Human Resource Development in Toyota Culture: A Case Study of TMMK

This paper examines the role of Human Resource (HR) development in Toyota's culture, using the Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky (TMMK) plant as a case study. It highlights the profound difference in HR practices at Toyota compared to traditional companies, emphasizing the importance of trust, continuous improvement, and employee development in achieving lean management. The paper explores how TMMK responded to a crisis of trust by restructuring its HR function, focusing on building a culture of respect, accountability, and employee advocacy. It also contrasts Toyota's approach to lean management with the traditional view of lean as a technical toolkit, arguing that the latter is destined to fail without a strong emphasis on human development and trust.

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249921837
Human Resource development in Toyota culture
Article in International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management · January 2010
DOI: 10.1504/IJHRDM.2010.029445
CITATIONS
113
READS
77,579
2 authors:
Jeffrey K. Liker
University of Michigan
160PUBLICATIONS11,399CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Michael Hoseus
University of Dayton
2 PUBLICATIONS473CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Jeffrey K. Liker on 21 February 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Human Resources Development and Management, Vol. x, No. x, xxxx 1
Copyright © 200x Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
Human Resource development in Toyota culture
Jeffrey K. Liker*
Industrial and Operations Engineering,
University of Michigan, USA
E-mail: [e-mail]
*Corresponding author
Michael Hoseus
Centre for Quality People and Organization,
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
E-mail: [e-mail]
Abstract: Companies throughout the world are engaging in ‘lean’ programs
for manufacturing, product development, office work, and even the enterprise
following Toyota as a model. The goal is to eliminate waste. Generally
speaking these programs have had success at driving impressive dollar savings,
but we believe the results are still far below what is possible and generally not
sustainable. The problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of what has made
Toyota so successful. For Toyota the goal is always to be the best at cost,
quality, delivery, safety, and morale through engaging people in continuous
improvement. This paper summarises how they do that through an exceptional
Human Resource (HR) development system.
Keywords: lean management; human resource development; culture change.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Liker, J.K. and Hoseus, M.
(xxxx) ‘Human Resource development in Toyota culture’, Int. J. Human
Resources Development and Management, Vol. x, No. x, pp.xxx–xxx.
Biographical notes: Jeffrey K. Liker is Professor of Industrial and Operations
Engineering at the University of Michigan and principle of Optiprise, Inc.
He has authored or co-authored 75 papers and book chapters and nine books.
He is author of the international best-seller, The Toyota Way: 14 Management
Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer, McGraw Hill, 2004
and (with David Meier) The Toyota Way Fieldbook, 2005. Other related books
are (with James Morgan) The Toyota Product Development System,
Productivity Press, 2006, (with David Meier) Toyota Talent: Developing
exceptional people the Toyota Way (2007) and (with Mike Hoseus) Toyota
Culture: The Heart and Soul of the Toyota Way (2008).
Michael Hoseus is Executive Director of the Center for Quality People and
Organisations. He worked for Toyota’s Georgetown, Kentucky plant for more
than 12 years as a group leader, assembly plant manager, and manager of
human resources. The Center for Quality People and Organisations is a
Toyota-supported nonprofit organisation dedicated to sharing the Toyota Way
with education, community, and business organisations through the experience
of former Toyota leaders.

2 J.K. Liker and M. Hoseus
1 Introduction
From the founding of Toyoda Loom Works in the 1920s to the creation of Toyota Motor
Company in the 1940s, its leaders believed that the key to success was investment in its
people (Liker, 2004). The Toyota culture has evolved since the company’s founding
and is the core competence of the company. It is the reason why operations are lean, cars
hit the market on time and on budget, chief engineers developing cars deeply understand
the customer, company executives anticipate long-term trends and have clear strategies,
and every employee (called a team member) is vigorously working on achieving
the annual plan of the company. The Toyota Way is first and foremost about culture – the
way people think and behave deeply rooted in the company philosophy and its principles
(Liker, 2004). At the core it is about respect for people and continuous improvement
and this has not changed since the company’s founding.
Organisations of many kinds throughout the world have been borrowing specific
methods from Toyota that have been turned into programs like lean manufacturing, lean
enterprise, and lean six sigma. Underlying these programs is a fundamentally different
assumption than we see in Toyota’s culture. The assumption of these lean programs is
that the right tools applied to specific problems by expertly trained individuals will
dramatically improve business performance in a relatively short period of time.
Toyota’s underlying assumption is that carefully selected and developed people over long
periods of time will continuously improve processes and ultimately lead to competitive
advantage and mutual prosperity.
These philosophical underpinnings lead to very different views of how to manage
and develop people and different views of the role of the human resources department in
the firm. Mention Human Resources (HR) in most companies and one thinks of a
department that processes people in a similar way that accounting processes money.
Massive computer systems and large procedure manuals with reams of data account
for such things as salary structures, benefit packages, career paths, retirement programs,
and health insurance. You can study HR in college and get a job as an HR professional.
For most people who choose other professions such as engineering or nursing or law the
HR department is a place they go to get processed into the company when they are hired
or out of the company when they leave. Sometimes in between they may have a question
about benefits or salary scales and contact HR. Otherwise the less contact the better.
The traditional firm views HR largely as a human accounting function. In fact it is
becoming popular to outsource the ‘HR function’ to information technology firms as a
cost reduction strategy.
The purpose of this paper is to address the question of how a change to lean
management impacts the HR function. We will use as a model for lean management the
original – Toyota. We will see that in fact there is a very profound difference in HR
at Toyota compared to traditional companies but perhaps not in the way we might think.
Toyota’s view is that lean management requires more highly developed people and
deeper trust than in a mass production system. People become the most critical part of the
system and their willingness to identify and solve problems is what drives continuous
improvement. As such, HR is arguably the most critical function in the enterprise.
The accounting roles of HR are fairly trivial at Toyota compared to roles in developing
people and creating a fair environment based on mutual trust.1
This paper starts by addressing the role of HR in a lean enterprise. Next a detailed
case study is presented on how HR at Toyota’s plant in Georgetown, Kentucky (TMMK)

Human Resource development in Toyota culture 3
responded to a major crisis of trust by reorganising the HR function. This example
reveals that Toyota is far from perfect and experiences serious problems and gives
insights into how Toyota responds to problems by getting to the root cause. The paper
concludes with a discussion of some of the cultural issues that affect the ability to create a
Toyota-like HR system in the USA.
2 What is the role of HR in a lean enterprise?
The concept of ‘lean production’ was first introduced in The Machine that Changed the
World (Womack et al., 2007) to refer to a new way of looking at the manufacturing
enterprise. It was distinguished from mass production by its single-minded focus on
eliminating waste in all aspects of the enterprise. An enterprise exists to add value to
customers through a series of activities that transform inputs into outputs and anything
other than the minimum needed to perform that value-added function is waste.
Toyota was the original model for lean and the concept of ‘Just-In-Time (JIT)’
epitomised the focus on waste elimination – only make exactly what is needed, in the
amount needed, when it is needed.
In fact, the JIT principle is one aspect of a broader philosophy represented
by the Toyota Production System (TPS). In TPS the JIT concept is one pillar and the
other is to build in quality at every step of the process, not allowing defects to propagate
through the value stream. The foundation is stable and repeatable processes.
In the centre of TPS is the person who must be motivated to identify and solve problems.
The question of how lean production changes the role of HR is an interesting one.
If we take an abstract view of lean production and focus only on waste reduction
(Womack and Jones, 2003) we might then suggest ways HR can help eliminate waste.
For example, there is ample data on ratios of indirect labour to direct labour to decide if
you are ‘lean’ in overhead. Or we might subject HR itself to lean methods and ask how
we can cut waste in the HR process. For example, we could use value stream mapping to
reduce waste in the hiring process by eliminating non-value added steps – or perhaps
outsource HR to a cheaper source. If we consider the original model of
lean – Toyota – we would ask a different question: What does HR contribute to the
creation and maintenance of Toyota Culture?
The HR Department at Toyota plays a far more important role than that of processing
people as a stream of assets. The Toyota Way views the way team members are
developed as the key competitive competency of the company (Liker, 2004; Liker and
Meier, 2007). And since developing exceptional people is the most important work of the
company, the organisation charged with that responsibility had better be exceptional
(Ulrich, 1997). One only has to look at the people who pass through HR as managers
to notice something is different at Toyota. Managing Directors, Vice Presidents of
manufacturing and engineering, and some of the leading experts on the TPS have spent
time working in HR. That is because HR has a key role in developing people who work
in operations so HR managers must be experts on operations.
Since lean management is a method for eliminating waste and the object of much of
waste elimination is labour cost, one might think the main purpose of lean methods is
headcount reduction. Toyota also wants productivity improvement over the long term but
achieves this through waste elimination. The tools of TPS are designed to surface
problems so that people can solve those problems thereby continually strengthening the

4 J.K. Liker and M. Hoseus
system. In part because of Toyota’s heritage in Eastern culture the world is viewed as
complex and dynamic (Nisbett, 2003). It is impossible to anticipate exactly what the
future holds. So things like forecasts of demand and detailed schedules based on those
forecasts are viewed with great suspicion. To create as much control as possible Toyota
views all plans as tentative and then uses problem solving to respond to the inevitable
deviations that will occur from the plan.
The JIT system is a good example of this. Many companies view JIT as an inventory
reduction system. Lower batch size and use pull systems to reduce inventory. Toyota also
works hard to reduce inventory but for a different purpose. Large inventory buffers
will hide problems. A piece of equipment breaks down or a person gets behind in their
work and as long as there is inventory the next process can keep working without
interruption. In a JIT system a problem in one process will quickly shut down the next
process. Toyota expects team members to pull a cord when they notice any deviation
from standard which can stop the production line. The andon (light) goes on for all to see
and the problem is immediately elevated to a high level of urgency and must be
addressed. People who are well trained in problem solving will first contain the problem
to get production running and then take the time to identify the root cause of the problem
and develop and implement countermeasures.
When a process is first introduced we cannot predict all the ways it will fail.
Through continually surfacing problems and solving the root causes the system gets
stronger and stronger. The next question is: how can we capture what we have learned
and sustain it? The final step in Toyota’s problem solving process is to make the new
method a standard. The new standard is followed until another problem occurs that
exposes another weakness and a better solution is developed. Those trained in quality will
recognise this as the plan-do-check-act cycle taught by J. Edwards Deming.
The implication of this philosophy of management is quite profound. If TPS, or what
we now call ‘lean’, is intended to surface problems and people serve the function of
problem detectors and problem solvers certain conditions are necessary:
• there must be a standard so team members can recognise deviations as problems
• team members must be well trained to understand the standards
• team members cannot fear that exposing a problem will get them in trouble or lead to
job loss
• team members must be trained in problem solving methods
• team members must be motivated to help the company achieve its goals.
The connection between the technical systems of TPS and the role of people in problem
solving is captured in Figure 1. What are often thought of as tools of TPS – JIT, visual
management, standardised work – are shown in the foundation. As the system is
tightened up, with less and less inventory, problems surface more quickly.
Visual management highlights problems. Standardisation defines problems as the gap
between the target and actual condition. The pillars are problem identification and
problem solving.
The manufacturing process is expected to be imperfect and problems will continually
be surfaced. It is up to people to identify those deviations from the standard and solve
them (Liker and Meier, 2006). In so doing the people themselves are learning and getting
stronger. In this way people development and lean manufacturing system development

Human Resource development in Toyota culture 5
go hand in hand (Liker and Meier, 2007). For this to work there must be a high level
of trust – trust that there will be no negative repercussions of surfacing (admitting)
problems and trust that if the company gets stronger all will benefit.
Figure 1 Problem solving connects the product and people value streams
Kiyoshi (Nate) Furuta was the first Vice President of HR at the Toyota plant in
Georgetown, Kentucky. He was very well schooled in TPS and understood the
importance of trust for the system to work. So from the very beginning he knew that HR
had to ensure an environment of trust for Toyota to succeed in the USA. As Furuta
explains:2
“In the very beginning our concern was how we can make the worker not be
afraid of management and freely tell us the problem. TPS requires that we
make things visible so we have to convince people their job is secure so they
will admit to a mistake and that is never the cause of being fired. I explained to
Cho-san (then President of TMMK) that we need a strong HR department. HR
must have the final decision to change employee status. Supervisors can
recommend, but cannot make final decisions. Even then people in HR in the
USA did not believe in this kind of concept because they were so used to being
the processor after department managers make decisions about hiring, firing
and promotions. Our system says HR can say no.”
This all sounds very lofty and ideal and it is easy to get the impression that Toyota is
either like a utopian company or this all must be a facade. Neither is the case. Toyota is
very sincere in believing that competitiveness depends on strong TPS which depends on
developing highly capable people with a high level of trust. HR acts as the guardian of
trust. This does not mean that people are perfect or that Toyota’s system is perfect.
Again, the underlying premise based on Eastern thinking is that nothing is ever perfect
and we can never know all the ways that the system will fail. Nor can we predict exactly
what people will do. One case really drove that lesson home at the Toyota plant in
Georgetown, Kentucky (TMMK). We next go into some detail about that case.
It illustrates that Toyota is based on people and people are not perfect. It also illustrates
the seriousness with which Toyota takes protection of trust and the power of a problem
solving culture.

6 J.K. Liker and M. Hoseus
3 Restructuring HR as a result of a critical problem
3.1 Understanding the problem
As the first wholly owned Toyota assembly plant in the USA, TMMK was looked at as
an important source of learning for future overseas plants. In 1997, the plant had its first
real HR crisis that revealed serious weaknesses in the system and a lack of awareness by
management about these weaknesses.
The problem that finally came to the attention of management was a sexual
harassment situation that was taking place in the paint department involving supervisors
and members of management. As soon as the HR reps and management team found out
about the problem, it was attacked in the standard Toyota fashion. The HR reps started
to interview team members to get the facts, but were quickly told that they were not
trusted and that is why nobody had come to them earlier. The HR reps were seen as
members of management, and therefore part of the problem and not the solution.
HR management decided to hire an outside investigation team to do the interviews with
paint team members and management.
Through this process the facts came out and were shocking to the management that up
to this point thought they had created a fair and safe environment for team members.
There were a number of supervisors and members of management that were not behaving
according to Toyota’s stated values and standards. Disciplinary action all the way up to
termination for some was initiated. It was ten years into the plant’s history, and the plant
had been viewed as a model for employee relations up to that point. Many thought the
company was going to try to minimise, justify, and defend what had happened. This
would be counter to the Toyota Way principle of surfacing and solving problems. The
message to the press and the team members was the same: We messed up; the systems we
have in place to highlight and deal with these issues failed us; and we are going to
investigate, find the root cause, and correct the problem.
That is exactly what took place. The company hired outside consultants to help
because part of the problem was that team members had lost trust in HR and its
representatives in their area. There were special team member meetings and focus groups
held to talk with the team members and get their perspective on the cause and possible
countermeasures.
Two main themes of issues came to the surface. The first was that the plant had to get
back to following Toyota Way values, and the management team had to be held more
accountable for doing so. The second was that the plant needed to address the HR
organisation and the fact that the reps did not have the trust needed to be told about the
problems early on.
Notice that the problems were defined much more broadly than the specific incidents
of sexual harassment. In Toyota problem solving, the ‘five-why’ process leads to
continuing to dig into root causes until you arrive at the underlying system causes.
Simply fixing the proximate cause – like sexual harassment and the individuals
involved – would not prevent the problem (or a similar one) from occurring again.
Beyond this, there are other problems that occur when management is not living Toyota
Way values and HR is not trusted, and those problems would still exist if only the sexual
harassment issue was addressed.

Human Resource development in Toyota culture 7
3.2 Back to the basics – values
For the improvement activity of following the values, more management and member
focus groups were held, the values of the company were specifically defined, and then
ideas were generated on how to better hold everyone accountable for following them.
The team members and managers mutually agreed to a vision and a specific set of values
that would define the Georgetown plant. They were:
Our vision: Be a company respected worldwide for producing the highest quality vehicles
at the lowest cost in a safe environment. We will achieve this by following the principles
of TPS, promoting mutual respect, living our values, and by maintaining an environment
of continuous learning.
Our values:
• Safety: To make safety and health the priority, we accept individual responsibility for
our own safety as well as others.
• Customer satisfaction: To gain and hold our internal and external customers’ respect
and loyalty, we live by our philosophy that the “next process is our customer”.
• Respect: To achieve an environment where all team members treat other with
dignity, trust each other, and care about the work we do, we foster initiative and
creativity.
• Integrity: To demonstrate the highest ethical standards in all interactions, we deliver
on our commitments, admit our shortcomings, and act as an environmentally,
socially, and economically responsible corporate citizen.
• Teamwork: To ensure the success of our company, each team member has the
responsibility to work together, and communicate honestly, share ideas, and ensure
team member understanding.
• Continuous improvement: To contribute to our competitiveness and long-term
success, we take responsibility for improving ourselves, our processes, and our
products through innovative thinking, and continually challenge ourselves to
improve, take pride in our work, and play an active role in making TMMK a better
company.
Then everyone agreed to follow the systems already in place to ‘pull the andon’
(like pulling the cord to stop the line) in case the plant was not meeting the standards
represented by these values. The systems already in place included regular
communication channels such as team member meetings and a Hotline Call system.
Because of the mistrust of the HR department, a new hotline was also set up which was
known as the ‘Corporate Compliance Hotline’, and it went directly to the office of the
president. It in effect became a check and balance on the HR division.
The team members also came up with an idea to institute a value ‘card system’
in order to give immediate feedback to anyone in the company, including managers, if
they were not following the values. The cards worked like those that are used for a soccer
referee. Each team member had a pocket-sized booklet that included a set of the values,
the expected behaviours, and three cards in the colours green, yellow, and red. Whenever
anyone observed anyone else demonstrating the values of the company, like stopping

8 J.K. Liker and M. Hoseus
what they were doing to help a teammate, they were greeted with a green card. A yellow
card was used to ‘warn’ another person or the whole group if they were getting close to
the ‘line’, while the red was used to let the others know that the ‘line’ had been crossed.
It was not uncommon to be in a meeting and see yellow or red cards come out if there
was some gossip starting, or some derogatory comments or even jokes that were at the
expense of others. It sounds a bit corny, but the system was a great tool that was serious,
but also fun enough to be utilised in order to help cement the behaviours desired by all.
This is not a permanent tool and has a clear lifespan after which people get tired of it,
but that is the reason why continuous improvement is needed.
3.3 The HR re-organisation
At the same time the values activities were going on, HR was also looking at itself in the
mirror to determine what needed to be done. In proper Toyota fashion, there was an
honest look at the situation as compared to the standard. The standard for HR is to uphold
the company’s values and to partner with manufacturing in order to reach the business
goals. The reality of the situation was that neither of these two was being accomplished.
There was much data from the company indicators to substantiate this, including
data from the Hotline Call system, a regular opinion survey, and team member meetings.
With this gap identified, it was time to get to work on problem solving.
Routinely at Toyota problems identified are solved by getting a cross-functional and
cross-level team together, allowing them to use the problem-solving process, and
empowering them to make the decisions necessary to take care of the problems.
In this case a senior management team developed the goals of the activity and guidelines
acting as a ‘steering committee’ to a working team. The goals or outcomes of the activity
were identified as:
• improved teamwork within HR and with manufacturing
• development of individual skills in HR
• integration of HR principles into each section
• greater flexibility in the workforce
• improved communication and access to HR for team members
• improved consistency of policy applications across manufacturing areas.
The working team was made up of the assistant manager and specialist levels within the
HR department. They were given the following directions:
• gather input from customers (the team members and manufacturing management)
• benchmark other organisations
• map out all current processes and flow
• list all current member roles
• identify the key roles of HR and then align the organisation accordingly
• operate within budget constraints.

Human Resource development in Toyota culture 9
The working team spent several months getting input from the customers and
benchmarking, and then two more months of analysis. They looked at the current
structure of the HR organisation as shown in Figure 2. The team found that the biggest
problem with the current layout was that HR was literally and figuratively apart from the
manufacturing sections and not doing a good job in partnering with them or being
available to the team members and building the relationship of trust.
The team also found a problem with the structure and the role of the HR rep. TMMK
had the rep being the team member advocate one day, but if the team member went into a
corrective action situation, the same rep may be sitting on the other side of the table from
the team member as part of the investigation and disciplinary process. It was a logical
consequence for the team members to see the HR reps as more of a management
advocate than a team-member advocate, and as a result they were not confided in when
there was a problem.
Figure 2 Past layout of HR at TMMK (see online version for colours)
The last thing the team discovered was that the reps were spending the majority of their
time on team member administrative issues. They were answering questions about picnic
dates and funeral leave benefits for a sister-in-law, but not solving issues and problems
that the team members were having. Responding to administrative questions is a common
role of HR in traditional companies, but not what Toyota was looking for.
As a result, the team then proposed that the ‘new HR’ organisation be structured
around four key roles with the corresponding functions:
Strategic partners
• Act as an integral part of the business team
• Engage the business team in systematic organisational audits resulting in clear
priorities
• Provide HR resources to the business
• Possess clear understanding of current business conditions (internal and external).
Administrative experts
• Develop and manage guidelines, plans, and policies for effectively managing HR
• Act as consultants in fields of expertise, supporting other HR professionals
and other HR clients
• Take responsibility for continuous improvement in programs and operations.

10 J.K. Liker and M. Hoseus
Employee champions
• Speak for employee needs and management concerns about employee relations
• Know the employees and anticipate their concerns and issues
• Be available and approachable by employees
• Be experts in assisting employees with concerns
• Provide employees with the resources they need to commit themselves to meeting
company objectives.
Change agents
• Influence and drive organisational change strategies in support of business objectives
• Manage the process to ensure successful change management
• Continuously take the organisation’s pulse regarding both internal and external
matters
• Remain current about tools and practices of change in order to effectively and
efficiently manage change and respond to the organisation’s requirements.
The team also proposed a new HR structure and physical layout be set up in order to
facilitate these four roles. The new structure is illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3 Revised layout of HR at TMMK (see online version for colours)
This new structure had a ‘mini HR team’ set up in each of the manufacturing areas in
order to do a better job of both partnering with manufacturing management and
performing the role of team member advocate. This team performed the HR roles of both
employee champions and strategic partners. The roles of the teams included:
• development: on-the-job development, process improvement, section-specific
training, coaching, section business and strategic planning
• employee relations: employee advocate, concern resolutions, peer reviews, safety
and health
• HR systems: salaried promotions up to assistant manager, salaried relations, training
for salaried members.

Human Resource development in Toyota culture 11
The change resulted in a mutually beneficial partnership between manufacturing and HR.
HR and manufacturing now work on the annual business (hoshin) plans together resulting
in better collaboration and integration of the two departments, while at the same time
preventing some of the team member concerns from coming up like they used to.
The move had addressed the problem of having ‘silos’ in the organisation. At the
same time, the design was meant to prevent just taking the HR and Manufacturing silos
and turning them horizontally and creating ‘sewer pipes’. In other words, if HR and
manufacturing are two silos and Toyota splits HR into mini teams to work closer with
management, it will help the collaboration of each but make it harder to ensure fairness
and consistency across all of the departments. For this reason, the team recommended
that there still be a central HR administration group that would be split into certain
functions in order to address the issues that were highlighted.
This central HR group was formed in order to connect the rest of the teams for
consistency and fairness and to be the window to Toyota North American Headquarters.
The group consisted of the following functions:
• Personnel: Comp/Benefits, Payroll, Staffing and Recruiting, Transfer System
• Health and safety: Medial Leave of Absence, Ergonomics Support, Early Symptom
Investigation support, Family and Medical Leave, Americans with Disabilities Act,
Data Reporting, New Hire Health Evaluation, Health Assessment, Workers Comp
• Employee relations: Policy Development and Training, Communications,
Recognition
• Training: Promotion Process, Team Leader Training, Problem Solving Training,
Quality Circles and Suggestions, Plant-wide Training.
This central group now had the ability to focus on planning and policy setting and
become the experts of their respective areas. For example, in order to address the issue of
the HR reps spending most of their time with administrative issues, the group
recommended setting up a central call centre which all team members could call or visit
to ask their ‘general questions’. All concerns were tracked by computer for two reasons.
One was to make sure that the question or concern was brought to closure within a
standard time. This rebuilt the trust team members had in HR and did not leave them
waiting for an answer.
The second reason was for continuous improvement. The computer tracking also
enabled the group to track the most frequently asked questions and then apply the
problem-solving methods to countermeasure the system breakdown that necessitated the
team member having to make the call. Every call was treated like a defect, with the
assumption being that there must be a problem with some system, training, or
communication that is causing the team member to have to ask the question. One of the
most frequently asked questions was about the transfer system and where a team member
was ‘in line’ to transfer to another department. Another major question concerned
benefits – which things were paid for and which were not.
The team solved the bulk of both of the problems by implementing computer kiosks
in all of the cafeterias. These were designed to be simple to understand and use so that the
transfer system became a paperless ‘self-service’ process. As a result, the team members
could sign themselves up and then check their own status anytime without needing help
from the rep or the help desk. By taking the calls on a priority basis and solving the issues

12 J.K. Liker and M. Hoseus
one by one, the HR group was able to greatly reduce the number of issues the team
members needed help with, thereby resulting in fewer HR specialists needed to answer
these concerns. These specialists were then freed up to perform more ‘value-added tasks’
as described in this section. A summary of the results is shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Improvements resulting from implementing the team member ‘one stop’
Before Kaizen After Kaizen
Average number of calls per month 3052 7864
Number of hours per week needed to handle all the calls 18.5 65
Employees needed to cover calls 2 6
Two other teams were put together as part of the central administration group. In order to
prevent the need for the HR rep on the manufacturing teams to be a part of the
investigation or discipline of a team member, a separate ‘I’ (Investigation) team was
formed for this purpose. By having a team of four to five specialists perform this role for
the entire plant, it not only helped rebuild the trust with the HR rep in each section, it also
improved the fairness and consistency of the investigation process because there were
only a few people doing it instead of 20–30.
The final team in the central administration group was set up to be a projects and
planning group. Their role was designed to be the ‘change agents’ of the company,
partnering with the manufacturing sections in order to work on improvements in areas
such as:
• management and organisational development
• internal TPS development
• supplier development
• safety benchmarking and interfacing with affiliates as part of a global network.
Pete Gritton, Vice President of HR for TMMK and for North American manufacturing,
summarises how this restructuring helped the Georgetown plant with developing and
sustaining the Toyota Culture:3
“Who is the customer of HR? It is everybody. Our mission is to make sure that
we get the maximum utilisation out of all of our people whether it is team
member on the floor, or a VP, or whoever. Everybody is the customer and we
are trying to achieve a successful business, which requires everybody operating
at the maximum level. It is company success that we are after. With HR there is
a potential danger of bureaucracy, but if HR is set up correctly, it does not have
to be that way.
The restructuring took us out of the role of “The HR Police” and put HR on the
floor where we need to be. Instead of managing from the “Administrative Ivory
Tower,” we sent HR people to the floor to work directly with management.
We had gotten to the point in our maturity that it was time to work more closely
with manufacturing, and it was time to share with manufacturing that
authority – to partner with manufacturing.
It gave the manufacturing people one-stop shopping. Before, we were set up
here within silos. If a performance problem occurred, a person may start out
talking with employee relations people and might be told the problem was with

Human Resource development in Toyota culture 13
training and then they would go to the training person and be told it may be a
skills issue and be told they need to go to the development people, and the
manager is going from group to group, and this is where the bureaucracy comes
in. With the new system, all the manager had to do was talk to a team sitting
right near him and the team covered all the functions, and they had the
connection back to central HR, and the manager does not have to worry about
that. At the same time, our role became that of employee advocates, making
sure the team members get a fair shake. There are systems to make sure values
are being followed correctly.”
4 Trust and improvement culture make it all work
There are many distinctive characteristics of Toyota culture but one at the centre is that
Toyota people trust each other to an unusual degree for a large corporation. Moreover,
it is assumed that everyone is responsible for continuous improvement via
Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA). PDCA has gone beyond a tool and become integral to the
culture–probably one of the most difficult things to teach in the USA.
PDCA is actually contrary to many aspects of Western culture. With an uncanny
desire to get results and move on to the next problem we are strong on the doing and
weak on planning, checking and further action. Just ‘get on with it’ is a common refrain.
Continuous improvement via PDCA has become engrained in the Toyota culture at a
very deep level and goes hand in hand with a deep level of trust. Replicating this in other
companies is undoubtedly the most challenging part of learning from the Toyota Way.
One of the most common questions asked about Toyota is how people are rewarded
for continuous improvement. How does TMMK get 90,000 employee suggestions per
year? How does Toyota get hourly employees to contribute to business-affecting issues?
There must be large cash payments associated with employee suggestions. They are
surprised to learn that Toyota intentionally deemphasises cash rewards. In fact most USA
companies have much more elaborate systems of performance evaluation and pay for
performance.
In the book A Great Place to Work, Levering (1988) researched a number of
companies where the employees reported that they worked at great places. He found the
common denominator among these companies was that they all emphasised relationships
built on trust. He also found that these relationships ebb and flow, based on the amount of
trust in the ‘trust bank’. The policies, programs, and processes, and how they are
communicated and carried out by the leaders in the organisation, determine how much
trust is in the bank account.
Companies like Toyota build their trust accounts through daily interactions between
members. They build a culture of interaction that enables the members to feel like they
are part of a family or partnership, rather than just of a business or a job. Robert Levering
describes two types of interactions in companies. First, the typical ones are based on
‘commodity interactions’ where there is a ‘this for that’ mentality; that is, of clocking
so many hours and earning a paycheck. The second based on ‘trust interactions’ is a type
of ‘gift’ economy where things are exchanged without direct compensation based on trust
and partnership. The example given is the relationship that exists between neighbours:
One neighbour goes on vacation while the other willingly collects newspapers and mail
and waters the flower garden. There is no exchange of money, just an exchange of trust

14 J.K. Liker and M. Hoseus
and relationship. The next time the other neighbour starts a project, say, building a shed,
the first comes over and spends the day helping her out.
Table 2 compares and contrasts these two types of interactions. Trust interaction is
much more challenging to sustain compared to commodity interaction. In commodity
interaction the company offers a formally documented compensation package, each year
the boss clearly points out how you will be measured and what you will get if you
achieve the measures, and the year plays itself out. Even better if the job permits giving a
reward for every instance of good behaviour, like a sales person who gets a commission
for every sale, then the system is pretty well self sustaining. The problem is that it is not
possible to measure everything desired. In manufacturing that would include quality,
safety, cost reduction, on-time delivery of the right products at the right time and low
inventory. Companies with piece-rate systems pay employees by the number of pieces
they produce and they get a lot of pieces but not necessarily the right pieces or high
quality pieces and they definitely do not get employees stopping to work together and
solve problems.
Trust interaction requires trust by both parties that over the long term the other will
hold up their end of the bargain. If trust breaks down it can erase years of fair play in the
mind of the person who feels wronged. The earlier sexual harassment example from
TMMK illustrates how fragile trust can be and the great length Toyota management went
to repair the damage. The role of HR at Toyota is to monitor and maintain the trust
economy.
Table 2 Two views of the company-employee relationship
Commodity interaction Trust interaction
One for one exchanges Fair exchange works it self out over time
Low risk High risk
Easy to rectify bad exchange Betrayals hard to repair
Relationship must be renewed after each exchange Open-ended relationship
Terms available to all Terms highly personalised
Each side maximises its advantage at the expense
of the other side
Both sides give up something for the common
goal
Goal is individual advantage Goal is mutual growth
Currency is money Currency is trust
Source: Adapted from Levering (1988)
5 Lean viewed as a technical toolkit is destined to fail
Most companies view lean as a program to eliminate waste, that is, a methodology to be
implemented. Operations are “leaned out” and the assumption is that if well-trained
experts properly implement the tools the efficiency gains will be self-sustaining.
Unfortunately these companies are missing the very essence of TPS.
TPS aims to intentionally develop fragile systems that depend very heavily on people.
Without highly capable and motivated people rigorously solving problems the lean
system will fail and there is by design little back up. Repair bays disappear. Inventory
that buffers operations disappears. This is a system that can be risky and stressful if

Human Resource development in Toyota culture 15
management and the work force are not highly capable and lack trust in the system and
each other.
The underlying logic behind the deployment of lean and six sigma as tool kits is
summarised in Figure 4. The deployment process is viewed as a program and the goals
are typically quantified in dollars. How can we eliminate waste and variation thereby
reducing unit cost of production? Targets for improvement can include reducing labour,
inventory, or quality problems. These are translated into dollar savings which are rolled
up to the company level to report overall return on investment of the program.
The program is operationalised by training black-belt specialists who deploy the tools.
Executives delegate responsibility to these black belts. Many companies have reported
impressive cost savings from lean six sigma. In our experience visiting and working with
these companies the actual implementation on the floor is usually very shallow. There are
isolated instances of problem solving and waste eliminated, but there is still weak overall
flow across the enterprise. Moreover, people doing the work are not engaged in
improvement and as a result the new processes often revert back to their old form.
Figure 4 Traditional company approach to lean six sigma
Toyota’s approach is much more broad and holistic as represented by Figure 5.
It starts with a philosophy that the strength of the company is based on kaizen and respect
for people. Measurement of success is multidimensional and reflects the success of the
enterprise, not specific projects. The leadership hierarchy is not there to delegate
improvement to black-belt specialists but rather leaders at every level play an integral

16 J.K. Liker and M. Hoseus
role in daily improvement and leaders are teachers to develop team members. There are a
broad set of methods available for improvement but the social unit of improvement is
primarily at the level of the work group led by a group leader. The group leader is
supported by hourly-team leaders who facilitate kaizen at the team-member level.
Improvement is not focused only on large lean projects, but most are small improvements
led by shopfloor-team members so there is strong ownership of the process and results
(Liker and Meier, 2006). Over time continuous improvement by identifying and solving
problems strengthens the company, which can be regarded as a learning organisation.
We must reemphasise that Toyota is made up of people and people are highly
variable from person to person and even the same person over time. So not every action
of every person every day supports the ideal of Toyota culture. What does stand out at
Toyota is the ability to recognise problems accurately and honestly and solve them with
great rigor.
Figure 5 Toyota approach to developing the Toyota way
Toyota provides an example of a learning organisation that is real and successful.
It is successful for the owners of the business and for the team associates. It starts with
the assumption that people are the most important resource and need to be nurtured and
developed and challenged. HR management is one of the most visible and important

Human Resource development in Toyota culture 17
functions in the company because humans are the only competitive resource that cannot
be copied.
References
Levering, R. (1988) A Great Place to Work, Random House Inc., New York.
Liker, J.K. and Meier, D.P. (2006) The Toyota Way Fieldbook, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Liker, J.K. and Meier, D.P. (2007) Toyota Talent: Developing People the Toyota Way,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Liker, J.K. (2004) The Toyota Way, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Liker, J.K., Hoseus, M. and The Center for Quality People and Organizations (2008) Toyota
Culture: The Heart and Soul of the Toyota Way, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Nisbett, R.E. (2003) The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think
Differently … and Why, Free Press, New York.
Ulrich, D. (1997) Human Resource Champions, Harvard Business School, Press, Boston, MA.
Womack, J.P, Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (2007) The Machine That Changed the World: Toyota’s
Secret Weapon in the Global Car Wars That Is Now Revolutionizing World Industry
(Paperback), Free Press, NY.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (2003) Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your
Corporation, 2nd ed., Free Press, N.Y.
Notes
1This paper is a summary of portions of Liker et al. (2008).
2Personal interview, Toyota Engineering and Manufacturing of USA headquarters, 21 June, 2006.
3Personal interview at Toyota plant in Georgetown, Kentucky, 21 June, 2006.
View publication stats