Let the kaizen flag help flag the need for commitment
Following my blogs on Monozukuri and Hitozukuri, this piece looks at leadership commitment (yes, I know, I keep going on about this) and how we can help ourselves with a simple visual.
I first came across the Kaizen Flag after my time with CarnaudMetalbox, as we launched Kaizen Blitzes with varying success. I only appreciated Masaaki Imai‘s thinking some years later when I thought hard about what I was asking of leaders as a Lean coach. I reflect a great deal on how I should have used the flag as a measure with our blitz approach at the time.
Monozukuri, Hitozukuri and the Missing Dimension
Monozukuri shows us how easily we default to tools and mechanisms. Hitozukuri reminds us that people, capability, and behaviour matter far more than artefacts. But both principles imply the need for time, attention, and presence from leaders. And this is exposed with the flag. When mapping our leadership time against the kaizen flag, it exposes how leadership time is, or isn’t designed, and how frail the connection is in organisations not properly set up for improvement.
Three Domains, One System
I have had the flag rejected on several occasions as being too simplistic in today’s world. “It doesn’t translate to the modern workplace.” My response is that the modern world of operations is forgetting the basics and building routines for leaders that draw them away from the fundamentals of operational excellence. And the kaizen flag is just what is needed to understand where they are failing. The flag is simple, there are only three domains:
Standardisation: consistently applying known best practice
Kaizen: improving performance using current resources with minimal waste
Innovation: meeting future customer requirements through entirely new means
These domains are not hierarchical. They are simultaneous, and critically, they map directly to how different roles should spend their time. Yes, the flag is divided into four rows, with operators shown at the bottom and executives at the top. There are always limitations in conveying something graphically, but resist the temptation to get hung up on this. The flag is trying to convey something more, that kaizen is for everyone. And everyone has a role.
Roles Are Defined by Time, Not Titles
At the operator level, the dominant responsibility is clear: follow the standard. This is not about compliance for its own sake. Standards are the foundation that make improvement possible at all. Without stable, repeatable work, Kaizen becomes guesswork and innovation becomes disconnected theory. Supervisors and team leaders live at the line between standardisation and Kaizen. Their time must be spent:
- Ensuring standards are followed
- Seeing where reality deviates from those standards
- Responding immediately when it does
This is where the ratios, that I covered before, matter. If one leader is responsible for too many people, too many areas, or too much administration, this balance collapses. Standards will inevitably drift and Kaizen decelerates and the very culture of improvement becomes brittle. Is it then such a surprise that 50% of the flag is devoted to standards and their upkeep?
Leadership is defined by allocation of time, not level or title
One of the most persistent misunderstandings in Western organisations is the belief that Kaizen belongs somewhere else. The flag make the opposite point. Middle management and senior leaders do not exit Kaizen as they move “up”. Their proportion of time shifts, but their responsibility does not disappear.
Even senior leaders, those accountable for long-term technology, strategy, and innovation, remain partially anchored in Kaizen. They must:
- Understand the constraints of the current system
- See how today’s problems inform tomorrow’s investments
- Ensure that innovation does not bypass the realities of work
- Innovation without Kaizen becomes detached. Kaizen without leadership becomes performative.
Innovation Does Not Replace Engagement
The red segment of the flag, innovation, is real work. It really matters, no question. But the image is clear: innovation is a portion of leadership time, not a substitute for engagement elsewhere. When leaders disappear entirely into future-state thinking, the present-state system compensates by lowering ambition. Without the interest in the reality of work, the problems on the floor, and the effort to turn the PDCA wheel, standards will erode and improvement becomes an occasional activity. The shadow of the leader outside of the red dimension into the white is critical for infusing strength into the operating system. No-one should consider themselves too busy or too aloof from Kaizen.
Why Ratios Are a Design Choice
Seen through this lens, team leader ratios are no longer an efficiency metric. They are a declaration of intent. If the organisation structure does not allow leaders enough time in:
- Standardisation (to stabilise)
- Kaizen (to improve)
- Innovation (to evolve)
…then the system is not under-resourced, it is under-committed. The Kaizen flag doesn’t create this problem. It simply reveals it.
Mono gives us the tools. Hito gives us the people. Commitment decides how leaders spend their time, and whether improvement is real or rhetorical.
Take a day. Or a week. Print the flag out, or stick it on your phone as the screensaver. Go on, your dog won’t know that you replaced them for a wee while. Now just account for your time at work and ask yourself: which domain am I in? I hope it makes you frustrated enough to look at the design of leadership’s time in your patch.
Use the flag of Kaizen to fuel your ‘healthy dissatisfaction with the status quo.’
