Put your trust in systems, not in genius

If you want to create a great company, create one where your systems unleash the power of your people. That's what the Roman Army did.

In 410 BC, the Gauls sacked Rome, a horde of individual warriors defeating other individual warriors. But by the end of the Second Punic War, mostly due to Scipio Africanus, the Roman Army was unlike any other in the world.

Other armies depended on the skill, bravery, and prowess of individual warriors and their leaders. The Romans created an army where systems, training, and supervision combined to create a world-conquering force.

There are two common meanings for the word, "system." Both are relevant for the Roman Army and for us.

A system is a number of inter-connected parts that work together. If you do something to one part of the system, other parts are affected.

A system is also "the way we do things." Routine things are done the same way every time. Processes have the same steps every time.

In the Roman Army every routine thing was reduced to understandable and manageable actions. Large, complex activities like preparing camp for the night were reduced to individual actions that created a camp with the same layout and defenses every time.

Tents were standardized. Eight men shared a tent. They also shared a mule and eating equipment which they were responsible for transporting.

Training was the way that soldiers learned how to do all those routine things. Other armies had "practiced" what to do. The Romans taught soldiers what they needed to do to live, fight, and win. And supervisors oversaw learning and execution.

In other armies, the warriors answered to someone from their tribe, clan or family. In the Roman Army, the various levels of private soldier and legionnaires answered to senior men, including a centurion, who had earned their positions.

The Romans understood something that we keep forgetting. We love "heroic" leaders. We worship "talent" as if it were an undifferentiated quality, applicable to any situation.

And so we ignore the fact that great success comes from creating a system that allows people of average competence to combine to produce results that otherwise could only be achieved by people of great talent or genius. We ignore that fact that even the most talented individual will be hard-pressed to produce great results in a flawed system.

The idea of creating a system that would help ordinary people be more productive was the driving concept behind Frederick Winslow Taylor's "Scientific Management" and its search for the "one best way." It is idea that sent battalions of efficiency experts armed with stopwatches and clipboards into factories around the world.

It was the modern approach of the nineteenth century. Engineers were imagined as gods and the sensible workers as compliant parts of a well-designed machine. For decades, scientific management, time studies, and the like created huge improvements in organizations.

Then experiments at Western Electric's Hawthorne Works showed that human factors, unrelated to any "one best way" affected productivity and that individual line workers could do some pretty creative and effective things. In the early fifties, W. Edwards Deming demonstrated that a system could make a huge difference. His 14 Points are about technique and management and training that come together in an organized way to produce results.

Deming's work is the bridge between the efficiency experts of the early twentieth century and an idea of effective systems that will work in today's interlinked, knowledge-worker world. After a visit to see the Japanese companies who had adopted Deming's methods, Woody Morcott, CEO of the Dana Corporation returned home and asked a friend: "Why did we hire 55,000 brains and only use three of them?"

As Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric, says, you have to get every brain in the game today. But that's not enough. You also have to create a system where those brains can be productive.

The current great example of such as system is a company that adopted Deming's approach and improved it: Toyota. And the best example of how that system can be applied outside Japan is New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc., or NUMMI.

For years, General Motors operated an auto plant in Fremont, California. Absenteeism ran around 20 percent. The plant had the highest defect rate in the country. Producing a car there cost more than anywhere else.

In 1985, Toyota took over the plant under a Toyota-GM joint venture named New United Motors Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI). Eighty-five percent of the workers in the new plant had been workers at the plant when GM ran it. But the results were different.

Absenteeism dropped to 3 percent. The defect rate plummeted. The NUMMI plant turned out some of the highest quality cars in America at one of the lowest costs. The people, the talent, were the same as when GM ran the plan alone.

The difference was Toyota's system. It's so commonly used as a model today, that the Toyota name is often dropped and replaced by the term "Lean Manufacturing."

The organizational core of Toyota's system is the basic processes and methods of production. There is constant training, including training in quality methods and problem solving. And there is supervision, though Toyota expects a supervisor to be primarily a facilitator and trainer and not a directive boss.

Toyota's system won't be the last word. It works well for a manufacturing process, but there are bound to be modifications for service or knowledge-worker activities where the goal is customized response rather than uniformity of output.

The Market Based Management system at Koch Industries or the organic approaches to organization that you find at Semco will probably produce new variations on the basic concept of business systems. And there are certainly other experiments and developments going on right now that we haven't heard of.

Whatever the future holds, we can be sure of two things. We can be sure that companies that grow systems for success will outperform companies that rely on a few stars. And, we can be sure that the systems of the future will make today's systems look crude and old-fashioned.

 

 

Wally's Working Supervisor's Support Kit is a collection of information and tools to help working supervisors do a better job. It's based on what Wally's learned in over twenty years of supervisory skills training. Click here to check it out.

 

 

 
Subscribe to the Three Star Leadership Blog

 

 

 

Request your free copy of "Meeting the Challenges of the Boomer Brain Drain: An integrated approach."

Wally Bock has helped people learn to be great bosses for more than a quarter century. His latest book, Performance Talk: The One-on-One Part of Leadership, makes learning key leadership principles almost effortless by teaching through a story and providing lists of resources for further growth.

 

View Wally Bock's profile on LinkedIn

Click here to find out more about Wally's coaching services.

For weekly tips and resources pointers, check our Wally Bock's Three Star Leadership Letter.

 

Click here to find out more about having Wally speak to your company or convention.

 

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments

  • 9/17/2007 4:53 PM Steve Roesler wrote:
    Timely post again, Wally,

    Just got off the phone with a client company who's new leader looked around and said, "Yeah, you're all really talented. But you have no systematic way to bring it together. That's why you're not getting the returns that you want."

    So off we are, systematizing and measuring that which was heretofore reliant upon the "brains" of the business but couldn't be brought to fruition.

    Your article really lays out the background and case for systems in a clear and understandable way. I thank you.

    While reading and writing, I was reminded of a related "system" issue": that of leadership/management development.

    With all of the fads du jour as well as solid research available, organizations skip from one to the next without ever implementing "the way". While I may be a simple guy at heart, my counsel has been: Pick any one of the legitimate approaches, live it--and only "it"--and see where a single good system will take you.
    Reply to this
  • 10/23/2008 3:15 PM New car pricing wrote:
    "even the most talented individual will be hard-pressed to produce great results in a flawed system."

    I would say a Company needs to find a balance. Sometimes one person is needed to accomplish a task of a high level demand, that otherwise a group will not be able to accomplish, and some times we need systems that work together to accomplish tasks, so it all depends on the situation.
    Reply to this
  • 7/29/2009 5:28 PM Bret Simmons wrote:
    I should have known you were influenced by Deming. He was decades ahead of others and his teaching is timeless. This is an exceptional post, Wally. Systems are *powerful* drivers of behavior at work. As Deming said "fix the system and stop blaming people." Blaming folks is the abdication of management.

    Another good system example is Southwest Airlines. A lot of folks like to rant about their culture, but when you take a closer look they don't leave anything to chance. They have effective systems for everything they do, and they are constant learners.

    Great post, Wally!
    Reply to this
    1. 7/29/2009 6:44 PM Wally Bock wrote:

      Deming was a powerful influence, even as he often is on people who don't know where the principles come from. I'd add Nucor to your list of strong systems/cultures. Thanks for enriching the discussion.


      Reply to this
  • 1/3/2010 10:56 PM sam carpenter wrote:
    Great post, Wally. Systems are the secret and it's uncanny how many don't see that.
    Reply to this
    1. 1/4/2010 8:51 AM Wally Bock wrote:

      Thanks for stopping by, Sam. As a friend of mine put it, "When you have systems to handle the basics you can spend your creative energy on new and better things."


      Reply to this
  • 1/16/2010 9:07 AM Justin wrote:
    I've been in businesses with systems and those without. I ran a business with "guidelines" not a system and it took me 6 years to develop the system, work flow, and clarity between company products and the employees needed for the company. Systems definitely work.

    The hard part, I find, is creating systems in pre-existing places with people who "have always done it this way". So far, my only wisdom in those environments is to make specific, easily understood changes that create a system for a small thing that can be built on. In the event that it gives someone back more time or less headache, its a win.

    Any tips on how to identify, create, and implement the system either in an already existing company or a startup?

    The Romans had a system that evolved and was improved up based on situations and experiences over a couple hundred years. Most companies don't have that.
    Reply to this
    1. 1/16/2010 10:34 AM Wally Bock wrote:

      Thanks for that thoughtful and helpful post, Justin. You make several good points and ask some critical questions. I'll try my hand at a couple.

       

      My experience matches your own. It takes time and lots of effort to put operating systems in place. It's usually easier to do if you're facing a crisis and harder to do if you're wildly successful.

       

      I think that's why it's actually harder to put systems in place in a start up, counterintuitive as that may seem. In the beginning, you rarely need systems. In most start-ups, everybody knows the business and even after a while, the staff is usually not big or specialized. The need for systems sneaks up on you.

       

      That's how companies like Home Depot get in trouble. Between 1986 and 1996 Marcus and Blank led Home Depot to forty quarters of successive record results. By 1996, they had 500 stores and $20 billion in sales. What they didn't have was the systems (inventory control, cost accounting, eg) to support continued growth and profitability.

       

      Systems, old or new, are intertwined with culture. When Bob Nardelli took over at Home Depot, he improved the systems, but he shredded the culture that had made the company successful. In a mature company with a mature culture, simply implementing systems is not enough if you don't also address the culture issues.


      Reply to this
      1. 1/16/2010 10:57 AM Justin McCullough wrote:
        Good examples. Building on the example of Home Depot, the real gem would be knowing how Nardelli could have put systems in without squeezing the culture out.

        The Romans are well trained. Everyday was a mission of success and survival with a very undesirable outcome.

        Today's employee rarely has a mission with a dire outcome. It seems even the "good" employees feel like they can just move on if they were let go.

        Company loyalty is practically a foreign concept now - primarily because the companies aren't loyal to their people (which breeds people who care not for their company).

        Romans were loyal. GE via Jack Welch was too. Google is too. And a handful of others, but... that's the exception to this 'now common rule'.
        Reply to this
        1. 1/16/2010 11:31 AM Wally Bock wrote:

          Thanks, again, Justin. I think you're right about loyalty, but I think we measure it at the wrong point. If I were HR Czar of a company, I would want to measure loyalty at the team level. My experience is that supervisors make a huge difference in whether people pitch in to help the team and whether they stay with the organization. Loyalty isn't dead, but companies that have right-sized, downsized, cut back and laid off workers while top executive compensation skyrocketed haven't done much to earn loyalty.


          Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Enter the above security code (required)

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.