I’ve run into a couple of cases where there is an initiative from a corporate continuous improvement team to “implement Toyota Kata.”
Aside from trying to proscribe each and every step of the way (which runs counter to the entire point of discovering the solution – “you omitted step 7b”), they also expect reports of metrics related to the “implementation.”
Things like:
- Number of coaches.
- Number of coaching sessions.
- Number of active improvement boards.
- Scoring learners on a dozen or so categories of specific attributes for their coaching session.
Then there are bureaucratic reporting structures demanding that this information (and much, much more) get dutifully filled in and reported up to the continuous improvement office so they could monitor how each site is progressing (often from across an ocean).
I’ve seen this before.
I’ve seen companies try to count kaizen events, and quantify the improvements for each one to justify the payback of the effort.
Similarly, I’ve seen top-level corporate leadership teams struggle to determine how to measure, at a glance, whether a site was “doing lean” to get their results (or getting the results by some other means(?) that were less appropriate).
I’ve seen companies try to manage quality by having the quality staff prepare and submit elaborate monthly reports about what was, and was not getting done based on what they felt was important.
I lump all of this under “management by measurement.” I think it is often a substitute for (1) trusting middle management to tell the truth and (2) actually talking to people.
What’s The Alternative?
First we need to work out what we really want people, especially middle managers, to actually do. What would full participation look like if you saw it?
For example, one company I work with has had a problem where middle managers send their people to internally run “kata training,” then say they have no time to coach their people, give them ambiguous or shallow challenges to work on, and generally look at the training as someone else’s responsibility.
OK, what do you want them to do?
In their book Switch, Chip and Dan Heath talk about “scripting the first moves” so someone who is unsure how to begin doesn’t need to expend limited psychological energy figuring out how to start. We want to get them going. We don’t need to lay out the entire process (that will end up being different for everyone) but we can create some clear rules or guidelines for getting started.
From the Switch Workbook on the Heath Brother’s web site:
Be clear about how how people should act.
This is one of the hardest – and most important – parts of the framework. As a leader, you’re going to be tempted to tell your people things like: “Be more innovative!” “Treat the customer with white-glove service!” “Give better feedback to your people!” But you can’t stop there. Remember the child abuse study [from the book]? Do you think those parents would have changed if the therapists had said, “Be more loving parents!” Of course not. Look for the behaviors.
Asking that question, in terms of what they would actually see their middle managers doing, we came up with three general actions:
- Work with their learner / improver to establish a clear challenge for them.
- Commit to regular coaching cycles with their improver.
- Commit to receiving 2nd level coaching during those sessions (so they can learn as well).
The question then becomes what mechanism can the organization put into place to encourage that behavior vs. just sending people to the class and not following up in any way.
It is easy to tell people what they shouldn’t do. It’s a little tougher to tell them what they should do.
In this case, we discussed establishing prerequisites for sending someone to the class. But these prerequisites are for the organization sending the participant to the training, rather than just the person attending the class.
It is the sponsoring manager who must commit (perhaps even in writing) to ensuring there is an improvement challenge; to establishing a regular coaching cycle; and to welcoming 2nd level coaching.
Perhaps this would be a commitment to the advance team who becomes a bit of an admissions committee – ensuring the support structure is there before we commit to taking someone on in the class.
We discussed taking a copy of the organization chart and putting dots on it where they had active improvement boards and coaching relationships. That would highlight which organization groups were developing their own people and which ones were doing less of it.
We discussed inviting the middle managers who have sent people to the class but, today, are not supporting, to come to the advanced team with a plan – perhaps a similar commitment – for their renewed participation. But no one would be required, because you can’t force anyone to learn something. Put your energy toward the people who want to learn. Trying to get participation from people who don’t want to do it just frustrates everyone.
And finally, create a mechanism for someone inside a non-participating organization to raise their hand and ask for help with their own development. Don’t punish the entire organization because their boss won’t play.
Now you are talking about mechanics, about actions that have testable outcomes: Experiments that can be set up and tried, improved, and iterated in the direction of something that works for your organization.
It is more work than just measuring people. And it doesn’t work every time. But it works more often than something that never works.