So, why is this softer side so difficult to comprehend? I believe there are clues in the work of Edgar Schein, who is a former professor at MIT’s Sloan School of Management. In his book: Organizational Culture and Leadership, he described an inverted pyramid model of organisational culture. This model splits organisational culture into three levels, from what is visible and obvious at the top, such as buildings, how people dress, the furniture, or what an insider can talk to you about (company philosophy, slogans, etc.) all the way through to the invisible and difficult to discern at the bottom, for example unconscious beliefs and attitudes. In some ways this model is similar to an iceberg with the biggest portion remaining unseen.

It’s these invisible aspects which give rise to the difficulties that insiders have in articulating the important facets of what constitutes a culture. This is confirmed by a quote from the book, Toyota Culture by Jeff Liker and Mike Hoseus, who cite Pete Gritton, the then vice president of Human Resources for Toyota North America:

“Culture is the way we automatically think and act every day. … This culture has become second nature to those of us who have spent decades with Toyota, but it is a mystery to most outsiders. We frankly are not even all that good at explaining it to others who have not lived it.”

So, it’s little wonder that Respect for People is so tough to appreciate and then subsequently apply.

Successful management involves simplification to the point of working oneself out of that particular job, so that a subordinate can take over. That can put a manager in the more challenging state of either finding more value-added work or risking being seen as deadwood. Not an easy position.

I’m going to push back, though, and argue that we can still applies Shingo’s thinking to managerial work. For example, we can make the process of closing the monthly books or doing performance reviews easier without compromising the integrity/quality of the work itself.

You’re absolutely right in saying that “taking on what’s hard makes a knowledge worker successful.” But we need to distinguish between something that’s intrinsically difficult intellectually (splitting the atom, developing new coaching techniques, designing a new compensation structure), and something that’s difficult because it’s embedded in a busted process.

I think Shingo would say that making things easier is about the process, not the conceptual content — and in that regard, his argument does apply to knowledge workers as well.

David — I’m going to tape this to my wall: “How can we make these numbers look better?” should be an operational question, not a spreadsheet exercise.”

Great stuff. I’ve blogged about Mura and Muri a bit, too, as I believe they are under-appreciated significantly. There’s been a bit more about it in the blogosphere over the past year, which I think is a good step. The Womack article points out how critical they are, yet they are not frequently discussed.

I loved this statement: “One problem with stretch goals, I believe, is that they focus on outcome metrics, and can therefore be gamed.” I have worked with far too many project and program managers who are more concerned with the report at the end of the month than the previous 30 days of execution that lead up to to it. “How can we make these numbers look better?” should be an operational question, not a spreadsheet exercise.

Matt — I don’t fully agree with you. Making a process easier might, in fact, add some waste to it…but with an easier and safer process, people have the ability to figure out *other* ways of taking out waste.