Why do CEOs support Lean when they have little interest in Lean?
In the 36 years that Lean has been around, many top business leaders have shown support for Lean management to varying degrees. Their support leads others — employees, consultants, trainers, and the organizations that promote Lean management — to conclude that Lean is important to business leaders. What is the tangible evidence that exists to indicate top business leaders are truly interested in Lean management? It can include:
- They talk about Lean
- They pay for Lean trainers and consultants
- They may read some books about Lean
- They may attend Lean conferences
- They may do gemba walks
But how do you know CEOs’ interest in Lean is real; how do you know it is genuine and not a façade? How do you know they are not simply following the herd of other CEOs, or following the latest business trend, or that they simply are concerned about what other people will think of them if they don’t show an interest in Lean?
CEOs are known to be highly skilled talkers. They are also known to say a lot of things that they do not really mean and tailor their words to specific audiences. And they express boundless optimism and confidently imply that success is preordained even when the facts suggest otherwise. How does one account for the gap between CEOs’ apparent interest in Lean and the fact that very few companies have actually made the transition from classical management to Lean management? Let’s look at this problem from the perspective of “preference falsification“, which is defined as:
The act of misrepresenting one’s genuine wants [and beliefs or interests] under perceived social pressures. – Timur Kuran
When a CEO publicly says things that they do not truly believe — such as the importance of Lean management — they are telling a lie, one that hides their private truth about the matter in question. The effect of preference falsification is to conceal information, the CEOs true view of Lean, and in doing so mislead people into thinking that Lean is important to the CEO when it is not. Why would they do such a thing? Because they are immersed in social contexts that demand conformance even though it does not truly reflect their preference.
Sure, CEOs will listen to the Lean promoters, talk at a Lean conference, or kindly accept a Lean book from a subordinate, but in private they might ignore what the Lean promoters say, be annoyed that they have to talk at a Lean conference (see it as a waste of time), or toss the Lean book they were given into the garbage because the CEO sees it as irrelevant to their job.
Preference falsification conceals the opposition to Lean that resides below the surface of the public lie. A CEO may publicly talk a lot about eliminating waste, teamwork, respect, creativity, developing people, etc., yet privately they just want employees to carry out the orders that the CEO gives. Likewise, employees may talk a lot about eliminating waste, teamwork, respect, creativity, developing people, etc., yet privately many or most of them may prefer that the CEO just issue clear orders for them to carry out. That would be so much easier, and the CEO would probably agree. But that does not happen. In both cases, the gap between public lies and private truths are the result of social pressure to conform to prevailing norms or expectations in order to avoid judgment, to avoid disapproval, or to burnish one’s image.
Everyone is susceptible to social pressures with the exception of heterodox thinkers, misfits, dissidents, nonconformists, and the like. These are the people who resist social pressure to conform to prevailing norms or expectations. They are willing to be judged and face disapproval where most others are not. Their image or reputation is not a concern. Yet, while many people will privately agree with the nonconformists, they will publicly disagree due to social pressure and a strong desire to avoid criticism from their peers. People choose the safe harbor of political precaution. This is especially true for CEOs, as they are more politicians than business people.
I see preference falsification all the time in the nonconformist work that I do. For most people, including many CEOs, the private truth is that they like my work, yet only a small group of people (my fellow “misfits”) will publicly state their appreciation for my work. The majority of people publicly express their disdain for my work due to social pressure and to maintain alignment with their peers or their preserve their relationship with top Lean community leaders. In doing so, they conceal information — their true feelings as well as my work — that would otherwise be beneficial to the Lean community at-large. A minority, it is true, both privately and publicly dislike my work. While they do not falsify their preference, most people see them to be in error due to closed-mindedness and emotional overreaction.
“The act of misrepresenting one’s wants under perceived social pressures” has the effect of manipulating the perception that others have about the subject under consideration. Society views CEOs as being people whose responsibility is to do all they can to improve the performance of the business. Lean management is one such route for doing so. But, from a public perception viewpoint, CEOs can appear to be in favor of Lean while doing little to ensure its successful practice, and they may even sabotage internal Lean efforts. The private truth is that they greatly prefer classical management.
Lean is a socio-technical management system. Most CEO’s will gladly accept the technical aspects of Lean, the so-called “Lean tools, but not the social aspects because doing so would incur criticism from their peers. As a consequence, CEOs’ preference falsification creates a significant barrier to changing the social construction of the company. The outcome is to maintain the status quo in terms of hierarchy, authority (power), status, rights, and privileges. This confers very important reputational benefits for CEOs and assures no loss of status or prestige from their peer group.
The consequence of preference falsification in Lean world, like in most other arenas, is that it generates many problems: miscommunication, unclear expectations, confusion, delays, rework, waste of resources, intellectual atrophy, closed-mindedness, and loss of imagination. Perhaps most importantly, people are not willing to challenge the status quo and do not comprehend the problems caused by perpetuating the status quo. The status quo is an equilibrium position in a dynamic business environment that, sooner or later, is unforgiving of equilibrium.
Despite that, CEOs prefer the social status quo and are sensitive to that which has the potential to alter or destroy the time-honored traditions that they ardently believe are worth preserving now and for future generations of business leaders. So when Lean comes along, and after they learn a bit about it, their private thoughts are likely as follows:
The technical aspects of Lean management have some merit, but it seems subversive in its mission to cure the perceived social ills of business. I see some value in the Lean tools for the workers, but that’s about all.
And so begins CEOs’ preference falsification — private opposition to Lean. The aphorism, “appearances can be deceiving” has not been worthy of reflection in the 36 years of Lean’s existence. Top Lean promoters continue to be fooled by business leaders’ preference falsifications.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice [or more], shame on me.