What are you thinking about? What do you think the people in your organization are thinking about? What are they actually thinking about? These are some pretty important questions.
I read an article about a workshop a guy by the name of Doug Harper, the GM at Brommer Chocolate conducted, in which he made the point again and again that the 'doing part' of just about anything is pretty easy – it is the 'thinking part' that comes first that is hard. He clearly thinks thinking is important and, the more I think about it, the more I think he is right. Brommer, by the way, is a very lean, very successful company.
It seems to me that what the people in the organization are thinking about is pretty important - probably the key to the whole thing. Bagger Vance said it was important to learn how to stop thinking without falling asleep. I haven't figured that one out yet. I'm pretty much thinking about something all the time – not necessarily anything important or particularly insightful, but something. I believe that is true of just about everyone.
If people are thinking about negative or destructive things – how they wish they were working somewhere else, how they wish the boss would get run over by a bus, how to get away with stealing company property, or how to get away with not doing their work – that is clearly a problem. Of course, if they are thinking about positive things – how to do the job better, how to reduce costs or improve quality, or how to do something better for customers – that is a good thing.
More important, however, is what management thinks people are thinking about. The boss at Tata who declared that British workers are inherently lazy apparently believes his employees are thinking about how to get away with doing less work than they should. In fact, the assumption that people mostly think about how to get away with something seems to be at the heart of many of the company policies and rules that make people's work life demeaning and miserable.
Far too many managers seem to subsribe to the FW Taylor view of people – not overtly, of course – but deep down inside. Taylor said that pig iron, for instance, should be handled by a worker "so stupid and so phlegmatic that he more nearly resembles the mental make-up of the ox … so stupid that the word 'percentage' has no meaning to him …" Taylor apparently thought the average factory worker was incapable of thinking about much of anything important. Taylor's view that workers necessarily had to be directed by "more intelligent men" is at the root of the common managerial arrogance that leads to all decison making flowing from the top, and from highly educated staff, with mere lip service paid to shop floor input. In other words: 'whatever people are thinking, it is cannot be as profund as what I am thinking'.
Then there are those like Bob Chapman at Barry Wehmiller, who worries that people might be thinking about what they are going to do after work, and on the weekends. He thinks that, if such thinking is taking place, it is a failure of leadership to make work as interesting and fulfilling as home life. He believes people are capable and driven to think about things that are good for the company, customers and their jobs, and that the role of leadership is to provide an environment that enables and empowers them to do so; and if they are thinking about selfish or negative things, that is a failure of leadership.
It seems to me that what leadership thinks people are thinking about is a self-fulfilling prophecy. That Bob Chapman is right (as usual). When leadership assumes people are selfish and unmotivated, or incapable of thinking at a high enough level to be relevant, people soon enough get that message and spend a lot of time thinking accordingly. On the other hand, if you think people are capable and interested in thinking about very productive things, they will get that message too.
So the important question stands: What do you think the people in your organization are thinking about? And is your whole management schtick built around that assumption?
Stan Heard says
Bill,
As always, I enjoyed your post. You make a great point about engaging the minds of our employees and not just their hands and feet.
I wish you had been a little more moderate in your comments about Taylor. Place his comments in the context of the timeframe in which they were made. It is not “apparent” that Taylor thought factory workers were stupid. Part of Taylor’s motivation was to enable workers to earn more money on the job. It is important to realize that by breaking down the job into component parts and assigning people to jobs based on their ability Taylor was practicing specialization that has proven to be a key to prosperiety. The handling of hot pigs of iron in the early 1900’s was a job that “should” (and that is key) be handled by someone who (at that time under those conditions) could perform more like an ox than a man. Taylor did not regard all workers like that but Taylor worked as a laborer in the steel mills and understood better than most the working conditions.
Like you,I came through the Emerson process (Harris Calorific) and the supply chain/logistics experience so I have high regard for you and what you do. In some ways Taylor was just trying to do the same thing you and I are trying to do – improve how people are treated and companies are managed.
Best regards,
Stan Heard
Bill Waddell says
Of course you’re right Stan. When Taylor expounded on how “dirt handling” was work best assigned to Slavs and Italians he was a bigoted guy living in a bigoted age. Similarly Henry Ford’s absurd rants about Jews should be taken in context. I imagine Slavs, Italians and Jews made equally repugnant generalizations about folks of Anglo descent like Taylot and Ford.
My real criticism of Taylor as he relates to lean was his lack of attention to process. He was tunnel visioned on handlign pig iron, for instance, but never seemed to give a thought to what came before or after the pig iron was handled. He applied his scientific management ideas to each job in isolation, rather than looking at the process as a whole.
His contemporary, sometimes friend and more often competitor, Frank Gilbreath (of ‘therbligs’ and Cheaper by the Dozen fame) was really more of a process guy, and I think made a more wholesone, well rounded contribution to manufacturing in the long haul.
Kyle Hanson says
Bill,
What a great post. It strikes me that an understanding of what people are thinking about is at the heart of empathy. We must understand how the other person is looking at the current situation before we can set about improving it.
Seems most would agree that without empathy we cannot have humility… and without humility, we cannot lead.
Isaac says
Great post. For my money, I’ve always felt that what you think others are thinking, is a reflection of what YOU are thinking. I have no way of knowing what others are thinking without engaging them. It cuts both ways, if you are optimistic but fail to engage employees, you might be led to believe that your employees are as engaged in the business as you are.
That being said, comments like these are a good indicator of which company to invest with, and which to avoid. It is very very hard for senior leadership to have a good feel for employee engagement throughout a large company in my opinion.
Jim Fernandez says
Great post.
Case in point: Here were I work we have time clocks. Workers line up before work, before lunch, after lunch and at the end of the day to punch in and out of work. A suggestion came up to eliminate the time clock and thereby create more working time. 150 employees X 10 minutes per day = 25 hours of work per day. Management said no. Management is afraid that some workers might cheat the company out of a few minutes a day.
ozechad says
Hi I’m new to your column but not to your thinking. Here in Australia the powers that be are still basking in the glory of being ‘clever leaders’ because we have natural resources and dig up stuff that others need and want. Tragically management thinking hasn’t changed much either -so a few of change agents and disruptors are getting together to lead more courageous conversations around the question of ‘why’ – with a plan of rebooting Australia with technology and management leadership and new innovative sustainability thinking!
Stan Heard says
Bill,
I agree. Frank and Lillian Gilbreath were more wholistic in their approach. What makes these people such icons is that they were pioneers with no organizational theory to guide them and even with their mistakes they reshaped manufacturing and management.
Always enjoy your posts.
Stan Heard