Gemba Walk vs Management by Walking Around: What Is the Difference?

Disclosure: M365.FM host Mirko Peters works at iFAKT GmbH. This page describes the company factually; paid partnerships and links are labelled as advertising.

By Mirko Peters · 2026-11-11

Gemba walk vs management by walking around: the definitions, what research says about each, a clear comparison and how to combine both in leader standard work.

A gemba walk is a structured routine in which leaders observe a process and ask the people doing the work questions, to understand current conditions before they act. Management by walking around (MBWA) is a broader habit of visiting people at work to show interest and stay in touch. This article is for operational excellence managers who need to explain the difference to leaders and decide where each fits. It compares the two, summarises what research says about visits and shows how to combine them. Gemba is Japanese for "actual place", the place where work is done.

Key points

• A gemba walk is a structured routine to observe a process and ask questions before acting. Management by walking around is a broader habit of visiting and engaging staff.
• A field experiment in a bank found that visits by a top manager lifted sales for about a month. The visits aimed to motivate, not to discuss problems or metrics.
• The two practices differ in purpose, structure, questions and output, but they do not exclude each other. Many leaders need both.
• Put gemba walks into leader standard work with a fixed route and time, and keep a smaller share of time for informal rounds.
• Judge each practice by its output. A gemba walk should leave one or two actions. An informal round should leave people feeling that their work matters.

Gemba walk vs management by walking around: the definitions

The Lean Enterprise Institute's lexicon entry on gemba defines a gemba walk as a management practice in which leaders use first-hand observation and questioning to understand current conditions before acting. It suggests following a single product family, product design or customer-facing process from start to finish across departments.

Management by walking around has a looser definition. In the Cornell Chronicle summary of a field experiment, the researchers describe it as managers observing, offering support and showing that they care. W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University notes in its report on the study that the approach gained popularity in the 1970s and 1980s, and that it is also called management by wandering around. In everyday use, MBWA often means informal visits without a fixed agenda. That is a common usage rather than a formal definition, so check how your own leaders understand it.

The key difference is the goal. A gemba walk is built to learn a process and find what stops it. MBWA is built to connect with people and stay visible. The first is a method; the second is closer to a habit.

What research says about visits

Evidence for the effect of leader visits is rare, so it is worth reading carefully. The Cornell Chronicle reports on a field experiment at a Latin American bank, published in the Review of Accounting Studies in 2024. A newly hired division manager visited 79 branches over three months. The bank had about 170 branches. The visits were meant to introduce himself and express pride in the teams.

According to the report, sales productivity rose significantly in the days before each visit and for about a month afterwards. The ASU report adds that the visits included a motivational speech and informal mingling, and deliberately left out discussion of results, problems and metrics. Interviews suggested that motivation, not the feeling of being monitored, was the main mechanism.

Read this with care. It was one bank, one manager and a sales contest, and the study measured sales metrics. It does not show that walking around improves a manufacturing process. It does suggest that visible, respectful attention from leaders can lift effort for a while. That is a real benefit, but it is a different benefit from the one a gemba walk aims at.

The practical differences

Compare the two on six points:

• Purpose. Gemba walk: understand a process and its problems. MBWA: build contact, show interest and motivate.
• Plan. Gemba walk: a focus question, a flow to follow and a route, often set in leader standard work. MBWA: informal and flexible.
• Questions. Gemba walk: what happens, why, what if. MBWA: how are you, what do you need.
• Output. Gemba walk: facts and one or two actions with owners and dates. MBWA: relationships and mood, hard to measure.
• Cadence. Gemba walk: regular, at a standard time. MBWA: whenever the leader is on the floor.
• Main risk. Gemba walk: becoming an inspection. MBWA: becoming a pleasant stroll that changes nothing.

Leader standard work links the two. The Lean Enterprise Institute lexicon on leader standard work lists gemba walks among five day-to-day tools of leaders. In a Lean Enterprise Institute article, Joe Murli describes walks by the management team following a regular route at a standard time. That is the structured side. An informal round fits next to it, as time for conversation without an agenda.

What each practice gives you

A gemba walk gives insight into the process. By following one flow on the shop floor, you can find a root cause, agree with the team how to test a fix and implement a small change as a kaizen, a practical improvement made close to the work. Supervisors and frontline staff take accountability for the actions, because they helped to choose them.

An informal round gives something else: contact. People see the leader, hear a few honest words and learn that their work is noticed. That does not fix a bottleneck, but it can change how willing people are to speak up on the next gemba walk. In this sense the two practices support each other. The structured walk needs trust, and the informal round builds it. The cadence matters too: a walk on a fixed rhythm shows that the practice is serious, while rounds fill the gaps between.

How to combine both in a leader's week

You do not have to choose. A simple split respects both purposes:

1. Schedule the gemba walks first. Block them in the calendar with a flow and a question.
2. Reserve a smaller block for informal rounds. Walk through areas you do not visit often, say hello and listen.
3. Keep the rules different. On a gemba walk, ask about the process and note facts. On a round, do not collect data or give instructions.
4. Follow up on both. If someone raises a problem during a round, write it down and bring it to the next gemba walk.
5. Be honest about which is which. Tell the team which type of visit it is. A round that secretly collects data feels like an inspection.

For operational excellence managers, the lesson is to measure each practice by its own output. A gemba walk should leave one or two actions. An informal round should leave people feeling that their work matters. If neither does, change the practice.

Example: a four-hour floor budget

This is an illustrative example with made-up numbers. A plant manager has four hours per week for time on the floor, which is 240 minutes. An operational excellence manager helps her split it.

• Gemba walks: 3 walks × 60 minutes = 180 minutes, each on one flow with a focus question and 10 minutes for actions.
• Informal rounds: 4 rounds × 15 minutes = 60 minutes, in areas not covered by that week's walks.

The split is 180 ÷ 240 = 75 percent structured and 60 ÷ 240 = 25 percent informal. After eight weeks, they review the output: 11 actions raised from the gemba walks, 8 closed. That is a closure rate of 8 ÷ 11 = 73 percent. For the informal rounds, they ask three team leaders whether the visits help, and note the answers. The manager decides to keep the split, because the walks produce actions and the rounds keep her visible to the night shift.

The numbers are only an example. The point is to decide the split on purpose and to check what each part delivers.

Common mistakes

• Treating them as synonyms. Leaders then expect a social round to produce process improvements.
• Calling a round a gemba walk. People assume they are being studied, and they behave accordingly.
• Collecting data on informal rounds. Once a round turns into a quiet audit, trust drops.
• Dropping informal contact altogether. Structured walks can feel cold if leaders never just talk to people.
• Judging MBWA by one study. The bank experiment was one organisation, one manager and one sales contest.
• No follow-up on either. Visits without visible action teach people that visits do not matter.

How software can help

Software does not replace either practice, but it can help you choose where to look. iFAKT is a Stuttgart-based consulting company and software specialist for Industry 4.0, founded in 2001. It develops the Polaris production software, which combines ERP data with a digital twin of manufacturing and AI to optimize production schedules, reveal bottlenecks and improve on-time delivery. Such data can tell you which area deserves a structured walk this week. The walk itself, and the conversation, remain a human task.

Next step

Write down for your own leaders what a gemba walk is, what an informal round is and how the week is split between them. Then add the walks to your continuous improvement routine and compare a gemba walk with management by walking around after eight weeks, using the actions and feedback each one produced.