Us & Them<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/oldleandude.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Picture1.jpg?resize=182%2C149&ssl=1\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\nOver years of listening to persons describe their work, one single word has surfaced repeatedly as a barometer of what is frequently called \u201cculture.\u201d The use of the word they<\/em><\/strong> in conversation, gives me insight into an organization\u2019s ability to engage employees and sustain improvement. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The technical<\/em> aspects of Lean I can observe primarily with my eyes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n These are artifacts, physical manifestations, of Lean and together are necessary to an organization\u2019s Lean development. But alone, the technical efforts provide only a cursory understanding of culture<\/em>. For example, too often I visit workplaces that exhibit evidence of Lean tools and systems, but are lacking a spirit of improvement<\/em>. Deming Prize recipient Ryuji Fukuda<\/a> refers to a \u201cfavorable environment\u201d as a work atmosphere that supports employee participation and nourishes that spirit. This environment is not easily visible from the Lean artifacts. In fact, organizations willing and able spend money can create an appearance of Lean, with no real change in culture at all. One large manufacturer I visited recently actually farms out improvement projects to subcontractors. They are outsourcing Lean implementation \u2013 or so they think. <\/p>\n\n\n\n One word gives these companies away: they<\/em><\/strong>. It\u2019s a word that refers variously to management, employees, other departments or divisions, external suppliers, boards of directors \u2013 any parties involved in the flow of goods and services to the customer. When I visit a company, I\u2019m not only looking for the use of Lean tools and systems, but I\u2019m also counting They\u2019s<\/em><\/strong>. Let\u2019s call it a They Assessment<\/em><\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Sometimes they<\/em><\/strong> alludes to an adversarial relationship. \u201cThey<\/em><\/strong> don\u2019t listen to us\u201d, a nurse told me when I asked her about a scheduling snafu that left patients overflowing in a waiting room. \u201cWho are they<\/em><\/strong>?<\/em>\u201d I asked. \u201cThe docs,\u201d she said. \u201cAll doctors?\u201d I asked. \u201cSome more than others,\u201d she replied.\u201d Notice that the pronoun they<\/em><\/strong> objectifies an entire group. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In other instances, they<\/em><\/strong> connotes a more passive separation: \u201cThey<\/em><\/strong> won\u2019t support these changes\u201d is a concern I hear often, and it could just as well be spoken by top managers or by employees depending on frame of reference. When I\u2019m speaking to a production department, support departments like IT or engineering are often in the they<\/em><\/strong> category. And the effect is reciprocal. If one function refers to another as they<\/em><\/strong>, the other department will always respond in kind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They<\/em><\/strong> is a red flag word. It\u2019s frequency and location of use in conversation paint a picture of the business environment: favorable or unfavorable. Organizations with a stronger Lean culture will refer more frequently to \u201cwe\u201d in describing their work. In one company, for example, assembly employees repeatedly referred to the engineering department as \u201cwe\u201d even though engineering was clearly a separate entity on the organizational chart. The same production department, however, referred to a subassembly department as they<\/em><\/strong>, even though both departments worked side by side in the same physical area. As organizations develop the favorable environment, they<\/em><\/strong> is incrementally replaced by \u201cwe\u201d, the ideal condition being no they\u2019s<\/em><\/strong> at all. Short of that ideal, when I hear the word they<\/em><\/strong> I note a relationship problem that is holding back the essential spirit of improvement. <\/p>\n\n\n\n