Three OpEx Questions You Need to Know

the Answers To
February 20, 2018/in Engagement, Leadership /by Amy Howard

A small group recently posed a few questions to us about Operational Excellence,

leadership and change. They were looking to get started on their journey and
wanted to understand our perspective on some of the critical elements. Here’s a
recap of the ensuing discussion…

Q. Leaders mostly understand the benefit of engagement and often

see OpEx as a way to obtain this, yet it seems that leaders are not well
equipped to make this happen. In fact, the training for leaders is often
ineffective. How do we overcome this gap?
A. The graph below is sourced from our YE16 OpEx survey report. It shows how the
surveyed organizations ranked the effectiveness of training at various levels of the
organization and across a variety of business types:

Img 1 – The relative effectiveness of OpEx and Engagement Training at different levels of the organization. It’s
notable that training is deemed most effective at the lowest levels of the organization while executive level
training is deemed effective only about 50% of the time.
We can all see the connection between better engagement scores and improved
performance, however there is a lot of confusion about what good engagement looks
like. Often engagement is thought to be more frequent face time between bosses and
subordinates, 360 feedback, suggestion programs, and so on. Rather, good
engagement is about giving people the ability to directly influence their work. It
recognizes basic human needs that include the power to make decisions, the ability
to control outcomes and being part of something bigger. These attributes are not
naturally occurring in many work environments so equipping leaders to enable
OpEx is about training and coaching them on the essential actions and
behaviors they must take to engage and align the organization from top to bottom.
Our approach to ensuring effective leadership training starts with the Managers /
Executive Lean Overview workshops. These sessions quickly inform the team with a
common vocabulary, awareness and understanding of:

 Lean concepts and the Lean enterprise

 Developing the right culture, structure and behaviors to support Lean
 Managing resistance to uncertainty, and
 Driving measurable results linked to the business strategy and objectives

Tools and methods are covered, but gaining expert capability on them is not
specifically intended. Rather, this portion of the workshop is meant to provide
context for how front line practitioners apply problem-solving tools to achieve
desired business outcomes.

Our primary objective with leaders and managers is to provide insights that help
them define and develop their own leader standard work. This means doing the
hard work of changing some of their own behaviors and habits to be able to actively
coach and demonstrate support for Lean to the organization as implementation
begins.

Beyond training and workshops, coaching is an important element that we always

employ during project work with clients. Coaching is about observing behaviors and
suggesting alternatives that can be more effective at delivering certain results. A
simple example: If you want people to be more engaged, ask leading questions as
opposed to prescribing a potentially ill-conceived solution. In this way, everyone
learns something and engagement is supported instead of stifled.

Q. If the leaders are not equipped to lead engagement, can

implementation still be successful if delegated to a lower level?
A. No. We’re talking about a shift here that must be valued up and down the
organization and especially at the top. These values drive subtle and not so subtle
behaviors that become part of the culture and transcend market shifts and
personnel changes. Here we assume “implementation” to be a sustainable OpEx
system. A leader who is equipped to lead engagement not only understands the
benefits, but values the operating norms that better engagement brings.

Since a lot of the heavy lifting and day-to-day activities of implementation are in fact
delegated, it’s important to understand how to help leaders do this. We talked about
the training and coaching aspect for leaders in Q1 above. In addition to
understanding the value of better engagement, the organization must know how to
do it.

Everyone in the organization must be expected to spend a small percentage of time

on improving the business ― as opposed to running the business. In the simplest
terms, this means allowing workers some freedom to fix problems that affect their
day-to-day work at the micro-process level. Supervisors and middle managers aren’t
exempt: They too should spend about an hour a week addressing slightly more
“macro” problems that affect their areas and people. At all levels, the most effective
improvement efforts are team-based to drive process ownership and accountability.

Since exactly how to do engagement can be described, the activities can be tracked.
This is important because it moves leaders beyond the idea of just “valuing
engagement” (because who doesn’t right?) to “knowing how to DO engagement.”
Only when this happens can implementation be effectively delegated.

Q. How important are engagement scores to measuring the success of

OpEx? What measures would be more important to determining
success?
A. Engagement scores are important. OpEx and engagement scores (from surveys
and audits) are directly related. Successful Operational Excellence is in large part
the result of good engagement. So engagement scores are a good lagging indicator of
OpEx and a great leading indicator of operational performance.

A focus on leading indicators is a good place to start. Here’s a way to think about
indicators:

 Leading indicators ― Instead of a “result” metric, leading indicators are

often the measurable actions that are taken to achieve a result. For engagement
these are the structures and mechanisms we use to cause engagement – for
example, the Executive Steering Committee (ESC), Functional Steering
Committee (FSC), and Lean Daily Management System®. These structures
describe specific, measurable activities that are part of a high-functioning OpEx
system.
 Middle indicators are the process performance measures ― and the
associated plans to improve ― at the macro and micro-process levels. These are
a tangible reflection of the living adoption of OpEx. The organization likes these a
lot because they show something is being done to improve results.
 Engagement scores are an important lagging indicator that provides proof
and external validation that the OpEx system is working (or not). Those who
score the highest go beyond better communication and asking people for more
feedback. They incorporate ways for employees to have direct input into the
work that they do – that is, the work that is relevant for them.

==========

Want more detail on these topics? You can download the full survey report – An
Examination of Operational Excellence – from the Resources section of our website.
(It’s great, really).
To learn more about enabling leadership to connect the dots between engagement
and value, check out our White Paper: Engage the Organization – And a Performance
Culture Will Follow.
Five Reasons for Better Employee
Retention
January 29, 2018/in Engagement /by Amy Howard

The cost of poor employee retention is significant and ever increasing. The ability to
retain good people is a huge competitive advantage. Whether the market is going up
or down, turnover is a factor for all employers, no matter what your business.

Not sure retention is an area you really need to spend energy on? Consider this…
with strong employee retention strategies and tactics, you:

 Avoid predictable re-staffing costs and gaps

Click to view our presentation on best practices for a Lean-based Employee Retention methodology
 Guard intellectual property drain
 Preserve customer relationships
 Don’t enable your competitors
 Develop positive buzz about your organization

Those are some pretty critical wins. And, they all contribute to significantly better
business performance. So why not do it right? And by right, we don’t just mean pay
increases, stock options and / or bonuses. These pieces alone won’t solve your
retention issues. It’s not all about the money… really. While financial incentives can
buy some time, they do little to build confidence in the culture of the organization
and the enterprise. A low retention rate is always a symptom of other issues.

Without a practical employee retention strategy in place, organizations find

themselves parting with a higher portion of their best and most qualified talent, the
result of which is losses in productivity, time and money. So how do you stop the
bleeding? First, focus on the heart of the issue… people.
The Most Important Employee Retention Factor is Engagement

This chart shows characteristics that frame highly-retentive workplaces

The number one place where organizations get it wrong is engagement. That’s right,
when people leave, it’s most often because they did not feel a sense of
accomplishment or belonging. People want to feel like they are part of something.
For decades, surveys have concluded that compensation and benefits, while
important, always rank lower than belonging and the ability to contribute
meaningfully when it comes to job satisfaction. Don’t ignore this!

What to Do
There are plenty of ways to improve retention by getting (and keeping) people
engaged. Start by including people in improvement activities like process mapping –
those working inside the process always know the most about value and waste
where they work – this is their chance to contribute their knowledge! Engaging
them in the hands-on work of fixing identified improvements should follow via
small focused projects (Kaizen Events and Rapid Improvement Events). To ensure
energy and support for these efforts, leaders should receive training and alignment
coaching to help them understand that it’s OK to give up some control and let the
organization contribute more from the frontlines.

To move beyond a project-based approach to engagement, consider the structure

and discipline embodied in Kaufman Global’s Lean Daily Management
System®. This is the real deal when it comes to sustainment and a structure that
keeps people involved on a day-to-day basis within their workgroups.

Supplemental Reading Recommendation:

White Paper | Engage the Organization and a Performance Culture Will Follow
When an organization is formally and consistently engaged, a culture of
performance follows. Understanding how to achieve a performance culture, why it’s
so elusive for many leaders and their organizations, and what it takes to make it
reliable is the key to sustainable improvement.
Procedural Adherence and Risk White
Paper
December 12, 2017/in Change Management, Engagement, Procedural Adherence /by Kaufman
Global
Procedural Adherence and process discipline are achievable –
but only when they’re treated as behaviors instead of tasks.

(This article is an excerpt from our Procedural Adherence and Risk white
paper. Click here to acquire the full document in a downloadable format).

**********

Almost never do people violate procedures with bad intent. When

it happens, it is enabled by a vague work culture coupled with urgent product and
service demands. The effects of rules broken ripple through the organization with a
range of negative consequences: personal safety, financial results, employee morale
and public perception. Learn how to reduce procedural adherence problems and boost
performance with behaviors that influence how employees view and deal with risk.
The enterprise works hard to define and defend organizational procedures to
maximize speed, accuracy and return — and still, rules are routinely broken.
Individuals and teams opt for apparent shortcuts that appear to speed things up, but
instead delay progress, sink performance or worse: put people in harm’s way.

Could it be that employees are wired to break the rules? With certain
cultural ques; yes.
People view and manage risk at a personal level. This sometimes results in actions
that oppose the stated values of the enterprise which include adherence to
procedures and rule-following. But there is a contradiction here. Instead of diligent
procedural adherence, the enterprise is often more concerned with chasing
(perceived) fast results and near-term profit at any cost.

The translation: The true value of the enterprise is that it is actually ok to break
rules, especially when a customer-facing issue or revenue stream is in play. From
the point of view of the individual faced with the pressure of “getting the job done”
it’s simply less risky to violate some procedures to keep the machine moving. This
fundamental misalignment of values is a breeding ground for mistakes and ultimate
poor performance – including and perhaps especially, catastrophic events.

Achieving a state of better procedural adherence — that is, predictably getting

employees to stick to predefined processes and standards — is a losing battle for
many organizations. They desperately want people to follow the rules, yet their own
culture drives decisions to the contrary. Why? Because everyone treats procedural
adherence as a step in a process instead of a behavior motivated by perceived risk.

Many factors impact how employees comply with procedures: company culture,
environmental complexities, the quality of existing support systems, and human
nature. In this white paper, we’ll break down what drives employees to behave the
way they do, so you can recast your organization as one where procedural
adherence is the norm.

The Safety Paradox

A popular consensus is that it’s easiest for people to follow safety rules. While a
narrow view, it’s useful to illustrate some truths about risk.

The basic reason we enjoy some measure of success with procedural adherence in
safety matters is because unsafe behaviors are visible and may result in immediate
consequence.

Safety rules tend to be easier to adopt because violations are more

visible, and consequences are bad for both the individual and the
enterprise.
But there is a more fundamental reason why. Accidents cause personal
harm and enterprise disruption. In other words; failure to follow the safety rules can
be bad for everyone. This alignment – a mutual understanding of risk – serves to
induce a state of better procedural adherence with respect to safety matters.

Safety programs further reinforce these notions by stating that anyone can spot and
audit unsafe behaviors and must do so as part of a “safety culture.” Unfortunately,
easy-to-observe violations cause only a fraction of all incidents. By contrast,
invisible missteps tend to stay buried deep inside complex procedures, only coming
to light when something’s gone very wrong.

Given this insight, it’s all the more astounding to realize that, even where it’s clear
that procedural non-compliance hurts everyone and rules are explicit, people will
still make choices that put themselves and others in harm’s way. When this happens,
it tells us a lot about the underlying values of the enterprise and how we all think
about and deal with risk.

Two Modes of Thinking Affect Risk Behavior

A procedure is a complex chain of tasks and processes that are linked and
sequenced to deliver a product or service to a customer. In that “value chain”, many
hands touch and impact deliverables: individuals, functions, departments, service
providers, suppliers, partners and so on. Each actor has visibility into their part of
the chain, but rarely to the ins and outs of the entire system, nor the potential
cascade of consequences that could arise from a misstep.

Mostly, people move through the day doing their job, responding to inputs, and
reacting to issues as they arise. Occasionally, there’s a need to divert attention to a
more complex problem, but mostly it’s about turning the crank. Immediate
surroundings and cultural norms — “the environment” — drive much of their
behavior.

Does “get the job done” trump “do the job right” in your organization?
The pressure to perform follows a few main themes: Keep things moving, be
efficient, manage costs and assure good quality. No matter what anyone says, or
how many DO THE JOB RIGHT posters hang on the walls, job pressure doesn’t
necessarily include following the rules. The status quo barks out: Get the job done. In
such an environment, going with the flow is perceived as less risky than monitoring
and complying with all the procedural requirements. After all, we’re problem-
solvers, right? A little rule-bending is expected and condoned.

Thinking Fast and Slow

For all of us, two distinct modes of thinking are constantly in play: fast and slow. Fast
thinking is reactive, responsive and automatic. It looks for patterns, gets us through
our day and requires little energy. When considering the equation: 2+2, you quickly
conclude 4 as the only possible answer. That’s fast thinking.
Slow thinking, on the other hand, is just that: slow. It uses lots of energy because it
requires focused attention. You’d need to employ slow thinking to multiply
fractions, for instance, or to figure out how to avoid your least favorite relative at the
family reunion.

As we fast-think through our day, we’re trying to avoid risk by paying attention to
what people around us expect. This is human nature and not much of a conscious
decision. Cutting some corners feels reasonable.

At the enterprise level, where policy is made and direction is set, the job IS slow
thinking: planning new and better ways of doing things, improving results,
satisfying customers and avoiding unpleasant surprises. All of those outcomes seem
more likely when people follow the rules, so adhering to standard procedures is
viewed as a way to lower risk.

Table 1 – In a traditional organization, following procedures can be viewed as having high or

low risk, depending on one’s vantage point.
Table 1 contrasts these dynamics from the point of view of the individual vs. the
enterprise. This misalignment between risk perceptions, plus the reactive nature of
fast thinking patterns, are the reasons why your organization might be having a
hard time achieving better procedural adherence. If rules are routinely broken
where you are, it’s because no matter what anyone says, your organization’s true
values are to get the job done — even if it means not following procedures.
A caveat: the foregoing assumes that tasks, processes and procedures are well
defined, well documented and well understood — which is almost never the case. If
you expect compliance but have not made the procedures clear, easily available and
understandable, you’re fooling yourself and shortchanging your valuable workforce.
Procedural Adherence (Re) Defined
Given our understanding of how human nature drives or hinders procedural
adherence, we can construct a simple definition. Procedural adherence is:
 Aligned values and explicit behaviors that demonstrate the
highest regard for following established
standards to minimize risk.
If we break the definition down piece by piece, these points are important to
understand:

 When individuals and the enterprise share the same values, that alignment
will translate to observable behaviors. As the saying goes, actions speak louder
than words.
 If you expect someone to follow the rules, then you’d better make those rules
clear and understandable.
 Adhering to procedures must become low-risk for everyone.

Our definition of procedural adherence goes well beyond the notion of false slogans
and checklists to encourage compliance. It provides handles for people to grab ahold
of. If we really want better procedural adherence, values must be aligned and why
values were not aligned in the first place is the real root cause analysis that must be
done.

Start by getting a grip on definitions, documentation and conveyance of the

procedures that need to be followed. Focus on the ones that are most vital to the
enterprise. Rationalize the list of critical expectations and then ACT on them. This
requires active governance (that probably doesn’t currently exist) versus the typical
haphazard, “Let’s do everything” approach.

Once you have a solid set of rational procedures that must be followed, react
strongly when violations occur and dig for the cultural root cause when they do.
You’ll often find the violators felt they were acting in accordance to their bosses’
objectives and in the best interest of the enterprise. Note: There is often a lot of bad
precedent to be undone here.
While the conventional approaches to procedural adherence problems – Defining,
Training and Discipline – have their place, they could be sabotaging your
compliance efforts by looking like progress, but instead are just more of the same.
Targeting Behaviors for Lasting Improvements
We now know your enterprise and the individuals inside it at many times think
differently. People on the ground think fast and avoid personal risk by occasionally
breaking rules — and if the organizational culture says it’s ok to do it sometimes, it’s
ok to do it any time. Conversely, the “think slow” enterprise seeks to minimize risk
by getting everyone to follow the rules.

The key is to align the risk profiles for both. It’s the only path that works because it
operates at the behavioral level. This requires a direct frontal attack on the status
quo — an uncomfortable proposition for most, but one that must be done if real
change is desired. After all, we’re talking about replacing poor habits (behaviors)
with good ones. This is a goal that can only be accomplished with an approach that
is: (a) highly visible, (b) effective in its execution, and (c) simple enough for
everyone to understand.

Figure 2 – A high performing FSC provides the organization a leading indicator of procedural
adherence.

Our solution — which many high-performance organizations have successfully

adopted — is an engaged and visible coalition of leaders whose implicit and explicit
objective is to reinforce a set of values with which everyone can align. We call this
body the Functional Steering Committee (FSC). FSC participants are directors and
functional heads tasked with managing major process nodes along the value chain.
They meet weekly and review procedural adherence status by asking three
questions:

1. Do we have the procedure?

2. Do we understand the procedure?
3. Are we doing the procedure?
Why meet weekly? In our experience, a weekly cadence is vital. If less, participants
lose interest and urgency. Monthly sessions result in a last-minute rush to gloss over
subpar progress and shoddy work. This is the very behavior that better procedural
adherence is designed to attack. But by tackling issues weekly, communicating
expectations, asking the right questions and demonstrating the benefits of
procedural adherence, the risk alignment profiles noted in Table 2 become the new
status quo.

Table 2 – When the risk profiles are the same for the enterprise as the individual, everyone is
motivated to act in the same way because the cultural norm is to follow procedures.
The chartered and structured FSC is a new behavior. It’s highly visible and is a
leading indicator of better procedural adherence. Over time, the enterprise and
individual employees begin valuing the same things, and decisions become more
aligned, consistent and mutually beneficial. And, FSC benefits don’t stop here.

The FSC governs the technical aspects of improvement too, pinpointing gaps that
might otherwise go unnoticed. For example, if someone does not have a documented
procedure, who better to help than the FSC? If there is confusion about how a
procedure is supposed to work, the FSC intervenes. If someone isn’t following the
rules, the team will find out why and encourage / remove barriers to doing so in real
time. The FSC can surface innovations that can then be built into the formal,
standard approach.

With respect to procedural adherence, often this governance role is not being done
well, or at all. This is a gap that needs to be closed. Yet the usual objections will be
heard: “Do we really need another meeting?” and “Can’t we automate this?” Some will
suggest that technology is a better answer, or another meeting is too much.
Technology can help, especially in the area of standard templates and sharing best
practices. Remember, however, that you’re dealing with a behavioral issue. If “just
another meeting” seems like too much, eliminate three useless ones or have the FSC
integrate the responsibilities of the team that’s investigating the most recent
catastrophe.

One of the biggest problems your organization will face is getting functions and
departments to come together to solve system-level problems like procedural
adherence. The solutions to these types of problems: efficiency, effectiveness,
productivity, quality and customer-focus are solved using Lean and other process
improvement techniques. The first step is gap identification, and this new approach
with the FSC is ready-made for that.

A New Destination Requires a New Path

Einstein famously defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over while
expecting different results. You’ve likely heard that proverb a dozen times, nodded
in agreement, and returned to old practices expecting new outcomes.

Likewise, returning to traditional approaches where procedures are treated like

guidelines instead of values-driven standards will result in the level of compliance in
your organization remaining unchanged… or inconsistent, at best.

It won’t be easy. Old ways die hard. Your organization will face tough decisions
about chasing revenue, be tempted by the notion that a small defect or minor
violation won’t matter, and that speed trumps standards. These moments of truth
happen every day, swaying people to compromise and make poor choices.

The payoff for doing something truly different, however, is huge. Imagine a 20%
reduction in catastrophic events and the benefits when this 20% is spread across all
types of incidents. Imagine a team of leaders working across functions, better
understanding each other’s needs, and monitoring handoffs between them. Finally,
consider the relief, shot of confidence and productivity for frontline workers who
know the rules, and no longer feel the pressure to disregard them – instead,
operating in an environment that demonstrably values them.

This post is an excerpt from Kaufman Global’s White Paper: Procedural Adherence
and Risk. To acquire a copy of the full white paper, click here.
If you’d like to learn more about the services we offer related to addressing
Procedural Adherence challenges, click here.
Time is the Common Denominator of all
Wastes
November 4, 2017/in Change Management, Engagement, Tools and Methods /by Jerry Timpson
When it comes to improving operations, how many wastes are
there really?
I recently read an article that asked the question: How many types of waste are
there really? This was in reference to Lean and the original seven wastes in Taiichi
Ohno’s iconic Waste Wheel, shown here.
The comments were interesting. Apparently there are tightly-held beliefs on this
topic. Let’s try not to over complicate something that Ohno intended to be quite
simple, but because waste is the red thread of all Lean, it’s worth consideration.

Purists believe that there are 7 wastes as described by the sensei and there shall be
only 7 wastes. Period. Another faction makes the argument for adding the “waste of
people’s intellect” or something similar. This notion has become increasingly
popular over the years. Kaufman Global added it long ago, but I’ve always found the
classification a bit difficult. Is it intellect, human potential, creativity, insight,
involvement, et cetera? Unlike Ohno’s originals, these descriptors seem abstract and
difficult to attach to an action.

The case for waste of intellect arose from the observation that bosses and managers
tend to treat people like cogs instead of active participants in value creation. Ohno’s
writings illustrate his struggles to help people understand. Who knows why he
didn’t include it in his original work? Maybe he considered himself an “under-cover”
social engineer and felt that sticking to hard assets was more pragmatic. Or maybe
he didn’t want to too openly point out that management was missing the point? The
gap shows no sign of closing soon.

If you want to get really basic, there is only one true waste: TIME. With Lean, time
is incorporated in many ways: cycle time, value added time, non-value added time,
downtime, uptime, etc. Ohno simply broke it down in a way that made it easy to
identify obvious targets to be addressed with appropriate techniques.
My take: It doesn’t really matter. Waste can be subdivided many ways. If you think
there are 20 different types of waste and this helps attack any one of them better; go
for it. In the name of continuous improvement we must be willing to add or subtract
in order to improve the system. Right? Yes. Be careful though: More choices seems
somehow less Lean, doesn’t it?

People Energy, Alignment and Engagement

Which brings us back to the concept of the waste of people’s intellect. When it comes
to achieving operational excellence, a tremendous amount of time is lost by failing to
engage people doing their daily work. Non-inclusion results in false starts, half
measures, low sustainment and do-overs. Workshops and Kaizen Events may be
common, but sustainable results are only achieved when people are tangibly
connected to everyday improvement.
 Alignment
Any attempt to be operationally excellent means real and sometimes uncomfortable
change; which always meets resistance in some form. Alignment is about getting
everyone to support new ways of work. This is a cascading process where actions
are different depending on ones place in the organization. If there was only one
choice about what to align on however, it would be the need to engage everyone.

Engagement
Engagement means giving people a voice in the work they do and holding them
accountable for continuous improvement. Achieving broad engagement up and
down the organization is tough for many. Kaufman Global uses structures like the
Executive Steering Team, the Lean Daily Management System ® (LDMS ®), and
Procedural Action Teams to force engagement. They’re simple enough to
understand and do too. If methods are overly complicated, they are easier avoid.

When it comes to waste, everything revolves around time but it’s okay to define as
many subdivisions as you like. If you had two to choose, I’d recommend alignment
and engagement. When you get these right, smart people working together toward a
common goal always solve the other problems.

**********

Notes:

 Muda is the Japanese term for waste. This is the word Taiichi Ohno would
have used.
  A simple definition of waste is: Anything an all knowing, all seeing customer
would not be willing to support (pay for).

If you want to learn more about Kaufman Global’s approach to engagement and
alignment, check out SLIM-IT, Procedural Adherence and Lean Daily Management
System. For a deep dive into the waste wheel and how it applies to Lean, check out
our White Paper: Implementing Lean Manufacturing.

IADC Highlights: Procedural Adherence

Video
November 3, 2017/in Engagement /by Kaufman Global
If you weren’t able to join us at the 2017 IADC Human Factors Conference in
Galveston last month, you missed out on a rich dialog. Kaufman Global President
Jerry Timpson presented on the topic of Procedural Adherence – why people break
the rules, how individuals and the enterprise approach risk differently, and what
can be done about it. See his post-presentation interview with Kelli Ainsworth
from DrillingContractor.org below.

Lean Daily Management System

November 17, 2015/in Engagement /by Jerry Timpson
The Lean Daily Management System (LDMS): Using Structure to
Engage Employees and Optimize Value
In the late 1990s, when Kaufman Global developed the Lean Daily Management
System ® (LDMS ®), we recognized that “Lean” as a method for improving business
was often viewed as a set of tools aimed at machines and inventory. On the surface,
and in the simplest of explanations, it was considered to be a group of useful
techniques that could be “directed and applied”. I think this was more of a Western
interpretation that still reverberates today. In this, the practitioners of the day put
less emphasis on the human element and treated engagement as a collateral benefit
of Lean, rather than the primary contributor to Lean results. Much of the
information available focused on technical aspects such as pull systems, inventory
leveling and quick change-over with a bias for discrete manufacturing versus
continuous flow, business process or service industries.

Consider these highlights from the 1990s Lean landscape:

 Taiichi Ohno’s original waste wheel updated with People Energy wastes: Engagement and Alignment
 Taiichi Ohno’s seven wastes had not yet been updated to include People
Energy Wastes of Alignment and Engagement. This has since been added to
present day waste wheel diagrams (right), but it is an addition that Ohno
probably would agree with today. He keenly understood the value of
engagement and human intellect when he said in his book Workplace
Management (Ohno, 1988), “Only the gemba can do cost reduction.”
 The Machine that Changed the World (Womack, Jones, & Roos, 1990). For a
decade this book was the primary source of Lean inspiration as manufacturers
attempted to emulate Toyota. It is still a compelling description of the benefits of
Lean vs. more traditional forms of production. The book describes worker
engagement as an important element of the Toyota Production System but it
does not peg it as the foundation. Lower inventories and improved product flow
are viewed as the causes of higher productivity and better quality when they are
actually the effects of a more engaged workforce.
 Learning to See (Rother & Shook, 1998). All about Value Stream Mapping, it
is still the preferred source for this technique for understanding waste and value.
It is most effective in manufacturing environments where inventory can be
converted to time.
Power to the People
Our fundamental belief then and now is that Lean is a people system, not a technical
one. Think of Lean tools like Quick Changeover, Error Proofing, Pull Systems, or
Kaizen Events as waste elimination shovels. They work great, but they are useless
without some keen insight about where to dig. This was the missing link we sought
to address as we first described LDMS. It gives natural work teams the ability to
make decisions about where to dig based on their understanding of their issues and
performance. Combine this insight with the authorization for them to actually take
control and utilize some structured problem solving techniques, and you have a self-
regulating improvement engine.

The Lean Daily Management System Methodology

It’s about workgroup engagement:

The Lean Daily Management System

Vital components of the Lean Daily Management System:

 The standard procedures that help teams continuously improve their day-to-
day work (Kaizen)
 Intact workgroups with common tasks and deliverables
 Daily short interval coaching (SIC) by supervisors
 Primary visual Display (PVD) board
 A daily shift start-up meeting (SSU)
 Kaizen Action Sheet (KAS) improvement system
 Metrics the team can influence and control
 Lean Daily Management System is the primary means of engaging the
organization
LDMS is the manifestation of work group participation and this engagement is the
fastest route to the overall objective of Lean which is to maximize customer value by
minimizing waste. Or said another way: Deliver, at each step, what you need, when
you need it, at ever-increasing levels of quality and customer satisfaction. While this
cannot be achieved via top-down control, leadership does have an important part to
play. “Doing” LDMS must be supported, expected, encouraged and required from
above, otherwise it won’t happen consistently enough, broadly enough or often
enough to become the way the organization does business.

LDMS Behaviors and Actions are Specific and Observable

The constructs of LDMS

are specific. They describe activities and behaviors that are observable. This gives
leadership a natural and specific way to interact with and support the teams. For
example, one could ask: “Do you have good teamwork? Are you communicating? Do
you measure your work and performance?” In an LDMS environment, all of these
things are observable and the teams are able to speak directly to how they do it.
That empowerment drives accountability and process ownership downward, where
it belongs.

The Lean Daily Management System gives organizations outside the realm of
manufacturing something to grasp. When you think of Lean as waste elimination
and LDMS as the standard work of an engaged organization, it opens a world of
possibilities that go beyond the shop floor. In our experience, LDMS works
everywhere. Contents are adjusted – metrics for example will be different in
functional and administrative environments than in manufacturing. But when
people actively participate in improving the work that they control, they always find
ways to innovate and adjust appropriately.

Where is it working? Here are a few examples:

  Industry: Goodrich, AGCO, Becton Dickinson, Johnson and Johnson,
Genentech, Haldex, IR, Goodyear, Owens Corning, Nabors
 Healthcare: Sutter Healthcare Systems, Oregon State Hospital, Mississippi
State Hospital, Lincoln Healthcare Network
 Government: State of Oregon, State of Indiana, State of Delaware, UK
Highways Agency
Why The Lean Daily Management System Works
Should you do it?.. Of course! LDMS makes Lean sticky.

 People have more personal control and ownership of the work that they do.
Individual and team accomplishments become visible.
 Performance issues and opportunities are more transparent.
 Process changes and improvement efforts are better connected to day-to-day
activities and standard work is easier to achieve.
 LDMS engages minds and hearts and provides a vessel for employees to
contribute in ways that are meaningful and rewarding to them.

Even with all these positives, be prepared for some resistance. It’s something new
and people will have lots of questions as the system is coached into the organization.
Leaders needs to be encouraged to stay the course until the culture starts to
recognize that a broad and proactive approach to performance improvement is the
best way to eliminate waste and improve customer value.

********************

Kaufman Global began teaching and implementing the Lean Daily Management
System in 1999. It was first described and published in our groundbreaking White
Paper: WIn-Lean® Manufacturing in 2000.
In 2017 we updated our content to include even greater emphasis on the fact that the
waste of People Energy (Engagement and Alignment) is still the greatest opportunity
for any organization seeking to improve performance. For a full description of how
and why LDMS fits into any Lean system, download a copy of our White Paper:
Implementing Lean Manufacturing: A Holistic Approach.

Results from Kaufman Global clients who have implemented and are using the
LDMS:

Oregon State Hospital uses the Lean Daily Management System and here: Oregon
State Hospital Presentation
BD uses LDMS everywhere: BDs Corporate Citizenship Report – see page 36
Tier 1 automotive company that deployed the Lean Daily Management System
globally
Pharmaceutical company uses LDMS as a cornerstone of enterprise Lean
implementation
Oilfield drilling company uses the Lean Daily Management System to engage rig
crews in South America (and beyond)
 ********************

References

Ohno, T. (1988). Workplace Management. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.

Womack, J., Jones, D., Roos, D. (1990). The Machine That Changed The World. Based
on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5-million dollar 5-year study on the
future of the automobile. New York, NY: Rawson Associates.
Rother, M., Shook, J. (1998). Learning To See: Value Stream Mapping to Create Value
and Eliminate Muda.
Lareau, E. W. (2000) White Paper:WIn-Lean® Manufacturing.
Transform and Sustain: The Connection
Can Be Difficult
October 20, 2015/in Engagement, Leadership /by Kaufman Global
Nothing is Transformed if it Cannot be Sustained

Clients
never say: “We want to transform and do better, but we don’t care if we sustain the
improvements.” Clients always profess a sincere desire to sustain results. This
intent is so pervasive that during the past 20 years we’ve seen the rise of
Operational Excellence as a legitimate function across wide swaths of business and
industry. Yet most organizations fail to realize this apparently lofty goal. Low levels
of lasting success are usually explained at a tactical level, but the reasons that
leaders and their organizations get it wrong goes much deeper.

To get a handle on what is happening and why, we explore some of the traditional
norms, individual behaviors and corporate incentives that must be rethought to
enable transformation success. As a first step, let’s define a few simple rules that are
the foundation of any successful initiative:

Rule 1 – The Environment IS Dynamic

It’s obvious to say, but our environment is dynamic. Everything changes all the time.
“Sustain” conveys a sense of holding something – a process or procedures for
example – in place. It’s time to re-evaluate this concept and acknowledge that in a
dynamic environment, sustain doesn’t mean we pin something to the ground.
Rather, it means we stay in lock-step with a moving target, consistently and credibly
adjusting and improving.

Rule 2 – Understanding Value

Value is best understood where it is created. People know the most about
optimization of the things they work on. Even more important, people care more
about the things they work on than the things they don’t. Failure to grasp this rule is
why top-down control of improvement systems doesn’t work well and never lasts.

Rule 3 – The Leader’s Role

For any of this to work – meaning, ongoing improvement and sustainment ̶ the
organization must be engaged and stay engaged. In simple terms:

More Engagement Equals Better Results

A primary (perhaps the primary) function of leadership is to compel
engagement. Easier said than done, we can state flatly that engagement is an
activity that can be measured and when it’s missing, overtly addressed. Experience
tells us that if engagement is not compelled, it will not happen enough to deliver
lasting improvement.

When everyone works on solutions with cadence, structure and discipline, peers are
required to spend time together improving their deliverables along the value
stream. Team dynamics increase accountability and generate performance
momentum. This is the catalyst for sustainment.

Internalizing and applying these rules to any improvement system increases the
odds of success. Fail to apply them and results will be sub-optimized at best. Going
to the next level requires understanding the underlying organizational behaviors
that come into play in the struggle to transform and sustain. Here they are:

Engagement is Not Understood or Valued

The building blocks of lasting transformation revolve around getting and keeping
everyone engaged (Rule #3). Unfortunately, organizational dynamics and behaviors
that deliver this are seldom experienced or even witnessed. And, “What good looks
like…” is rarely part of one’s education or training curriculum. Understanding the
structure of engagement so that it can be baked into the DNA of the system is
essential to going beyond the “what” of transformation and getting to the “how” of it.

How to Sustain is Not Defined

In some respects it is difficult to separate transformation and sustainment. They are
two sides of the same coin. But if we see engagement as the glue that holds these
concepts together, it deserves a definition that is simple enough to act upon.
Therefore:

The organization is engaged when you, your peers, your superiors and subordinates
spend at least one hour each week actively improving the business.

This is what good looks like. When you overtly define engagement at an individual
level, the behaviors and actions of it can be observed, measured and mirrored. Too
often, leaders want everyone to really “get it” before they do it. Transformation
happens in the reverse.

For Many, Putting Energy Into Sustaining Activities Doesn’t Pay

Transformation initiatives most often occur inside a business emergency. During
these times, communication spikes, teams are formed, actions are chartered and
things get done. It feels great! When it’s over, the quorum disengages, momentum
wanes and everyone reverts to business as usual. The final step is recognition and
reward conveyed for fixing the crisis. Big changes, big projects, and big results –
these are the things that get noticed and rewarded. Everyone working on small,
incremental changes and improvements for the better? … Yawn.

When the requirements for sustainment are poorly defined, not well understood
and appear difficult to measure, they are avoided. Success requires broad
participation, openness to new ideas and a convergence of standard, simple
mechanisms aimed at improving the business. Overtly make the connection
between transformation and sustainment, then weave it into the compensation,
reward and recognition system. Make it safe and make it pay.

Proactive Problem Solving Might Seem Simple and Boring… and

People Are Easily Distracted
The concepts and execution requirements described here are so simple that they are
easily dismissed. The ideas of broad inclusion and a flatter organization often
require a significant re-evaluation of organizational norms and are naturally
avoided. Any distraction; the latest crisis, a new technology or any approach or
method that might require less coaching and change management is a welcomed
relief. Without some overt activities that demonstrate our adherence to
engagement, most will shift away – usually with the tacit approval of their bosses
who never got it in the first place.

It Disrupts the Status Quo

When engagement and sustainable transformation starts to occur, decisions are
pushed down in order to optimize absolute value. This is a shift that challenges well-
established networks that are built around personal relationships and existing
dynamics. It’s disruptive. This above all others is the biggest reason for failure.

The truth is this shift frees energy that is traditionally spent on re-work, redundancy
and errors. Not everyone will see it this way but when the new system of
engagement is well defined and well structured, resistance is easily surfaced. Shifts
in organizational and personal behavior are required. Recognize the fact that
something that threatens entrenched relationships and systems succeeds only with
a crystal-clear mandate, a well-defined plan and adequate coaching.

With all these obstacles, it’s no wonder the majority of organizations and leaders
lament an inability to sustain their transformation and continuously improve. Start
by viewing the system holistically with a keen eye on organizational dynamics,
individual behaviors, simple definitions and an approach that is firmly linked to
activity-based performance measures. This will help avoid rework that is
exponentially more difficult the second, third, and fourth time through.

**********

For information about how to engage workgroups and push decision making down,
read about Kaufman Global’s Lean Daily Management System.
Managing Change: 10 Tips to Improve
Communication
October 7, 2013/in Engagement /by Kaufman Global

When it comes to implementing any new initiative, communication is a critical

success factor. A full menu of changes; some large and sweeping, some small but
critical, will be generated by and with people in the organization over the course of
the effort. How leadership chooses to broadly communicate these changes ― all
together, in small or large portions, or one-on-one, can make a huge difference in the
rate of adoption. It’s important to carefully consider how, when, why, what and
where information / updates will be presented to fully engage employees and,
ultimately, drive sustainable improvements.

The way information is communicated to employees during times of change has a

tremendous impact on the final results. If handled ineffectively, morale and
productivity decreases ― despite the best of intentions. When there are looming
questions and concerns, they lose faith. If employees don’t receive enough
information, speculation and rumor can become truth. In the end, a disengaged
workforce emerges, resulting in reduced
effort and commitment just when their dedication is needed the most. How do you
stop or prevent this from happening?

Leadership should consider these 10 ideas when planning for, announcing,

implementing, and communicating Lean transformation activities:

1. Get Qualified Communicators Involved

It’s important for organizations to get their internal communications team involved
from the very beginning. Too often, qualified communicators are involved after a
backlash is in full force ― when leaks and rumors are rampant. CFOs and COOs are
not typically qualified to understand how employees will respond to change and
how best to share information. On the other hand, qualified internal
communications professionals typically have proven expertise in change
management, crisis communications, executive communications, etc. They need to
have a seat at the leadership table.

2. Establish a Communications Plan

Don’t confuse process (e.g., visioning, chartering executive steering committees,
planning, endless PowerPoint presentations, etc.) with communication. While those
meetings and processes can be communication vehicles if designed mindfully and
handled in the context of a broader program, they aren’t adequate to meet all
communication needs.

3. Communicate Early
Once a plan and timeline has been developed based on the initiative strategy, start
communicating. The longer employees have to wrap their heads around change, the
better they tend to accept it. At the beginning of the change:

 Communicate employee benefits first ― starting with “how this change helps
the organization” can create a sense of injustice, so focus on employees first;
 Identify why the change is necessary and what will happen if there is no
change;
  Explain how the changes fit into the overall business strategy and the
organization’s priorities;
 Review the process, including what will be done to involve everyone in it;
 Discuss timing and when they will get more information.
4. Communicate Often
Update employees regularly to share victories and address pending issues. When
employees are communicated with frequently, they are more likely to support the
change for the long-term. Information can and should also be repeated (through
multiple channels), as research shows that most people have to hear something
several times before they fully process the message.

5. Use Multiple Communication Channels

Some organizations make the mistake of using only one vehicle, such as e-mail or
signage, to communicate changes. Considering not every employee digests
information the same way, and that there are so many options to choose from,
organizations that leverage a multi-channel approach ― combining email, intranet,
social chat rooms, newsletters, presentations, face-to-face meetings, conference
calls, etc. ― have more success.

6. Prepare Spokespeople
Leadership does not only need to understand how to explain the transformation,
they need to understand when they should and should not be the ones to speak
about it. They need to know how to keep things positive. They also need to be able
to drill down and explain what change means to various audiences. Keeping them in
sync is critical.

7. Test Your Communications

It is often useful to test out messaging on a subset of stakeholders, especially when
there’s time to do so. Testing can be done through focus groups, employee surveys,
or a more informal round-table where individuals can practice delivering the
message and get first-hand feedback.

8. Provide Ample Opportunities to Share Feedback

Giving employees multiple opportunities to share concerns, ask questions, and offer
ideas is crucial to the process. The more two-way communication is made a priority,
the better the organization can keep its finger on the pulse of what future
communications need to include to meet the needs of the audience.

9. Make Change Part of Day-To-Day Work

To get employees to fully embrace change, a management system, like Kaufman
Global’s Lean Daily Management System® (LDMS®), should be put into place to
drive day-to-day focus. LDMS helps visualize activities and promote active
communication about the work of individual teams every day. It:

 Supports and reinforces clarity of purpose at all levels of the organization;

 Builds continuous improvement and disciplined execution into day-to-day
work;
 Involves and develops people;
 Creates a culture of collaboration and accountability.
10. Become a Role Model
People judge the performance of leaders not by what they say but by what they do.
Employees will watch closely to determine how leadership is feeling about the
change and will draw their own conclusions based on that behavior. Leaders should:

 Convey that they are personally committed to the changes by active

participation and sponsorship;
 Be open to discussion with employees regarding the changes;
 Express confidence in the team’s ability to make it through the changes;
 Seek and incorporate input to make the changes work.

Why Leaders Don’t Pursue Employee

Engagement
July 25, 2013/in Engagement, Leadership /by Kaufman Global
The following is an excerpt from Kaufman Global’s White Paper: Engage the
Organization and a Performance Culture Will Follow. Here we examine the reasons
why leaders fail to pursue employee engagement, even while it’s proven to be
fundamental to success.
If we accept the idea that a fully engaged organization is fundamental to
success, then we must ask, “Why Do Leaders Fail to Act?” The simple answer
may be because it is exceedingly difficult to challenge ingrained culture and belief
systems. Pushing decisions down, engaging the organization broadly and deeply,
and giving up some amount of control is not a simple matter. In fact, it counters the
culture of traditionally run organizations.

To dig a little deeper into the reasons leaders fail to pursue engagement, Kaufman
Global recently surveyed a large group of top leaders and known change agents.
These individuals come from diverse industry backgrounds, such as consumer
products, energy, government and technology. Averaging over 20 years of
experience, each has a proven track record of successfully engaging and improving
their organizations.

The question was asked, “If we accept that the leader’s function is to create
value and that one vital and comprehensive way to do this is by fully engaging
the organization — at all levels and at all times — why do so few leaders truly,
actively pursue this essential aspect of sustainability and performance?” Six
possible answers were given with a rating that ranged from 1 (seldom) to 5
(often). A summary of the results follow. Additional detail is provided within the
white paper.

Distraction | The top reason at 80% is that leaders are too distracted with day-to-
day operations and other external inputs to focus themselves or their teams on
anything other than existing systems applied to here-and-now deliverables. This
defines a mostly reactive environment and one that has multiple competing inputs
— often from above. It’s true enough that “Change starts at the top.” With enough
distraction the opposite is just as true (and way more common). In this instance,
engaging the organization is not valued enough to make it a formal priority.
Immediacy | Next comes immediacy at 72%. Immediacy has to do with the extreme
focus on short-term goals and results. There’s no time for something that might not
deliver a here-and-now win, requires some level of faith and is even slightly
different than anything already being done. Moving upward in the organization, if
results are not achieved, personal compensation and job security are at risk.

Immediacy and distraction are intimately linked. Distractions mount as the need for
immediate results rises. Two back-to-back quarters of poor performance and the
level of distraction goes off the scale. If this cycle goes on long enough, pressure and
confusion over priorities lead to loss of morale and disengagement. People tend to
exit these types of environments, and it’s unfortunate that engagement — a major
mitigation factor and the single greatest contributor to employee morale and
retention — is among the first to go and is seldom pursued in a systematic fashion.

Tools | Following closely at 68% is “toolitis.” This is a common ailment of many

organizations where things like Kaizen Events, Value Stream Mapping and 5S are
viewed as engaging the organization. It’s true that these types of activities get
people involved, but only temporarily. Six Sigma is more of an expert practitioner
methodology and has even less of an engagement mandate. There are many
examples of organizations stalling in their Continuous Improvement efforts when
they apply a tools-only approach. They have the tools, but value workers are not
compelled to pick them up and use them because they aren’t immediately aware of,
or have visibility to, their own performance. “Toolitis” is a big problem within
production organizations, where employees find it difficult to expand into business
processes because they can’t translate the improvement techniques they started
with. Tools are most effective when they held in place with engagement.

All of these factors are closely related and combine to form a powerful barrier to
real change. That “fail to understand” and “don’t believe” were scored as significant
factors says a lot ― and not in a good way ― about basic leadership and
management skills. Training is one element that can help, but people learn through
their own experiences that are illuminated by existing values and norms. To change
these patterns requires a significant reset on how organizations reward certain
behaviors.

These barriers — and they apply at all levels — are daunting for anyone attempting
change within the area they control. Some traps are more common depending on
where you are in the organization. The lower you go, the more the system will
attempt to kill your initiative (i.e., “Not invented here.”, “Who else knows about
this?” or “This is not part of your job description.”). As you go higher in the
organization, the problems associated with trying anything different prevent
ignition ― pick any combination of reasons.

Those in the middle of the organization have simultaneously the most to gain and
the most to lose. Here there is a lot of local control over value creation ― therefore
the gains can be fast and big. In addition, the personal risk of failure for trying
something different is less; yet there is strong attachment to the status quo and
disruption isn’t much welcomed. Besides, in many situations, operating marginally
better than one’s peers doesn’t require anything as foreign as attempting your own
fully engaged organization. Without the support of peers and bosses, mid-level
managers quickly start to feel they are rowing upstream alone.

Given all the barriers, it’s amazing that anyone pursues the engagement prerogative,
but some do. And when someone, somewhere intends to make a meaningful
difference by getting everyone involved to the fullest extent possible, the journey
can be made a little easier with well-conceived boundaries that are defined by
accountabilities, expectations and metrics. Journeys begin by starting to think about
engagement as a process (as opposed to an outcome)…

Ready to dig deeper? This article is continued in our White Paper: Engage the
Organization and a Performance Culture Will Follow Click here to download the full
text.

Drop us a line if you want to learn more about Kaufman Global’s view on
engagement.

Sticky Data: Humans Needed

February 18, 2013/in Engagement /by Kaufman Global
Living in an “Information Age” has its challenges. Many of us have come to rely too
much on technology, expecting it to solve the world’s problems with little or no
manual effort involved. Much like drivers who use GPS systems to blindly navigate
the roads, organizations have become adept at creating systems that continuously
— and quite consistently — gather more data than they can ever hope to digest. The
ever-present “black hole” has become the standard repository for stacks of
randomly gathered and unstructured data for which there is no defined home. If
data collection is “a thing” for your enterprise (of course it is), then it’s best to make
it stick to the processes where it can do the most good – aka “Sticky Data”.

As much as we enjoy implementing sophisticated data management technology that

automatically gathers and stores data (e.g., Electronic Workflow Tracking, BPM and
RFID), the human factor is ultimately the “glue” that converts raw data into usable

and valuable information (i.e., “sticky data”).

Commonly recognized as methods for gathering sticky data, the above technologies,
when supported by a workforce, can transform real-time data into business
intelligence generators that drive more accurate insights into key areas of the
business. The simple truth is that without a structured program in place to target,
collect, distribute, and analyze the most relevant data in real-time, organizations can
be data rich but information poor.

Let’s look at one example. In a number of recent assessments within a global

services organization, equipment repair quotes were consistently being rejected due
to unacceptable delivery cycle times. Why was this? Determined to find the answers,
the organization began researching the issue but quickly came to a road
block: minimal information was found on past successful or failed service project
bids. Consequently, staff continued to waste energy reinventing the wheel for each
new project, consuming significant amounts of unnecessary analytical time and
effort. What’s the underlying problem here? While there were certainly post-
implementation reviews completed after each project, there was no subsequent
communication or storage of data outside of everyone’s heads. The results (i.e., the
discoveries) simply fell into a bottomless black hole. There was no mechanism to
create sticky data that in turn could have been used as valuable information for
subsequent efforts.

How should data be incorporated into the decision-making process? At Kaufman

Global, we apply our SLIM-IT® model to ensure sticky data is an integral part, and
final output, of any value stream. Applying a series of human elements, SLIM-IT
incorporates change management techniques, the Lean Daily Management System
® (LDMS ®), KPI tracking, as well as a Lean structure that is designed to optimize
communications across functions and organizational levels. Through this
methodology, the power of data reaches its full potential because it’s held in place
by the outer bands of formal organizational engagement.

What system do you have in place to ensure that the right data gets communicated,
in the most effective way, to the right people? Is data being translated into value-
added information that sticks?
Employee Participation: 5 Ways to Boost
Engagement
October 2, 2012/in Engagement /by Kaufman Global

Over the past 25 years, we’ve worked with clients around the world by supporting
and / or leading Lean initiatives. If there’s any major “lesson learned” we’ve taken
away, it’s that employee engagement is critical to success. Wouldn’t it be nice if
there was a magic potion that could be consumed throughout an enterprise to solve
problems or improve efficiencies? Unfortunately, it will never be that simple. The
rate, degree and level of change for Continuous Improvement endeavors hinges on
people.

Within any transformation journey, employees must be empowered and engaged.

Improvement happens in the field, on the factory floor, and within the office one
employee at a time. When effective leadership support is in place, employees are
more likely to embrace change. Without it… Not so much. There must be
concentrated focus on active engagement ― connecting employees to the work they
control.

It’s well known that as employee engagement increases, so too does organizational
performance. So what are the top, most proven methods for increasing employee
engagement? Integro Leadership Institute President Keith Ayers recently identified
five leadership skills that are most effective.

#1 Build Trust
Trust is an essential ingredient in increasing engagement. The first thing leaders
need to know about building trust is that it does not happen just because you are
trustworthy. People do not know how trustworthy you are until you demonstrate it
by using trust building behaviors and the most important of these behaviors is to
trust others. We build trust by trusting others. This requires a basic belief in people,
a belief that people are essentially trustworthy. After all, if you have untrustworthy
employees, why did you hire them and why are they still there?

#2 Mentor
The relationship between the employee and his or her immediate manager is a
critical factor in how engaged the employee will be. We have to get away from the
idea that Managers cannot mentor the people who report to them. Employees need
feedback; they need to know how they are performing regularly ― not just once a
year at review time. They must be able to discuss their needs for growth and
development with a Manager who cares about them. Effective leaders need to give
and receive feedback — to coach and counsel employees in a way that increases
engagement and commitment.
#3 Inclusion
Whether employees feel like an insider or an outsider also impacts their level of
engagement. Effective leaders know that everyone on their team has strengths the
team needs, and they know how to get the best out of each person regardless of
their ethnic background, gender, age or sexual orientation. They understand that
people with different personal values can work together effectively when they
commit to the same values about trustworthiness and standards of work
performance.

#4 Alignment
Engaged employees feel aligned with their organization’s Purpose, Values and
Vision. Their work is meaningful to them because their leader helps them see the
connection between what they do and the success of the organization. The effective
leader also understands that gaining their team’s commitment to the organization’s
values increases the team’s performance standards as well as their engagement.

#5 Team Development
Effective leaders understand the potential for significant increases in performance
through high performing teams. They make sure that all team members understand
the strengths they and other team members bring to the team and work at
developing a process that capitalizes on all of these strengths. The leader’s focus is
on developing the leadership potential of each team member and ultimately
implementing a shared leadership approach to continuously improve performance
that is owned by the team.

Each of the skills above are needed to fully engage employees. In fact, engagement
and subsequent results are diminished if any of them are missing. At Kaufman
Global, our implementation approach is focused on linking leaders and employees to
change initiatives by providing a structure within which the tools of Continuous
Improvement are consistently applied. By applying Lean Daily Management
System ® (LDMS ®) and other methods, we generate engagement and ownership.
These practices also drive those critically important business results.
To learn more about how to leverage LDMS to improve engagement — and,
ultimately, sustainability — click here to download Kaufman Global’s white paper,
“Leading Purposeful Change with the Lean Daily Management System.”
See also: Lean Daily Management Services Page.
See also: LDMS blog article.