Comments on: Why Lean Hates HR http://www.leanblog.org/2006/07/why-lean-hates-hr/ Mark Graban's leanblog.org - Lean Healthcare, Lean Thinking, Lean Manufacturing, Toyota Production System Thu, 09 Feb 2012 02:40:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: qualityg says http://www.leanblog.org/2006/07/why-lean-hates-hr/#comment-821 qualityg says Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:51:00 +0000 http://leanblog.bigbigdesign.net/2006/07/why-lean-hates-hr/#comment-821 Very interesting article.<br/><br/>Last year I received this Email that may have some relevance:<br/><br/>Q1) “What do you think is the most important process in a company?<br/>- Jackie B.<br/><br/>A1) Years ago I gave the standard quality response “ the most important process that any company has is the process (es) that adds value to the customer.” About ten years ago I changed my answer and still believe the “hiring” process is the most important process in the company. Many people have debated me on that answer and there is truth to there arguments. So if it’s not the most important I say it is the most important “undervalued” process in a company.<br/><br/>We all know most American Management spout employees are the most important assets to a company. Then why are they considered an expense that needs to be reduced to make up for debt or loss of revenue (because it’s easy)? Human Resources don’t carry much weight when it comes to being considered a critical department within an organization. However, when you stop looking through narrow eyes and open your self to systems thinking (end-to-end), the HR department is at the beginning and the end of an employees process. HR hires and HR conducts your exit review and papers.<br/><br/>Now, think in terms of process control and understand that most problems occur early on in a process and they intern cause multiple downstream problems and bottlenecks. Quality Experts and Process Improvement Teams will attack and try to correct all the “symptoms” downstream (often blaming a person and not the system). The process originated by placing employees in jobs they are not qualified for or can no longer do the job as technology increases and more skills are required (just a few examples). Maybe the HR representatives are not qualified or have the tools to do their jobs.<br/><br/>You see Jackie, Management owns the hiring system. It is not a worker’s fault if placed in a job where failure is guaranteed. It is not the worker’s fault if a company slashes training and education that is required as new technology is implemented. It is Management’s job to replace the worker if they are not performing and place them in a job where they can take pride of their work (do we really think people want to fail).<br/><br/>http://qualityg.blogspot.com/2006/04/misc-q-email-chute-on-quality-quality.html Very interesting article.

Last year I received this Email that may have some relevance:

Q1) “What do you think is the most important process in a company?
- Jackie B.

A1) Years ago I gave the standard quality response “ the most important process that any company has is the process (es) that adds value to the customer.” About ten years ago I changed my answer and still believe the “hiring” process is the most important process in the company. Many people have debated me on that answer and there is truth to there arguments. So if it’s not the most important I say it is the most important “undervalued” process in a company.

We all know most American Management spout employees are the most important assets to a company. Then why are they considered an expense that needs to be reduced to make up for debt or loss of revenue (because it’s easy)? Human Resources don’t carry much weight when it comes to being considered a critical department within an organization. However, when you stop looking through narrow eyes and open your self to systems thinking (end-to-end), the HR department is at the beginning and the end of an employees process. HR hires and HR conducts your exit review and papers.

Now, think in terms of process control and understand that most problems occur early on in a process and they intern cause multiple downstream problems and bottlenecks. Quality Experts and Process Improvement Teams will attack and try to correct all the “symptoms” downstream (often blaming a person and not the system). The process originated by placing employees in jobs they are not qualified for or can no longer do the job as technology increases and more skills are required (just a few examples). Maybe the HR representatives are not qualified or have the tools to do their jobs.

You see Jackie, Management owns the hiring system. It is not a worker’s fault if placed in a job where failure is guaranteed. It is not the worker’s fault if a company slashes training and education that is required as new technology is implemented. It is Management’s job to replace the worker if they are not performing and place them in a job where they can take pride of their work (do we really think people want to fail).

http://qualityg.blogspot.com/2006/04/misc-q-email-chute-on-quality-quality.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Jamie Flinchbaugh http://www.leanblog.org/2006/07/why-lean-hates-hr/#comment-779 Jamie Flinchbaugh Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:55:00 +0000 http://leanblog.bigbigdesign.net/2006/07/why-lean-hates-hr/#comment-779 That's a great story Mark. It kind of demonstrates my point. For an HR guy who gets lean, he had to LEAVE HR and join the manufacturing ranks. That can't be the only solution, and that's why its so important to develop answers for the HR community. That’s a great story Mark. It kind of demonstrates my point. For an HR guy who gets lean, he had to LEAVE HR and join the manufacturing ranks. That can’t be the only solution, and that’s why its so important to develop answers for the HR community.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Mark Graban http://www.leanblog.org/2006/07/why-lean-hates-hr/#comment-777 Mark Graban Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:35:00 +0000 http://leanblog.bigbigdesign.net/2006/07/why-lean-hates-hr/#comment-777 One of the most effective lean change agents I worked with in my old job back in Phoenix was a guy from HR. He was brought in from HR to go through the full lean "black belt" training (4 weeks of training with a certification project). He tried using lean tools in HR... that was frustrating, so we brought him into the factory to work in a department.<br/><br/>Why was he so effective? He realized that lean was about people, that leading change is about people. He listened more than he talked, he built great working relationships with the shopfloor folks - they realized he really WAS there to help them.<br/><br/>He didn't think or act like an engineer. Sometimes, us engineers are trained to "know the answer". Lean expects us to help others find the answers themselves.<br/><br/>I'm not saying ALL HR people would be great at lean, but that was a real eye-opener to me. One of the most effective lean change agents I worked with in my old job back in Phoenix was a guy from HR. He was brought in from HR to go through the full lean “black belt” training (4 weeks of training with a certification project). He tried using lean tools in HR… that was frustrating, so we brought him into the factory to work in a department.

Why was he so effective? He realized that lean was about people, that leading change is about people. He listened more than he talked, he built great working relationships with the shopfloor folks – they realized he really WAS there to help them.

He didn’t think or act like an engineer. Sometimes, us engineers are trained to “know the answer”. Lean expects us to help others find the answers themselves.

I’m not saying ALL HR people would be great at lean, but that was a real eye-opener to me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>