In a recent blog post, CEOs, Lean, and Preference Falsification, I answered the question, “Why do CEOs support Lean when they have little interest in Lean?” In this blog post, I answer the question, “Why don’t CEOs publicly proclaim their dislike of Lean?” There is ample evidence to support the claim that they “dislike Lean.”
Furthermore, we know from decades of experience that most CEOs have little interest in Lean other than “Lean tools,” and no interest in the long-heralded goal of “Lean transformation.” Additionally, when CEOs decide to lay people off, Lean professionals are typically among the first to go. That indicates they do not think Lean professionals do essential work. This is an unspoken public proclamation of CEOs’ dislike for Lean.
So if top leaders are not interested in Lean, then why don’t they just come out and say it? Their feedback, after all, might be illuminating. It could lead to needed changes in how Lean is understood or marketed. But CEOs’ silence disallows these types of improvement, leaving only trial and error and luck to increase the number of organizations that adopt Lean management.
The most obvious reason why CEOs do not publicly proclaim their dislike of Lean is that Lean is simply irrelevant to most CEOs. They do not see Lean as an improvement in management practice, so they remain committed to classical management. There are dozens of ways to achieve favorable business results, and Lean is one of the most difficult. So why bother? And what is CEOs’ reward for leading a Lean transformation? More money? Most CEOs don’t need that. Adoration from the Lean community. CEOs definitely don’t need that. Greater prestige? Not likely. If anything, CEOs face loss, not gain. CEOs face the threat of social stigma from their peer group if they replace classical management with Lean management.
CEOs face intense social pressure to conform to their peer group to maintain traditions and because there is a social hierarchy that they are duty-bound to respect (principally determined by the size of the company, industry rank, or CEO notoriety). There are some CEOs who are blind to the social pressure, purposely or not, or who simply don’t care about social pressure. They are willing to go their own way for whatever reasons and face the consequences. But, given that humans are social animals, and that CEOs revel in their special relationships with one another, as well as their status, rights, and privileges, the smart thing to do is conform to peer group norms regarding how best to lead and manage the organization. Conformance to existing norms maintains, if not strengthens relationships and obligations, and leaves open the possibilities for business deals and favors.
People who are habituated to acutely focus on personal and business gain evaluate the merits of most things, including Lean management, on the basis of the question, “What is there to gain?” Lean professionals can cite many personal and business things that a CEO could gain. But, from most CEO’s perspective, the potential gains, individually or in total, are not compelling enough to switch from classical management to Lean management. So, privately, most CEOs oppose Lean.
If CEOs were to go on record to publicly proclaim their dislike of Lean they would likely offend some people and create controversy, and perhaps suffer reputational and other losses for appearing to be backward-thinking, none of which are necessary. So the best course of action is to say nothing publicly. Privately, however, CEOs will eagerly join in trashing whatever it is that their group dislikes. Doing so reinforces social norms and strengthens social relationships. Those are the types of gain that interest CEOs the most, which Lean cannot match.
Most CEOs would probably be happy if Lean went away; that would be their private preference. Yet the consequence of this dynamic is to maintain the status quo for both CEOs and the organizations that promote Lean management. For Lean promoters, they can continue to make broad claims of Lean’s superiority to classical management and in doing so retain the commitment of Lean professionals. This, however, is a type of deception because the preference of CEOs remains private. If CEOs were to publicly proclaim their dislike of Lean, the business of selling Lean would quickly shrink and most Lean promotion organizations would go out of business.
Lean organizations have long preferred to promote Lean management as something better than classical management rather than explicitly saying how bad classical management really is. They desire to keep this information private presumably so as to not offend potential customers and avoid controversy. While they succeed in doing this, they also succeed in undermining the big changes that they wish to achieve. Their reticence to publicly tell it like it is is reserved for private conversations among the inner circle of the Lean intelligentsia. That collective conservatism is the reservoir of waste that feeds the politics of Lean world.
The obfuscation generated by keeping private the truth about how CEOs feel about Lean and then staying silent about Lean or lying about one’s support for it in public due to social pressure distorts public discourse and confuses understanding of both the problem and the solution — so much so that people separate into their respective self-interest groups and avoid communication. This, of course, maintains the status quo, which is acceptable to both groups. Neither see the need to alter their respective paths and so progress becomes the victim, yet again.