Sep 29 2014
Discipline And The Broken Windows Theory | Dumontis
“Over the last few years a lot has been written about Lean leadership. For instance about what the differences would be between Lean and traditional leadership. And what the characteristics are of a Lean leader. One of the aspects often missing, I feel, is “discipline”. I have always told my managers that they weren’t paid more because they would supposedly be more intelligent or because they studied for a longer period of time, but because I expected them to be the most disciplined in respecting standards. As without the manager’s respect – also interestingly described in the “broken windows” theory – the organization as a whole will flout its own rules.”
Source: www.dumontis.com
Is being disciplined in respecting standards truly the quality that justifies managerial pay? By this criterion, the Caine’s Captain Queeg and the Bounty’s Lt. Bligh were both excellent managers. Whatever happened to “plan, organize, control, and lead”?
Like the “Hawthorne effect” or “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs,” the broken windows theory is being accepted just because it sounds plausible, not because it is supported by experiments. Do clean walls and intact windows deter serious crime? Perhaps, but it has to be established, and the response of passers-by to flyers does not do the job.
See on Scoop.it – lean manufacturing
September 29, 2014 @ 8:13 pm
Of course, only “driving discipline”, or “being disciplined” are not the ONLY qualities required of managers and leaders. But, IMHO, effective leadership cannot exist without discipline being an integral part!
In the context of Lean, to debate “discipline”, or to delegate it down from leadership, is absurd. But that’s where I have found the challenge to exist…
So many organisations embark on a Lean journey, led by charismatic leaders who expound about all the creative aspects, the sense of adventure, etc, etc. And it all seems like the best start to a Lean transformation! Of course discipline is mentioned, emphasised even, and nobody disputes it…but in the end it is not part of the organisation’s culture. And discipline does not happen as an outcome of doing a few lean tasks…
September 30, 2014 @ 12:27 am
Michel,
I always appreciate your comments, and maybe it should be added of course that discipline is maybe necessary but not sufficient, as Patrick also indicates.
For me it is also related to the use of the word continual instead of continuous improvement. Continual means we improve and then stabilize before we move on to maybe the next standard.
In the phase of stabilize we try and respect the standard and learn from any deviations. Discipline is important here (you cannot learn from an experiment, if you do not respect the conditions you want to test, i.e., the standard).
So, IMHO, a Lean leader needs both an open mind to change the standard when required and discipline to use the standard to see where it is in need of change. So no learning w/o discipline.
Best regards, Rob
September 30, 2014 @ 4:52 am
There have been a lot more “experiments” on the broken window theory than just the one with the fliers. Any social theory is complex to prove outright but there is significant evidence of correlation of crime rates going down when communities pay attention to the general upkeep of public areas. Correlation does not mean causation so it is not definitive. I don’t think any social theory ever is.
I read Rob’s description of a disciplined manager differently than you did. Being disciplined does not equate to being a disciplinarian. I can sum up the whole article as saying, be at the gemba frequently, understand your processes, and pay attention to small variations in the process in real time as they are happening. Being disciplined to standards does not have anything to do with disciplining people. It means solving problems whenever the process is abnormal. This is fundamental and it is often lacking in front line leaders that are being pulled away to meetings and other distractions. Discipline without blame might be a way of restating it.
September 30, 2014 @ 8:41 am
The “Broken Window” can be management itself — showing symptoms of the Principal – Agent Problem: managment behaving in its own self-interest at the expense of the firm and its stakeholders. In this context, “discipline” can become the means management uses to prevent the correction needed to ensure the firm’s long-term survival — call it “toxic discipline”.
But there is also a good form of discipline where it involves, in the two cases below, a leader who sets a new ethos, a new culture, that turns a Principal-Agent Problem in to a Principal-Agent Partnership.
Here are two examples of when a leader takes over organizations whose managers are the “Broken Window” and change the culture for the better.
At a talk given at Brown University, Allan Mulally, then head of the development team of the Boeing Dream Liner, spoke of the change in the nature of management and leadership. When he became head he made it clear that fear, intimidation, and policing, were methods that no longer worked and were no longer going to part of a manager’s repertoire. E.g. “discipline” of the old kind were no longer welcome. The managers who couldn’t let go of that, were helped to find firms elsewhere. (Mind you, it didn’t escape the audience that this, also is a form of using force…) So what drove him to take this rather radical step? “A modern plane is several million parts flying in perfect formation. These parts are made in dozens of countries, by hundreds of firms, assembled by thousands…you can not *police* in quality! Most workers are experts who *want* to do a good job! The challenge for management is to *help* them know what their part is of the bigger whole and help them achieve it.”
To that end, Mulally also instituted a better and more truthful project metrics/ reporting approach.
About 10% of the managers left Boeing, and the Dream Liner Project, at least for a while until Mulally left for a Ford CEO-ship, doing better.
New York City Police Commissioner Bill Bratton used the “Broken Windows” in a manner similar to Mulally, to change the incentive/ accountability system for precinct police department chiefs. There, too, a shift happened to make the police more accountable to its stakeholders the citizens, and by knitting the police force from a patchwork of local precincts into a system through the use more truthful reporting/metrics, to focus on what really worked and what didn’t. Just as with Mulally at Boeing, most front-line police want to do a good job, and the challenge for leadership/management is show them the part of the bigger whole and help them achieve it.
Thus, in both cases the “discipline” involved the leader addressing and following through on reforms to correct the Principal-Agent Problem, and to create a self-sustaining culture that would continue to make sure that problem didn’t resurface.
September 30, 2014 @ 9:38 am
I take the broken windows theory as saying specifically that focusing on small crimes and vandalism in an urban area acts as a prevention of serious crime. With this in mind, I can’t figure out what you mean when you say “the ‘Broken Window’ may be management itself.”
It is always tricky to transplant one approach from one application domain to another, but the motivation to attempt it is unclear unless the approach is a proven success in its original domain.
October 2, 2014 @ 4:36 am
It is important to emphasize “discipline” at all levels in today’s business world of instant gratification, but many aspects of Lean promote anecdotal evidence coupled with qualitative, feel good approaches. Excellent organizations always fall back on the “4 Ds”: Disciplined Decisions Driven by Data. Leaders are often tempted to write the check and delegate improvement to the ranks, but without leader engagement, any gains are not sustainable.