Diplomacy and Lean Realities

I believe there are many managers in today’s companies, particularly those described as “corporate organisations,” who rise through diplomacy and their communication style. (Naturally, nobody says, “That person is me.”)

There is a title. There is a presentation. The words are powerful. But the problems, losses and waste on the shop floor remain the same…

A fundamental premise of lean thinking is that people are products of the system they work in.

If, in a company:
🔴 Political behaviour is rewarded
🔴 Visibility takes precedence over real contribution
🔴 Hiding problems is safer for one’s career
🔴 Results are claimed, but ownership of root causes is avoided
then “the manager who rises through diplomacy” is a natural outcome.

This is why lean philosophy asks: what mechanism produces this behaviour?

My criticism is of the problem disappearing within the communication. Softening a deviation until it becomes invisible, leaving responsibility unclear or concealing shop-floor losses behind a good-looking indicator delays improvement.

We do not have to hurt people when discussing reality. We can face it using observation and data, without making it personal. Preparation such as nemawashi—gathering the views and support of relevant people before a decision—can also help this communication.

So the issue is diplomacy that takes the place of reality.

The most common form of poor diplomacy is:
“Discussing the KPI without discussing the problem.”

Reality is uncomfortable. But improvement begins only where reality is acknowledged.

Does being able to explain the reasoning behind a decision mean that the decision is fair? I believe this is a question we should also ask ourselves as managers.

Sometimes, instead of questioning our own decisions, we may shelter behind the justifications of the system we work in.

The most common justifications:
⚠️ It was necessary for the company’s survival
⚠️ What could we do? The instruction came from above
⚠️ We cannot act emotionally
⚠️ That is how professional life works

Good communication should ensure that reality is heard. Lean thinking requires us to examine that reality on site and improve it together.

At the next meeting, we can ask: do the results shown by the indicator and the situation we see on the shop floor confirm one another?