Chapter 2

Lean Leadership

Leadership commonly brings to mind an image of a powerful person positioned at the top of a hierarchical structure directing and controlling the activities of subordinates toward the achievement of enterprise goals. However, this is a shortsighted view of the nature and significance of leadership. Today, the importance of leadership is derived in part due to environmental characteristics, which include global competition, technological advances, evolving governmental regulations, and changing worker attitudes, among many. For example, cultural differences found in today’s global marketplace may act as a significant barrier to international commerce. These environmental characteristics place a greater premium on leadership than ever before.

Leadership has been defined in many ways. Today, more than 200 distinct definitions for it have been offered.¹ However it is defined, it is commonly viewed as interpersonal influence, exercised in situations and directed through the communication process, toward the attainment of a specified goal or goals.²

Leadership is often regarded as the single most critical factor in the success or failure of institutions.³ This is true in part due to the transient nature of teams within organizations. Whenever there is a change in team composition, the developmental forming stage of the team development begins anew.⁴ As noted earlier, lean management consists of four integral elements: leadership, culture, team, and practices and tools. Each of these elements is integral and necessary for any lean initiative. However, it must be clearly noted that leadership is the keystone. Leadership creates the culture. Leadership identifies and develops the team. Leadership also employs the practices and encourages the tools. As noted by Dennis Pawley, “Without leadership, lean will never get off the ground.”⁵

This chapter explores the nature of leadership, examining key elements of exceptional leadership. The difference between leading and managing is explained. Historical leadership theories are briefly explored. These offer insights into how a leader can shape outcomes under various circumstances. By themselves, leadership theories are insufficient for explaining subordinate behaviors, so various seminal theories of motivation are explored for greater insight. This is followed by a brief exploration of conflict, as effective leaders must be able to defuse conflict often. A brief ­exploration of leader gender follows. This is included in the discussion for no other means than as an attempt to spark reflection about one’s own leadership strengths and weaknesses. A list of critical leadership skills, traits, and behaviors essential for effective leaders is then suggested. Although this is not meant to be an exhaustive list, it may be used as a start. The chapter concludes by observing several poor leadership behaviors.

Regardless of the specific definition, key elements of leadership emerge from all the alternative definitions. Among these key elements are the following themes: (a) one’s personality, (b) exercising influence over group processes, shaping and framing reality of others, or a willingness of subordinates to comply, (c) a form of persuasion, (d) a set of behaviors, (e) a dominant–submissive or power relationship, (f) the effect of interactions, (g) initiation of job structure, (h) consideration for subordinates, (i) a willingness to learn, and (j) most importantly, leadership is a means to achieve goals by effecting change, which leads to improvement.

Two points should be clear concerning leadership. First, leading entails aligning the efforts of resources. This may seem to be an insurmountable challenge in organizationally and politically complex environments. When a process crosses functional boundaries, utilizes shared functional resources, comingles functional budget items, or utilizes varying metrics between functions, attaining agreement is challenging. Aligning efforts amounts to creating the conditions so that all of the horses are willing to pull the cart in mostly the same direction. This necessitates communicating the vision by words and actions so subordinates understand and pursue shared goals. This means energizing people and inspiring them to overcome political, bureaucratic, resource, financial, performance metric, or other barriers and moving people toward the ideal state.⁶ Leaders must be committed, engaged, and involved. All too often, strategic initiatives get assigned to one particular functional group and outcomes become its responsibility. For example, there is an engineering department responsible for design and development, there is a quality department to assure quality, and there is a human resources department for training. These should be shared responsibilities since everyone in the organization has a vested interest in achieving organizational outcomes.

Second, there is an important distinction between leading and managing. Managing is primarily concerned with consistently producing results stakeholders expect. This is sometimes referred to as stability.⁷ Managing includes regular activities such as goal setting, strategic and operational planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, directing, controlling, and problem solving. These regular activities are aimed at maintaining the current reality.

Conversely, leading also entails improvement achieved through change. The term kaizen is often referred to as improvement activities. Kaizen roughly translates as good (zen) change (kai). Leading involves establishing the direction of improvement, which requires developing the vision and choosing competing strategies for achieving the results or producing the changes needed. Leading refers to guiding improvement activities and establishing an organization’s purpose, which changes over time. Leaders will find instilling change to be painful. Change necessitates learning and adaptation. Many people inherently resist change because it is disruptive, intrusive, and it upsets the balance of stability.⁸ However difficult, centrally directed change may be important for altering and improving systems.

Change must be a fundamental, daily process requiring 100 percent participation all of the time, as organizations must be able to perform better tomorrow than they did today. Namely, improvement is everyone’s responsibility and it begins with leadership. There is an old idiom that states, “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” If you believe this, then any initiative is likely to fail. Improvement itself necessitates doing things differently. Lean requires leaders create a learning organization capable of adaptation. The best way to achieve this is to recognize four important characteristics of change. First, everyone has the ability to learn. Learning simply means modifying behaviors. Leaders must accept the stewardship and responsibility for transformation and must personally demonstrate a desire to learn and improve. This requires they be deeply committed to change and that they participate in the improvement process. And, after learning a lesson, leaders must then become teachers and share the lesson with others. This fosters an environment for continuous improvement and quick adaptation. Leaders must create the environment that stimulates change by example.

Second, team members must see their workplace as a laboratory for experimentation and learning. Leaders must convey an understanding of the importance for making change. Given the right incentive, ­everyone has the ability to learn new tricks. Making change is critical to the ­long-term success of an organization.

Third, change is encouraged with a clear understanding of an organization’s current state, its ideal state, and the disparity between them. However, achieving change based upon a perceived gap between the current and ideal states overly simplifies the likelihood of success. The social and organizational processes operating within an enterprise typically bring about slow, time-consuming change and make success difficult at best. Furthermore, change most commonly occurs through small, incremental alterations. Infrequently does change comes about through abrupt innovation. This makes it difficult to achieve sustainable momentum.

Fourth, the existing culture within an organization, interpersonal relationships, problem complexities, and metrics used to measure performance all have profound impacts on change and leadership choices. Nevertheless, lean leadership builds upon traditional leadership theories and includes additional skills of (a) teaching, (b) creating a source of energy that encourages employees to pursue stretch objectives, (c) eliminating fear that discourages the risk-taking associated with experimentation, action, and new thinking, (d) leading through participation, and (e) imbedding lean within one’s own personal practices.⁹

As noted earlier, lean management consists of four integral elements: leadership, culture, team, and practices and tools. Although each is ­necessary, the keystone is leadership. A good starting point to better understand leadership is to examine some traditional leadership theories. Each of these theories offers salient ideas and valuable leadership lessons, both positive and negative.

Traditional Leadership Theories

Many leadership theories or models have been offered over the past ­century. These differ in the themes such as qualities that distinguish leaders from followers (subordinates), situational or environmental factors, skill levels, and other factors. The leadership theories that have emerged have been classified into one of eight broad types or groups. Roughly, in chronological order, these theories are (a) Great Man Theory, (b) Participative Theory, (c) Behavioral Theory, (d) Contingency Theory, (e) Trait Theory, (f) Situational Theory, (g) Transactional Theory, and (h) the most recent Transformational Theory. It is worthwhile to briefly examine each of these theory groups because each offers some valuable insight into the leadership function. Each of these is briefly described in the following text.

The Great Man Theory emerged in approximately the mid-1800s.¹⁰ The theory group got its name because it is thought to be largely a male ­quality. This theory assumes that the capacity for leadership is inherent, that is, leaders are born with it. This theory portrays a preeminent ­person as heroic and mythic who uses his personal charisma, intelligence, ­wisdom, or cunning to command and enthuse followers to act toward achieving a goal. The examples of leaders cited are typically military leaders who rose when needed in a crisis situation such as a war. Subordinates often follow out of respect for the leader or out of fear of the consequences for not following directives. In these situations, followers tend to look for courage from others. Subordinates must be willing to surrender the power for another to shape and define their reality because of perceived need. However, this theory group does not account for the ability to learn to become an inspirational leader. Nor does it explain female leaders such as Joan of Arc, Indira Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Susan B. Anthony, Golda Meir, and many others. Nevertheless, there will be situations when followers tend to look for courage from others.

The second theory group, Participative Theory emerged in approximately 1939.¹¹ This theory group suggests that the ideal leadership style engages subordinates, but the decision to implement any of their suggestions lies with upper management. Namely, it rests on the concept of participative management and delegation. Allowing subordinates to participate in the managerial decision-making process has been credited with an ability to raise motivation, increase readiness to accept change, improve decision quality, develop teamwork, improve morale, and further ­individuals’ managerial development. People have an inherent need to control, to some extent, processes in which they must be engaged. However, ­participative management can be time-consuming, and delegation is not a way of passing responsibility. Leaders should decide on their role prior to engaging the subordinate group. Additionally, leaders should articulate the extent of their involvement in any group decision-making process as well as indicating explicitly or implicitly the extent of the authority they are asking subordinates to assume in the decision-making process.

The third theory group, Behavioral Theory emerged in approximately 1957.¹² It is based upon the belief that great leaders are made, not born. Namely, this theory group suggests that people learn, or alter their behavior, to become leaders through teaching and observation. Therefore, this theory focuses on leader actions, not mental qualities or internal states. Specifically, this theory group suggests that leadership is not a natural or inherent quality. Most readers will probably agree that leadership may be attributable to both natural acumen and learning.

The fourth theory group, Contingency Theory emerged in approximately 1964.¹³ This theory group focuses on particular variables related to the environment, which might dictate a particular leadership style at a moment. These environmental variables are often referred to as contingent variables or situational factors. This theory group recognizes that no one leadership style (e.g., authoritarian or participative) is always the best. Rather, it suggests that success depends upon contingent variables such as leadership style, qualities of subordinates, aspects of the situation such as time pressure, the strategic importance of the decision, group effectiveness, and others. Clearly, many variables impact leadership success, including internal and external organizational factors.

The fifth theory group, Trait Theory emerged in approximately 1968.¹⁴ This theory group assumes people inherit personalities or behavioral characteristics that make them better suited to be leaders. This theory group suggests five generally agreed-upon personality traits inherent within leaders.¹⁵ These five groups have been identified as (a) surgency or one’s dominance or self-confidence, (b) openness to new experiences or one’s imagination, intellectual curiosity, or willingness to experiment, (c) conscientiousness or one’s commitment to details and discipline, (d) agreeableness or one’s spirit of cooperation or need for social harmony, and (e) emotional stability or one’s ability to remain even-tempered, calm, and less reactive to stress. These personalities or behavioral characteristics contribute by offering a more complete explanation of leadership success. However, an issue with this theory group is explaining people who are not leaders who have these qualities.

The sixth theory group, Situational Theory emerged in approximately 1971.¹⁶ The theory group proposes that different leadership styles may be more appropriate for certain types of decision-making circumstances, and leaders should choose the best course of action based upon situational variables. This group introduces situational variables such as a subordinate’s competence. For example, low competence or low commitment suggests leaders pursue a directive style. Again, this theory group contributes by offering a more complete understanding of leadership success.

The seventh theory group, Management or Transactional Theory emerged in approximately 1975.¹⁷ This theory group portrays leaders acting largely in a consultative style of decision making. It focuses on leaders and how they maintain their position through a series of tacit exchange agreements or transactions with subordinates. Namely, this group portrays leaders obtaining the efforts of subordinates in exchange for rewards. The role of supervision, organization, and group performance is often examined in this theory group. It frequently portrays an “in-favor group” (an inner circle of trusted colleagues who are given responsibility, decision influence, and access to resources) and “out-of-favor group” (an outer circle of colleagues who are given low levels of choice or influence). In exchange for membership in the “in-favor” group, subordinates are expected to be fully committed, loyal to the leader, and to work harder. In reality, “transactional” leaders may be perceived as selfish and sometimes unethical or immoral using “games” to establish bonds. This can be especially true in larger organizations where it would be more difficult to maintain valuable bonds with all employees through responsibility, decision influence, and access to resources.

The eighth and most recent theory group is Relationship or Transformational Theory (it has also been referred to as Charismatic Leadership). It emerged in approximately 1978.¹⁸ This theory group focuses upon the connections formed between leaders and subordinates. Whereas “transactional” leaders are typically viewed as leading minor changes to existing organization goals, “transformational” leaders are perceived as instilling a fundamental and significant shift in goals, culture, or organizational structure. The idea proposed is that leaders motivate and inspire followers to pursue significant change by creating an awareness of the task importance, encouraging followers to focus on team or organization goals rather than self-interests, and assisting subordinates fulfill their potential. In contrast to transactional leaders, transformational leaders are often perceived as highly skilled, moral, ethical, and inspiring. This theory group contributes by offering a more complete understanding of leadership success, but by itself, it is not complete because it does not explain why companies led by transformational leaders have still failed.

With an abundance of theories attempting to explain leadership, which theory is right? There are salient points offered by each of these theory groups. Knowledge of each leadership style can prove beneficial for achieving organizational goals. What is missing from each leadership theory is the recognition of a holistic, systems perspective. There are many actors and numerous intervening variables both internal and external to an organization, which must be recognized by a leadership style choice. Knowing which leadership style is appropriate at any time is difficult at best because of the intervening variables or influencing factors. Although not an exhaustive list, some of the internal organizational factors, which influence a leader’s success include (a) the leader’s internal forces, (b) the culture of the organization itself, (c) position power of the leader, (d) group effectiveness, (e) time pressures, (f) the significance of the problem itself, and (g) subordinates’ internal forces. Clearly, there are many external organizational factors beyond one’s control such as economic considerations, political concerns, competitive factors, and so on. The internal organizational factors, which influence success, are discussed in the following text.

Examples of a leader’s internal forces include the leader’s personality; background, knowledge, and experiences; inclinations to issuing directives versus allowing participation; the leader’s value system for allowing subordinates to participate in the decision-making process; confidence in subordinates; and the leader’s feelings of security, knowing delegation leads to uncertain outcomes. Simply put, people are different. As a result, what works best for one person may not work well for another person.

The culture of the organization impacts a leader’s success. Culture is a collection of behavioral norms, practices, beliefs, and so on, that represent the way a system functions. Culture impacts leadership style and success. Although this is discussed more fully in the subsequent chapter, examples of cultural elements include expectations regarding behavioral formalities; organizational bureaucracy and hierarchies; a desire to maintain discipline; a desire to foster entrepreneurship; a discipline to compare execution to objectives and plans; as well as a simple assessment of what was accomplished versus what was intended to be accomplished.

The influencing factor of position power refers to the degree of power and influence the leader has over subordinates. This degree of directive authority is typically issued by the leader’s own supervisor. This influencing factor is clearly somewhat dependent upon the subordinates’ respect for the leader, fear of the consequences for not following directives, the subordinates’ willingness to surrender the power for another to shape and define their reality, or some other reason to submit to a leader’s power and influence.

Most people would probably agree that a team-based approach promotes system goals more effectively than does individuals acting independently. Promoting and achieving effective working groups is challenging. It requires a high level of respect and trust, which promotes the potential for effective and efficient team performance to emerge. The consequences of functional teams include greater initiative and team member commitment, higher job satisfaction and morale through a sense of belonging, fewer conflicts, and more successful initiatives. The consequences of dysfunctional teams include lower motivation, frequent conflict and disagreement, greater lack of respect, poor communication, and an increased likelihood for initiative failure.

Pressure to achieve a solution or improvement clearly impacts a leader’s success. Often, impending deadlines convey a crisis feeling, which frequently compels leaders to resort to a directive leadership style. The lack of time often does not allow for sharing of information, participation in the decision-making process, or even a simple explanation of decisions.

Sometimes the nature of the problem itself does not allow some leaders to engage subordinates in the decision-making process. Some leaders are uncomfortable surrendering some degree of decision-making authority that occurs in a more participative approach. This typically occurs more often for riskier, strategic decisions than for less risky operational decisions.

There are numerous internal forces acting upon subordinates, which influence a leader’s success. These forces should be considered when choosing a leadership style. Examples of subordinates’ internal forces include the extent of subordinates’ need for independence; the subordinates’ tolerance for ambiguity versus following directives; the subordinates’ interest and investment in a decision-making problem; the subordinates’ understanding and identification with an organization’s goals; the subordinates’ expectations concerning their decision-making role; the subordinates’ degrees of confidence, trust, and respect in their leader; as well as the subordinates’ motivation level. Knowledge of these internal factors is clearly ambiguous at best when choosing a style.

As a general observation, there are characteristics correlated with these internal subordinate forces that should reduce the ambiguity when choosing a leadership style. For example, white-collar workers, older and more mature workers, and workers in a higher managerial level typically prefer greater independence, have a greater ability to handle ambiguity or prefer less direction, possess a greater interest in decision-making participation, identify more with the organization’s success, and are motivated by factors more varied than economic incentives.

It should be clear there are many factors that influence subordinate motivation. Some of these factors come from within subordinates. ­However, the leader plays an important role in enhancing the likelihood that subordinates contribute to organizational and team objectives. As there have been many theories offered to explain leadership styles, there are even more theories offered to explain subordinate motivation. It is worthwhile to briefly examine some of these theories as each offers some valuable insight into understanding subordinate behavior and how leaders can properly direct subordinate motivation.

Motivating Subordinates

The many motivation theories differ by the “currency” leaders may use to motivate subordinates. Some of these currencies are characteristically positive (“carrots”), while others are negative (“sticks”). Since positive methods of reinforcement are more favorably received, carrots typically are more effective. Unfortunately, the use of sticks is sometimes chosen such as when time is critical.

In addition to these currencies, motivation theories often differ on whether the motivation is intrinsic or extrinsic in nature. Intrinsic motivation refers to initiating an activity for its own sake because it is interesting and satisfying in itself. Intrinsic motivators refer to attributes of the work itself that drive people to engage and perform, provide energy, as well as create enthusiasm. Examples of intrinsic motivators are the leader’s capability or expertise, the respect the work will afford, the challenge and interest of the work goal(s) or the ownership of the work, opportunities the work offers for learning and expanding one’s skills, an opportunity to provide value, or the opportunity to work with friends or respected colleagues. It has been observed that challenging work goals that are clear and specific are the single best intrinsic motivators.¹⁹ It is important to understand that intrinsic rewards can have significant monetary value for subordinates. Many of these intrinsic rewards are low cost to firms but can offer high value to employees.

In contrast, extrinsic motivators refer to attributes or motivation sources outside of the work. Examples of extrinsic motivators are promotion possibilities, economic incentives, and the possibility of penalties. Less mature, younger workers often have greater or more immediate financial needs and consequently relate better to economic incentives. Many of these extrinsic rewards can represent significant cost to firms and can be easily misunderstood by employees as something owed rather than an earned reward.

Motivation Theories

Of the earliest motivation frameworks is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. It suggests that subordinates possess a set of intrinsic needs including physiological needs, safety needs, love and belonging, and self-esteem, which must be met hierarchically prior to one’s higher-level self-actualization needs. It is this highest level of self-actualization where a ­subordinate’s full potential may be reached. It is suggested that self-actualization people focus not on themselves, but on the problem at hand. Criticisms of this theory have focused both on the ordered nature of the hierarchy as well as its individualist perspective. Some suggest the order of needs in the hierarchy with a focus on the self at the top may not represent the needs of a group culture. A group culture may promote the benefit of the group prior to the benefit of the self.

Two-Factor Theory proposes both satisfying, motivating job factors as well as dissatisfying, demotivating job factors.²⁰ This theory suggests these factors operate independently of each other and do not represent a single satisfaction continuum. Examples of satisfying motivators include achievement, recognition, the work challenge, responsibility, promotion, and growth. These act to satisfy higher-level psychological needs. Dissatisfaction results from unfavorable assessments of environmental (hygiene) factors such as pay and benefits, company policy and administration, relationships with co-workers, supervision, status, job security, working conditions, and personal life.

Theories X and Y represent negative and positive views of personnel respectively.²¹ Theory X represents a negative view of employees under which management assumes employees are inherently lazy and therefore workers need close supervision, a comprehensive control system, and managerial hierarchies to narrow the span of control. This theory relies heavily upon threat and coercion. Alternatively, Theory Y represents a positive view of employees; management assumes employees may be ambitious, self-motivated, and enjoy their mental and physical work. This theory relies heavily upon open communication, minimizing superior–subordinate status differences, and creating a supportive culture.

Expectancy Theory suggests subordinates follow a voluntary decision-making process in order to maximize the motivational force of the perceived, alternative behavioral consequences.²² This theory recognizes that metrics or rewards drive behavior. The theory suggests that one’s choice is based upon an estimation of the likelihood the outcome will be achieved (expectancy probability), the likelihood the reward will be awarded (instrumentality probability), and the value of the reward to the subordinate (valence). Expectancy probability is based upon one’s assessment for successfully completing the task based upon past experiences, self-confidence, and the perceived task difficulty. Instrumentality probability reflects one’s perception for receiving the expected reward if performance expectations are achieved. Valence refers to the value one places on the reward. The motivational force is the product of these probabilities.

Control Theory proposes that behavior is never caused by a response to an outside stimulus.²³ Instead, the theory states that behavior is determined by a person’s desire to maximize basic needs. Directive leaders use rewards and punishment to coerce subordinates to comply with rules and complete assignments. Alternatively, participative leaders avoid coercion and suggest that the intrinsic rewards of doing the work will satisfy one’s needs.

Goal-Setting Theory suggests subordinates have a strong need for success and achievement and therefore are best motivated by challenging but realistic goals.²⁴ These are sometimes referred to as stretch goals. The theory suggests that working toward an achievable goal provides a major source of motivation, which, in turn, improves performance. A clearly articulated and difficult but achievable goal provides greater motivation and better task performance than a vague or easy goal because it represents more of a challenge and accomplishment. In addition, setting impossible goals is possibly more demotivating than setting a goal that is too easy.

Acquired Needs Theory suggests that individuals acquire needs over their life experiences.²⁵ These needs are classified as achievement, affiliation, and power needs. A person’s achievement needs reflect a desire to excel, typically leading to the avoidance of both low- and high-risk opportunities. This theory suggests that a person feeling a great need to achieve should be given challenging tasks. Affiliation needs reflect a desire for environmental harmony and therefore one tends to conform to group norms. People with high-affiliation needs typically perform better in cooperative environments. Power needs are divided between personal and institutional types. Personal power reflects the need for a person to direct others and is therefore often perceived negatively. Institutional power reflects the desire to direct group efforts toward organizational goals and is therefore often perceived positively. In general, power seekers desire the opportunity to direct group efforts.

Positive psychology is seemingly a relatively recent development of the field of psychology, which attempts to offer an optimistic view for people, getting away from the predominant negative bias of traditional psychology. The idea is that positive emotions (e.g., happiness, interest, anticipation) broaden one’s awareness and encourage novel, varied, and exploratory thoughts and actions. Over time, this broadened behavioral repertoire builds skills and resources. This is in contrast to negative emotions, which prompt narrow survival-oriented behaviors. In an environment that encourages improvement, experimentation (novel, varied, and exploratory thoughts and actions) should be encouraged. It is easy assume this development has spurred the Transformational Theory of leadership to an extent.

Conflict

In any group setting, conflict is almost always inevitable. Because of this, it is worthwhile to briefly examine the concept of conflict. Conflict may be defined as the behavior of an individual or a group, which impedes or restricts, possibly only temporarily, another party from attaining its desired goals.²⁶

Interestingly, to the extent it is beneficial, conflict may be encouraged, even pursued. Conflict may provide positive results. It can lead to creativity and innovation. It can lead to the discovery of better solutions or a better understanding of another person. It may assist professionals with the development of interpersonal problem-solving skills to handle conflict. In turn, these interpersonal problem-solving skills may lead to the ability to develop mutual trust and respect, candid communication, and awareness of the needs of others in relationships. Despite its benefits, conflict must be addressed as it can reduce or eliminate the possibility of achieving project goals.

Conflict becomes dysfunctional if it results in poor decision ­making, lengthy delays over issues that do not importantly affect the project ­outcome, or a disintegration of a team’s efforts. The key to resolving conflict rests on the leader’s ability to transform a “win–lose” situation into a “win–win” situation. To start, it is important for the participants involved in the conflict to understand that conflicts occur between allies, not opponents. Conflict resolution requires collaboration in which the involved parties must rely upon one another; otherwise, mistrust will prevail.

There are various strategies and skills that assist in resolving or even preventing conflicts from occurring. The managerial style itself, such as the choice to allow subordinate participation may reduce the potential of conflict. A leader’s ability to listen, demonstrate compassion, generate greater participation, as well as recognizing the value of and rewarding contributions can reduce conflict potential. It is important to understand that professionals have a need to be heard, to demonstrate that their ideas have merit, to be involved, and subsequently to be recognized and rewarded for their efforts.

A leader’s honesty and willingness to reveal feelings establishes and promotes credibility. A leader’s ability and willingness to admit mistakes or concessions can help to establish credibility. Admissions coming from one’s self are not nearly as harmful as when they are exposed by others. Additionally, a leader’s prejudices can destroy credibility.

Similarly, a leader should enhance his ability to interpret body language. Bodies can reflect fear, boredom, interest, repulsion, openness, attraction, caring, hatred, and other emotions. The ability to interpret these allows leaders to better understand subordinates needs.

Additional methods useful to possibly prevent conflict include known methods for resolving disagreements, clearly defined ground rules, should disagreements arise, clearly identified expectations regarding acceptable team member behaviors, as well as efforts to build team esprit de corps before conflict occurs. However, in the event a conflict arises, there is a useful path for resolving conflicts.

Conflict Resolution

Since both parties have a vested interest in the outcome, the conflict must be defined by those involved and solutions must be generated by those who share the responsibility for assuring that the solution will work satisfactorily. Before a solution can be reached, both parties must realize that collaboration has the potential to resolve the matter in an equitable fashion. The goal must be to solve the problem, not to accommodate different points of view. In order to achieve a solution, the parties involved must be flexible. There should be recognition that both sides of the controversy have potential strengths and weaknesses. This suggests that there must be an effort to understand and accept the other party’s viewpoint. Each party must look at conflict from an objective point of view and examine one’s own attitudes (hostilities) before interpersonal contact can become effective. Face-saving solutions are important as these allow people to give in so that a change in one’s viewpoint is not perceived as being weak or as capitulation. The leader may need to minimize the effects of status differences, defensiveness, prejudices, and other barriers, which may prevent people from working together effectively. Similarly, all parties must be aware of the limitations of arguing and downgrading the other party’s position.

Leaders possess various methods of influence or “currencies” as a means of reducing potential conflicts. These are the same intrinsic and extrinsic motivators and include one’s expertise, authority, the work challenge, friendship, promotion, salary, as well as various penalties. As noted earlier, these currencies vary in effectiveness.

Prior to any attempt to resolve a conflict, it is important to remember the four points of principled negotiation.²⁷ First, separate the people from the problem. Namely, the leader must have the involved parties define the substantive problem, as emotions and fact get confused. Second, there must be a focus on interests, not positions. Positions tend to exhibit demands, while interests allow for movement in the search for an equitable settlement. Third, the involved parties need to seek solution options for mutual gain. The leader should want to advance the mutual interests of the conflicting parties. Finally, it is important to use objective criteria or standards to determine the quality of an outcome. Use expert opinion, company policy, market value, competitive benchmarks, or some other neutral and objective criterion for decision outcomes.

When conflict does occur, there are five commonly accepted negotiation methods for conflict resolution.²⁸ The first method is withdrawal. This refers to avoiding a disagreement by refraining and retreating from an argument. Withdrawal does not resolve the matter. It only postpones resolution to a later date, so it is more commonly used when the concern of disagreement is minor or when a cooling-off period may offer the possibility to achieve movement at a later time, given high tempers.

A second method is known as smoothing, which refers to deemphasizing or playing down differences while emphasizing common interests and subsequently avoiding issues that may cause divisions and hurt feelings. It too does not resolve the matter. Rather, it is often used as a tactic to initiate a solution process and it is sometimes beneficial when conflict members are behaving irrationally due to high tempers.

A third method for resolution is compromise. This refers to splitting the difference, bargaining, or searching for an intermediate position. As a result, it is sometimes viewed as though no one loses, but no one wins. It is useful if a win–win solution can be found through compromise, for instance, if both of the conflicting parties can agree to a solution neither had been demanding.

A fourth method, known as forcing, refers to a command-and-control approach by the decision maker. It represents a win–lose situation. Using this approach, participants are antagonists. It creates a victor and a vanquished. Although it resolves the issue, it is the most ineffective resolution method. It is difficult to achieve success using this approach, as subordinates may not follow after a solution is imposed.

The fifth method, and preferred resolution method, is confrontation. This represents a problem-solving approach through an open and direct exchange of information about a problem or conflict as each participant sees it and working through differences to reach a solution that is equitable to both. An objective approach is sought through a focus on issues, not positions or demands. A win–win solution is sought by keeping the goal foremost in mind.

It is important the leader keep in mind the following 10 solution characteristics, which are necessary for negotiation.

1. All individuals must remember that they have vested interest in the outcome and that collaboration has the potential to resolve the matter in an equitable fashion.
2. There must be recognition that conflict occurs; it must be defined by those in the relationship and solutions must be generated by those who share the responsibility for assuring the solution will work satisfactorily.
3. The goal must be to solve the problem, not to accommodate different points of view.
4. There must be a realization that both sides of the controversy have potential strengths and weaknesses, so all individuals involved must be flexible. Namely, there must be an effort to understand and accept the other individual’s argument(s).
5. All individuals must look at conflict from an objective viewpoint, as emotions, attitudes, and hostilities cloud judgment.
6. It is beneficial to understand the effectiveness of the five negotiation methods for conflict resolution.
7. “Face-saving” solutions are important as they allow people to give in so that a change in one’s viewpoint is not perceived as being weak or as capitulation.
8. Leaders may need to minimize effects of status differences, defensiveness, prejudices, and other barriers, which prevent people from working together effectively.
9. All individuals must be aware of limitations of arguing.
10. All individuals must be aware of limitations of downgrading the other person’s position.

These 10 solution characteristics are essential for achieving settlements that will be perceived to possess a positive outcome to the conflict.

Leader Gender

Emerging research is showing that women executives score higher on a wide variety of leadership measures, from producing high-quality work to goal setting to mentoring employees and others. One survey evaluating 425 high-level executives showed women executives scored higher ratings on 42 of the 52 leadership skills measured.²⁹ Specific examples of these skills women achieved significantly higher scores on include skills such as motivating others, fostering communication, listening to others, teamwork, and partnering.

Some suggest that women think decisions through better than men, are more collaborative, and seek less glory. It is interesting to note that most people, especially women, immediately suggest that the specific examples of skills noted in the preceding text that women achieved significantly higher scores on are maternalistic in nature.

Historically, one common managerial pipeline problem women face is that many get stuck in jobs that involve human resources or public relations. These jobs rarely translate into upper management leadership opportunities. However, this research is worth noting because it may ­provide leaders the prompting for greater self-reflection.

Critical Leadership Skills, Traits, and Behaviors

In the following text is a list of critical leadership skills, traits, and behaviors essential for effective leaders. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list. Your preferences and experiences enable you to modify or add to it. These are not presented in order of importance. Your preferences and experiences will suggest some being more important than others to you. Finally, there is interdependence or overlap among these.

Effective leaders must lead by example. There have been various phrases that exemplify this concept, including “Practice what you preach”; “Put your money where your mouth is”; “Walk the walk and talk the talk”; and “Do as I say, not as I do.” When leaders do not “practice what they preach,” followers will soon follow.

Effective leaders must be personable, accessible, and highly visible. Historically, this has been referred to as management by wandering around. Although some people regard this as interference and possibly micromanaging, a leader should be personable, accessible, and visible. Leaders should go to the gemba, a Japanese term that refers to the place where value is created, namely, the factory floor. Leaders should not always rely upon written reports and verbal characterizations by others. Rather, leaders see how the system is operating with their own eyes and ask many questions in the process.

Effective leaders should possess a systems perspective. It is imperative to understand that each function of an organization, each process, even just a portion of a process makes a contribution to the system’s output. Leaders must possess a general management outlook seeing the larger picture, not just the immediate surroundings. Problem-solving skills or domain expertise lend credibility, but a systems view is more important than technical expertise. It takes contributions by engineers, accountants, human resources personnel, plant floor personnel, and many others to offer a product or a service. Optimization of a subsystem does not necessarily promote system optimization. Tweaking any portion of a transformation process causes downstream consequences.

In this day and age, it seems that not a day goes by without another world, regional, or local leader being exposed for a lack of honesty, integrity, and ethics. Needless to say, these are the foundations of leadership. Leaders are in the position of evaluating and promoting subordinates. Honesty, integrity, and ethics are vital if leaders want subordinates to ­follow. Honesty, integrity, and ethics subsequently allow leaders to build character. Character allows leaders to build trust. All of these are essential for a successful leader–subordinate relationship and are critical leadership traits.

Leaders must create the environment or culture that is conducive to achieving lean objectives. This necessitates eliminating bureaucracy and hierarchies as well as fostering entrepreneurship within a disciplined framework. Improvement requires change; bureaucracy and hierarchies stifle change. However, one must also maintain discipline for performing daily activities such as data collection and reflection of results. Lean requires comparing execution to objectives and well-developed plans and understanding successes as well as failures. Consequently, lean leaders take time and encourage the use of the Shewhart Cycle or Deming Wheel (Plan, Do, Check, Act).

A successful lean culture is led by leaders who have created a learning organization where they were first learners and then teachers. While creating the culture, leaders must individually accept the stewardship and responsibility for the transformation. These leaders must be personally committed to change and participate in the pursuit of excellence. This will facilitate the creation of a continuous improvement environment.

Lean leaders should be risk-takers, not risk avoiders. Leaders should seek out learning opportunities and problems as well as adapt to new challenges. A lean philosophy promotes improvement. In order to improve, one must first encounter opportunities to seize upon or flaws to correct. This suggests a desire to experiment in order to discover improvement. Lean leaders need courage, as sometimes chances need to be taken. Courage will enable one to consider testing the limits of a process in order to expose its weakness so it can be addressed. The culture must overcome resistance and not yield to resistance, skepticism, or reluctance, which are common in complacent organizations.

Naturally when experiments are conducted, mistakes occur. The appropriate lean culture recognizes that problems and mistakes occur. Lean leaders realize that people are not typically the problem, but rather they are the problem solvers. A prerequisite for the appropriate culture is the establishment of an atmosphere that allows problems to be brought to light sooner rather than later. An environment of trust ensues when leaders demonstrate that it is okay to make legitimate mistakes. This encourages the sharing of all problems and mistakes, which is a critical lesson: Problems and mistakes represent learning opportunities that can be shared across the organization. This serves as a significant prevention cost. The emphasis should be placed on finding and sharing solutions, instead of pointing fingers. Lean leaders should constantly encourage the “5 Whys” or the 5W2H (who, what, when, where, why, how, and how much) questions to be asked to promote a richer understanding of outcomes.

Lean leaders will understand the value of developing one’s team. Included in this process is assessing and understanding team member capabilities, providing training and mentoring when needed, as well as aligning people with their capabilities. Lean leaders may develop and position subordinates for future success by delegating and sharing decision-making authority. Lean leaders will actively share information as well as solicit and listen to subordinate opinions. Demonstrating sensitivity and empathy and acting selflessly rather than selfishly engenders support as well as an ability to motivate, engage, and inspire. Sharing information fosters communication and teamwork. As noted earlier, a participative management style raises motivation, increases readiness to accept change, improves decision quality, develops teamwork, improves morale, and further promotes individuals’ development. Praising individual and team efforts as well as supporting and rewarding efforts and success also raises motivation, increases readiness to accept change, develops teamwork, and improves morale. Leaders who are effective for long-term horizons typically do not crave the limelight. Rather, they channel their ego and ambitions into the success of their subordinates and organization. This approach pays long-term dividends.

Lean leaders must possess a process orientation. If a proper process has been designed, good results will typically follow. It is imperative to focus on variance reduction. Variability will preclude achieving the desired objectives regardless of the process effectiveness. Keep in mind, within any system, discipline and maintenance are required as these promote variance reduction. Discipline represents the adherence to a schedule; while maintenance for machines is the performance of routine preventive maintenance, for people, it is a corresponding wellness program.

Although it is important for lean leaders to possess a disciplined, ­process orientation, it is also important for leaders to have ­imaginative versatility and flexibility. A lean culture values flexibility or quick adaptation to changing needs. Unexpected outcomes occur in an environment that embraces continuous improvement. In a global environment, ­internal and external events are happening with an ever-faster pace. ­Unexpected outcomes and unforeseen events require adaption. Lean leaders must ­recognize it is necessary to depart from plans and respond to these ­unexpected outcomes and events quickly.

Similarly, lean leaders must possess a results orientation. At times, the scope of improvement projects may be too large to allow a leader to attend to many details. Projects of large scope will require leaders to allow the team to determine how to perform work. The point is to focus on results, not on how particular assignments are conducted as long as subordinates take ethical actions and follow standardized procedures. Once completed, results should be measured against planned outcomes or expectations. Prompt feedback must be provided as this allows for adjustments to be made quickly. Until consistent, verifiable results are achieved, one should measure more often in order to reduce variation. Performance metrics should allow for proactive measures, not reactive measures, to reduce variability.

Leaders must be organizationally savvy and politically connected. Strategic initiatives typically require an initial increase in resources until successful results begin. This requires leaders to be organizationally savvy and politically connected, which increases the likelihood that needed resources can be obtained.

Leaders will require negotiation and persuasion skills. Strategic initiatives are filled with diverse stakeholders and consequently diverse opinions. It is imperative leaders possess the ability to defuse conflicts.

Effective leaders must possess humility. Leaders should recognize that everyone has the capacity for learning and improvement. Leadership must allow and encourage people to ask challenging questions, even of themselves. All too often, people accept what they read and hear. We frequently do not challenge and ask questions. Those who do ask questions are sometimes seen as disruptive. Leaders who are effective for long-term horizons typically do not crave the limelight. Rather, these leaders commonly solicit constructive comments and criticisms of their own actions as this demonstrates a willingness to improve. They channel their ego and ambitions into the success of their subordinates and organization. This approach pays long-term dividends. Leaders who keep learning may be the ultimate source of sustainable competitive advantage.³⁰

Effective leaders must also possess the ability to maintain their passion. Improvement initiatives are commonly long-term propositions. Good results typically occur slowly and in small increments. Lean leaders will need stamina because sometimes failures result.

It is interesting to realize that the skills, traits, and behaviors noted in this section require leaders to utilize both left- and right-brain orientations. A right-brain orientation is generally associated with creativity, imagery, and vision. A left-brain orientation is generally associated with linearity and analysis. Leaders need both and need to know when to apply each.³¹

Poor Leadership Behaviors

Just as there are effective leadership behaviors, there are poor leadership behaviors. Although not an exhaustive list, some of the more common ineffective behaviors are noted in the text that follows.

All too often, we avoid change and prefer to cling to the past. There are various expressions, which reflect this pattern of behavior including, “That’s the way things are done around here.” Creating change is one of the most important value-added activities leaders offer.

Everyone makes mistakes. Mistakes are further compounded when people refuse to express regret or apologize. The simple reason is that those that are hurt or damaged by the mistake can more easily put it behind them once an apology is offered. It is important to look toward the future and manage what will happen rather than what has happened.

Sometime leaders have a need to win too much or to add too much value. Individuals must put team or organizational objectives before personal objectives. What is important is for the team to win, not necessarily the person. Oftentimes, adding one’s two cents simply reiterates what has already been said. There comes a time when one must simply get on with the work.

Another poor leadership behavior centers on negativity. Examples of this behavior include making destructive comments, starting with “no,” “but,” or “however” rather than saying, “You’re right.” Negativity ­simply puts up roadblocks or obstacles. Lean is about overcoming obstacles and breaking down barriers. Taiichi Ohno once noted that lean initiatives should begin from need. Whatever stops you from starting or progressing tells you what to fix first.

Another poor leadership behavior is passing judgment or telling the world just how smart we are. It is really not for us to judge as we should never be satisfied with the current reality. There is room for improvement in everyone.

Emotions cloud good judgment. A poor leadership behavior is speaking when angry. Although it is not an effective negotiation technique, withdrawal has its use when emotions run high. It is always better to allow for a cooling period when emotions can cloud perspectives.

Withholding information is another poor behavior. Eventually information is revealed and when it is, one of the first questions asked is “When did you know about this?” Surprises are typically not good. It is best to share information upon its receipt.

Finally, failing to give proper recognition or an inability to praise and reward often creates enmity. As noted earlier, effective leaders channel their ego and ambitions into the success of their subordinates and organization. This approach pays long-term dividends.

Summary

Leadership is the single most critical factor in the success or failure of lean initiatives. Lean initiatives require the contributions of a team of people pursuing common goals. These people must act in unison. It is the leadership of the organization that creates the environment, establishes the team, and conveys the message that promotes change in pursuit of these goals.

Many key elements of leadership exist. When making leadership choices, leaders must be cognizant of the following key points:

1. Understand one’s personality and how choices will work for you ­personally. At different times, different style choices are appropriate. It is imperative that the leader is able to adapt to differing styles and abide with these choices.
2. Leadership is exercising influence over group processes, shaping and framing the reality of others, and achieving a willingness of ­subordinates to comply. Leadership does require consideration for subordinates, and leaders will need to address differences among all subordinates, as each possesses varying wants, needs, and preferences.
3. At times, leadership will be a form of persuasion. It does require marketing efforts.
4. Leadership is the collection of many behaviors. It will be difficult to effectively practice all of these all the time.
5. By its nature, leadership implies a dominant–submissive or power relationship, which should not be abused. Leaders should remember the golden rule of reciprocity and treat subordinates as they would like to be treated.
6. The effectiveness of leadership style choices is dependent upon numerous intervening variables, which will make understanding outcomes confounding.
7. Leadership does require the initiation of job structure. It requires discipline, which must be coupled with subordinates possessing authority, responsibility, and accountability.
8. Leaders must possess a willingness to learn and, in turn, share the knowledge.
9. Most importantly, leadership means more than simply managing day-to-day activities. Leadership is a means to achieve goals by ­effecting change, which leads to improvement.

It is often thought that all leaders are the same and that any leader can implement strategic goals and choices. Leadership must reflect a fit with goals and strategic choices. There is no single leader for all initiatives. However, people do have the ability to learn, adapt, and to improve.