Norman,
Here is a link that might help:
https://www.lean.org/
This site is run by Jim Womack and Dan Jones, two folks who learned Lean from the Japanese and brought it back to the States. They are recognized as the leading authorities here and have a site to promote articles, forums, links and sales of materials.
Jim correctly points out that the leader can be from any level. He also points out that the top managers must also convert to lead the charge. This eludes to energy's point that one's sphere of influence is generally limited to those that work directly for them. The odds of a middle manager becoming the leader and affecting change beyond their sphere are remote. The middle manager must basically rely on critical mass being developed below in all areas in order for that to happen. How often does your organization experience Revolution? And even if one started, how long before the King crushes the resistance?
One of the problems I see is that many in leadership positions are not leaders and lack leadership skills. The reliance cannot be on leadership if one does not possess leadership skills, a vision, and those to support it. Many top managers resort to what they know and what works best - movement. Movement in the form of incentives or harsh criticism, either way, they move folks to do things by doing things to them. Nothing inspiring about that!!
On Harrington's comment: Basically, he is right. However, one must be cognizant of suboptimization. While you are fervently working on yourself and your area, you may be making matters worse elsewhere. Additionally, if you improve the middle without improving the ends, then gains are effectively neutralized while creating more irritation to yourself. The Red Beads are in order here or if you have The New Ecomomics, look up the comments of Williing Worker Mary (Anne?) somewhere after the experiment. Her comments are quite appropriate here.
On Peter's comment: I don't know that much about Peter's nor what preceeds this snippo, but this comment is suggestive that one can make a difference just by 'doing'. As Dr. Deming once said, "Do something! Do it know! Do what?!" This is precisely what is wrong, in my opinion. We have many managers charging this way and that way without a common AIM. This only makes matters worse. We need focus. Additionally, the notion that one must be 'doing something' at every minute is wrong. Sometimes, people standing idly by is more desirable than having them do something that isn't needed. I will agree with Peter's on his point of 'starting'. We need to get out of the gate, but do so with purpose, not for the sake of doing something without one. I cringe at those who will make a comment like, "Why bother starting. Nobody will care." or a comment like "Why vote. It's only one vote anyway." Simply stated: the game is over and you lost because you didn't show up, not because you lacked ability. What is necessary is an informed decision. Not thinking about the purpose of one's efforts will keep people busy, but probably only expend resources unwisely and not get you very far.
Purpose is established by Top Management. They set the goals and objectives of the business and as such, must acknowledge that they must lead initiatives (strategic and tactical efforts, i.e. Lean/ISO/other) to achieve them. Harrington is dead wrong, in my opinion, if he thinks a COO or anyone in a leadership role can delegate this away (ref. Minding Our Business article). The initiative is doomed and as energy points out, so is the poor sap charged with making it happen.
Well, somebody else's turn...
Kevin