“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
This quote from George Orwell’s political allegory, Animal Farm, occurred to me recently as I listened to a design engineer explain to me how he was taught in college that engineers have a special responsibility to help their less able co-workers. Not intending to single out engineers or generalize from one data point, this example demonstrates what I observe to be a longstanding preoccupation with degrees, certificates, and belts. We may refer to employees on the front line as “value-adding”, but too often it’s the ones with letters after their names that we actually value.
In 1957, Peter Drucker dubbed the latter group knowledge workers, “high-level employees who apply theoretical and analytical knowledge, acquired through formal education,” thereby inadvertently differentiating the thinkers from the do-ers, the high level from the low level, the brain trust from the variable expense.
My personal experience with this distinction developed over a period of years as I changed jobs, first from marketing to IT and then to production. In the eyes of my fellow managers, I morphed in the process from an imaginative idea person into a brainy techno-geek and finally to a slow-witted grunt. The adjectives are important because they connote associated stereotypes. I joke that I started near the top and then worked my way down, IQ dropping along the way. Paradoxically, my knowledge of value and waste increased each time I got further from that theoretical and analytical knowledge and closer to the floor. John Shook noted at the 2016 Northeast LEAN Conference, the persons who do the work are the real knowledge workers, as they are the ones with a first-hand understanding of the work. (Incidentally, our 2017 Northeast Lean Conference is on the horizon. Check out the agenda.)
Whether in a factory or an office or an operating room, the knowledge is contained in the work. In that sense, all work should be knowledge work if we are thinking about it and trying to improve it. Steve Spear refers to Lean transformation as “theory proven by practice.” Both are essential and should be inextricably linked. Our Lean transformation should have room for both the theorists and the practitioners. Unfortunately, when it comes to transformation, some employees are “more equal than others.” We favor the theorists and mostly ignore the practitioners. Perhaps our love affair with a college education and degrees and certificates and belts has baked in a two-class society where only a select few employees are heard and seen; the rest fall into that eighth waste category of “lost human creativity.” I’ve assembled a short list of nouns and adjectives commonly used to describe these classes. Can you think of others? Please share.
P.S. GBMP is a licensed affiliate of The Shingo Institute and we are teaching their 5 courses on 17 occasions over the next few months (with new dates and locations being added all the time). I am a certified instructor along with other GBMPers Dan Fleming, Pat Wardwell, Mike Orzen & Larry Anderson. We hope to see you at a workshop soon. Here’s the schedule; visit www.gbmp.org and click on Events to learn more. The Shingo Institute courses are a great way to learn how to embed Shingo Model principles into your Lean program and create a road map to sustainable Enterprise Excellence. Read what past attendees have said about the workshops and GBMP’s instructors.
Lean is easy if you know your real knowledge workers. It’s easy to find your real knowledge workers. Ask, “What are some of the improvements you have made to the process?” Some knowledge workers make improvements. They need help. Ask those who have made improvements, “Who was helpful?” These people must be involved in the lean transformation.
That was a great column and so true I also ran into the same issues with people in manufacturing .The people on the line are undervalued while we Engineers who should learn from them are overvalued and have a sense of entitlement which is way off base great story