An Overlooked Structural Lever in Continuous Improvement: The Team Leader Ratio
I’m angry.
After more decades than I care to remember supporting factories across automotive, food, pharma, mining, and heavy industry, I’ve come to believe one truth that is both obvious and routinely ignored:
CI is structurally impossible without the right team leader–to–operator ratio. You can have passion, training, tools, and a CI department full of smart people. But if your frontline leaders don’t have the bandwidth to coach, observe, respond, and improve, your CI system will always fall back into firefighting. Problems just become actions. Actions fall off the visual board. Entropy takes care of the rest.
Most organisations talk about continuous improvement as if it were a mindset problem.
“If only people cared more.”
“If only leaders coached better.”
“If only we had more kaizen ideas.”
Continuous improvement doesn’t fail because people don’t try. I’ve met enough managers doing their very best in the circumstances, carrying a hefty workload that spills into their evenings. It fails because the system gives them no time to succeed. No time for leaders, no time for operators. And nowhere is this more obvious than in the team leader–to–operator ratio.
It’s about time. No, it is really about time.
Continuous improvement is not something you do after the shift. It’s something that happens inside the shift.
To improve daily, the team leader must have time to:
- Observe work
- Notice abnormalities
- Respond immediately
- Coach problem solving
- Update standard work
- Follow up yesterday’s changes
- Drive kaizen
That “someone” is the frontline team leader. Just the other day I was peeking over a supervisor’s shoulder, watching her wade through the menu of work she has to complete. I was boiling with frustration as I saw the amount of ‘crap’ (her words, not mine) crowding her day. Sneakily, over time, HR, payroll, admin, time-keeping, rostering, one-to-one performance management, cost management, parts ordering, and more have wormed their way into her workload. At the bottom is a kaizen button. I asked her to tap on it. It is a shallow effort – a tip of the hat – to the engine that Toyota values so much. No thought, just a list in a drop-down menu.
“I’ve never used it.” There we go. My worst fears. Anger management required.
“Why, no time?” I ask, roiling with rage at the system.
‘They (the other buttons) are in order of priority. So she’s an HR extension first, parts expeditor next, and Kaizen engine driver last. By Thor, I’m ready to grab the tablet and chuck it in the nearby furnace.
“And how many in your team?”
“Twenty five.”
If they don’t have time, CI doesn’t exist, no matter how many posters, training sessions, or improvement events you run. I’ve walked past the problem-solving posters enough times today to know this is the extent of the commitment from the organisation. So not only is the ratio bloated, but we are packing work into the supervisor’s time too. It’s a double whammy.
The Structural Reality in Most Plants
In most factories today, one supervisor or team leader is responsible for 20-25 operators, sometimes 30 or more.
These leaders are expected to:
- Keep production running
- Chase parts
- Manage safety and quality – and, by law, may face prosecution for negligence
- Complete admin and HR tasks
- Attend meetings
- Respond to escalations
- And then somehow “do kaizen.”
This is not a motivation problem. This is a maths problem.
Putting the Maths on the Table
Here’s a conservative assumption for a 10 hour shift for the traditional supervisor managing 30 people. Yes, I chose a worst-case number. Approximately 30% of their time is realistically available for coaching, kaizen, and development. Based on what I saw with the supervisor app the other day, I am being very generous.
Toyota-style team leader with the same shift would have approximately 50% of the time available with minimal admin and no HR ownership. A 90% shop-floor presence. Here comes the maths.
Scenario 1: Traditional Structure (1:30)
Coaching / CI time per shift:
10 hours × 30% = 180 minutes
Operators supported: 30
Result: Approximately 6 minutes per operator per shift. That six minutes includes:
- Interruptions
- Walking
- Firefighting
- Reporting
- Answering Teams chats en route – no trip hazards introduced by the app at all (excuse my sarcasm)
In reality, this means a hyper-super-duper connected supervisor with no time for:
- Meaningful observation
- Structured coaching
- Kaizen at the point of work. At best, improvement becomes monthly or quarterly.
Scenario 2: Toyota-Style Structure (1:6)
Coaching / CI time per shift:
10 hours × 50% = 300 minutes
Operators supported: 6
Result: Circa 50 minutes per operator per shift. Now improvement becomes:
- Daily
- Practical
- Embedded in normal work
This is the difference between managing output and developing capability.
Visualising the Difference
Figure 1: Daily Coaching, Kaizen & Skill Development Time per Operator
This single chart explains why some organisations rely on improvement events while others improve every day.
Figure 2: How Team Leader Time Is Actually Used
A stacked comparison of a 10-hour shift shows the real story:
Traditional supervisor (1:30):
Firefighting dominates. For some, this is what they have joined for: the rough and tumble of whack-a-mole management. Never a dull moment, but skimming through the work and not solving issues with a meaningful countermeasure. Those issues are coming back tomorrow. For those not inclined to ad-hoc firefighting, this is a soul-killingly repetitive treadmill. Admin and reporting consume large blocks of time. Some compensate by taking this home where they find some peace. Kaizen is a tiny, occasional activity, if present at all. I’ve heard ambitious leaders say how they need to put a couple of years in on the shop floor, gain the stripes before a cushy number in corporate. This is the sad reality. They’ll put up with the current set-up and not challenge it and hold no interest in making a career where the value is added. In some respects, I can’t blame them when a creer in operations is not valued by the system itself.
Toyota-style team leader (1:6):
There is minimal admin. The Team Leader is unassigned and is a constant presence on the line. They do step in as cover for absenteeism, for sure. But more likely, they are stepping in to cover for the team member to assist with a kaizen idea being developed in the crib. Coaching and kaizen are normal, daily work. Every Andon pull is a gift to the Team Leader. There are fewer distractions, a smaller unit, with fewer functions to perform, and one laser focus: improvement. This Team Leader, along with the team members, are valued for what they do. A cushy number in corporate? Hmm…
Why Kaizen Becomes Episodic — or Daily
This is my critical insight.
At a ratio of 1:30:
- Kaizen is something leaders hope to get to
- Improvement is deferred
- Problems are escalated
- CI becomes event-based
At a ratio of 1:6:
- Kaizen happens in response to real problems
- Improvements are small and frequent
- Standardised Work is updated continuously
- Learning compounds every shift
Kaizen is not rare because it is hard; rather, it is rare because it does not fit into the day. The hard bit for a lot of organisations is unwinding the work they have done in-sourcing non-supervisor work into their day.
“How many PPS A3s have you got on the go?” I’m trying to sound casual. She stops in the aisle-way. It’s noisy, and I’m freezing. She looks me in the eye, searching, I feel, for a look of sarcasm or cynicism.
“I’ve been trained.” I wait, hoping the pause will elicit more. It does. “Never done one.”
“When were you trained?” Another pause
“Pre-COVID.”
The Finance Question (and the Reality)
“Are we just adding people?” is the first question we are challenged with. In practice, no. Nine times out of ten, the capacity is there already. 70–80% of the required capacity is trapped in the process. The first instinct of management, when a person is removed from the line is to bag the headcount cost. And yet, if we could convert them to a Team Leader and reduce the ratio, we would see quality improvement, productivity leaps, ideas generation, problem solving, savings and potentially, with a fair wind, a delighted customer. My anger sits here. With this mindset. How do you convince a CEO or CFO to take the long view, do something about the ratios, carefully, and reap the reward of a CI engine that delivers 5-8% performance improvement year on year? Instead, they’re looking at rationalisation, consolidation, restructuring and probably fancy apps for the stretched supervisor to expand the ratio further.
Where This Ultimately Leads: Monozukuri
This brings us to Monozukuri, but only now does it make sense to talk about it.
Monozukuri, the art of craftsmanship, caring deeply about the work and the product, will remain a dream for those above 1:6. By all means, train your leaders, build the courses, and invest in the material. But know that it will come to nothing until the structures change.
Monozukuri requires:
- Stable standard work
- Rapid response to abnormalities
- Daily kaizen
- Skill passed from person to person at the point of work
None of that happens without the precious gift of time.
Monozukuri is not a philosophy problem for those grappling with its implementation; it is a structural one.
When leaders have the minutes to coach, reflect, and improve, craftsmanship emerges naturally. Hitozukuri can play its part.
I’ll tackle this a bit more in my next blog with a dive into Mono, Hito, Hansei and Kaizen. But for now, I think I’ve ranted enough. I feel better anyway, so thanks for reading this far. I’ll leave the last word to my supervisor companion:
Supervisor: ‘That’s my dad over there.”
Me: “He looks like trouble.” We both giggle. “Go on, put him on report,” I say, pointing to the app.
Supervisor: “Nah, too much paperwork.”
Me: “Mwahahahahaha!”
