{"id":2454,"date":"2026-09-21T19:26:07","date_gmt":"2026-09-21T16:26:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/yalindonusum.com\/?p=2454"},"modified":"2026-09-22T22:45:14","modified_gmt":"2026-09-22T19:45:14","slug":"diplomasi-ve-yalin-gercekler","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/yalindonusum.com\/en\/diplomasi-ve-yalin-gercekler\/","title":{"rendered":"Diplomacy and Lean Realities"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

I believe there are many managers in today\u2019s companies, particularly those described as \u201ccorporate organisations,\u201d who rise through diplomacy and their communication style. (Naturally, nobody says, \u201cThat person is me.\u201d)<\/p>\n

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\u2026<\/p>\n

A fundamental premise of lean thinking is that people are products of the system they work in.<\/p>\n

If, in a company:
\ud83d\udd34 Political behaviour is rewarded
\ud83d\udd34 Visibility takes precedence over real contribution
\ud83d\udd34 Hiding problems is safer for one\u2019s career
\ud83d\udd34 Results are claimed, but ownership of root causes is avoided
then \u201cthe manager who rises through diplomacy\u201d is a natural outcome.<\/p>\n

This is why lean philosophy asks: what mechanism produces this behaviour?<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>

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\u2014gathering the views and support of relevant people before a decision\u2014can also help this communication.<\/p>\n

So the issue is diplomacy that takes the place of reality.<\/p>\n

The most common form of poor diplomacy is:
\u201cDiscussing the KPI without discussing the problem.\u201d<\/p>\n

Reality is uncomfortable. But improvement begins only where reality is acknowledged.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Sometimes, instead of questioning our own decisions, we may shelter behind the justifications of the system we work in.<\/p>\n

The most common justifications:
\u26a0\ufe0f It was necessary for the company\u2019s survival
\u26a0\ufe0f What could we do? The instruction came from above
\u26a0\ufe0f We cannot act emotionally
\u26a0\ufe0f That is how professional life works<\/p>\n

Good communication should ensure that reality is heard. Lean thinking requires us to examine that reality on site and improve it together.<\/p>\n

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?<\/p>\n\n