-for-profit) organization, an autocrat exerting absolute power over it with his ultimate buying decision.

[2] Stability meaning to have solved basic, both physiological (food, water, shelter and rest) and safety needs.

[3] Organizations, beyond the obvious pursuit of victory at the market battlefield and conquering the EBITDA mountain must truly convey social impact through positive transformation and development of people, whom in return will contribute to society through the lens of their own personality traits.

[4] In LEAN lingo means Non Value Added, but Necessary

[5] Value Stream Map

[6] Japanese concept meaning consistently changing for the best