Getting water out of a dry towel

Almost every year, whenever my clients visit the Toyota Kaikan Museum in Toyota City, Aichi, we are often reminded of many basic lessons about the Toyota Production System (TPS), which includes a thought-provoking exhortation from management icon Taiichi Ohno (1912–1990). He said: “People don’t go to Toyota to work; they go there to think.”

That brings us to the question: Which is more important – working or thinking? Or, to be more precise, which comes first – working or thinking? This came to mind when I encountered a manager who brags about telling their workers to do as they’re told without deviation from a standard instruction implemented in the first year of their company’s establishment.

Never mind that their standards were created more than 25 years ago. If they’re still clinging to them, then they should be using typewriters instead of computers. When told of this story, Neil (not his real name), a retired corporate executive now working as a barangay (village) bystander, jokingly claimed he welcomes change “as long as nothing is altered or changed.”

He would only accept positive changes, such as a 30 percent senior citizen’s discount instead of the current 20 percent.

Going back to our main topic, how many bosses would like their workers to become mechanical robots? “Do it my way or else…” The trouble is that when mistakes happen, unreasonable bosses blame their workers for blindly following the instructions.

Thinking vs working

In psychology, there’s such a thing as Cognitive Appraisal Theory, which professes that “thinking must occur before experiencing emotion.” In other words, thinking precedes working as long as it is encouraged – if not required – from an army of workers and not from outsiders.

If you’re following the dictates of external consultants and industrial engineers, chances are you’re still attuned to the age-old theory of Scientific Management popularized by Frederick Taylor (1856–1915) in the 1910s. It teaches the technique of how to work efficiently based on four principles:

– Define the scientific method of performing a task efficiently.

– Choose the best workers with proper skills and motivation who can perform the tasks.

– Monitor employee performance to ensure they follow the standards.

– Divide the tasks between managers and their workers in a collaborative way.

In recent decades, however, Scientific Management has been proven erroneous in many ways.

For one, Professor Jeffrey Liker of The Toyota Way fame and author of more than a dozen books about Toyota, has criticized Scientific Management for being anti-worker. He claims that the best thinkers are the workers who are doing the job, yet management often relies on consultants and engineers who come in only from time to time.

Workers know the ins and outs of their jobs. They’re experts. They know how to make their jobs easier, better, faster and cheaper to do without sacrificing quality and productivity. So, why would you hire external consultants to make the job easier, better, faster and cheaper for the organization?

Consultants and engineers should be there as facilitators under a limited engagement. They should not be there for life. They must ensure technology transfer so the workers can use their knowledge to think while working or as soon as problems become apparent.

Takehiko Harada, former president of Toyota Taiwan and author of the 2015 book Management Lessons from Taiichi Ohno, says this approach requires allowing “people to work to their full potential and give much more value than ever before.” It is a reflection of what the TPS does best with its twin pillars of Continuous Improvement and Respect for People strategy. That means you can’t talk of one without mentioning the other.

Army of workers

The key is reliance on an army of workers doing the thinking in a systematic way. Continuous improvement must be done by all workers so that their management can focus on big, strategic things. This is the essence of the mantra: “One percent improvement idea given by each of 100 workers is better than the 100 percent idea by one manager.”

Neil, who has nothing to do after a successful operation on his enlarged prostate, asked: “Does the one percent improvement idea include stupid ideas?” I replied, “If it’s stupid but solves a problem, then it’s not stupid.” Therefore, there’s no point in preventing people from thinking. Besides, management can’t do it alone with all those major issues before them.

By allowing an army of workers to help management in problem-solving and decision-making, management can avoid the embarrassment of its imperfection. It’s a clever coping strategy because no matter how brilliant they think they are, admitting mistakes is always an emotionally difficult exercise.

Imagine ordinary workers saving millions of unnecessary costs in their operations that were previously ignored by management. In my interaction with hundreds of corporate executives, I discovered the reason for this lies in the fact that defining the right problem is better than solving the wrong problem.

To solve this, you need an army of workers helping you to get water out of a dry towel. Impossible? Not to former Toyota president Eiji Toyoda (1913–2013), who claimed: “If you put your mind to it, water can be wrung even from a dry towel.” There’s nothing new. It’s the Japanese metaphor of “squeezing blood from a stone.”

Rey Elbo is a quality and productivity improvement enthusiast. For free insights, contact him on Facebook, LinkedIn, X, or email [email protected] or via https://reyelbo.com.