Most of us have never been a CEO. We only have a vague understanding of what it is really like to be a CEO. But we do have a clear understanding of what it is like to “work for” CEOs based on our employment experiences, and as followers we have clear thoughts on what the top leaders do well and what they need to do better.

Whether you are the CEO of a large (thousands of employees) or small company (tens or hundreds of employees), there is always more to do than time to do it and far more information to process than one’s ability to effectively process it. Some of the information is in the form of advice to CEOs, of which a very large industry exists to provide. This can range from large multinational consulting companies to a person who writes just one book, with the advice given directly or indirectly.

All of the advice shares the basic theme that the CEO “must do,” “should do,” or “need to do” something to lead better, communicate better, engage people better, solve problems better, satisfy one or more stakeholders better, improve quality, improve service, etc. The advice for CEOs comes from various sources — peers, big-name consultants, top loyal suordinates, stock analysts, journalists, professors, employees, books, magazines, executive training courses, videos, etc. — and it is delivered in a variety of ways in terms of tone, from subtle to harsh.

Of course, no CEO is perfect, and they surely have lots of professional and business improvement opportunities whether they know it or not. But it is clear they are inundated with all forms of “must do,” “should do,” or “need to do” advice. CEOs are drowning in all the advice, whether it is good or not. So, what do most CEOs do? They ignore nearly all of it. Instead, they focus on the advice that best fits the perceived need at the time it is needed, and that advice is likely focused on expediency — what has the best chance of solving the problem most quickly. Can you blame CEOs? You and I would likely do the same if you were in their shoes.

Most CEOs, and likely their closest advisors as well, are well known to be poor systems thinkers. Expedient solutions to problems invariably fail to consider the broader business system upon which it acts. For example, the common solution for poor operating performance is to lay people off, which often makes the problem worse, sooner or later. The connection between operating performance and what is actually happening on the genba is not well understood — specifically, for example, the asynchrony that has long existed between supply and demand. So, instead of understanding and correcting it, just lay people off instead. That solves an operating performance problem, for a while, but it does nothing to solve the longstanding cost, delivery, and quality problems.

While we can surely empathize with CEOs, the advice they will most likely accept, from whatever source (usually their peer CEOs, top loyal subordinates, or big-name consultants), will align with the path that they are currently on. Or, if they need to change paths, they almost always will favor one that is adjacent to their current path. Only rarely will they go far from their current or adjacent path. Again, you and I would likely do the same if you were in their shoes. This poses a huge problem for the industry that advises CEOs, directly or indirectly, to adopt Lean management, of which I have long been part of.

Lean management, understood as it was long ago as a generic name for TPS, is a major change of path, far from being on or adjacent to the current path. Lean management, understood as it is today as “Lean tools,” is either on the current path or adjacent to it. That should inform the Lean community that most CEOs have no interest in a major change of path. Yet, the cacophony of advice coming from the Lean community tells CEOs to abandon classical management and adopt an entirely new mindset and practices that break with scores of tried-and-true business and social traditions.

Lean has long been described as a “leap,” the “Lean leap,” as depicted by the Lean Enterprise Institute’ “Lean Leaper” logo. The leap metaphor denies the fact that most CEOs prefer gradual change, not a rapid and complete overhaul of the management system, inclusive of new leadership thinking (preconceptions) and daily routines. To make matters even more challenging, Lean contradicts the hierarchical and authority-driven nature of classical management. So what is a CEO to do? Most will ignore “Lean transformation” — a major change of path — and opt instead for the current path or a path adjacent to it that includes “Lean tools.” If CEOs do take a leap, it is in the realm of mergers, acquisitions, and spin-offs, not a complete overhaul of the management system.

So, if we empathize with CEOs, and if most of us would likely do as they have long done with Lean (i.e., adopt Lean tools and forego Lean transformation), then we will understand why they make the choices they make. Our “must do,” “should do,” or “need to do” advice is among a flood of advice whose merits CEOs must quickly evaluate and decide. Thus far, Lean management does not rise to a level that most CEOs see as “must do,” “should do,” or “need to do.” So, there is a big gap between what CEOs and Lean advocates see as “must do,” “should do,” or “need to do.”

None of this suggests that it is not right to criticize CEOs performance. It is, because those subject to CEOs authority and directives are in a unique position, being on or closer to the genba, to judge whether certain business decisions are sound. It does not matter that most of us have never been a CEO. What does matter is recognizing that CEOs don’t see Lean as “must do,” “should do,” or “need to do,” and that their decision should be respected even if we do not like it or agree with it. The feedback that most CEOs give about Lean, whether direct or indirect, should initiate reflection, not doubling or tripling down on “must do,” “should do,” or “need to do” Lean.