“If you wish to know what a man is, place him in authority.” – Yugoslav Proverb

This may seem like an easy question to answer. Some would answer the question without hesitation, stating some unique facet of understanding related to Lean Techniques, but this does not fit the experiences that I have had in my career. I have seen very bright, technically-literate people fail miserably, while at the same time witnessed people just learning basic lean techniques meet with great success. Often this success has been almost excused by people saying that the organization was just waiting for something like Lean to come along; or I have heard it explained that the implementer leading the change was just “a people person, good with people, uh…you know what I mean.” Often though, I did not know what they meant. It was just not clear, how some people seemed to have a knack for being able to dive into an organization and lead amazing, sustainable changes – quickly. As a successful Lean implementer and trainer of change agents, I wanted to be able to fully explain this difference. I wanted to be able to teach that knack and to mentor people capable of leading successful Lean implementations. So I started analyzing my successes and those of other lean implementers that I knew. I found a simple truth. Successful Lean Implementation comes from a contingent leadership approach.

Contingent leadership is not a new concept. Years ago, Victor Vroom and Phillip Yetton developed the Vroom-Yetton Contingency Model outlining that the best style of leadership is contingent upon the given situation. The model identifies five ‘leader decision styles’ along with seven questions that can be asked to help someone choose the right leader decision style to use in any given situation. When I led successful implementations, I never took the time to reflect on the Vroom-Yetton Contingency Model; I went through the process intuitively. While the model is accurate, it seems a little overly complex and akward to use in day to day business. So the question is how to simplify this model so that it can easily be taught and applied by anyone? Kerry P. Gatlin, Professor of Management and Dean at the University of North Alabama developed a simplified version of the Vroom-Yetton Contingency Model that I have found to be easy to understand, teach, and apply. Professor Gatlin broke down the model into three basic generic styles (instead of five):

 INDIVIDUAL – The leader makes and announces the decision, direction, or takes action.
 CONSULTATIVE – The leader consults with others and then makes the decision or takes the action, typically explaining the reason.
 GROUP – The leader helps frame the situation, problem or issue and then challenges the group to make an appropriate decision and/or take the appropriate action.

Each of these three leadership styles is best, depending on the situation. Again Professor Galtin simpilified the model by developing only three factors to consider verses seven questions:

 When ACCURACY is important – There is a ‘best’ answer,solution, goal or action.
 When ACCEPTANCE is important – It is important that the team or group accepts and supports the decision, solution, or action.
 When TIME is important – This is an emergency or critical situation, there is no time for debate or buy in.

Now let’s put the best stlye with the appropriate situation:

 When TIME is the critical element to success, this leads to using an INDIVIDUAL style. It is important to remember that while this may be required it should not be required often.
 When ACCURACY is the most important concern, use either the INDIVIDUAL or CONSULTATIVE approach. If you have the information needed and the skill as an individual, you should make the decision or take the appropriate action. If you do not have the information nor needed skills, you should consult with those who do and then proceed.
 When ACCEPTANCE is the most important factor, the leader should use the GROUP style. Let a team work the problem, make the improvement, or take the action.

Often we as individuals tend to not modify our approach based on the situations we face. Instead we rely on a basic leadership style that we have developed and use it over and over. When this is done by change agents, often the results are poor. Many who lead Lean Implementations believe that a GROUP approach must be used in EVERY facet of Lean deployment so that members of the organization have complete buy in and acceptance. In reality, the most successful Lean Implementers realize that all three leadership styles are required in deploying Lean. A successful implementer will use each of these styles with different groups at different times within an organization. Often successful Lean implementation will be led through a three-prong approach using all three leadership styles at the same time at different places and on different projects within an organization. While it is true that many Lean tools are best applied from a GROUP leader style, sometimes organizations require immediate actions to pull their business back from the brink of corporate disasters ranging from losing critical customers to complete business failure. In these situations, a Lean implementer must be able to take on an INDIVIDUAL or CONSULTATIVE leadership role in order to drive quick actions and stabilize the situation. Later that same Lean Leader will come back and use GROUP leadership techniques to build culture and sustainability within the organization.
So what makes someone good at leading lean implementation? In summary, having a clear understanding of the key factor to success in any given situation (TIME, ACCURACY, or ACCEPTANCE) and selecting the right leadership approach (INDIVIDUAL, CONSULTATIVE, or GROUP). While some people have an intuitive knack for this, everyone can learn it and use it.