Compare what you expected Toyota to do with Smith with what they did. Why is Fukunaga taking this approach?
My expectations in regards to what Toyota would do with Smith versus what they actually did were fairly similar to those that Smith had himself – that after some time spent to facilitate communication with the key managers and personnel, as well as an introductory period, he would be given control over Toyota’s Georgetown Kentucky Plant. The reasoning for that is simple – a high-ranking manufacturing manager is not a position where substitutes are easily found, so I assumed Toyota would bring Smith into the fold as soon as possible so that the plant would start functioning properly.
Naturally, I was surprised when it did not happen. Instead, Toyota took their time assessing and testing the new senior manufacturing manager by having him go through numerous stages of managerial competency, from a manufacturing manager overseeing a small group of people to a higher position charged with optimizing the assembly line. The journey had ended in Japan, with a task of providing recommendations for an entire facility.
Fukunaga did this for several reasons. The main reason was to test Smith on different levels of competency, from grand strategic planning to the micromanagement level, concerning the workplace of every worker in the facility. The second reason was that this approach, while lengthy, facilitated Smith’s growth as a professional – by gradually moving through the “career ladder,” he became intimately familiar with Toyota’s systems on all levels. Thus, Smith would be able to make improvements that touch upon not only the upper echelons of the hierarchy but affect the entire production plant starting with the assembly line worker and ending with the senior manufacturing management staff.
Apply (or map) the Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) framework to the case. Focus on the “Plan” stage.
Fukunaga’s method has many resemblances to the Continuous Process Improvement Framework. This framework utilizes a step-by-step approach during the planning stage to implement prospective changes and establish standard processes. The planning stage of CPI is comprised of the following steps:
- Perception of the Problem.
- Grasping the Current Situation.
- Diagnosing Root Causes.
- Devising Root Cause Treatment Options.
- Creating an Implementation Plan.
If we look at the stages that Smith had to go through during his orientation in Toyota, we could see that Fukunaga was guiding him through the planning stages of CPI. First, he needed to perceive the problem at the most utilitarian level, which was why he was placed in a group of 19 workers and was tasked with observing their behavior (Spear & Purrington, 2004). In order to grasp the current situation, his objective became to spot potential errors in the working process and come up with means of solving them. These problems, though not the root causes behind the 80% operational availability, allowed for a grasp on the current situation.
Smith was able to diagnose the root causes of his facility’s diminished operational efficiency when he was brought to Japan and was able to survey a facility that operated at peak efficiency. The last part of his assignment involved finding causes of operation deficiencies in a much tidier environment and devising root cause treatment options – the task was to detect and treat at least 50 deficiencies and provide an implementation plan to be discussed and reviewed by the management team (Spear & Purrington, 2004).
What did Toyota actually know about Smith when they hired him? What did Fukunaga accomplish in terms of Smith’s development? What is left before Smith can take on a senior role?
As it often is with companies hiring high-ranking employees, Toyota did not know much about Smith aside from his education and his resume. He had engineering and management degrees and came from a family of people with a background of working in the Rust Belt’s manufacturing industry. Smith’s elite education told Toyota that the candidate was qualified for the position in terms of base knowledge of both production and management processes, which is very important in modern-day practices, as high-ranking employees are required to constantly improve their levels of education to stay at the top.
Smith’s working background provided Toyota with information about his qualities as a production manager and as a person. Having been hired by Toyota’s competitors to “shake up” the production processes and the assembly lines, the man proved to be an exceptionally valuable asset. He studied Honda’s and Toyota’s production processes and management practices, managing to narrow the gap between Toyota and his company, and managing to improve market share, reputation, as well as providing some promising designs (Spear & Purrington, 2004).
However, while he succeeded at narrowing the gap, Smith did not close it entirely, meaning that the practices implemented in his company were, overall, inferior to those implemented in Toyota. Still, the manager showed much promise, especially considering he was of American descent. Toyota has been making a considerable effort in opening production plants in countries the company wishes to expand.
Having an American manager would ensure better understanding between senior, middle, and low management staff, as well as increased cultural awareness. In putting Smith through the CPI routine, Fukunaga managed to introduce him to Toyota’s way of thinking as well as to their working processes. What Fukunaga did not make use of, however, is Smith’s experience and his own ideas that he brought over from another company. I foresee that in the future, Smith would be tasked with implementing the plans he and his coworkers have developed during the planning stage.
Compare your view of a boss and what you perceived from the first case “Gen Y in the Workforce,” to what was illustrated in this case? What can you say about Toyota’s view of a boss (manager), and organizational change and transformation?
After reviewing both case studies, it is fairly easy to say that the CEO of Toyota was a much more qualified and experienced manager than the marketing director of the Triple F studio. The main difference between the two lies in the approach towards the promising talent and helping it grow to benefit the company. If we compare both cases, we could see that at the beginning both Josh and Smith had potential ideas that could be used to benefit the company.
In both cases, the initial input was rejected for similar reasons – neither had enough experience with the system to offer any educated suggestions. In the case of Sarah, it was because Josh did not possess the information in regards to the company’s capabilities and experience with Internet-based advertising, whereas in Smith’s case it was his lack of familiarity with Toyota’s work processes. The difference between Sarah and Fukanaga was in that the latter worked with his underling in order to teach him to use the official channels to facilitate organizational change and transformation.
In accordance to the CPI, he assumed the role of the mentor, and constantly offered Smith input in regards to his performance, and showed him where he needed to improve, while at the same time acknowledging his efforts and implementing the provided suggestions. Sarah did not act the same – her model of management did not implement any tenets of the CPI, it was static. Beyond the arbitrary dismissal of Josh’s ideas, she did not make any effort to teach him to work within the system and left the young manager high and dry.
An argument could be made that Smith was more professional in his duties while Josh was arrogant and immature, it cannot be used to excuse Sarah’s underperformance as a senior manager. Fukunaga’s approach, that forced Smith to work his way up from the bottom, managed to make him unlearn the superior and arrogant attitude that he might have had his successes in the previous company, and instilled a sense of respect for the chain of command, while at the same time offered opportunities for empowerment and flourishing in the face of adversity and hardship.
Sarah’s approach did not command the same respect from her underlings, as she was considered wrong not only by Josh but by many other employees as well. Lastly, she did not empower her underlings to provide better results, instead focusing only on the bare minimum, and did not give any channels of leaving an impact on the company. There is a core difference between the Triple F studio and Toyota, that being in the perception of the Boss.
While in Triple F the information typically goes from top to bottom, in Toyota the feedback travels back and forth, as senior managers work in close partnerships with their underlings and are often tasked with solving problems at a micromanagement level, which means that while the hierarchy exists, the barriers of connection between individual levels are not as solid as in Triple F. It allows the information to flow freely, thus enabling the entire organization to adapt and improve continuously.
Reference
Spear, S. J., & Purrington, C. (2004). Jack Smith: Career launch at Toyota. Harvard Business Review, 1-9. Web.