Lean bugs me. For no other reason than its blindness to the social sciences. Yes, Toyota and Lean proponents pay lip service to the “Respect For People” principle supposedly at the heart of Lean. But how often does this actually happen in any meaningful way? And I have issues with the idea of “respect” in any case. I much prefer the idea of empathy to respect.
Ignorance
Maybe ignorance of psychology is not seen as an issue in the world of manufacturing. But I’d suggest application of psychology seems quite relevant in e.g. software development, and in the knowledge-work space more generally. Seeing as how knowledge work, and in particular collaborative knowledge work, involves, you know, people – and relationships.
It beats me why so many folks have this blind spot to applying 100+ years of psychology research to the thorny questions of making our efforts at knowledge work more effective. Not to mention more rewarding. And more joyful.
This is one of my key issues with the whole Lean thing. Its blithe disregard for applying know-how from psychology, sociology and other related disciplines. I’m guessing that disregard comes about not least because Lean implementations are most often left to the auspices of engineers. Folks who inevitably tend to see the world, and the organisation, in terms of a machine metaphor. And people, mainly, as cogs in that machine.
Lean Is A Busted Flush
I’m with John Seddon and his assertion that “Lean is a busted flush”. (Seddon & O’Donovan, 2015)
To illustrate my case, how about we take a look at one of the central planks of the Lean approach, the Lean House:
And specifically, John Shook’s Lean Transformation Model
Here’s the five elements of John Shook’s Lean Transformation Model:
- What is the purpose of the change–what true north and value are we providing, or simply: what problem are we trying to solve?
- How are we improving the actual work?
- How are we building capability?
- What leadership behaviors and management systems are required to support this new way of working?
- What basic thinking, mindset, or assumptions comprise the existing culture, and are we driving this transformation?
The Antimatter Alternative
I offer by way of contrast the Antimatter “Bear sitting under a tree” Transformation Model. Here’s a Chinese pictogram which represent the idea of human relations. I like to see it as a bear – wearing an asian conical hat or dǒulì (斗笠) – sitting taking shade under a tree.
The Chinese pronounce this symbol as Lún (Hanyu Pinyin). Which means, amongst other things, “Human relations”. I like the image for its organic connotations (bear, tree), compared with the stark, mechanical, engineered “Lean House”. And for the relationship between the bear and the tree – both living things. And for evoking the idea of planting a tree under which future generations might take shade.
“A society grows great when men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.”
~ Greek proverb
The basis of the Antimatter Transformation Model is the application of aspects of psychology and sociology to the challenges of making our organisations more effective, more (emotionally) rewarding places. And more joyful places. These being entirely complementary aims. The Bear-under-a-tree Model consists of five questions:
- What would we all like to have happen?
- How do we all feel about the way the work works, now and in the future?
- What are our needs, collectively and individually?
- In what ways do we all relate to each other presently, and would other ways of relating better help meet our needs?
- What do we believe about the nature and purpose of work, generally, and would other beliefs serve us better?
In Detail
Let’s take a look at each of the five questions in a little more detail:
1. What would we all like to have happen?
In Synergistic organisations, everyone is more or less on the same page with regard to what we’d like to have happen. This shared, common purpose provides the crucible within which productive dialogue can take place, and meaningful relationships can be created and developed. And let’s not talk about problems we have, but rather the way we would like things to be. Maybe some Solutions Focus perspective can come into play here – looking at what’s working well already, that we’d like to see more of.
2. How do we all feel about the way the work works, now and in the future?
What if we encourage folks to explore and share their feelings? With a safe environment where people feel comfortable and happy to do that.Positive feelings highlight needs that are already being met (and that we’d like to keep right on meeting), while negative feelings point to folks’ needs, often unrealised, that we’d like to start attending to.
3. What are our needs, collectively and individually?
Discussions around feelings lead naturally into discussions around people and their needs. Here also we admit the needs of the organisation itself. When we’ve an honest view on the needs people have, we can use these needs to guide the work we have to do. There’s not much point spending time and effort on meeting needs that no one has, or on needs that are already being well-met.
4. In what ways do we all relate to each other presently, and would other ways of relating better help meet our needs?
In collaborative knowledge work, the most significant factor is how folks relate to each other. The canopy of our tree provides the shade in which we can kick back and take the time to build these personal relationships. We might also like to ask ourselves whether our present ways of relating to each other complement or undermine the things we’ve decided we’d like to have happen.
5. What do we believe about the nature and purpose of work, generally, and would other beliefs serve us better?
The trunk of our tree acts to support the way folks relate to each other, and also as a prop to 1-3 (the bear leaning against the trunk). This is the collective set of assumptions, beliefs and memes (a.k.a. memeplex) held in common across the organisation. These beliefs can either contribute to, or detract from, the things we’ve decided we’d like to have happen.
Designed For Adoption
The Antimatter Transformation Model is not a prescriptive implementation approach, but rather a set of fundamental questions which, if considered and discussed amongst all involved, in the form of an ongoing dialogue or series of conversations, can lead to a fundamental transformation of thinking, and thereby, of organisational culture.
It is not a value-driven approach, but rather a needs-driven approach. Needs always trump value. It makes no assumptions about the efficacy of process, management, or any other concepts in common currency in organisations today. (I call these baggage).
More fundamentally, it builds on research from a range of social sciences, in the belief that this offers an approach much better suited to successful adoption by us fallible, fragile, vulnerable, flaky, human beings.
Conclusion
By working through these questions, any organisation can examine its fundamental assumptions and concepts, maybe for the first time ever. Whatever comes out of this collective self-examination will be a context-dependent outcome closely suited to the needs of all the folks involved.
Finally, I leave you with a couple of Chinese proverbs which resonate with me and with theAntimatter Transformation Model:
“The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.”
~ Chinese Proverb
“If you are planning for a year, sow rice; if you are planning for a decade, plant trees; if you are planning for a lifetime, educate people.”
~ Chinese Proverb
– Bob
