Kaizen: Knowing What to Change—and What to Preserve

Kaizen: Knowing What to Change—and What to Preserve

“What matters is continuing to change—and remaining unchanged.”

This lyrics from Noriyuki Makihara’s song Tōku Tōku always makes me think about Kaizen.

At first, the two ideas seem contradictory. How can we embrace change while remaining unchanged? Yet this tension sits at the heart of Kaizen—and leadership.

An organization that refuses to change risks becoming trapped by its own habits. But an organization willing to change anything—including its fundamental principles—risks losing its direction.

The challenge is not choosing between change and consistency. It is knowing where each belongs.

Change How the Work Gets Done

Kaizen means renew. We change processes, movements, tools, and equipment. We challenge familiar routines and look for better ways to work.

Through that effort, people develop their capabilities, and organizations grow.

But change alone is not improvement. A process can become faster while becoming less safe. Costs can fall while quality deteriorates. A productivity target can be achieved at the expense of the people doing the work.

The question is not simply, “What did we change?”

It is, “Did that change make the work better—and did it honor the principles we stand for?”

Consider an operator who repeatedly walks away from a workstation to retrieve a tool. One response is to ask that person to move faster. Another is to change where the tool is stored.

Both responses may be intended to increase output, but they reflect different approaches to management. The first places the burden on the person. The second examines how the work has been designed.

Kaizen should challenge the conditions that make work difficult, not simply demand more effort from the people working within those conditions.

Preserve the Principles That Matter

Some commitments should not shift with each new target, business challenge, or leadership transition:

Put safety first.

Protect quality.

Follow established standards.

Call for help when abnormalities occur, and solve the underlying problems.

Keep improving.

Respect human and their humanity.

These commitments provide continuity while methods evolve.

Following standards, for example, does not mean preserving every procedure forever. It means working from an agreed baseline, improving it deliberately, and establishing a better standard—not abandoning discipline whenever a shortcut becomes convenient.

The methods can change. The commitment behind them should endure.

This distinction matters because the same principle may require different practices as circumstances change. Protecting quality might require a redesigned process rather than another inspection. Protecting safety might require eliminating a hazardous task rather than issuing another reminder to be careful.

Remaining faithful to a principle can therefore demand substantial change. “We have always done it this way” is not a defense of our values unless that way of working still serves them.

Standards Should Support Learning, Not Prevent It

Standards make the relationship between change and consistency especially clear.

Without an agreed way of working, it becomes difficult to distinguish an abnormality from ordinary variation or to assess whether a change actually helped. But when a standard is treated as permanently untouchable, it can become an obstacle to learning.

The commitment to follow a standard must be paired with a practical way to improve it.

People need to be able to say, “This is the current standard, but this part creates unnecessary difficulty,” without being dismissed as uncooperative. Leaders then need to help examine the problem, test a better approach safely, and update the standard when the evidence supports doing so.

That is different from silently improvising around a problem. It is also different from enforcing a procedure while ignoring the reasons people struggle to follow it.

The aim is disciplined improvement: preserve a reliable baseline while making it possible to establish a better one.

Are We Protecting the Wrong Things?

This is where organizations need to look honestly at themselves.

Have we clearly distinguished what must change from what must remain? Do people throughout the organization understand that distinction?

Or have we reversed the priorities?

When pressure rises, do we sacrifice quality before questioning the process? Do we compromise respect for human before reconsidering unrealistic demands?

Meanwhile, do we continue producing reports that no longer support decisions? Do we preserve meetings that consume time without helping anyone solve a problem?

Too often, principles become negotiable while routines become untouchable.

That is the opposite of Kaizen.

A report may have been introduced for a legitimate reason. A meeting may once have helped coordinate important work. Neither should be removed merely because it is administrative. But neither should be protected merely because it is familiar.

Ask what decision the report supports, who uses it, and whether its information is available in a simpler form. Ask what the meeting resolves and whether it brings together the people who can act.

The purpose deserves consideration. The existing format deserves examination.

Pressure Reveals the Real Priorities

It is easy to declare that safety, quality, and respect for humanity matter when operations are running smoothly. The harder test comes when a delivery is late, a defect appears, or a target is at risk.

Imagine a team member raising a concern that could delay a shipment. If the immediate response is frustration with the person who spoke up, the organization has sent a message that contradicts its stated commitment to quality.

Or imagine employees being invited to suggest improvements, only to find that questioning an established meeting or approval process is unwelcome.

In both situations, the issue is not a lack of slogans. It is a gap between stated principles and management behavior.

Leaders reinforce values through what they do next: investigate the concern, provide help, reconsider the plan, or insist that the work continue unchanged. Those responses show people which commitments actually hold under pressure.

Leadership Means Making the Distinction Clear

Leaders need to make it safe to challenge methods—and make it clear that fundamental values are not bargaining chips.

People should be able to question a report, redesign a process, or propose a different tool without being seen as resisting the organization. At the same time, they should never have to wonder whether safety, quality, or respect for humanity still matters when results are under pressure.

Making that distinction clear requires more than a statement of values. It requires discussing real decisions with the people affected by them.

Before introducing a change, ask: What problem are we trying to solve? What must this change protect? How will we know whether it improves the work? What will we do if it creates a new problem?

Afterward, return to the work and examine what actually happened. Listen to the people using the new method. A change is not successful simply because it has been announced or implemented.

This also requires leaders to examine their own routines. If every improvement discussion focuses on what frontline employees must do differently, management processes remain outside the scope of Kaizen.

The reports leaders request, the approvals they require, and the way they respond to problems are all part of the system—and all deserve scrutiny.

Kaizen requires both the courage to change and the discipline to remain true to our principles.

Change the way the work is done. Preserve the values that make the work worth improving.

Reference:

槇原敬之. (1992). 遠く遠く[Song]. 君は僕の宝物. WEA MUSIC.