The problem with blaming the process, and not the person.
Philip Holt
Business Transformation Leader and COO | MBA | Leadership | Business Transformation | Operational Excellence | C-suite Level Engagement | Lean Thinking | Organisational & Value Stream Design
"Blame the process, not the person" has become a common statement in Lean circles, and I often use it myself. It has a simplicity in its messaging, that blame is not the right thing to do, and that we ought to get to the true root cause of the problem, understand where the process went wrong, and fix it sustainably.
However, the problem with being too simplistic about this is that it contradicts a core doctrine of Lean Thinking, that of: "It's all about People".
The two cannot be mutually exclusive and therefore we must reconcile what we mean, and we can find help in this from #Deming, whose musings formed the origin of the simplified statement:
"Eighty-five percent of the reasons for failure are deficiencies in the systems and process, rather than the employee. The role of management is to change the process, rather than badgering individuals to do better."
Deming's more elaborate statement opens up the thinking around this, as there are still some people being 'blamed', only those people are not the executors of the process but, instead, the management.
It would seem that, even when we change the approach to problem solving issues, it still comes back to people!
The important nuance here is that people are always behind the problem that we're encountering, having either executed the process, designed the process, managed the team, trained the people, etc., and it's important to recognise the central role of people in the problem solving.
This doesn't mean that we allow people to be blamed, as the system has somehow failed, but we must understand where the accountability to sustainably solve the root cause lies, and ensure that ownership is taken. This is where the 'role of management', as Deming put it, is crucial, ensuring that the people involved in the process are held accountable and that they have the capability to solve the problem.
Ownership = Accountability and Capability
Continued below...
I've elaborated on ownership, as I often think that many people want ownership in terms of having the authority to get things done, but aren't necessarily that enamoured with the expectation to deliver the results. I therefore break it down further, to explain what we mean by those two components of Ownership:
Accountability is a combination of an expectation to deliver the results but also requires the person to be empowered with the authority to get it done. Many leaders struggle to provide adequate authority, which causes a lot of frustration for many people, as they have objectives and will be appraised on the results, but feel that they don't have the authority to get it done. However, I do also see this as a two-way street, whereby authority isn't as binary as having direct control of the people or processes and often requires strong influencing and problem solving skills to be successful. This segues into the second element of ownership, capability.
Capability brings together the talent for the role with the competence to get it done. If the person in the role doesn't have the talent for it, no amount of training is going to get them to the level of capability required. The easiest metaphor for this is sports, where despite your enthusiasm for your sport of choice, no matter how much you practice you will not become capable if you have insufficient talent. It is therefore important to ensure that a talent-based approach to recruitment is part of the selection of people for roles and THEN they ought to be trained and developed to build the competence that they require to do the job really well. Again, this is very much the approach that sports coaches take, to identify talent and then develop them through training and practice. Unfortunately, in business we often select on educational qualifications and personality.
领英推荐
The Leading with Lean Ltd. LinkedIn Page is now live:
Ownership is therefore a complex beast, which isn't simply about telling someone that they own a process, but ensuring that they are the right person and have the right support and development.
Only then can we delegate ownership to the right people and ensure that, when something goes wrong, we 'blame the process', that is we adequately problem solve, getting to root cause to understand what caused the failure and then put in place a sustainable fix. This will mean getting past the omni-present causes of "Human error", "Lack of Training", "Operator didn't follow the process", etc.
These can never be the root cause of a failure and are a 'red flag'. This is what we really mean when we say, blame the process, not the person. For example:
At this stage, the root cause is probably sufficient to put in place a sustainable countermeasure, as this is at the level of depth that the HR group and Team Leaders can discuss how to strengthen the process and ensure that there is a single process owner and put in place sufficient rigour.
Blaming the process, and not the person, is a laudable sentiment and it tallies with the mindset that we want to promote in Lean Leadership. However, it's important that we recognise that, ultimately, it is people at the centre and that ownership is key.
Interested to learn more? Then why not click on the links below:
Feel free to visit?my Website at:?LeadingwithLean?and?my other?LinkedIn posts?may be found?at this?link.
Senior Copywriter, Content Manager and Creative Strategist
1 个月All I know is the process doesn't implement itself, and people have to take responsibility for things.
Focus on creating an improvement culture: Getting better at improving with more and more people. For example, improving lead times, delivery reliability, production capacity and innovation.
1 年Reminds me of a quote by Nanpachi Hayashi regarding Akio Toyoda. "I'd say things like "What are you doing, idiot! You can't see it from there!" When I asked if anyone had really scolded him, he (Akio Toyoda) said no. I said "That's unfortunate. I'll make you feel fortunate for the next year." " Guess he got some management lessons that year. Akio Toyoda reflects: "It's the father's role to scold children when they go down the wrong way. I've dealt with employees for 14 years with this intent. There wasn't a single lie in that. I rejoiced, laughed, cried, and scolded in earnest." What does "scolding" mean in the Japanese context? And what about English? What is the difference between scolding and blaming? ..while both involve criticism, scolding is more about expressing disapproval, often in a heated manner, and blaming is about attributing responsibility for a negative outcome. Attributing responsibility. Keep accountable. Language becomes quite confusing here and I am not sure where all this leads. Guess the point I want to make is that, apparently, within Toyota it is OK to scold to help people grow. Maybe "Blame the process, not the person" is just too soft? Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju-v5wV90cs
Operations manager
1 年The challenges emanates if you are not work as team . In team everyone take responsibility for his or her actions and the leaders are there to provide guidance and support and make sure there is no blame game.
Keynote Speaker | Future of Corporate Transformation & Leadership Development | Sustainable Culture Change | BTFA Creator | Masters - Applied Neuroscience
1 年If we accept that it's the brain(s) of a Leader(s), that ultimately chooses and decides what to do and how to go about doing it (based on imprinted / conditioned view of what is 'Good') i.e. what process to adopt / follow (lean [premised upon respect] or Six Sigma [premised upon data capture and statistical analysis]), and how to go about introducing those new processes (Training or Project management or Change Management), and for what reasons (in year ROI or prudence to cultivate a performance enhancing culture), and what systems to accept / embed into the organisation (To empower people with control, or impose control over people) ... Then, does that mean, the 85% process / systems issues we face, which often contribute to the inhibition of people performance at the coal face (e.g. imposed control shuts people down psychologically ... no sense of autonomy = no sense of safety) ... Necessarily follow the choices leaders make. i.e. have origins in the beliefs [brain wiring] of managers & leaders (people)? If so, with no blame, but heightened awareness, we might suggest, all challenges originate in human brain function, which determines what we 'Believe' good looks like'? Hmmmmm ?? where to start? #btfa
HR during international growth, (digital) innovation and in fast changing environments
1 年hi philip, interesting and challenging , the best teams and process execution was not learned at the football or paddle academy , but with your friends playing in trustful environment ??