Hi, folks--
I read Stan's note with interest, being a motivational psychologist,
former consultant, and current Director of Education of a mutual learning
consortium that has roots in TQM. He wrote:
Our first exposure two years ago was to the tools of TQM (because
administration wanted the staff to be more efficient -- get more done
with
fewer people). Although I saw legitimate advantages to these tools they
were not in themselves very encouraging to me. It seemed to me that the
"belief" issues offered far more opportunity for benefit than to simply
"do" things differently (I believe that people will always act based on
their beliefs.
(Sound of Steve putting on psychologist hat) People only do what they want
to do, either in terms of enjoyment or belief, so in that sense I agree
with Stan. However, we use the formulation of "Behavior =
f(person;situation)" -- that is, behavior is a function of the person
interacting with the situation. One approach is to create the situation in
which a given person will do what is desired. Much of "classic" TQM is
based in this--create an environment and processes which will automatically
guide good, efficient performance. This resonates strongly with elements
of some cultures--Japanese, German, and French among them--where the belief
is that if you have a good plan and process, it doesn't matter so much who
your people are. In the US we have an equally valid belief that if you
have great people, they'll get by the obstacles without a plan. Obviously
the best of both worlds is preferable, and generates the best
results--which is why I am now at the Center for Quality of Management,
which started in one world and is bringing in another.
Stan also wrote:
Even though they may be able to "imitate" another's
behavior, without the underlying belief that created the behavior, they
will simply manipulate and deceive).
If you are using the behaviors and they work, what is deceptive about it?
Part of the reason to guide behavior is to teach people what works.
Belief not based on reality can scupper any program or approach. But if
you are using fact-based approaches (which good TQM does), then people can
see for themselves. In the absence of proof, you may get malicious
compliance with required behaviors, without genuine commitment or
effective results, and in that sense Stan's last sentence above makes
sense. But that is not the intent of TQM. I would rather ask people to
try something honestly and see for themselves than try to persuade them to
believe. As a scientist, I have more confidence in using evidence to
create belief than I do in trying to change belief in the absence of
evidence. That leads to theological discussions. Indeed, there is plenty
of evidence that people will not change beliefs easily even with evidence.
One key element of getting people to change (and learning is a change) is
to confront them with their own weaknesses in an area where they desire
strength. I like to use evidence to make this happen.
Steve Kelner
Director of Educational and Advising Services
Center for Quality of Management
www.cqm.org
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>