This may be a blinding flash of the obvious, but while leaders typically work hard, it’s a different type of work. Most leaders are engaged in a lot of firefighting. We need less of that and more work on ensuring process adherence and performance with more coaching and development. That’s where lean management systems, of which leader standard work is a major element, come into play.
The interesting thing is that leaders don’t necessarily like to do leader standard work. Implementing can be like pulling teeth. Why? Well, it requires a change in behavior, there is more rigor (when compared to the lots of meetings and fire fighting work style), there is a new level of transparency and accountability and there is the need to engage, coach, and sometimes confront others. Let’s explore these things a bit.
Rigor
Most leaders have no problem with other people doing standard work. However, often their tune changes when it’s required of them.
Leader standard work specifies audit points and (sometimes) tasks. The audit points specify where and when in the value stream the leader must physically go, what they must check and the normal condition that they seek to verify with the aid of effective visual controls. This is a major part of their standardize-do-check-act (SDCA) role. The time spent executing leader standard work varies depending upon the leader’s level and role within the organization. For example, a supervisor may dedicate as much as 50+% of their day on leader standard work, while a value stream manager may spend 15% of their day.
A lean leader’s standard work, among other things, may require him to check a particular work cell once in the morning and once in the afternoon to ensure that the workers are maintaining their plan vs. actual chart (usually by hour), and that specific and meaningful reasons for any shortfalls are documented. The lean leader may also be required to initial and write the time of their review on the chart as proof that they conducted this part of their leader standard work.
Transparency and Accountability
As in any lean environment, secrets are a bad thing. We want to be problem solvers, not problem hiders.
At the conclusion of a lean leader’s day (by a specified time), the leader should be required to insert their completed leader standard work form within a designated clear bin or sleeve posted in a prominent place. Their name and leader standard work deadline should be on the bin along with a red flag (or something suitably obnoxious) behind the bin, so that it is quite obvious who has met the deadline and who has not.
Similarly, on a daily basis, the next level leader should peruse the submitted leader standard work for completion, identified abnormal conditions and sufficiency of recorded countermeasures to address the abnormal conditions. The next level leader would do well to note certain things, for example patterns of incomplete audits, recurring abnormal conditions (guess we’re not getting at the root cause), lack of abnormal conditions (are we really being rigorous in our audits?), etc. and then coach their subordinates as required. Coaching can often be done in the context of one-on-one gemba walks.
Engagement, Coaching, and Confrontation
Guess what? If the application of the leader standard work requires us to go the gemba and make direct observations specific to conditions around process adherence and process performance, then there are going to be plenty of opportunities for genuine investigation, coaching and sometimes confrontation.
We always want to live the lean principle of respect for the individual. That is why when we encounter an abnormal condition we should ask why (5X). Our countermeasures and coaching should follow suit - a worker’s lack of process performance due to a shortfall in training is handled much differently than if it is due to a decided case of worker apathy.
It sounds like a lot of work, but this powerful means of SDCA is worth it! What’s your experience been implementing leader standard work?
Related posts: Stretch, Don’t Break – 5 ways to grow your people, Leader Standard Work – You can pay me now, or you can pay me later
Or by email
Ask a question here 
#1 by Evan Durant on February 26th, 2010
Quote
Mark,
Outstanding post. I’ve become a huge proponent of leader standard work and seen tremendous benefits from it. What I’ve found is that to really get over the hump you have to convince leaders that this is not actually extra work but rather a different and better way to accomplish the same goals they’re already working on. It takes time for some leaders to realize that the rigors and discipline of leader standard work actually prevent the firefighting that always seems to get in the way of performing the standard work. A couple big wins can really help to break the cycle.
#2 by markrhamel on February 27th, 2010
Quote
Hi Evan,
Thanks for the comment. Yes, you’re absolutely right. Those who are new to leader standard work are usually very skeptical. They see it as additional work and don’t really grasp (or believe) that it is a way to ensure that the “systems” that have been put in place actually are being followed and are performing. In the end, leader standard work reduces much of the firefighting, helps sustain improvements and helps create a lean culture.
Best regards,
Mark
#3 by Brian Buck on March 1st, 2010
Quote
Great post Mark,
I love the line “We want to be problem solvers, not problem hiders.”
I have been wondering how do you begin to make a case for leadership standard work? What would the problem statement be or what is the measurable outcome expected?
I know there is a TON of literature supporting leadership standard work but it seems like we are asking for a leap of faith for them. I know it is a best practice but have never heard WHY it is.
I am of the mind that change management is easier with front line staff than it is with leadership!
#4 by markrhamel on March 1st, 2010
Quote
Hi Brian,
Excellent question and excellent points. I think the case for leader standard work is “simply” sustainability of improvements and establishing a culture of accountability of continuous improvement. Systems that are so dependent upon human action and support naturally degrade (humans are fallable creatures). Leaders therefore need to add standardize-do-check-act (SDCA) to their daily activities (think of Imaii’s “maintenance” within his famous kaizen schematic) in order to ensure that processes and systems work, that new standard work is followed, etc. It’s NOT like the infomercial, “Just set it and forget it.”
So, the gain is in the process adherence and performance that SDCA facilitates. It’s not real sexy, which may be a reason why leadership may not really seem to engage in it…unless of course, their own leader demands it.
Best regards,
Mark
#5 by Daniel Markovitz on March 3rd, 2010
Quote
Mark,
This is my first time on your blog. (Thanks, John Hunter!) I love this post, because it ties in so well with something that I preach all the time: the need to “live in your calendar, not in your inbox.” Working from the calendar drives a leader towards standard work, while working from the inbox drives a leader to fire-fighting. After all, if all you do is work off the most recent email, by definition you’re dealing with yesterday’s problems. You’re not looking ahead, trying to improve the system to *avoid* the problems.
#6 by markrhamel on March 3rd, 2010
Quote
Hi Daniel,
That’s a great way to look at it – “live in your calendar, not in your inbox.” That should resonate with a lot of leaders. The rigor of leader standard work forces meaningful and timely engagement at the gemba. It also “informs” the daily accountability process where much of the daily kaizen opportunities can be identified, discussed, assigned and followed-up on.
My thanks to you for your comment and John Hunter as well!
Best regards,
Mark