Upload
danghuong
View
220
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY International Journal of Lean Thinking (2011)
International Journal of Lean Thinking Volume 2, Issue 2 (December 2011)
Lean Thinkingjournal homepage: www.thinkinglean.com/ijlt
The Role of The Executive in Lean: A Qualitative Thesis Based on The Toyota Productions System
P. Marksberry* University of Kentucky, College of
Engineering, Center for Manufacturing, 210B, CRMS Building, Lexington, KY 40506-
0108 E-mail Adres: [email protected]
S. Hughes University of Kentucky, Electrical
Engineering, Electrical Systems Manager, UK Solar Car Team
A B S T R A C T K E Y W O R D S
A R T I C L E I N F O
Lean Manufacturing, Toyota Production System,
Executive, Management,
Leadership,
Latent Semantic Analysis.
Received 10 May 2011
Accepted 13 May 2011
Available online 19 May 2011
Lean manufacturing (Lean), as evolved from the Toyota
Production System (TPS), has gained traction in many businesses
as a tool for efficiency and improvement. However, the role of an
executive or general manager within a Lean organization has not
been clearly articulated in any official or proven way. This
research looks at common approaches, theories, and problems
concerning the role of the executive and how it can affect
companies in their efforts to adopt Lean tools and principles.
This research also analyzes a few internal documents from Toyota
in order to ascertain how the role of the executive or general
manager is expected to function within Toyota’s organizational
and operational structure. Results showed very strong trends in
the way Toyota presents and uses this role in maintaining Lean
practices. Specifically, it was found that Toyota favors for its
executives and managers a fair distribution of time between the
office and the shop-floor, vertically-oriented training relationships
with subordinates, and an emphasis on the culture and mindset
behind the TPS.
________________________________
* Corresponding Author
1. Introduction
The purpose of this research is to articulate the role of the executive or general manager
within a Lean/TPS organization. There are three primary issues that must be uncovered and
illuminated in order to effectively determine this role. The first is the executive's time management.
How much time should the executive spend outside of the office on the shop-floor (i.e. with the
employees)? This is a tough question to answer concretely, and it will certainly vary from one
executive to the next. However, there are general trends set by some companies, such as Toyota,
that have proven to effectively maintain a proper relationship between the levels of the
employment hierarchy. As Bates (2010a) suggests, "Rather than talking about a situation and
solving problems during a meeting, you start out by visiting the area where the work is being done,
Please cite this article in press as: S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY International Journal of Lean Thinking (2011)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
talking with them and observing key processes, and from there, identifying improvements to
prioritize." By utilizing LSA on several of Toyota's internal documents, the results will be able to tell
whether Toyota prefers executives to spend time in the office or on the shop-floor.
Another issue is the executive's „management management‟, so to speak. That is, how does an
executive (or general manager) select, organize, and relate to his immediate managerial team? This
might seem like a fuzzy topic, but it is something that could probably use much more intentional
analysis and planning within the upper circles of business management strategizing. Flinchbaugh
(2004) suggests that current executives and general managers always be on the lookout for potential
leaders, saying, “Lean transformation is about leadership, not a position or rank. Look for people at
every level of the enterprise capable of this.” A specific debate that exemplifies this issue is whether
managers should be chosen/hired based on proven success, or based on talent and future capacity. It
is easy to say that both aspects are desirable, but just like with office/floor time, it is nearly impossible
to find a black-and-white balance. However, in analyzing Toyota's internal documents, it should
become evident whether Toyota attempts to rely on the capacity, development, and growth of
managers or requires instant results from already-proven personnel.
The last issue is not the most obvious, but it is perhaps the most important. It is a question that
involves motive, presentation, and mentality. Is Lean/TPS being presented to businesses by executives
as an add-on program, or is it a fundamental set of values that must be built into the company from
the ground up? In other words, is it a business initiative used as a band-aid to help cover up
problems, or is it an integrated set of values used to shape the minds of employees in order to
prevent problems from ever happening? Many executives try to simply tack on Lean ideas to their
company‟s processes without even acknowledging the culture from which the TPS was originally
extracted and delineated. Toyota‟s documents, though, should suggest whether Lean/TPS must come
directly out of a certain set of core values or can be added on to an existing business model. In fact,
Liker and Morgan (2006) speak to the significance of this, stating, “All of Toyota‟s executives
understand the importance of the overall system of management and deeper culture of the Toyota
way.” The fact that Toyota has stuck with these models of leadership over many years, with such great
success to boot, is proof enough that the most effective role for executives and general managers is
one denoted by a fair amount of time spent on the shop-floor, an interest in the capacity and growth
of future leaders, and a strong emphasis on the integrated mindset of Lean manufacturing.
S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY/International Journal of Lean Thinking Volume 2, Issue 2 (December 2011)
2
Please cite this article in press as: S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY International Journal of Lean Thinking (2011)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2. Literature Review
In determining the role of the executive within Lean, or even analyzing such an existing role
qualitatively, it behooves any researcher to have a categorical system and definitive methodology for
developing sound investigations and valid conclusions. First, a substantial literature review can
provide good background information, as well as popular and historical perspectives for reference.
2.1 Definition of Executive Leadership
An executive is the highest “ranking” individual in the hierarchy of company leadership. Although
some executives are involved in management (especially in smaller companies, where the executive is
both president and CEO), the inherent role of the executive is generally more abstract. Primarily, the
executive is to be the leader of the organization. What exactly, then, is the difference between a
manager and a leader? “A manager looks at the past to determine how to do things in the future,
while a leader creates a vision of what is possible and builds a new future” (Bodek, 2008). This
suggests that, fundamentally, the executive holds the vision of the company. They make
comprehensive decisions and are the face of the company to the rest of the world. They should first
and foremost develop vision and strategy, and subsequently make sure the managers and employees
orient what they do towards the purpose of the company.
2.2 Challenges and Problems with the Role of the Executive
Sometimes, perhaps even more often than not, executives have difficulties fulfilling their intended
role satisfactorily. One commonly reoccurring problem is that executives can get into micromanaging
their organizations without concerning themselves with setting the overall tone of the company. As a
consequence, the company‟s risk of losing overall vision and direction increases, narrowing the
potential for success in future growth, expansion, and adaptation. Concerning the problem of
micromanagement, Found and Harvey (2007) state, “A manager, by definition, has been given a
position of leadership, and the differences are then essentially in style and time as managers are often
preoccupied with day-to-day goal attainment, rather than long-term vision.” Later in the same article
they expound on the problem of leaders falling into this day-to-day management, rather than
entrusting this task to the management team. All this is to stress that there are certain and important
differences between a leader and a manager. Found and Harvey seem to agree with Bodek on these.
Both managers and leaders are necessary for success, but to what extent and dynamic? How can the
S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY/International Journal of Lean Thinking Volume 2, Issue 2 (December 2011)
3
Please cite this article in press as: S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY International Journal of Lean Thinking (2011)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
executive stay focused on leading without getting too involved in managing? On the other end of the
spectrum is an executive culpability just as common and problematic. That is, sometimes an
organization faces difficulties when the executive becomes too concerned with abstract vision and
does not direct enough attention to day-to-day, operational elements. However, having strong vision
and leadership does not mean all of an executive‟s work must be abstract; he must still be aware of
the minutiae of the company without getting wrapped up in them.
2.3 Common Approach to the Role of the Executive
There are as many approaches to the role of the executive as there are executives. Every company
is unique, and every executive has a unique leadership style. Hence, in modern business practices, it
has become popular to have a very flexible, low-risk leadership outlook. As Chesbrough and Garman
(2009) suggest, “Darwin taught us that it‟s neither the strongest nor the most intelligent species that
survive; it‟s those that adapt best to changes in the environment. Inside-out open innovation will
enable your organization to become more agile and responsive…” Their article brings up interesting
points about executives maintaining the adaptability of their company for future growth and options.
The executive in this case is always on the lookout improvement/expansion opportunities. How does
this „agility‟ affect the way the executive interacts with managers and subordinates? “The agile
manager understands the effects of the mutual interactions among a project‟s various parts and steers
them in the direction of continuous learning and adaptation” (Augustine et al, 2005). Implied here is
the fact that an effective executive must know the inner workings of a project well enough to provide
this direction.
Another popular aspect of executive leadership is the heavy emphasis placed on human resources.
In a sense, this can be viewed as the executive sharing his role as visionary with managers and other
employees. Leaptrott and McDonald (2009) state, “Entrepreneurial executives actively seek
opportunities for their companies. Their efforts to identify these opportunities and commercially
exploit them can be greatly enhanced by subordinates that constructively collaborate with their
coworkers to actively seek information that leads to opportunity recognition and exploitation.” The
benefits of this are several. First, it can relieve the executive from independence or uncertainty in
setting the vision and direction of the company by making that process more of a corporate
responsibility. Also, especially with a diverse workforce, the executive can gain valuable input from
his subordinates that he wouldn‟t necessarily have had otherwise in making autonomous decisions.
S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY/International Journal of Lean Thinking Volume 2, Issue 2 (December 2011)
4
Please cite this article in press as: S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY International Journal of Lean Thinking (2011)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Finally, an emphasis on human resources can increase productivity and creativeness among
employees, since it becomes clear that they are valued for more than just repetitive labor. Concisely,
transformational leadership is in, and transactional leadership is out.
2.4 Common Approach to the Role of the Executive in Lean
As Bodek (2008) puts simply, “Lean needs leaders!” Moving into a Lean context, however, the role
of the executive appears to become more complicated. Hinterhuber (1994) asserts, “Management
must be responsible for specialist areas and for general leadership... General leadership means
motivating teams and individuals for strategies and business processes. It is not advisable to have too
many business processes running at the same time.” So, leaders are responsible for motivation of
teams and individuals within a business to adopt Lean principles and practices. Many times, this
comes down to a „weakest link‟ type of scenario, where only one or two specific parts of a process or
project are holding it back from a much greater level of production or efficiency (Bates, 2010b).
One of the more prominent ideas about executives in Lean is that they should spend a significant
amount of time on the shop-floor rather than tucked away in an office. This level of involvement is
often what sets the truly Lean businesses apart, as the executives actually take the time and initiative
to visit the most basic levels of their organizations in order to observe and improve. Psychologically,
however, this involvement also shows the employees how seriously the executive takes efficiency,
lending to much greater effects than most people would realize. Bodek (2008) agrees, noting,
“Traditional managers have been taught to work through layers of subordinate managers… But in a
Lean system, leaders are encouraged to „learn for themselves‟. This approach might be called
„management by walking around‟… It is a leader‟s job to get as many creative ideas as possible from
all workers.” Successful executives tend to stress that Lean is not program to be implemented; it is
rather a new way to think. As evidenced by this involvement on the shop-floor, it is not about getting
employees to follow steps, but instead getting them to be more creative, careful, and conscientious.
Another idea is that an executive must be able to identify problems in an organization before
attempting to implement Lean solutions. The consensus seems to be that Lean actualization must
begin with identification of clear problems (or as some call them, growth opportunities). In other
words, a Lean approach does not work when the executive does not believe it to be necessary (Bates,
2010b). To some, Lean can be broken down sequentially into goals, then principles, then tools.
Executives must at least vocalize the goals and exemplify the principles. Engineering managers, for
S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY/International Journal of Lean Thinking Volume 2, Issue 2 (December 2011)
5
Please cite this article in press as: S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY International Journal of Lean Thinking (2011)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
example, then determine which "tools" best fit the job (Abdulmalek et al, 2006). In this model, the
executive must be the one to communicate goals to subordinates, setting a higher standard to be
reached. As Flinchbaugh (2004) writes, “Leadership is moving people toward the ideal state, and you
can‟t lead people to where they already are… If Lean is about transforming thinking, then in order to
lead Lean, you must be able to teach.” Here, again, and this time in a Lean context, the
transformational style of leadership surfaces as dominant.
Of course, it cannot be forgotten that each organization is different, and thus will have different
paths to getting Lean. Flinchbaugh continues, “Many people have tried to succeed at Lean by copying
the solutions of others, either through benchmarking or out of a book. This is like copying off
someone else‟s test only to find that you were taking different exams. Your company is unique and
will likely have some distinctive problems and constraints. Ingrain Lean thinking in your organization
so you can find your own answers.” Taking this in conjunction with previous ideas, it is evident that
Lean thinking cannot be ingrained in an organization, and thus cannot be fully effective, unless it
starts at the executive. Liker and Morgan (2006), in continuing point out the significance of the
culture behind the TPS, record, “As Vice Chairman Katsuhiro Nakagawa put it, „without the Toyota
way we are just like any other automobile company.‟” This article notably ties Lean to the “deeper
culture of the Toyota way”, insisting that authentic Lean (i.e. TPS) comes from this Japanese-based
culture, not from a Lean handbook. Logically, it seems possible that executives raised in the American
culture have limitations on how deeply they can integrate the Lean mindset within their
organizations. However, success in Lean cannot be limited to the executive. According to Roth
(2006), “Lean is not a program or an outcome, nor does it reside at an executive level or within the
workforce. Lean is a way of operating that spans from executive strategy setting for developing
people and managing business growth to the commitment of the workforce to continuous
improvement.” Again, it is put forward that Lean is not simply a program but the result of an entire
culture.
2.5 Common Problems with the Role of the Executive in Lean
Obviously, from an executive‟s standpoint, getting Lean is no easy task. Autenrieth and Pfeiffer
(1995) state, “The adaption of Lean management requires a holistic approach. Without an extensive
formulation of strategies the character of Lean management can neither be grasped nor
implemented. However, these formulations of strategies do not exist.” This is really where the rubber
S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY/International Journal of Lean Thinking Volume 2, Issue 2 (December 2011)
6
Please cite this article in press as: S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY International Journal of Lean Thinking (2011)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
meets the road, as Lean does not have a go-to strategy guide for executives. According to Autenrieth
and Pfeiffer, “Surprisingly, many companies in the meantime have obviously come to realize the
necessity of an improved corporate culture and a changed leadership attitude within the scope of
Lean management measures, even though the companies, according to current status reports, still are
far from having reached the ideal.” It is certainly possible that some executives know what it takes to
be Lean, but as long as they are moderately profitable and can be seen attempting to make things
better using some new business model, they do not need to work any harder at improving in
efficiency. This type of behavior could arise from a failure to identify problems, leading to a lack in
desire to improve.
This brings up the problem of trust. Can employees trust an executive that is never on the shop-
floor? Conversely, can executive trust managers in a transactional, success-based leadership model? As
Clark (2006) interestingly discovered, “N.R. Narayana Murthy, the co-founder of Infosys, often
reminded people, „We have a famous saying at Infosys: „In God we trust. Everybody else, bring data
to the table.‟ If you use data to decide issues, you encourage meritocracy‟”. Perhaps, then, trust is
only to be based on data and results. However, in an interview with 3M CEO George Buckley, Hindo
(2007) found, “Perhaps one of the mistakes that we made as a company – it‟s one of the dangers of
Six Sigma – is that, when you value sameness more than you value creativity, I think you potentially
undermine the heart and soul of a company like 3M”. Clearly, true Lean values and amplifies the
creativity of employees; but when trust depends solely on success and results, creativity becomes
stifled.
The real problem at hand is that Lean has no inherent principles concerning the role of
executives, leaders, or managers, though some deductions can be made based on the other principles
that have come to define Lean. Found and Harvey (2007) articulate this problem clearly, stating, “The
Lean literature focuses mainly on tools and techniques, while the leadership literature, although
being increasingly concerned with team contexts, has done little specifically on Lean. This poses two
questions: 1) Does the style of leadership influence the successful and sustainable implementation of
Lean? 2) Does the role of leadership change during the initiation (decision making phase) and
implementation (decision implementing phase) of Lean?” These two questions adequately capture
the problems and questions concerning the role of the executive in Lean, and while many different
approaches have been attempted, there is still a dearth of proven leadership tactics for a Lean
context.
S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY/International Journal of Lean Thinking Volume 2, Issue 2 (December 2011)
7
Please cite this article in press as: S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY International Journal of Lean Thinking (2011)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2.6 Some Theories Concerning the Role of the Executive in Lean
There are many unproven ideas floating around about the role of the executive in Lean.
Autenrieth and Pfeiffer mention that “in smaller, middle-class companies, which are a characteristic
element of the German economy, the executive-level decision makers without any exception still
interpret Lean management as the compression of organization and the reduction of hierarchy."
Some companies that have even attempted to directly reproduce the TPS in their most fundamental
managerial functions. To others, Lean has become a watered-down way to save a little money.
According to Kleb and Svoboda (1994), “There are no organizational reforms such as the
introduction of inter-hierarchical and interdepartmental team and project work; thus, Lean
management is reduced to a „legitimization for cutting costs‟.” In such cases, all the executives want is
to cut costs; they could care less about creativity, integration, or overseeing kaizen.
Many culture-related theories have also spread. Seddon and Caulkin (2007) remark, “Where
[Taiichi] Ohno saw flow and heartbeat, the Americans saw speed and volume. They saw that the
faster they could „push‟ work through the lines and the greater numbers of cars they made, the more
cheaply and profitably they could do so: the greater the economies of scale.” Maybe this is simply the
American way, and to be Lean is to be something that is fundamentally not American. According to
Jack Welch, former CEO of GE, “The big myth is that Six Sigma is about quality control and statistics.
It is that – but it‟s a helluva lot more. Ultimately, it drives leadership to be better by providing tools
to think through tough times. At Six Sigma‟s core is an idea that can turn a company inside out,
focusing the organization outward on the customer” (Blakeslee & Smith, 2002). If this is true, it goes
against the grain of using Lean to improve efficiency and save money. Regardless, it could be that
American, individualistic society makes it impossible for Lean to legitimately turn a company inside-
out.
3. Research Approach
The overall approach in this analysis is to analyze Toyota‟s organizational documents by applying
statistical data mining. This work will use Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) to study Toyota‟s industrial
engineering techniques, systems and managerial practices. LSA is a theory and method for extracting
and representing the contextual-usage and meaning of words and phrases by statistical computation
S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY/International Journal of Lean Thinking Volume 2, Issue 2 (December 2011)
8
Please cite this article in press as: S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY International Journal of Lean Thinking (2011)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
applied to text (Landauer 2004). LSA is based on Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) which is a
mathematical matrix decomposition technique using factor analysis.
LSA has proven to be a successful method for capturing the underlying relationships between
documents by accurately simulating human learning as it relates to the theory of knowledge
representation (Wolfe et al 1998). The psychological theory that supports LSA is based on the fact
that people learn by associating perceptual objects and experiences, including words that are met
near each other in time (Landauer 1998). Interestingly, this similarity-based or object recognition
phenomena of LSA has been shown to predict learning by correctly mapping new relations by
statistical association (Landauer 1998). This learning phenomenon occurs by LSA grouping and
organizing mental frames of knowledge much like how the human brain organizes existing domain
knowledge. Once domain knowledge exists, knowledge transfer can occur by linking new concepts
to foundational knowledge. LSA provides the framework for representing the organization of
foundational knowledge in text. When LSA is used to study organizational documents it provides an
internal representation of how the organization is intended to originally operate. Thus, the ideal or
intended role prescription of organizational members can be identified and the factors acting upon
them.
4. Research Methodology
A document-term(s) matrix was created from numerous Toyota documents; such as the Toyota
Way, The Toyota Business Practices, the team member basic training manual, the team member
handbook, role of the supervisor, standardized work training manuals, process and system kaizen
manual and problem solving for managers. A representation of a document-term(s) matrix is shown
in Figure 1. A document-term(s) matrix was created by tabulating the number of term(s) that occur
throughout a document. Term(s) count can be identified using a variety of different software
programs. A natural characteristic of the document-term(s) matrix is their highly sparse nature which
is a high proportion of zeros. This is normal, because very few terms in the collection as a whole are
contained in any one document. Other distinguishing characteristics of the matrix are the document
vector and the word vector. The document vector is a weighted average of the vectors of words it
contains. A word vector is a weighted average of vectors of the documents in which it appears. The
document-term(s) matrix was assembled by selecting industrial engineering themes and trends
S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY/International Journal of Lean Thinking Volume 2, Issue 2 (December 2011)
9
Please cite this article in press as: S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY International Journal of Lean Thinking (2011)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
according to previous literature. Table 1 illustrates the text corpus properties of the documents used
in the matrix and the themes selected in the study.
10 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 2 0 0 0 18 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 4 6 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 1 0
0 1 8 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 3 0
2
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
Doc
umen
t 1
Doc
umen
t 2
Doc
umen
t 3
Doc
umen
t 4
Doc
umen
t 5
Doc
umen
t 6
Doc
umen
t 7
Doc
umen
t 8
Term(s) 1
Term(s) 2
Term(s) 3
Term(s) 4
Term(s) 5
Term(s) 6
Term(s) 7
Term(s) 8
Document Vector
Word Vector
(Passage Vector)
Figure 1. Representation of Document-Term(s) Matrix
Table 1. Text Corpus Properties and Semantic Themes
Document Property Value
# Document Vectors 3
# Word Vectors 6
Total Document Pages 22
Total Number of Words 172
Avg. Revision Date on Documents 1992
Latent Semantic Themes Term(s)
1. Philosophy of TPS/Lean Program, problem solving, add-on
Mindset, fundamental, problem preventing
2. Management relationships Results, now, performance, transactional
Growth, future, trust, transformational
3. Executive involvement Office, getting reports, indirect
Floor, seeing for yourself, direct
S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY/International Journal of Lean Thinking Volume 2, Issue 2 (December 2011)
10
Please cite this article in press as: S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY International Journal of Lean Thinking (2011)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Next, the Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) algorithm is used to reduce the document-term(s)
matrix using equation 1.
TUSVA (1)
Where U is an m x r orthogonal matrix whose columns make up the left singular values vectors, S is
an r x r dimensional diagonal matrix whose diagonal elements are termed singular values named "k",
and V is an r x n orthogonal matrix whose columns for the right singular vectors of A. VT is the
transpose of V. Figure 2 gives a schematic representation of A, U, S and VT.
Sparse matrix
(mostly zeros)
n Documents
=
m Terms
dense
r
m
r
r
dense
n
r
Singular Values (k)
zeros
zeros
A = U S VT
High Order Ranks
(less dominant)
Low Order Ranks
(less dominant)
Optimal
Rank
Determined
by Singula
Values (k)
Figure 2. SVD Representation of the Document-Term(s) Matrix
Calculating USVT consists of finding the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of AAT and ATA. The
eigenvectors of ATA from the columns of V, the eigenvectors of AAT form the columns of U. Also, the
singular values in S are square roots of eigenvalues from AAT or ATA. The singular values are the
diagonal entries of the S matrix and are arranged in descending order. The singular values are always
real numbers. If the matrix A is a real matrix, then U and V are also real. The last step in LSA is to map
the semantic space using the unit vector of each rank of the reduced dimensional space VT.
5. Interpretation of Results in Latent Semantic Analysis
The overall goal in LSA is to map dominate semantic themes in a reduced dimensional space. The
reduced dimensional space represents all word and document vectors in the semantic space or text
corpus. Mapping techniques vary, and for a more complete description please see the work of Garcia
(Garcia, 2006). This work will map the strength (i.e. magnitude) of each word vector and its ranks to
illustrate the level of dominance throughout the document collection. Rank 1 (lower order) is the
S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY/International Journal of Lean Thinking Volume 2, Issue 2 (December 2011)
11
Please cite this article in press as: S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY International Journal of Lean Thinking (2011)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
most dominant rank followed by rank 2 and so on. The singular value matrix indicates through a
scree plot (not shown) the optimal rank. Ranks beyond the “k” value are less dominant.
Plots shown in Figures 3-5 will all approach the maximum rank at a coordinate position 1,1.
Consequently, plots can also be analyzed simultaneously by comparing the distance from the origin
to the rank 1 data point. In this way, plots can be analyzed locally (analyzing the decaying nature of
each rank within a plot) and globally (by comparing the rank 1 position of each plot).
6. Results
The graphical LSA results from some of Toyota‟s internal documents related to the role of general
managers and executives are depicted in Figures 3 through 5. These figures display general trends in
how Toyota specifies desired aspects of conduct in management. Each figure portrays a different
abstract dichotomy to be expounded on (in the discussion section).
Figure 3. LSA Plot: Philosophy/Perspective of Lean/TPS
S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY/International Journal of Lean Thinking Volume 2, Issue 2 (December 2011)
12
Please cite this article in press as: S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY International Journal of Lean Thinking (2011)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Figure 4. LSA Plot: Managerial Relationship and Value
Figure 5. LSA Plot: Executive/GM Involvement Trends
S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY/International Journal of Lean Thinking Volume 2, Issue 2 (December 2011)
13
Please cite this article in press as: S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY International Journal of Lean Thinking (2011)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
7. Discussion
Figure 3 gauges Toyota's attitude towards leadership in regards to how the TPS is presented to the
company as a whole. This dichotomy surfaced out of the differences in common perspectives among
multiple companies concerning the implementation of Lean ideas. The first primary perspective
packages TPS/Lean into an add-on program or efficiency initiative for businesses; this is represented
by the vertical axis in Figure 3. The other perspective believes TPS/Lean to be a fundamental set of
values and a totally integrated mindset among all company personnel; this is represented by the
horizontal axis in Figure 3.
Results show that Toyota nearly exclusively promotes the integrated perspective. Toyota does not
talk about the TPS as a prescriptive program that will improve their company. Rather, Toyota implies
Lean as a descriptive set of principles and procedures based on the core standards from which their
company has chosen to operate; much of which, in turn, has actually been endowed by Japanese
culture itself. To Toyota, 'Leanness' is not a goal, but a value out of which all employees are
encouraged to function. This also suggests that successful TPS/Lean operation does not begin from
an outside influence, but a transformation of the core values within the company. However, this does
not mean that to adopt TPS/Lean principles, an organization must change its primary goals or vision.
It simply indicates that, in metaphorical terms, weight loss is attained by fundamental changes in diet
and exercise, as opposed to medicinal remedies or surgical procedures.
A large part of this issue has to do with motivation. What motivates a company to change?
Financial and visional success, the usual candidates, might come to mind. However, success is not
binary. Success comes in differing quantities, and some companies are only motivated to be
moderately successful. That is, many businesses really only want to do enough to get by. As seen in
the literature review, some executives do not care enough to identify problems in their organizations
as long as they are enjoying mild success. However, as evidenced by Toyota‟s standards, some
businesses strive for excellence in every category. Some executives maintain the mentality that
everyone makes mistakes and perfection is impossible. Toyota, on the other hand, strives for
perfection by systematically eliminating waste from all of their processes.
Toyota relies on its executives and general managers to convey this attitude to the rest of the
company. The leaders at Toyota are expected to lead by example. They are expected to know their
situations comprehensively. They are instructed to invest in junior managers and other employees.
S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY/International Journal of Lean Thinking Volume 2, Issue 2 (December 2011)
14
Please cite this article in press as: S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY International Journal of Lean Thinking (2011)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
More than anything, they are expected to operate out of a core set of values rather than follow a list
of rules that they do not fully understand.
Figure 4 shows Toyota‟s preference towards managerial relations. The vertical axis represents
Toyota‟s emphasis on management talent, experience, and fast results, while the horizontal axis
represents Toyota‟s emphasis on management capacity, trust, and future potential. Results show that
Toyota greatly favors the latter. These results are unsurprising, as they seem to tie in naturally with
the idea behind the previous figure. Executives and general managers of Toyota do not simply hire
experienced managers to give them instant results. Instead, in order to maintain the mindset of their
company values, they nurture and groom less experienced leaders and managers to follow in their
footsteps. In this way, a consistent and trusting relationship can be built as a leader develops and
gains more responsibility within the company.
In Lean/TPS, people are everything. Employees, managers, or executives can be anything from an
origin of great success to the most imminent source of failure or waste. Imperative thus in the
responsibilities of an executive is the task of building a mindset of teamwork and cooperation within
the company. This is where the transformational leadership theory reaps the benefits of one of its
fundamental concepts: training subordinates to take on future leadership. To the extent that an
executive or general manager can really pour into younger employees, the future of the company will
be that much more secure. Toyota obviously values this, esteeming managers not just for their
credentials but for their capacity to carry on and indeed continuously improve upon the execution of
the vision and purpose of the organization.
Figure 5 compares Toyota‟s emphases on time spent in the office versus time spent on the shop-
floor, as it were. The vertical axis measures the emphasis on time spent in the office (getting reports),
and the horizontal axis measures the emphasis on time spent on the shop-floor (seeing for yourself).
This graph is more interesting than the previous two in the sense that it shows a much more even
distribution of emphases than the others. Precisely, it shows that Toyota favors time spent on the
shop-floor, but only marginally. This is significant to realize, because it is a reminder of how an
executive should not fall into micromanaging (i.e. always on the shop-floor). Executives and general
managers in Toyota may be in favor of spending time on the floor, but they still have specific duties
that no one else in the company can do, and they must be „in the office‟ in order to accomplish some
of their more organizational and directional tasks.
S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY/International Journal of Lean Thinking Volume 2, Issue 2 (December 2011)
15
Please cite this article in press as: S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY International Journal of Lean Thinking (2011)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Although there might be no clear line to draw between the office time and floor time, one could
observe the two things that commonly keep an executive in one place for too long. For one, the
executive could get cooped up in the office on account of a surplus of paperwork and other duties of
the more managerial type. On the other hand, an executive may end up shying away from the shop-
floor out of laziness or other reasons. Likewise, an executive might get caught up in the intricacies
shop-floor, or simply stay away from the office out of contempt for office duties. In any case, it is up
to the executive to take initiative and decide how much time to spend where. Logically, time is best
spent where it is most needed, and that should be apparent to an observant executive.
8. Conclusion
Clearly, Toyota‟s slant on Lean is vastly different than most other external manifestations of it. To
Toyota, the TPS is very much an ingrained cultural mindset, while to most other companies; it is just
a catchy program that can be applied to cut costs. To executives outside of Toyota, this means that
true Lean implementation requires patient dedication, epistemological humility, and a
transformational approach. To become Lean, every process must indeed be examined and refined;
but even more fundamentally, every mind must be trained for situational awareness and instinctive
efficiency. As long as things could be improved, it is the role of the executive to take responsibility
and make sure they are indeed changing for the better. However, this change cannot be forced from
the outside, but must occur naturally; and only an executive has the influence to plant the seeds of
change deep enough. Sure, there are improvements to be made simply by employing some of the
tools and practices developed in the TPS, but without an executive leading by example and
motivating managers and employees to higher standards of performance and efficiency, any
enhancements that happen will not stand the test of time.
This research and analysis shows that the original form of the TPS is still the most effective,
although it takes perseverance to adopt into a predominantly American-cultured organization. The
reality that Lean has proved to be impossible to fully abstract from the TPS attests to the fact that Lean
is somewhat proprietary in nature, being, in a sense, owned by Toyota. As found in related literature,
Lean cannot be successfully implemented without executives and general managers leading the way.
Additionally, as shown by the analysis of some of Toyota‟s internal documents, there are specific
styles and patterns of leadership which Toyota prefers for the simple reason that they are particularly
effective and conducive to the cultivation of the culture out of which Lean thinking was born. That
S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY/International Journal of Lean Thinking Volume 2, Issue 2 (December 2011)
16
Please cite this article in press as: S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY International Journal of Lean Thinking (2011)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Toyota has generally preferred these styles and patterns of leadership to such great success over
multiple decades is evidence that the most effective role for executives and general managers is one
represented by significant time spent on the shop-floor, future-oriented managerial relationships, and
a strong focus on the integrated mindset of Lean manufacturing.
References
Abdulmalek, F., Rajgopal, J., & Needy, K.L. 2006, „A Classification Scheme for the Process Industry to
Guide the Implementation of Lean‟, Engineering Management Journal, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 15-
25.
Augustine, S., Payne, B., Sencindiver, F., & Woodcock, S. 2005, „Agile Project Management: Steering
from the Edges‟, Communications of the ACM, vol. 48, no. 12, pp. 85-89.
Autenrieth, C., & Pfeiffer, P. 1995, „Lean Label for an (Un)structured Strategy in the Federal Republic
of Germany: A Japanese Management Approach and Its Compatibility to German Companies‟,
International Executive, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 467-483.
Barnes, C. & Walker, R. 2010, „Improving Corporate Communications: Lean Six Sigma Science Has
Broad Reach‟, Journal of Business Strategy, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 23-36.
Bates, B. 2010a, „Slimming Down: How Barry Arbuckle drives continuous improvement at
MemorialCare‟, Smart Business Orange County, July, pp. 11-15.
Bates, B. 2010b, „Lean Outlook: How Scott Morey eliminates inefficiencies to improve The Morey
Corp.‟, Smart Business Chicago, August, pp. 17-23.
Blakeslee, J. & Smith, D. 2002, Strategic Six Sigma: Best Practices from the Executive Suite, Wiley,
Hoboken, NJ.
Bodek, N. 2008, „Leadership is Critical to Lean‟, Manufacturing Engineering, vol. 140, no. 3, pp. 145-
154.
Chesbrough, H.W., & Garman, A.R. 2009, „How Open Innovation Can Help You Cope in Lean Times‟,
Harvard Business Review, December, pp. 68-76.
Clark, H. 2006, „Can You Outsource Innovation?‟, Forbes.com, 24 August, available at:
www.forbes.com/2006/08/23/leadership-innovation-outsourcing-cx_hc_0824infosys.html
Flinchbaugh, J. 2004. „Getting Lean “Right”:10 Points To Consider‟, Business Journal (Central New
York), vol. 18, no. 16, pg. 10.
Found, P. & Harvey, R. 2007, „Leading the Lean Enterprise‟, Engineering Management,
S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY/International Journal of Lean Thinking Volume 2, Issue 2 (December 2011)
17
Please cite this article in press as: S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY International Journal of Lean Thinking (2011)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
February/March, pp. 40-43.
Garcia, E. 2006, SVD and LSI Tutorial: „Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI) How-to Calculations‟, 21
October, available at: www.miislita.com
Hindo, B. 2007, „At 3M, A Struggle Between Efficiency And Creativity‟, vol. 8, Businessweek.com, 11
June, available at: www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_24/b4038406.htm
Hinterhuber, H. H. 1994, „The European Way to Lean Management‟, International Executive, vol. 36,
no. 3, pp. 275-290.
Kleb, R.-H., & Svoboda, M. 1994, „Trends und Erfahrungen im Lean Management (Teil II)‟, Zeitschrift
für Führung und Organisation, vol. 5, pp. 299-304.
Landauer, T. 2004, „From Paragraph to Graph: Latent Semantic Analysis for Information Visualization,
Colloquium of the National Academy of Sciences, 6 April, 101(1).
Landauer, T. 1998, „Learning and Representing Verbal Meaning: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory,
American Psychology Society, October, 7(5).
Leaptrott, J., & McDonald, J. 2009, „Ways Managers Interpret and Act on Common Workplace Events:
Implications for the Entrepreneurial Executive‟, Entrepreneurial Executive, vol. 14, pp. 81-93.
Liker, J. K., & Morgan, J. M. 2006, „The Toyota Way in Services: The Case of Lean Product
Development‟, Academy of Management Perspectives, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 5-20.
Mehri, D. 2006, „The Darker Side of Lean: An Insider's Perspective on the Realities of the Toyota
Production System‟. Academy of Management Perspectives, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 21-42.
Roth, G. 2006, „Distributing Leadership Practices for Lean Transformation‟, Reflections, vol. 7, no. 2,
pp. 15-29.
Sayles, L. R. 1993, „Doing Things Right: A New Imperative for Middle Managers‟,
Organizational Dynamics, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 5-14.
Seddon, J., & Caulkin, S. 2007, „Systems Thinking, Lean Production and Action Learning. Action
Learning: Research & Practice, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 9-24.
Valdiserri, G., & Wilson, J. 2010, „The Study of Leadership in Small Business Organizations: Impact on
Profitability and Organizational Success‟, Entrepreneurial Executive, vol. 15, pp. 47-71.
Wolfe, M., Schreiner, M., Rehder, B., Laham, D., Foltz, P., Kintsch, W. & Landauer T. 1998, „Learning
from text: Matching readers and texts by Latent Semantic Analysis‟, Discourse Processes, vol.
25: pp. 309-336.
S. HUGHES, P. MARKSBERRY/International Journal of Lean Thinking Volume 2, Issue 2 (December 2011)
18