May 8 2013
This “respect for people stuff”
The following two-minute dialogue between Jeffrey Liker and British consultant John Seddon has caused a stir in the US, primarily for Seddon’s saying “…all this respect for people stuff is horseshit…”
Note: For a video of the full 45-minute session from which it is excerpted, see Panel discussion – Lean Ísland 2012 (08). The third participant in the conversation, the woman sitting between Jeffrey Liker and John Seddon is Yr Gunnarsdottir.
While dramatically stated, Seddon’s point is actually not that controversial. If you listen closely, he says that respect for people is not a “point of intervention,” meaning not a subject for which you bring in consultants or start projects. Mark Graban pointed out that he had never seen a company have a respect-for-people project, and I never have either. In his comments on Graban’s post, Rob van Stekelenborg writes “Still, more and more often I notice, Lean is attempted primarily as a leadership and a formalized (thru methods), bottom-up continual improvement effort without much attention for the strong industrial engineering roots it also has.” While I agree with Rob, I am not sure this is what Seddon meant.
Digging deeper, the following paragraphs quote some of my preferred authors/bloggers on the subject, with my own comments added:
- Jeffrey Liker on Taiichi Ohno’s people skills
- Art Smalley on the meaning of respect for people
- Mark Graban on Toyota, Respect for People, and Lean
- Rob van Stekelenborg on teaching respect for people
Contents
Jeffrey Liker on Taiichi Ohno’s people skills
The video starts with Seddon asking Liker to rate Taiichi Ohno’s people skills in a short answer, and Liker answers “terrible.” I would not have answered that. By whatever means he accomplished it, Ohno got thousands of people to work with him to develop and deploy the Toyota Production System, and it makes him only one in a long line of effective business leaders, sports coaches, and military commanders who don’t ooze charm from every pore.
My understanding of people skills is as the art of working with, through, and for other people and that the degree to which a person possesses these skills is measured not by their manners but by their achievements. Some of Ohno’s statements on people issues are surprising. Ohno’s open bursts of anger were not due to lack of self-control but were on purpose, as he explains on p. 93 of Workplace Management:
“I never get angry at the workers. However, with supervisors and above I will get very angry. The gemba is a convenient place to get angry at people. There is a lot of noise so they can’t really hear what l am saying. When I scold the supervisors on the gemba, the workers see that their boss is being yelled at and they sympathize with their boss.
Then it becomes easier for that supervisor to correct the workers. lf you call the supervisor away to a dark corner somewhere to scold him, the message does not get through. The gemba is a noisy place anyway, so if l am yelling at them and the person being scolded doesn’t really know why they are being scolded, this is okay. However, when the workers see their boss being scolded and they think it is because they are not doing something right, then the next time the supervisor corrects them, they will listen.”
For a higher-level manager never to scold workers is consistent with standard management practice going back to Sun-Tsu. On the other hand, that you should publicly scold supervisors for no particular reason in front of their subordinates to generate sympathy and make it easier for supervisors to do their jobs is a strange idea. I have never done it, nor have I ever recommended it. In the plants I am familiar with, sympathy for supervisors among operators is in short supply, and a public scolding would do nothing more than undermine their limited authority.
Yet, I don’t think Ohno would write this unless it had worked for him as a manager at Toyota. As he explains, he was trained to praise in public and criticize in private, but he did the opposite on purpose. Had he failed, you could use this practice as evidence of terrible people skills, but he didn’t fail.
Art Smalley on the meaning of respect for people
Back in 2010, Art Smalley gave a detailed explanation of what respect for people means in the Toyota context, as he experienced it while working there. In a recent post on the ISPI conference in Reno, I wrote “Lean relies on people to improve operations, provides them with safe and secure jobs, and supports their professional development as a strategy for the company to gain market share, enhance profits, and grow.” While it was not my intention, I think it summarizes Art’s points.
Art also quoted the following excerpt from a TWI Job Relations training manual from World War II as evidence that it is not a new concern:
But we can dig further. In The Visible Hand, p. 69, Alfred Chandler quotes British textile expert James Montgomery writing in 1832, that “To assure good feeling and understanding, while guarding against too much lenity (modern: leniency) on the one hand, to be careful to avoid too much severity on the other, […] be firm and decisive in all measures, but not overbearing and tyrannical — not too distant and haughty, but affable and easy of access, yet not too familiar.”
In other words, since the industrial revolution, advisers have been telling manufacturers that it was good business to show respect to their employees, but few have acted on this advice. Taylor’s “scientific management” went in the opposite direction, and so did Ford in its early assembly lines. It could be explained by the prevalence of immigrants from many different countries with limited education in the manufacturing work force of early 20th century America. But in California 100 years later, Injex was using TPS to make auto parts for Toyota with great success and a workforce with 19 different nationalities and varied levels of education and English proficiency.
Mark Graban on Toyota, Respect for People, and Lean
On 2/26, Mark Graban wrote an extensive rebuttal of Seddon, to which I had also added the following:
In concrete terms, I have found disrespect easier to explain than respect. For example, giving a person a job that requires doing nothing 50% of the time is saying “your time is worthless,” and therefore “you are worthless.” Many managers do not realize how disrespectful this attitude is, particularly where labor is cheap.
Ignoring complaints about minor safety issues, like sharp edges on a cart, is also showing disrespect. There are many such issues that must be addressed before asking people to participate in improvement and contribute ideas. The Frank Woollard quote in Bob Emiliani’s comment explains why you should pay respect to your people. It’s not about being nice. In the long run, you cannot compete unless your organization fires on all intellectual cylinders.
Frank Woollard was a British industrial engineer in the 1920s, and Bob Emiliani’s quoted him saying:
“This principle of ‘benefit for all’ is not based on altruistic ideals – much as these are to be admired – but upon the hard facts of business efficiency.”
In his article, Mark includes a photo of an exhibit at the Toyota museum, that contains the following text:
It is in English, Japanese, and Mandarin, but the titles have slightly different meanings. The Japanese title means “Respect for Humanity,” not “Respect for People,” and the Mandarin title means “People-oriented.” To be even more specific, in Japanese, ningensei (人間性) means humanity in the sense of human nature, not humankind, which would be jinrui (人類).
On the other hand, the English paragraph is an accurate translation from the Japanese and clarifies the difference in the titles. Saying “please” and “thank you” is showing respect for people, but it does not imply any consideration for their specifically human sensory, intellectual and cognitive abilities.
I don’t know what the paragraph in Mandarin says, but it is visibly shorter than the other two. Mandarin is concise, but not this concise.
Rob van Stekelenborg on teaching respect for people
Rob van Stekelenborg, blogging as Dumontis, also posted on this subject, introducing the new word “resp-act.” What Rob does here is go beyond general statements and give examples of how to show respect for people in situations involving suppliers, customers, or employees.
After all the theorizing on the true meaning of respect for people, it remains a vague and fuzzy guideline for anyone on a shop floor today and tomorrow, and what Rob does to bring it into focus reminds me of the Critical Incident Technique I heard about from Steven Villachica at the ISPI conference.
May 8, 2013 @ 4:45 pm
Perhaps the gentleman was implying that Respect for People was the fertilizer that built great plants.
May 8, 2013 @ 4:49 pm
I think this is an extremely unfortunate statement that should be given little respect. I don’t care what Ohno’s people skills were. Respect for people means listening to your people. It means a system that enables them to solve problems because they are given information and involved in daily or weekly problem solving. It is a false dichotomy to say “this is the system” and this is “respect for people” as if they were two completely separate things. At Honda and other companies they demonstrate respect for people every day and that is built into the system. To say that this is a Western management interpretation is nonsense. Much of what is inherent in TPS is derived from Western sources. What Seddon is doing is filtering his understand through his own prejudices. Heaven help the company that listens to his advice.
May 8, 2013 @ 4:55 pm
One other point: While Ohno made a great contribution and developed a great system (along with Shingo) neither he, nor Henry Ford, nor Jack Welch, are Jesus Christ. In other words they are mortal human beings with faults, like you and me. Ohno’s explanation about why he yelled at supervisors is simply stupid! Demonstrating disrespect or disregard for your supervisors is not more justified than demonstrating disrespect for your workers, your children or your wife. It is a clear fault, an error on his part, and that simply demonstrates his imperfection as a human being.
May 8, 2013 @ 6:40 pm
When I compare Taiichi Ohno’s Workplace Management with his other book, The Toyota Production System, I just cannot believe that the two have the same author. The Toyota Production System feels as if it has been thoroughly vetted and edited — if not ghostwritten — by a public relations department. Reading Workplace Management, you feel as if you are having a no-holds barred conversation around a few beers with a live human being.
And Ohno says the darnedest things! When I first read the paragraph about scolding supervisors, I reacted as you did. It just made no sense. But I am sure that, in the fledgling factories of Toyota in the 1950s and 60s, in the boondocks of Aichi prefecture, with a work force of young men from the farms at a middle-school education level, he experienced what he describes.
We also have to be careful about the cultural meaning of behaviors. You may have heard some Japanese consultants referred to as “insultants.” In Japan, you are excruciatingly polite to strangers and, at work, with people you think are hopeless. And you don’t waste anything of value on them. On the other hand, you are blunt and direct with your inner circle, and, at work, with people you think have a high potential.
I know how strange it sounds, but, in this context, a supervisor who does not get scolded may worry about being passed over and one who does may be reassured that the boss has not given up on him.
May 12, 2013 @ 7:53 am
Hi Michel, your interpretation is spot on. Thanks!
May 8, 2013 @ 7:00 pm
Michel, that all makes a lot of sense. Taking comments out of an understanding of their cultural context is always dangerous. Dr. Deming also said some outrageous things and some thing that were just flat out wrong! But… he made the contribution he made, and that is what’s important.
May 9, 2013 @ 5:48 am
Michel – thanks for the compilation of posts and links. Thanks also for the comparison of the English and Japanese text. Very interesting. I’ve heard Toyota people refer to this as “respect for humanity,” which means, among other things, understanding that people are not robots and cannot be expected to be perfect (this is an important lesson in healthcare).
While a standalone “respect for people program” would be silly and I’ve never seen such a thing (we need broader Lean concepts and methods), I think RFP needs to be a foundation for everything we do, much the same way as Safety needs to be a foundation not a program.
So, I reject the Seddon notion that respect for people is horseshit. It’s not a program, but we can choose our behaviors and therefore I would describe acting respectfully as an intervention of sorts.
If I were in Liker’s shoes, I would have answered, “I don’t know, I never met Ohno, have you?”
We can speculate all we want about his people skills. I’ve heard Masaaki Imai (who met Ohno, of course) say that factory workers would say “Here comes Mr. Oh, No!” — that might have been out of fear or just a playful expression (one that might not make sense in Japanese, even).
Thanks for sharing the direct comparisons from the different books. It’s always good to revisit that source material.
May 9, 2013 @ 7:38 am
On a side-note, I fell impelled to pass along a reference to an excellent article in the Institute for Industrial Engineer’s monthly magazine (November 2011): “Exonerating Frederick Taylor” by Jesse W. Brogan (opening paragraphs):
“Frederick Taylor’s 1911 paper ‘The Principles of Scientific Management’ is accepted as the first major statement of industrial engineering. But in the century since its publication, the myth of ‘Taylorism’ has arisen. This myth considers Taylor’s work a major cause for dehumanizing the workplace. This myth comes from those who judge Taylor’s work by reputation, instead of looking at what he taught in his writings. Although the myth conflicts with what Taylor wrote, it is strong enough to be presented commonly to industrial engineering students.
“In reality, Taylor dealt with each worker as an individual. He actively encouraged a manager’s positive personal interaction with each worker. Impersonality in the workplace comes from sources other than Taylor.”
May 9, 2013 @ 7:42 am
It’s hard to judge somebody 100 years after the fact. Taylor also wrote, his own words, that many manual workers were “stupid.” This certainly implies that Taylor, the expert, had to figure out the work for the workers. That’s a very different mindset than modern Lean.
From Frederick Winslow Taylor on ‘Scientific Management’:
“Now, one of the very first requirements for a man who is fit to handle pig iron as a regular occupation is that he shall be so stupid and so phlegmatic that he more nearly resembles in his mental make-up the ox than any other type … Therefore the workman who is best suited to handling pig iron is unable to understand the real science of doing this class of work. He is so stupid that the word ‘percentage’ has no meaning to him, and he must consequently be trained by a man more intelligent than himself into the habit of working in accordance with the laws of this science before he can be successful … If Schmidt had been allowed to attack the pile of 47 tons of pig iron without the guidance or direction of a man who understood the art, or science, of handling pig iron, in his desire to earn high wages he would have tired himself out by 11 or 12 o’clock in the day.”
May 9, 2013 @ 8:24 am
A goal explicitly stated by Taylor’s, in Shop Management, was to prevent “soldiering,” by which he meant collusion among workers to curtail output. In his explanations, the purpose of time studies is to know how long each job should take so that you can prevent workers from taking longer. His model for compensating workers was the differential piece rate, in which a worker would get paid more for every piece if he exceeded a production quota.
In his career, Taylor made substantial contributions, but managing workers based on respect for their humanity was not one of them. This is particularly clear when you compare Taylor’s work with that of Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, as documented, for example, in The Original Films of Frank Gilbreth. The Gilbreths’ work was not about policing workers but about improving productivity by making the work easier.
May 12, 2013 @ 7:01 am
All: Read the article I referenced earlier for a totally different view of Taylor’s work…
May 12, 2013 @ 6:09 pm
A few of the volumes of my REAL LEAN book series look back in detail at Taylor’s work and writings. Fischer’s citation of Brogan’s analysis is accurate.
I suggest that folks read Taylor’s extensive 1913 testimony to the U.S. Congress, which is his clearest explanation of the Scientific Management System, and in which he expresses views consist with the “Respect for People” principle.
On page 191, he said: “It ceases to be scientific management
the moment it is used for bad” in the context of zero-sum outcomes for people (especially workers).
Similarly, it ceases to be Lean management the moment it is used for bad, likewise in the context of zero-sum outcomes for people (especially workers).
See F.W. Taylor, Scientific Management: Comprising Shop Management, Principles of Scientific Management, Testimony Before the House Committee, Foreword by Harlow S. Person, Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York, NY, 1947
Phone number: 8605587367
May 15, 2013 @ 1:13 pm
Having just read Brogan’s paper, courtesy of Wayne, as well as, a while back, the book Bob Emiliani quoted, and Robert Kanigel’s biography of Taylor, “The One Best Way,” I still fault Taylor for lack of respect for workers’ humanity, no matter what he said in congressional testimonies.
This being said, I still think Taylor should be recognized for several contributions, including some that are purely engineering:
He should not be demonized, but he should not be idealized either.
May 9, 2013 @ 2:41 pm
I have been curious as to what was meant exactly in the discussion by “The system is 95%; the people 5%.” What system are we talking about, and percentages of what quantity?
Seddon refers frequently to Deming, and I believe he uses “system” in the same sense as Deming, as the source of common-cause variability. As Deming explains it in Out of the Crisis (pp. 317-318), the system is the physical and organizational context of each person’s work, so that it varies with each individual.
This context is called a system rather than an environment because it is conceived by people and can be changed by people. By contrast, a mountain climber on a wall would not call it a system because it is natural and he has no power to change it.
It begs the question of what you mean by “the system” of an organization, independent of any individual. Logically, it is the intersection of all the individuals’ systems, which contains everything about the organization except for the individuals themselves.
“The system” therefore includes:
Problems have common causes if they are inherent in the routine operation of the system, and common causes are eliminated by improving the system. They have special causes if they can be trace to a mistake by an individual or to an event that is outside the realm of what the system is intended to handle.
Deming gives the surprisingly precise assessment that 94% of the problems are due to the system and 6% have special causes. But Deming does not bother explaining what quantity it is 94% of. It could number of problem reports or total losses caused by these problems. But it doesn’t really matter: what he is saying is that the overwhelming majority is due to common causes and can only be fixed by changing the system.
May 10, 2013 @ 4:58 am
I don’t know the basis for 94/6 other than Dr. Deming’s experience and gut feel. It certainly can’t be proven. You’re right that the point is the overwhelming percentage of problems or defects are due to the system in which we work.
I was at a Lean IT conference last week where some people challenged whether 94/6 only applied to factory settings, where the workers had relatively less individual control over their work compared to software developers. The same question could be asked about doctors and surgeons who have a lot of autonomy.
Good question, hard to answer.
Most managers, especially in healthcare, would generally assume that 94% of errors are due to the individual, which is probably not true in a complex system like a hospital.
May 9, 2013 @ 4:21 pm
I think the understanding of organizational systems is something that is not strong among most lean managers or consultants. This is a field where a lot of work has been done by people like Russell Ackoff, Fred Emery, Eric Trist, etc. I think a good beginning is to understand that there are three major subsystem in any organization, each of which can be analyzed, improved, and aligned to the others. These are the technical system (the flow of the work, equipment, etc.); the social system (everything about people including hiring, skills, organization, decision making, reinforcement, etc.); and the too often ignored economic system (the flow of money from input to output and the economic value of activities along the value chain.)
I suspect the Seddon was speaking about the technical system, although he didn’t say. But, the social system is totally interdependent with the technical system and arguing that one is more important than another is about as sensible as arguing that the cardiovascular system is more important than the respiratory system. They are completely depend on each other. If one fails you are dead, either way!
What bothers me about the little video clip is Seddon’s style. His dismissive manner and apparent endorsement of autocrat leadership behavior is flat out dangerous because some fool manager is going to watch that and say “see, I’m just like Ohno, a real SOB! And, it must be just fine.” Well, its not fine. Not if you want to have good people working for you because they have better options than to work for a jerk! It would be like someone saying “Well MLK plagiarized, therefore it is OK if I plagiarize.” Or, “Kennedy and Clinton had affairs, it must be OK if I do the same.” Wrong! And, wrong if you behavior like Ohno.
May 9, 2013 @ 4:39 pm
Yeah, I’m not sophisticated enough to know what a “point of intervention” is or isn’t.
I am smart enough to know that we shouldn’t excuse autocratic assholes in this day and age just because they get results.
Leaders at all levels (and employees) can CHOOSE to act respectfully… those actions often being driven by whether they actually hold the needs and views of others before their own.
To hold up somebody’s behavior from 50 years ago as something to somehow be admired because, “well, they got results” is a strange approach to modern management.
May 9, 2013 @ 5:35 pm
You are too humble.
We don’t have to go back 50 years. Until Steve Jobs died, based on his reputation and personal communication from people who had worked with him, I thought of him as a neurotic, selfish, autocratic asshole… And, on top of that, he had outsourced all manufacturing.
Reflecting after he died, I realized the enormity of his contributions. Of course, we can never know whether he would have done a better job if he had chosen to act respectfully. It seems, however, that his intransigence and stubbornness were instrumental in pushing technology farther than anyone thought possible.
And thousands of people followed his leadership. And he got results.
May 9, 2013 @ 7:42 pm
“I am smart enough to know that we shouldn’t excuse autocratic assholes in this day and age just because they get results.”
Amen! And, in the end they won’t get results. They inevitably get short term results and their best people leave them. Getting results today means getting the best from people, their creativity, their initiative, etc. And, that is the result of a good system and good personal behavior on the part of managers.
May 9, 2013 @ 10:54 pm
What I am trying to do is look past the style at the substance of what is being said. Maybe John Seddon is haughty, or maybe it is just has an accent and mannerisms that make him sound that way to us yanks. I don’t know and I don’t care.
This is a man I didn’t know before, who has been consulting as long as I have. I would like to give him credit for speaking with no ulterior motive, based on his own experience. And I would like to completely understand what he is saying and where it is coming from before judging it.
Any approach can be misapplied. I remember a company that had unfailingly courteous managers who made employees feel respected, right up to the day they laid off 1/3 of them. Straight talk may be neither pleasant to give nor to receive, and it can be mistaken for brutality, but it beats happy talk.
May 9, 2013 @ 7:47 pm
Michel, about Steve Jobs. I have a friend who was employee #1 of Apple who introduced Jobs to Wozniak. He is still there. There is the first incarnation of Jobs, before he left and formed NEXT; and his resurrection, his second incarnation. Most of the stories of his outlandish behavior are from his first incarnation. He was clearly immature and inexperienced in managing people and it cost him dearly. In his second round he was still demanding and he still had the “feel” for product innovation, but he relied heavily on teams to get the work done and was much more respectful toward his people. People were loyal to him because they both saw his genius and they saw how he had personally grown.
May 9, 2013 @ 7:50 pm
Interesting, Larry. We still don’t know if Apple will be successful “in the long term” (over what time horizon)? Can the company thrive in a post-Jobs era? If Apple fails, people will say “see, I told you Jobs was a genius!” or you could say “well, he failed because he didn’t set them up for the future”.
May 9, 2013 @ 8:10 pm
What I think is that we don’t even need to talk about respect at all. It should be a prerequisite. So basic, nobody needs to demand respect to others, but as that is not the case, enterprises need to say something about it. And they mention respect in their mottos, strategy and so on, as it was something really difficult to achieve. About Ohno, I think it was so long ago, and in line with his time (maybe advanced. You can see now some managers scolding people in front of others). Nevertheless, I sympathize with being kind with the rest of the employees and being tough on managers. They are supposed to coordinate and manage people to provide results to the organization (obviously, not being rude or disrespectful). Another side comment: I don’t think you need to use a balance to carefully manage respect and results, I think they are generally good companions.
May 9, 2013 @ 8:19 pm
Mark, Can I be a failure like Steve Jobs? Please? I once worked for an all pro NFL quarterback. He said someone called him a “has been” to which he replied, “I’d rather be a has been than a never was!”
I am not sold on the idea that the measure of greatness is eternal life. I think many companies have a time when they make a great contribution and then their time is past. Maybe they just become another electronic gadget company. But… is that so bad? They have done great things and if we do one great thing in our lives… we’re lucky!
May 10, 2013 @ 4:59 am
Another thought about Ohno yelling at supervisors. There are many stories about Dr. Deming going through a factory and first talking to (listening to) front line workers, to whom he would be very kind. Then, he’d challenge the supervisor a bit. Then, challenge the next level manager some more… then, he’d read the riot act to the senior leaders.
May 10, 2013 @ 5:34 am
Mark, I attended large meeting with Dr. Deming. When he walked up to the podium he didn’t look at the audience, just stared at his notes. Then he looked up and said “Well, I don’t know why you think you’re here. But, you’re here to be scolded!” And, the then proceeded with a 45 minute scolding. The odd thing was that the entire audience was made up of change agents working to improve things. The other odd thing was that while talking about quality, he had one overhead projected that was a yellowed, small typed sheet with his 14 points, which you could barely read. So, people are a paradox and no one demonstrates all virtues. We take from each person what is of value and leave the rest behind.
"Respect for People" and "The System" - Management Meditations
May 10, 2013 @ 7:48 am
[…] Michel Baudin, a fellow blogger and author, posted a video link of a panel discussion that included Jeffrey Liker (The Toyota Way, Toyota Leadership) in which British consultant John Seddon makes the comment that “This respect for people stuff is horse shit.” Seddon argues that what leads to improvement is the system and not an intervention to respect or deal better with the people. On Michel’s blog there then followed what I think was an interesting exchange on the subject between Michel, Mark Graban and myself. […]
May 10, 2013 @ 7:51 am
Michel, I just wrote a blog post linking to this one but elaborating on the idea of designing respect for people into the system. If I wrote it all here, it would be too long for a comment. But, you might find it interesting: http://www.lmmiller.com/blog/2013/05/10/organization-design-and-process-improvement/respect-for-people-and-the-system/.
May 10, 2013 @ 12:36 pm
Comment in the Lean & Kaizen discussion group on LinkedIn:
May 10, 2013 @ 12:44 pm
Comment in the Lean Six Sigma Worldwide discussion group on LinkedIn:
May 10, 2013 @ 12:45 pm
Are these two our only options?
May 10, 2013 @ 2:08 pm
It seems to me that neither of those messages have any validity. It is a waste of money to hire consultants have people hold hands a sing Kumbaya, but who in the world does that? I’ve never seen it and I certainly do think any lean consultant has ever approach change this way. I have never heard of a “respect for people program.” That is a red herring. And, the idea of humiliating employees, or anyone for that manner, is both counter productive and unethical.
I have gone and watched some of Seddon’s other videos and ironically, I have a lot in common with him. I also started my work in prisons and learned the power of the system. I also believe in the effect or power of the system. But, to promote that understanding does not require dismissing other ideas. In fact, it rather requires embracing many methods and theories, rather than trying to sell your services by criticizing everything else.
May 10, 2013 @ 2:44 pm
Comment in the Lean Six Sigma Worldwide discussion group on LinkedIn:
May 10, 2013 @ 2:47 pm
I started this discussion because I was intrigued by the exchange in the video between John Seddon and Jeffrey Liker. I was wondering what was behind the statements and what others would have to say about them. I did not set out to push a message. The discussion, however, made me dig deeper into a few issues.
The first one is that “respect for people” is definitely a mistranslation of the Toyota tag line, which is “respect for humanity” and means making full use of the unique capabilities of people, as well as guarding against their foibles. It requires treating them with respect, but there is more to it, like making sure they have a full load of work, keeping their environment safe, making their jobs easy to do and mistake-proof, engaging them in improvement work, and giving them opportunities to learn and grow.
The second is that there is more to people skills than the dictionary definition of “the ability to communicate effectively with people in a friendly way.” If you give confusing directions or abuse people systematically to the point that they quit at the first opportunity, you clearly have lousy people skills. If, however, you make yourself understood perfectly and are unfailingly courteous but everybody ignores you, you have lousy people skills too.
“Good people skills” means more than one. You keep your emotions in check, and adjust your approach to circumstances as needed to be effective. This may mean stroking one person’s ego while applying tough love to another. What you never do is fly off the handle because it feels better.
This “respect for humanity” is something you show in the way you set up what Seddon calls “the system,” which encompasses the entire work environment for each individual. You don’t show it by taking teams off-site to play paintball.
May 16, 2013 @ 11:30 am
Comment in the Lean Six Sigma Worldwide discussion group on LinkedIn:
May 16, 2013 @ 11:45 am
Peter – you wrote, part:
>>> “I think pointing out to a poor performer that they are not cutting it is not disrespectful, regardless of how hurt that person may feel afterwards. I think the message needs to be delivered in a respectful way by respecting their humanity. And I think singling out, recognizing and rewarding those that do perform well is not disrespectful to all the other employees, regardless of how upset, envious and upset they may feel.”
Part of the “respect for people” angle is to not be so quick to blame a “poor performer” when the results are usually more due to the system. Is that personally statistically an outlier or part of common cause variation? WHY are they underperforming? What’s disrespectful and damaging to the morale of all is to blame a person for performance that is within statistical norms… as the red bead game so skillfully demonstrates.
What is somebody who is “performing well” is also part of common cause variation? Maybe we are unfairly rewarding them (which also damages morale). This is where the work of Deming and Wheeler, etc. is very insightful and practical. As Deming wrote, leaders should be a coach, not a judge.
There’s far more to “respect for people” than how we treat them in our words and demeanor.
May 12, 2013 @ 7:01 am
Michel,
Thanks for getting this on the table. When I first saw the video, I agreed with him …until he said people don’t matter.
That I fully disagree with and have heard no one support him, not on the panel nor in this thread, so I will put that aside and see if I cannot support Mr. Seddon a bit.
His characterization was brief and his brutalization of Liker only supported his argument….that was such a weak response by Liker, I felt embarrassed for the guy……. But one of Seddon’s points was..”it was a red herring..it is a conventional western management interpretation…..” if I can misquote him to the best of my ability to recall it.
This I agree with to a large extent.
I find the majority…yes the majority….of Western management are very weak on RFP. Most I find, equate it with being polite…. and worse yet…they actually believe it. I find when I discuss this concept with them, which is difficult at best, impractical at the worst…we must start with “Just what is this respect for humanity thing Toyota preaches?”
The initial and frequently final thoughts, of RFP are immature and superficial…..a little like what I see that people often call visual management. What I often see is a mish mash of techno-wallpaper that has no meaning to anyone and only serves the appearnce of wanting to look like transparency. The CXO fellow/gal, jogs to the floor to do his “going to the gemba thing” and sees lots of stuff and declares…”we sure have some good visuals on the floor”. I believe that is what Seddon is referring to…”some convention of western management” so they can “seem to be doing” lean versus the real thing.
So if the manager sees politeness as “respect for people” it is pretty easy to accomplish it….and if that is what Seddon means….I fully agree with him…..that is caca……
Nothing could be further from what Toyota means. Read their Green Book and under the large topic of Respect For People they talk about mutual trust and responsibility; sincere communications; openness and acceptance of differences; fairness; accountabilty…and a long list of other items, going well and far beyond politeness. Behaviors that really strike to the heart and soul of not only intrinsic motivation but also good business practices as well.
I have worked in two Toyota facilities and can tell you they practice what they preach. It is manifest in treating employees as an asset rather than a cost to be minimized; by providing good working conditions, good tools, sound work instructions, a potential to advance if you so wish and a whole litany of sound HR practices….and they are generally polite as well. Although I can tell you that neither facility thought that politeness was a key factor….and on some occasions got in the way of being respectful…….openness and honesty were far more important.
Where I agree with Seddon is that when you see a lot, and I mean a lot, of western managers claim they have respect for people, put it on their company documents and preach it at shareholder meetings and believe it because they equate it with politeness….well it makes me support Seddon’s position.
Right up to the time he says the “people don’t matter”
Quite frankly I am not so sure he means it….sounds like a fun guy to talk to
May 12, 2013 @ 7:35 am
Not everything in the dialog is completely clear. What Seddon says is “We think it’s the people that matter, it’s the system.”
Then, when Liker paraphrases this as saying “The people don’t matter,” Seddon denies he ever said that and claims that he had said instead “Intervention on people issues is a red herring.”
When people speak extemporaneously, they don’t always manage to say what they mean the first time and end up contradicting themselves. In this case, I think Seddon’s clarification/rectification is what he really meant.
May 12, 2013 @ 7:43 am
I’m guessing he means that the system dictates performance (and behavior) not individuals.
May 12, 2013 @ 7:52 am
Comment in the Lean manufacturing & Kaizen discussion group on LinkedIn:
May 12, 2013 @ 7:55 am
Comment in the Lean manufacturing & Kaizen discussion group on LinkedIn:
May 12, 2013 @ 7:56 am
Comment in the Lean manufacturing & Kaizen discussion group on LinkedIn:
May 12, 2013 @ 8:05 am
Comment in the Lean Six Sigma Worldwide discussion group on LinkedIn:
May 12, 2013 @ 8:08 am
Comment in the Lean Six Sigma Worldwide discussion group on LinkedIn:
May 15, 2013 @ 7:42 am
Thanks again to Michel for facilitating a balanced debate.
I have just read an article written by the manager of a company saying that ‘our No 1 policy is respect for people’. Later he discusses the problems he is having getting people to change. Look at your ‘system conditions’ my friend….
It is the Seddon style to create controversy. To think and challenge. On a personal basis he is a really nice guy, listening attentively. (How many managers really listen? Respect?) He believes that Lean, as practiced in most service organizations, is counter productive. John accuses many Lean ‘experts’ of simply misunderstanding. Yes, neither Seddon nor Liker met Ohno so who knows. But, like Michel, I too wondered about apparent differences in ‘Ohno’s’ two books.
John and I have our differences about Lean, but I do welcome his thought and stimulation. I do feel that what Margaret Heffernan calls ‘Wilful Blindness’ when TPS is applied unthinkingly in any environment is a real danger. Like religions that believe that they have the word of God, there is no possibility of questioning… and new converts are often the most radical. Do you think Jeff Liker has had his own unquestioned way for so long that when challenged he responds as we have seen? When will have a Lean conference on what does NOT work where?
I can categorically say that people I have spoken to in organizations that have had the Seddon ‘treatment’ are virtually universally positive. And the results have been sustained over many years. They just can’t go back.
BTW Seddon and I are in no way financially connected.
May 15, 2013 @ 10:17 am
What do you mean by Liker “responds as we have seen?” What I see in the video is a polite man somewhat sheepishly responding to a bullying line of questioning. Seddon is asking questions to not get a real response from LIker (as he cuts him off), but rather to make a point. That’s not very respectful.
May 15, 2013 @ 10:43 am
In response to John Bicheno’s points above: I think we have to be careful in judging someone from a few minutes of dialogue on a podium. If I thought that accurately represented his style and beliefs I would definitely hold him in a low opinion. However, I suspect that that is not fair. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that his comments do not fully and accurately represent his views or style.
One thing Seddon is absolutely right about, and this doesn’t contradict anything Liker or anyone else said, and that is that changing, designing, modifying the system is where you will find the solution to most (but not all) organizational performance problems. Most companies need to get a lot better at that. I shouldn’t mention that I just published a book on that subject. So, I didn’t say that.
What needs to be emphasized is that in every organization there is not just a technical system, but there is a social system, and that social system includes the organization of people, the design of who makes what decisions, the reward and recognition systems, etc. And, that social system needs to be designed to optimize the technical system. They are completely interdependent.
I also completely agree with Mark’s comment above.
May 16, 2013 @ 4:14 am
Hello everyone
I work for John Seddon.
Great thread Michel, an important discussion.
This is what I find interesting. I have read the words dismissive, autocratic asshole, bulling, aggressive and haughty to describe John.
Yet the only person in this thread (please correct me if I’m wrong) who knows John describes him as ‘a really nice guy’.
May 16, 2013 @ 5:16 am
Maybe this helps John recognize how his behavior is perceived by others.
May 16, 2013 @ 8:17 am
Hello Mark
I think some are keener to perceive John like this than others 😉
Another really nice guy, David Boyle, referred to John in a recent blog post as ‘the presiding genius over a whole range of related ideas that, taken together, would completely transform the effectiveness of our services’. You can read it here. Also interesting if you follow UK politics.
Mark – were you being serious when you said you are not sophisticated enough to know what a ‘point of intervention’ is? I couldn’t tell if you were being sarcastic or not (always a problem with discussion threads). If you would like to know, I would be happy to explain it and why it matters.
May 16, 2013 @ 8:53 am
I’m not the only one who is perceiving John this way, as you’ll notice from this thread.
I didn’t have that perception of Seddon until, you know, I had some actual interaction with him and I also saw how he has been treating others at conferences, in emails, etc.
Case in point, the coordinated attack that you directly participated in, Charlotte, against a friend of mine a few weeks back – including a vicious video that depicted me as a poodle on somebody’s leash.
So, I’m not the least bit interested in what you want to explain to me since you’ve worked so hard, apparently, to make an enemy of me.
May 16, 2013 @ 10:31 am
I took “point of intervention” as self-explanatory, and assumed it is the object of a project or program involving management, as well as, possibly, outside consultants. Am I missing anything?
May 16, 2013 @ 10:50 am
Charlotte, I would like you to explain what John Seddon meant by “point of intervention.” I have been in this business a long time and I am not sure what it means. It is not a common term, at least on this side of the pond. I understand “intervention strategies” and other terms that may or may not mean the same thing.
I what to say one other thing about this dialogue, and this is largely prompted both by Seddon’s apparent style (I say “apparent” because I am willing to assume the video is not representative) and Mark’s comment below.
I have been in the consulting business for more than 35 years. I have worked with Stephen Covey, Ken Blanchard, Norman Bodek and several other well known authors and thought leaders. All of the good ones have what Blanchard called an “abundance mentality” which means that they believe there is enough to go around and the more you give away the more comes back to you. There is a spirit to this and it is a spirit of collegiality. We are all competitors in one sense, but we are all also learning from each other and contributors to a larger dialogue. And, it is that larger dialogue that moves the field of organization development or management in general forward.
Any efforts to demean or diminish anyone else demeans or diminishes one’s self. It is not the sign of a competent and confident professional. Perhaps consulting in the British public service sector, which it appears is John Seddon’s field, that may be accepted. I don’t know because it is not my market place.
No one here has invented or created anything entirely new. We are all learning and borrowing from everyone else and everyone who has come before. Hopefully we contribute some small advance or innovation. I hope the knives are put back where they belong.
May 16, 2013 @ 11:32 am
Comment in the Lean Six Sigma Worldwide discussion group on LinkedIn:
May 16, 2013 @ 11:35 am
Comment in the Lean Six Sigma Worldwide discussion group on LinkedIn:
May 16, 2013 @ 11:37 am
Comment in the Lean Six Sigma Worldwide discussion group on LinkedIn:
May 17, 2013 @ 9:29 am
The following is from an interview of Toyota executives Ken Kreafle, Rich Alloo and Glenn Uminger about working with Fujio Cho in the early days of the Toyota plant in Georgetown, KY, included in Kozo Saito’s Seeds of Collaboration, pp. 124-125:
Carnival of Quality Management Articles and Blogs – May 2013 | The world is too small? or Is it?
May 18, 2013 @ 8:28 pm
[…] Michel Baudin, a fellow blogger and author, posted a video link of a panel discussion that included Jeffrey Liker (The Toyota Way, Toyota Leadership) in which British consultant John Seddon makes the comment that “This respect for people stuff is horse shit.” Seddon argues that, what leads to improvement is the system and not an intervention to respect or deal better with the people. […]
May 23, 2013 @ 7:17 am
What would those who believe lean = respect for people have to say about the shocking levels of sickness and absence in HMRC [Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs] caused by lean?
This new academic research has highlighted that ‘The numbers of administrative workers reporting mental fatigue increased by more than 50 per cent’
They reported many worker’s experiences …. ‘After 27 years in the Inland Revenue following the introduction of lean, I am now deskilled, de-motivated, stressed out most days’
And the research concluded … ‘In the ‘new model office’ of lean – to use HMRC management’s term – the new model workforce was experiencing unprecedented levels of work-related ill-health. Many staff reported suffering from psycho-social complaints, evidenced by the frequency of mental fatigue, stress and headaches and MSD-associated conditions.’
See the research here:
http://wes.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/05/20/0950017012469064.abstract
May 23, 2013 @ 6:15 pm
From what I’ve read about the HMRC so-called “lean office” over the past few years, it sounds like a complete debacle (no family photos on desks, tape outlines around computer keyboards)… it’s not Lean. It’s not respect for people.
The problem with Lean or any methodology is that people can do any stupid thing under the banner. Lean is not about de-skilling or de-humanizing work.
Do we say cars are evil every time somebody drives drunk?
May 23, 2013 @ 8:20 am
There is a very simple explanation for this, although the solution is a bit more complex. Every work system, from the family farm to Henry Ford’s factory, to lean, is a technical system, a social system, and an economic system. The design of that system must create balance or alignment between these three systems. Clearly, in this case, the system is out of alignment.
But, that should not be surprising. Toyota’s own system placed too much emphasis on the elimination of waste, creating excess stress. They had the good sense to then redesign that system to create balance with the needs of the social system. Volvo did the opposite in creating a production system that was “ideal” for people, but it was not economically viable. If you are serious student of these matters go to http://freyssenet.com/?q=node/748 and download this entire book that analyzes what happened at Volvo and what happened at Toyota. Go to page 383 of this book to read about Toyota’s redesign of their system to respond to social needs.
Here, I have given a brief explanation: http://www.lmmiller.com/blog/2013/03/19/organization-design-and-process-improvement/quality-of-work-life-and-the-toyota-system/
I do not know anything about the case of HMRC, but clearly those who were implementing lean in that case did not understand the nature of whole-systems.
June 3, 2013 @ 2:15 pm
In the TPS Principles and Practice discussion group, on 6/1, Norman Bodek asked what “respect for people” is, collecting 25 responses so far. His complete message was as follows:
June 3, 2013 @ 2:20 pm
Comment in the TPS Principles and Practices discussion group on LinkedIn:
June 3, 2013 @ 3:29 pm
Comment in the TPS Principles and Practices discussion group on LinkedIn:
June 3, 2013 @ 3:32 pm
Comment in the TPS Principles and Practices discussion group on LinkedIn:
June 4, 2013 @ 10:29 am
I heartily agree. Your explanation reminded me of a car with a person in it. Companies are like cars with people in them. The purpose of the car is to get the person somewhere. It is not the purpose of the person to get a car somewhere. When these two things get reversed, we may fall into the trap of thinking cars don’t need people. Well they don’t, but there is no point to having a car (or a company) if it ignores the people. It is better to just put money in a CD than build a company that ignores the humanity to the point of abuse or derision. Even worse, a company that does not glean the value and knowledge and motivation and intellect and caring that are the core of the company. When one lean specialist was translating “Respect for People” he made the mistake of trying to say the people are the greatest assets of the company. He was quickly corrected by the Japanese interpreter. The interpreter stated, “People ARE THE COMPANY.”
June 3, 2013 @ 3:34 pm
I know that Toyota is putting out the message that the two pillars of its system are “continuous improvement” and “respect for humanity.” There are, however, many parts of TPS that I have a hard time placing under any of these two labels. For example, where does heijunka fit?
June 3, 2013 @ 3:38 pm
Toyota is talking about:
1) The Toyota Way (respect for people and continuous improvement)
2) TPS: just in time and jidoka
Heijunka probably fits under TPS and the JIT pillar… and it could be both “respect for people” (leveling their workload to avoid overburden) and part of a continuous improvement strategy.
June 3, 2013 @ 3:38 pm
Comment in the TPS Principles and Practices discussion group on LinkedIn:
June 3, 2013 @ 3:44 pm
Comment in the TPS Principles and Practices discussion group on LinkedIn:
June 3, 2013 @ 3:48 pm
Comment in the TPS Principles and Practices discussion group on LinkedIn:
June 3, 2013 @ 3:49 pm
@Norman – You wrote: “The two pillars are ‘continuous improvement’ (JIT) “… Do you equate JIT with Continuous Improvement? Or are you quoting somebody else?
I see much in JIT that is not Continuous Improvement, as well as work done as part of Continuous Improvement that is not JIT.
@William – The phrase “Toyota Way” makes me think of Jeffrey Liker’s 2004 book by that title, which spells out not 2 but 14 principles. While 14 is too many to remember, 2 strikes me as short.
When you allude to pressure from the media on Toyota to put on a kinder, gentler face, it tells me that statements of philosophy on its website are primarily for public relations. They are not intended to communicate the real story.
In the Japanese glossary, we might add tatemae (建前), the facade, and honne (本音), the true music. For a Japanese organization, tatemae is what you present to outsiders, as when you stuff the kids’ mess into a closet before guests arrive. Honne is what you discuss only among insiders. It has all the complexity of real life, and the participants exchange frank, and occasionally brutal feedback.
What I value most in this group in members’ knowledge of the honne.
June 3, 2013 @ 3:50 pm
Another way to formulate the respect for humanity principle is to say that the way to improve the performance of a business is to focus on the work people do, not on the hardware used to do it.
At a conference a few years ago, I heard Norman use a golfing simile: wearing the same clothes and using the same clubs as Tiger Woods will not substantially improve your score.
Likewise, the possession of equipment does not make a manufacturer competitive. Anyone with money can buy equipment, but the development of an organization that knows how to use it takes years.
In the late 19th century, Andrew Carnegie used to say that, if all his plants were wiped out his people would be able to restore his production capacity within five years. I wish I could tell you when and where he said this, but I can’t locate the reference right now.
Historically, the validity of this theory was put to the test in the reconstruction of the German economy after World War II. It took not five but ten years for Germany to rebuild its industrial base to the prewar level. The country was able to do it because of the skills of its people. Japan is not a comparable example in this respect because, pre-World War II Japan was not a fully industrialized country, as Germany was.
In Germany, the Marshall plan helped, of course, but there are counterexamples, where throwing money at development failed to achieve it. Many developing countries with no manufacturing tradition spent windfalls from oil exports on acquiring factory equipment, yet failed to become industrial powers as a result.
The managers of companies that do not practice Lean manufacturing often believe that the key to competitiveness is the possession of the right equipment. Instead of focusing on people, GM in the 1980’s responded to the challenge from Toyota, Honda and others by spending on robots and automation, and failed to reach its goals.
And this has nothing to do with costs. Compared to jumbo jets, even well-paid pilots are cheap, but their work is still key to an airline’s ability to make money. In a manufacturing plant, even if your production people worked for free, you would still have to pay attention to the way you use them.
In cheap labor countries, manufacturers are prone to hire more people than they need, to “create jobs for the people,” but it actually hurts their performance, and not only in productivity. As responsibility is diluted, quality suffers; as people fight over the work instead of doing it, even production quantity may drop.
June 4, 2013 @ 9:01 am
Comment in the TPS Principles and Practice
discussion group on LinkedIn:
June 4, 2013 @ 9:10 am
Comment in the TPS Principles and Practice
discussion group on LinkedIn:
June 4, 2013 @ 9:12 am
@Kris — I think what makes the lineman’s “repetitive” job thrilling is the presence of an opposing team. Likewise, a stage actor who repeats the same lines every night for three years may still enjoy it because of the interaction with a new audience every time.
The assembly line worker who attaches the same parts every 24 seconds on an engine has neither opponents nor an audience. I don’t think it’s disrespectful to describe it as boring, and the assemblers who do this work in real life will be happy to confirm it.
I have met some who enjoy putting things together in private life, but that is end-to-end assembly of devices their family can use and their kids can point to and say “My dad built this!” But these same people found no satisfaction in assembly line work.
It has been a dilemma for 100 years now, that the best way we know to assemble products involves dividing the task into repetitive and tedious jobs that assemblers hate. In the 1910s, Ford had to pay twice the Detroit going wage to retain them.
With Lean, we can make it less tedious by enriching each job and systematically rotating operators between jobs, more intellectually stimulating through participation in continuous improvement, safer by paying more attention to work station design, and more attractive as a career choice by providing advancement opportunities into management or technical positions…
What nobody has succeeded in doing, however, is making assembly line work fun.
June 6, 2013 @ 10:16 am
Comment in the TPS Principles and Practice discussion group on LinkedIn:
June 6, 2013 @ 10:18 am
I think everyone here would agree that working on shop floor projects puts you in contact with bright people whose potential had previously been underestimated.
In your post, however, you refer to IQ as if it were a genuine measure of intelligence. I submit that the very idea of reducing human intelligence to a number is itself disrespect for humanity. (See The Staying Power of Bad Metrics.)
“Respect for people is horse shit” | Management Briefs
July 22, 2013 @ 8:47 am
[…] “Michel Baudin, a fellow blogger and author, posted a video link of a panel discussion that included Jeffrey Liker (The Toyota Way, Toyota Leadership) in which British consultant John Seddon makes the comment that “This respect for people stuff is horse shit.” Seddon argues that what leads to improvement is the system and not an intervention to respect or deal better with the people. … […]
December 20, 2013 @ 8:08 am
People can believe John Seddon (that it’s horse shit) or they can listen to an actual Toyota executive:
http://www.ame.org/lean-leadership-and-%E2%80%9Csecret-sauce%E2%80%9D-ray-tanguay-tmmc-and-toyota-canada-inc
Tanguay commented, “What makes quality is people and respect for people.”
The Toyota plant here in San Antonio also talks constantly about “respect for people” when you go visit the plant. I doubt the notion is a Western creation and I know from learning from former Toyota people that the notion is very real, very practical and actionable, and the furthest thing from “horse shit.”
Seddon is doing a real disservice to people by spreading his opinions in the guise of facts.
December 20, 2013 @ 9:32 am
Tanguay does not say that “respect for people” is a “point of intervention.” And, where he says “respect for people,” we should read “respect for humanity,” or “due consideration of human nature.”
What he does say is that we should pay attention to the way people work and engage them in improving. it. He goes as far as saying that each employee should participate on two circle projects/year.
I knew that circle activity had been big at NUMMI. I didn’t know this was also the case at Toyota in Canada. I am wondering when American companies that implement Lean will rediscover the value of this tool.
We should also always be careful about reading too much into speeches made by company officers at conferences. They are part of the facade their company presents (tatemae or 建前), and are not meant to reveal too much about what they really do, the “true music” (Honne or 本音).
What’s eating John Seddon? | Michel Baudin's Blog
December 26, 2013 @ 11:17 am
[…] was his comment that "This respect for people stuff is horseshit" at a conference in Iceland in 2012 that drew my attention to his work. While certainly aggressive, […]
More on Toyota’s “Respect for Humanity” | Michel Baudin's Blog
April 12, 2014 @ 6:41 am
[…] has already been said on this topic, including an extensive discussion in this blog. So, when Frederick Stimson Harriman launched one in the TPS Principles and Practice […]
Does Respect For Humanity Mean The Same As Respect For People? | M. Ballé [Review] | Michel Baudin's Blog
September 20, 2016 @ 12:25 pm
[…] This “respect for people stuff” (2103) […]
Coaching Lean Without Knowing | Bob Emiliani | Michel Baudin's Blog
January 22, 2017 @ 11:15 pm
[…] teaches simplified versions of its system even to its own, non-Japanese employees. I have discussed this earlier with Bob Emiliani. What drew my attention to it is that the same pillar of the Toyota Way […]
Respect for People – It’s Difficult… | AllAboutLean.com
October 19, 2021 @ 4:02 am
[…] Michel Baudin “This “respect for people stuff”” […]
Respect for People – Why and How | AllAboutLean.com
March 3, 2022 @ 8:28 am
[…] Michel Baudin “This “respect for people stuff”” […]
尊重人性 – 挑战 | AllAboutLean.com
February 3, 2023 @ 9:27 pm
[…] Michel Baudin “This “respect for people stuff”” […]
尊重人性 – 理论及实践 | AllAboutLean.com
February 3, 2023 @ 9:28 pm
[…] Michel Baudin “This “respect for people stuff”” […]