>Replying to LO17772 & LO17800 --
Rol - Your reply to Eric was interesting and useful. Thank you. Comments
(numbered below) on some of your points may be useful...
--snip--
>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.
--snip--
>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?
1) I've read more than once of Deming's key point that "80% or more" of
all problems he encountered in his consulting work, over several decades,
were system problems not performance problems. I believe he goes on to
make the point that "those doing the work" know how to make things better,
and want to do so. All that is required is permission, encouragement,
support, recognition and rewards. "Management owns the systems," and
typically will not let loose to enable front line workers and their first
line work group leaders (often called "supervisors") to fix things. We
have used this information from Deming's work to get the attention of
management groups and help them learn to "lighten up, loosen up, and trust
those doing the work." Done right, it works and people take great pride
in fixing processes they work with and others they are close to. Your
point about system complexity is well-taken. We start with processes and
find that systems take care of themselves, i.e. people recognize the
linkages among processes and seek help in fixing parts they cannot fix
directly, e.g. especially where software fixes are needed to improve
information flow and knowledge management.
>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?
--snip-- 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.
2) The "process improvement process" we have found useful starts with
assessment. More than 200 vendors offer some form of "360-degree" or
"multi-response" assessment product. We prefer "multi-source assessment
process (MAP)." The list of competencies (or skills, or factors, or
knowledge elements, or topics, or learning topics - words that fit the
company's culture work best) is responded to by choosing: "N" - No
information, No opinion, or Not-applicable to the person or group being
assessed; "S" - Strength, defined as "well done" and a topic or area where
capability can be used to help others (this sounds to me like your use of
"people at the 'top'"); "C" - Competent, "you're doing OK in this area,"
not a priority for improvement; and "I" (or "O" if the client prefers) -
an area needing Improvement, or an "Opportunity for improvement."
How does this "triage plus one" fit with your triage characteristics?
in "triage."
>--snip--
>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?
3) As I understand Deming's admonition to management, he's saying "you had
best set the people free to make improvements they know how to make and
want to make." Taylor's "one best way" ("scientific management") was the
result of careful measurement but certainly not the result of
truth-seeking, hypothesis-testing, or Deming's "management by fact."
"Scientific method" does encompass these things, and also SPC as a key
resource - an improvement in concept and practice that Shewhart (e.g the
PDCA cycle), Deming, Juran and other quality improvement gurus brought to
the party. (Note: NOT "TQM" if you follow Deming. He was quoted to me by
a colleague who heard him say: "TQM? There's no such thing as TQM!" This
always gets a laugh and relieves those who have had TQM thrust upon them
as a "flavor-of-the-month" change strategy.
>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. ... He ignores an opportunity
>to learn.
4) I simply did not get this sense from reading Deming and several who
worked with him and wrote about him and his work. If I missed a citation
that states this I'd (regretfully) learn and change my viewpoint of
Deming's drive, late in life, to help management groups' recognize ALL
work group members and work group leaders (i.e. ALL "employees, managers,
executives - everybody) as "members of the company," with shared
responsibility and opportunity for learning and using knowledge and skills
for improving the company's performance, products, services, benefits to
customers, profits, other valued outcomes - and thereby the chances that
the company would survive and prosper and provide support (emotional and
financial) for ALL of its members. If that grand-sounding set of goals
overstates Dr. Deming's intentions then, once again, I welcome information
that corrects my impressions - citations and comments please.
>--snip--
>
>I assume that wherever I can observe a consistent gap in performance, then
>there is an opprotunity to learn, grow, and improve performance.
5) Heartily agree. When work group members and leaders have data on their
S, C, and I" competencies (no. 2 above), training in process evaluation
and improvement, and permission (including support, encouragement,
recognition, and rewards) to make improvements - look out! The learning,
and flow of ideas for process improvement (in those companies wise enough
to set up an ideas program as part of their change process) is exciting to
watch and be a part of. Done right, the company is self-sufficient within
a few weeks after assessment data are returned to individuals and work
groups, process training is completed, and the ideas program is piloted
and rolled-out to all groups choosing to participate.
>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.
6) re (a) - I hope your're mistaken about Deming's intentions, as I've
tried to describe above. Re (b), (c), and (d) - agree, agree!
>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.
7) Influence IS a critical skill, as is learning to "seek and speak the
truth" in dealing with others, one-on-one (dyads) and in larger groups. A
colleague is working on a book that addresses this "cornerstone skill" for
personal and inter-personal effectiveness: "truth-seeking and
truth-speaking." I'm hopeful that he will be willing to describe the key
concepts of his work for the LO network. This work ("truth-seeking and
truth-speaking in inter-personal relations") adds a new area of learning,
at a level that precedes concern for the competencies and skills normally
considered as candidates for improvement. Learning about "truth-seeking
and truth-speaking in inter-personal relations" seems to add a critical
skill for building workplace communities: communities for learning,
membership, advocacy, team-building, and whatever other goals a company
and its members may seek from their efforts to change and become more
flexible and effective in their work.
>Rol Fessenden
Hope these comments on your contributions are useful, and look forward to
responses.
Dick Webster
Richard S. Webster, Ph.D. - President
Personal Resources Management Institute
709 Wesley Court - Worthington OH 43085-3558
e-mail <webster.1@osu.edu>, fax 614-433-71-88, tel 614-433-7144
PRMI is a 501(c)3 non-profit research, development, and consulting company
founded in 1978. The Institute's programs and projects relate to:
* "Learning models," a key strategy for performance improvement and making
the paradigm shift from "training, instruction and teaching models."
** The use of proven change activities and tools for improving performance,
work processes, learning, and other desired results. Effective change
practices come from creative ideas (CI), inclusive leadership (IL, e.g.
Greenleaf's servant leadership and Block's stewardship), knowledge
management (KM), learning organizations (LO), organization development
(OD), participative management (PM), and quality improvement (QI).
*** Learning qualities of character and citizenship (QCC, referred to in
many educational circles as "character education.").
NB: Remember - learning is each person's responsibility, and opportunity.
Inquiries are, of course, welcome.
--"Richard S. Webster" <webster.1@osu.edu>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>