There is no question that Lean techniques work. There are countless success stories you can easily find scattered across the media, but why? How can such simple concepts and principles move business “mountains” and inspire countless continuous improvement cultures across multiple industries in multiple countries? I think the answer begins with the work of Dr. Abraham Maslow way back in 1943.

Maslow wanted to know why people did what they do. He wanted to know what motivated people. Unlike many researchers in his day, Maslow did not study animal behavior or the behavior of those mentally ill, instead he focused on exemplary people such as Albert Einstein, Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Frederick Douglass. What he discovered led to Malsow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow theorized that as people obtain basic needs, they successively reach for higher needs. His theory is often illustrated by a five level pyramid that starts with a foundational base of physiological needs and progresses to safety, love/belonging, esteem, and cresting with self-actualization. To this day Malsow’s Hierarchy of Needs and his Theory of Motivation remain one of the most widely taught introductory motivation theories for many students and managers worldwide.

There are issues with Malsow’s work. While most people would agree that Malsow’s theory “sounds right”, recent scientific research does not back up his strict hierarchy. Instead the order of the needs appears to shift based on such things as culture. Also, there is very little evidence that people only pursue one need at a time. Most evidence points to the fact that unless needs “conflict” with each other, it is common for people to pursue multiple needs simultaneously. Therefore in 1969, Clayton Alderfer suggested a revision to Maslow’s Theory of Motivation and Hierarchy of Needs.

Alderfer’s Theory addressed current scientific research that showed that many of the needs that Maslow outlined in his Hierarchy actually overlapped. Alderfer reduced the concept from five types of needs to three:
• Existence Needs – Concern with basic material existence
• Relatedness Needs – Motivation to maintain interpersonal relationships
• Growth Needs – Our intrinsic desire for personal development.
Thus Alderfer’s concept became known as the ERG Theory. Besides simply reducing the number of needs ERG Theory also reflects that multiple needs may be addressed at the same time and also accounts for the difference in needs based on such items as culture.

So by now you are probably asking yourself – What does this have to do with Lean?

My experience has shown that Lean’s power to change cultures originates with the simple truth that, Lean when applied right allows people to achieve these basic needs within their career and have job fulfillment. Often times when businesses decide to pursue Lean transformation, it is out of necessity. The company is often faced with a severe issue or challenge. This issue serves as the catalyst for the transformation. Often within the organization at this point there is a high level of stress, worry and overall frustration due to the issue. The business may be facing a “life or death” situation where upon the business will improve or cease. In the words of ERG Theory, often these companies have high “Existence Needs” both at the overall organizational level and down to the individual team member who worries about his future employment. Lean deployment directly begins to address this need. When deployed correctly people begin to stop worrying and focus on doing – fixing their business. Eventually, this “doing” shifts focus from the negative current state to the positive future state of the organization at all levels.

As Lean is deployed through Kaizen methods and projects (both functioning through teams), people within the organization begin to work together. Some organizations that have never functioned well as teams suddenly find themselves working in accord and energized as they move toward the future state. Specific tools such as 5S (Workplace Organization) and Team Problem Solving (i.e. 8D Corrective Action Teams, etc.) build up teaming at all levels within the organization. As the company comes together to focus on achieving the future state and people working together begin to see head way, there is an innate satisfaction and pride that flows through the group. People at different levels begin to meet their personal “Relatedness Needs” through their interactions with their teammates.

From the start Lean addresses everyone’s desire to learn and grow (“Growth Needs”) through training and hands-on work. People within the organization will reach out to learn more and grow in understanding personally. From Top Management down to Line workers, people will begin to reach out to lead improvement teams, solve problems and inspire each other. The company overall will shift into a learning culture.

I have outlined the above in steps for clarity. In the real world once a catalyst issue for change arises how the organization meets needs as a group and as individuals does not occur serially. Individuals, teams, and departments within an organization will not meet their needs at the same time or the same way for every individual. Some needs are more important than others to each of us. Often we try to achieve satisfaction across multiple needs at the same time. The important take away is not the above order, but the understanding that when Lean is deployed correctly on a very basic human level we can satisfy our personal and organizational needs. Intrinsically this is why Lean can achieve the media worthy bottom-line results; this is why Lean works.

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.