Years ago, I worked at Donnelly Corporation in Holland Michigan, a company that led in encapsulated window and mirror technologies. But their true claim to fame was their groundbreaking approach to employee involvement. In the early 1970s, Donnelly became the subject of a Harvard case study highlighting their pioneering use of work teams. According to the study, they were the first company structured and managed top to bottom in work teams—a new concept for the time.
The core belief driving Donnelly’s success was simple yet powerful: the people working in the building, regardless of role, had the capabilities and the willingness to put energy into doing things better. I still recall the days when team leaders encouraged their teams to contribute to the suggestion program, aiming for eight ideas per person annually. If you submitted two ideas in a month, you’d even get movie tickets—a reward that inspired creativity and, in many cases, paid for a date or two at the local theater.
Throughout my career, I’ve seen many systems for involving employees, from team-based problem-solving and quality circles to Kaizen events. One study I read revealed that leading U.S. companies generate 40–50 ideas per person per year. Impressive, right? Then I learned that the best companies in Japan—home of the Toyota Production System—average closer to 400 ideas per person annually. Do the math…that’s about two ideas every single day.
At first, I found this hard to believe. But digging deeper, I realized Toyota’s success wasn’t about complex tracking systems or paperwork. It was about fostering a culture where continuous improvement was part of daily life. Employees were trained to look for small, incremental ways to improve their work—like raising a workstation by three inches or moving a tool closer to eliminate unnecessary steps. The emphasis was on action, not bureaucracy, with team leaders and members given great latitude to implement changes and learn from the results.
Fast forward to my time at GHSP, where we tried to blend these principles into our own culture. For example, teams were given their own checking accounts to spend as they saw fit during the month. Removing layers of approval allowed them to move quickly, experiment, and learn. We also trained team leaders to drive this culture and to lead problem solving and innovation within their teams. They were accountable to foster an environment where improvement was not just encouraged but expected.
This culture of continuous improvement was great and we also tied improvement into our structured planning processes. At our Hart Michigan plant, the management team identified a “monthly focus”—a key area for improvement—and each team set a related goal, called a “team charge.” Teams held one-hour problem-solving meetings (paid for by the company) and were expected to generate at least two ideas each month. This structured approach ensured we were directing, or asking for, improvements aligned with organizational priorities. This did not replace the overall culture where we hoped people would act on all other opportunities as they arose.
So, what does continuous improvement mean to me today? First, it’s everyone’s job to make things better—no exceptions. Second, it’s the leader’s job to highlight areas needing improvement, create policies that empower people to act independently and create an accountable culture of “better.” When people know their contributions matter and are trusted to take initiative, remarkable things happen.
I believe people, given the opportunity, want to contribute. I’ve seen this belief lead to extraordinary results time and time again. Continuous improvement is both a disciplined processes and a culture where making things better is part of everyone’s everyday work. That’s how the magic happens.