The Toyota Production System also works for relationships

Toyota Production System (TPS) innovations are well documented in management literature and standard features of business school curricula everywhere. These concepts are usually discussed in the context of industrial operations, but I also see their applicability to the interpersonal issues that my clients and students face on a daily basis.

The term TPS jidoka means “automation with a human touch”. Rather than ignoring problems and moving forward mindlessly, Toyota’s assembly lines are designed to shut themselves down, so higher-order thinking can be applied to better understand and solve the problem. before resuming production. Here is how Toyota describes the sequence of events:

• A machine detects a problem and communicates it.
• A situation deviates from the normal workflow.
• The line is stopped.
• The manager/supervisor eliminates the cause of the problem.
• Improvements built into the standard workflow.
• Good products can be made.

The obvious advantage is that workers (and the machines they use) are able to correct problems immediately, at the source, rather than ignoring faulty or sub-standard outputs, and these small interventions add up to a continuous process of continuous improvement. But what this requires is a greater organizational willingness to stop production, repeatedly, and to believe that these “stops” will ultimately result not only in a better product, but also in a more efficient and efficient operation. more profitable overall.

Although we have to change the terminology a bit, this concept can be applied quite easily to almost any interpersonal interaction, from a one-on-one conversation to a fairly large meeting. Here’s how I’ve seen this “interpersonal jidoka” work in successful systems:

• Those involved are trained to detect and respond to communication problems, both conceptual and emotional.
• A communication problem disrupts the normal workflow of the interaction.
• Anyone involved in the process is empowered to stop the interaction’s progress towards its current goal (such as an agenda item).
• Everyone involved in the interaction is invited to talk about the communication issue (a meta-conversation, if you will.)
• Communication improvements (both at individual and group level) are identified and implemented.
• It is possible to have better interactions.

In other words, the knowledge and work equivalent of jidoka is the ability to stop the rush of a meeting upon completion of the agenda and name a communication problem that is hampering the real resolution. And just like in industrial operations, it requires a greater organizational willingness to tolerate “disruptions” and believe that the result will be a better product and greater efficiency in the long run.

As with most of the work I do as a coach and teacher, it’s easy to grasp conceptually and often very difficult to put into practice. Nobody wants to get in the way of “progress,” especially when everyone just wants the meeting to end so they can get back to doing “real work.” With that in mind, here are three ways to apply these ideas:

• Establish norms that help the group recognize and regulate emotions. (And be aware that a group of emotionally intelligent people does not automatically include an emotionally intelligent person band.)
• Make it explicitly acceptable for anyone to pause the conversation to assess how things are going. (Sometimes “talking the way we talk” is the best use of group time.)
• Finally, recognize that these interventions work most effectively in a feedback-rich culture.

We don’t get the organizational culture we deserve, we get the culture we tolerate. And when we habitually fail to interrupt dysfunctional interactions to resolve the underlying communication problems—when we fail to apply interpersonal jidoka—we associate ourselves with the perpetuation of bad meetings and organizational theater.