Special Situations
The four-step method tells you how to find a better way and how to put it to work. But two human failings stop good improvements long before the method gets a fair test — resistance to new ideas, and resentment of criticism. Both are natural, both are predictable, and both can be handled if you expect them.
The four-step method tells you how to find a better way and how to put it to work. But two human failings stop good improvements long before the method ever gets a fair test — and neither lives in the breakdown sheet or the proposal. The first is resistance to new ideas. The second is resentment of criticism. Both are natural, both are predictable, and both can be handled if you expect them. This section covers the two failings, how to deal with each, and the related objection that "our work is different."
By the end of this section, you should understand:
- why people resist a new method even when it is plainly better, and how to handle that resistance,
- why a search for a better way can be taken as personal criticism, and how to keep that from killing ideas — your own included,
- why "our work is different" is not a reason the method does not apply,
- and why the method fits any job that is some mix of material handling, machine work, or hand work.
1Resistance to new ideas
The first failing is resistance. Do not be surprised when someone you are checking an idea over with tells you, "The present method has worked for twenty years — why change it?" That is a natural reaction, and it is worth expecting before it happens rather than being caught off guard by it.
Resistance to new ideas is the natural pull toward leaving things as they are — the defense of past practice, precedent, tradition, custom, and habit against anything new.
We all do it. We defend the familiar and argue against the unfamiliar, and the longer a method has been in place the more reasons there seem to be to keep it. That instinct is not stupidity or stubbornness; it is the ordinary human attachment to what has worked before. But left unchecked it will block improvements that are plainly worth making.
Two things keep resistance from doing damage. The first is simply to expect it — to know that "it has always been done this way" is coming, so it does not stop you. The second is to point out where the Job Methods principles actually came from.
The principles of the Job Methods plan are not new. They were worked out many years ago by practical people, and Job Methods is a streamlined, simplified version of principles that have been tried and proven on thousands of jobs. You are not asking anyone to gamble on an untested theory. You are asking them to apply old, proven ideas to a job that has not had them applied yet.
When you hear "we have always done it this way," resist the urge to argue back. Arguing turns the discussion into a contest the present method usually wins on sentiment. Instead, agree that the present method has served well, then show — with the two breakdowns side by side — what the new method removes and what it makes easier. Let the facts do the persuading.
Treating resistance as a personal obstacle to be overpowered. Pushing harder hardens the resistance. The person is defending a habit, not attacking you. Expect the reaction, acknowledge that the old method has worked, and move the conversation back to the facts on the breakdown sheet.
2Resentment of criticism
The second failing is resentment. When you set out to find a better way of doing a job, someone may take that search as criticism of the way the job is being done now — and, behind that, as criticism of the person doing it. A search for improvement can feel like an accusation that the present method, and the people who built it, were not good enough.
Resentment of criticism is the feeling that a search for a better method is a personal judgment on the people who use the present one — and the related fear of looking foolish for not having found the improvement sooner.
The way to handle this is to make the purpose of the search clear, and to keep every discussion about the method, not the person. The aim is a constructive search for a better way to get the production we need — not a verdict on anyone's past work. When people understand that the improvement is the target and not them, the resentment has nothing to feed on.
Keep the rule simple: discuss the job, never the person. Every discussion of an improvement is about the method and only the method. There is no blame in finding a better way; there is only a better way, found.
The same fear works on the improver, too. We hesitate to bring in an improvement that might seem to criticize ourselves — the idea that someone will ask, "Why didn't you think of this before?" Do not let that stop you. The fact that a better way was not found earlier is not a failure; finding it now is the whole point. Fear of criticism must not be allowed to stop anyone's ideas — least of all your own.
Before you discuss an improvement with the person who runs the present method, say plainly what you are doing and why: you are looking for a better way to make the job easier and the production better, not checking up on anyone. Naming the constructive purpose out loud, at the start, prevents most resentment before it forms.
Sounds like: "The present method has worked for twenty years — why change it?" The natural defense of habit, precedent, and custom.
How to handle: expect it; acknowledge the old method has served; note that the Job Methods principles are old and proven, not untested theory; then let the facts on the two breakdowns persuade.
Sounds like: "Are you saying we have been doing it wrong?" — or, in your own head, "Why didn't I think of this before?"
How to handle: explain the constructive purpose of the search; keep every discussion about the method, never the person; and don't let fear of criticism stop anyone's ideas, your own included.
The two human failings that stop good improvements, what each one sounds like, and how to handle each. Resistance defends the old method; resentment reads the search for a better one as personal criticism.
What to notice: the handling of both comes down to the same move — keep the discussion on the method and off the person, and make the constructive purpose clear. Resistance is met with proven principles and facts; resentment is met with a stated, constructive purpose.
3"Our work is different"
Closely related to resistance is the objection that the method may be fine for some jobs but not for this one — "our work is different." It usually comes up the moment the demonstration job (radio shields) does not look like the work in the room.
The answer is that the method does not depend on the product or the process. It depends only on the kind of work involved, and every job is some mix of just three kinds: material handling, machine work, and hand work. The radio-shield demonstration was chosen because it contains all three, not because anyone makes radio shields. What carries over is the method of improvement — questioning every detail, then eliminating, combining, rearranging, and simplifying — not the product and not the specifics of the job.
| The objection | A constructive response |
|---|---|
| "It has worked for twenty years — why change it?" | The old method has served well — and the Job Methods principles are not new either; they are old, proven ideas. Let's see, on the two breakdowns, what the new method removes and makes easier. |
| "Our work is different — this won't apply here." | Which of the three kinds of work does your job include — material handling, machine work, hand work? The method applies to exactly those, whatever the product. |
| "Why didn't anyone think of this before?" | There is no blame in finding a better way now. Finding it is the whole point; the discussion is about the method, not the people. |
| "We are too busy to stop and study the job." | One improvement makes the job easier from then on. The little time spent breaking the job down usually uncovers a bigger saving than the time it costs. |
Common objections raised when an improvement is proposed, and a constructive response to each — each response keeps the discussion on the method and on the facts.
What to notice: none of the responses argues that the person is wrong. Each one redirects to the method, to the proven principles, or to the facts on the breakdown.
These principles are not confined to one kind of plant. They have been applied across mass production and job shops; across process, assembly, machine-tool, and foundry work; and across a wide range of industries — aircraft, tanks, guns, ships, munitions, chemicals, and lumber among them. A job that includes material handling, machine work, or hand work can be improved with this method, whatever it makes.
So when someone says their work is different, the right reply is not to argue that it is the same. It is to ask which of the three kinds of work their job contains — material handling, machine work, hand work — and then to show that the method applies to exactly those. It can be done.
Section summary
Two human failings stop good improvements before the method gets a fair test. The first is resistance to new ideas — "the present method has worked for twenty years, why change it?" — the natural defense of habit, precedent, and custom. Expect it, acknowledge that the old method has served, and point out that the Job Methods principles are not new but old, proven, and simplified, then let the facts on the two breakdowns persuade. The second is resentment of criticism — taking the search for a better way as a personal judgment, including the fear of "why didn't I think of this before?" Handle it by explaining the constructive purpose of the search and keeping every discussion about the method, never the person, and by not letting fear of criticism stop anyone's ideas.
The related "our work is different" objection is answered the same way: the method does not depend on the product or process, only on the kind of work, and every job is some mix of material handling, machine work, or hand work. The principles have been applied across mass production and job shops, across process, assembly, machine-tool, and foundry work, and across many industries. Whatever the job makes, it can be done.