Eric,
Excellent points. You highlight some of the hidden assumptions that
people on both sides of this issue have. Let me see if I can clarify.
Your point is that if people are working within the constraints of the
system, then my offer of help is basically not addressing the central
issue of improving the system. You are building on some of Deming's work
here, I believe. You reference the funnel and marble experiment.
So let me start by clarifying some of my hidden assumptions, just as you
have clarified where you are coming from. I really do not believe in the
Deming model. Now before you toss this in the garbage, let me explain
why, and let's see if we can work through it.
There are a number of areas where Deming's model breaks down with today's
work. It is a mechanical model. It may hold in manufacturing operations,
but in all other forms of work, the linkages are all non-linear, the
interaction between workers and system are ambiguous, and ultimately, no
one knows exactly how the system behaves anyway. If you believe in
learning -- which I most fervently do -- then you will probably believe
that systems can only be improved through the intervention of people. In
other words, people do not create the dysfunction, but they can, under the
right circumstances, help make it better. And, in fact, if people cannot
do that, then it can't be made better. Where else besides people will the
mental energy come from to improve the system?
One reason I use triage is to identify the different operating styles and
methods of the 'top' performers from the 'bottom' performers. There is a
learning opportunity in that assessment process. Is there a judgement?
Possibly, because as I said, assessment is used for many purposes, and
they overlap. You cannot tease the multiple uses apart. However, the
first motivation is to learn, and judgement is ultimately, an event that
occurs rarely. I have used triage for years and years, and people learn
from it. People at the 'bottom' really do move up in their performance.
People at the 'top' really do help pass on subtle differences that help
others to be more effective. Furthermore, the system actually improves.
To me, this is a pretty clear indication of the limit of Deming's model.
Deming's model is not irrelevant, and it helps to understand that factors
that you still do not know how to influence create a certain amount of
randomness in outcomes and performance. However, even that insight helps
to identify where to invest additional energy in trying to learn more
about what is happening in that sphere you do not influence.
Another way to think about this is that Deming assumes that if
_management_ does not change the system, then employee performance cannot
change. My model assumes that if _employees_ do not change the system,
then employee performance cannot change. Frankly, there are a lot more
employees than managers, so where would you want to place your bets?
Deming also assumes that if someone is performing _consistently_ below the
average but within the allowable tolerances, then there is no way to
change them, or perhaps no point in trying. I really disagree with that.
He is writing off potential. He ignores an opportunity to learn.
This emphasis on consistent below average performance is also not a
characteristic of the marble and funnel experiment, so perhaps that is
another gap between your assumptions and mine.
I assume that wherever I can observe a consistent gap in performance, then
there is an opprotunity to learn, grow, and improve performance.
So, if I can summarize, a) system and people are too tightly linked to
make the distinctions Deming draws, b) only people can improve systems, c)
there are more people than management, so let's let people make the
improvements, d) consistent performance gaps are learning opportunities,
whether they are within the control limits or not. And I really disagree
with you that people performing within the system have zero responsibility
for further performance improvement.
I also think there is the other whole dimension of "awakening" that I
raised earlier. Learning to influence, for example, is not a skill that
most people have, but it can improve performance. First, however, one has
to awaken to the possibility, and this is a role for management and
employees. It is indistinguishable from learning as near as I can tell.
It is not encompassed in Deming's view of the world.
--Rol Fessenden
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>