The performance of a system is affected in no small way by the behaviour of the people in it. They are affected in turn by variousl factors, their health and well-being, their state of mind, their competence and, last but not least, their motivation. This somewhat inconvenient situation is nevertheless recognised in its own somewhat clumsy way within ISO 9000. Involvement of People is listed as one of the 8 underpinning principles of quality management. The only problem is the auditable standard does not devote much effort towards defining any required system attributes that are likely to promote the principle, save perhaps for a bit of training (clause 6.2.2). It stands as a principle more or less absent of requirements

The main reason for the omission, perhaps, is that the subject is DIFFICULT. It’s tough. The concept of motivation is supported only by a lot of theories. Not laws or rules, just theories. None are proven and not all are necessarily consistent with one another. So dare I suggest that ISO 9001 takes the convenient option of side-stepping the issue for the time being? Let’s face it, many of us do the same. How often do we see adverts for “self-motivated individuals”. What should that tell us about the job? Don’t expect excitement? Don’t expect any thanks, recognition or encouragement? Maybe it should set the alarm bells well and truly ringing as we could often read between the lines “Mug required for god-awful job”

Deming, however, believed people do actually carry an inherent motivation. So maybe this concept of a “self-motivated individual” is no fallacy, after all. He believed each of us holds a desire to do a good job and we take pride in doing so. If true, that’s has to be a good thing, hasn’t it? Because, as leaders and managers, it gets us off to a bit of a flying start

But hang on a moment, we need to be careful. “Inherent” does not mean “unconditional” or “indestructible”. Motivation can be destroyed. It is destroyed – all the time. How often have we seen first day enthusiasm systematically crushed and replaced by seasoned cynicism and apathy? And here’s the rub. Who always gets the blame for this loss of motivation? Yes, the poor old worker

Good old blame. The management tool of choice for the terminally inept, as easy as credit and as versatile as a Swiss Army Knife

Anyway, whatever theory of motivation we subscribe to, it is underpinned by a fundamental law
People get pissed off

This links nicely back to an earlier post relating to the role of leaders in amongst all this malarkey. A key role of a leader, according to Deming, is to continually seek ways to make it easier for people to do a good job – remove the barriers. This post on Curious Cat refers to Deming’s views on this matter and calls on managers not to motivate but to “Stop De-Motivating Employees”

In other words, people are already inherently motivated – all we as leaders can do is mess it up … but sadly mess it up we usually do

In a very early post I highlighted the practice in a US Army Garrison of rewarding staff for making improvement suggestions. Deming was not one for that sort of thing at all. He deemed that to be extrinsic motivation, and you only need extrinsic motivation if you have failed to build intrinsic motivation into the job. He saw extrinsic motivators like that as a work-around and an indicator of a deeper, more under-lying, system malaise

Anyway, to summarise, we can perhaps take a useful and practical lesson from this great imponderable. That is, if the subject of motivation is so big and complex so as to freak us out, could we come at it from another, perhaps easier, angle, and focus on the identification and removal of demotivators?

Post from: Capable People Blog

Deming on involvement of people

A chance encounter

Let’s start the story at the beginning. Sometime in 2005 I was on my way back home on a Thai Air flight from Jakarta to Heathrow, via Bangkok. In Bangkok I was joined by a casually dressed, youngish Englishman. One look told me he had some money because his clothes and shoes looked expensive, as was his seat on the plane. After a while we got talking. I told him what I did, he told me what he did. Turned out he was a professional gambler living in Thailand. I was immediately captivated by the glamour of his chosen profession, he seemed keen to talk and while away the hours, I was keen to listen. So in the intervening 12 hours or so I got a pretty good insight into the life of a professional gambler

Well, surprise surprise, it’s not all glamour and it’s not all luck. That was lesson number one and two. The man was a statistician by education, a former mathematics teacher of all things, who had turned a knowledge of statistics to his advantage in the arena of sports betting. The trick to making a profit in the longer term was, apparently, to have an ability to identify when the bookies have got the odds wrong. That’s when you place your bets. They don’t all come off, but the odds start slanting your way as opposed to the way of the bookie. Being able to identify when the odds were wrong involved a working knowledge of statistics, and a better knowledge of the event than the bookie appeared to have, and that usually involved some very painstaking research. He was based in Thailand because the bookies in South East Asia get the odds wrong more often than they do elsewhere. Makes sense

So what were his strategies? Well, here are some that I can remember:

* Bet with a clear head. If you have a favourite team, leave it alone
* Avoid accumulator bets. With each accumulated event, the odds lurch further the way of the bookie
* Do your research. Pick, say, ten football teams a year and study them continually. Find out which games they tend to win, which they lose, which players appear to be key, injury situations etc. This will all give you a clear advantage over the lazier bookies
* Stick to sports you like and understand. You’ll have to study hard, but it will be easier for you if you happen to enjoy the game
* Steer clear of boxing

There were a few others, but that gives a feel for it

Get to the point, Sayers!

Very interesting, you may say, but what’s this all got to do with quality? Well there is a point to this tale, and here it is

Remember in the earlier post, Deming’s inconvenient truth, I suggested that Deming taught that management decisions should wherever possible be based on hard facts and evidence? But also that a lot of management information is both unknown and unknowable? Well that summarises in a nutshell that business is one big lottery. There are no certainties, and for every success there is a failure. If all management information was knowable there would be a scientific formula to remove all elements of risk from the decision making process. But it isn’t and there isn’t. That is a lot like the world of professional gambling. All bets carry an inherent risk, and professional gamblers accept risk and occasional failure as an unavoidable fact of life. HOWEVER the most successful gamblers use as much Management Information as they can get their hands on to slant the odds their way

That, I propose, is probably as close to an absolute definition of “Management Information”, its uses and limitations, that you’re ever likely to get

As definitions go, it is a bit on the long side. Sorry

Post from: Capable People Blog

Making sense of Quality

Corporate Governance is a hot topic at the moment, so I think it is probably an opportune time to re-post this excellent article that was written for this blog some time ago by Chris Baker, Technical Director at the Institute of Internal Auditors.  I was reading some comments on a quality management chat forum recently where people were arguing that the apparent failures across the News Corp organisation was a failure of QUALITY management. Discussions like this make me wonder whether the concept of Corporate Governance is really understood. There are some that will argue that Quality Management encompasses all processes and disciplines, but in my opinion this is incorrect and simply displays an ignorance of the complexities that other processes, professions and disciplines

I could suggest that if the only tool you have in your tool box is a hammer, then it is perhaps understandable to see every problem as a nail. Anyway, for what its worth, here’s a summary of Corporate Governance principles

GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES

The phrase “corporate governance” is prominent in both the business world and the public sector. This is due to the increasing pressure to protect shareholder value and public money following a number of high profile financial scandals, which have received media attention

Good governance is about the effective supervision of the company, and managing risk, so that business is done competently, with integrity and due regard for the interests of all stakeholders. It is the means by which organisations can achieve their objectives and sustain performance

Investors, including banks, place a growing emphasis on how well companies manage their affairs. Those organisations that can demonstrate that relationships are managed with probity are seen as presenting a lower risk to investment, and secure an obvious competitive advantage. It should be noted at this point that demonstrating probity is not the same as being presumed innocent until proved otherwise

The benefits to be gained from applying best practice in governance include:

• Confidence of investors – who may be more inclined to support development and growth
• Trust of employees – with the likelihood of increased commitment and retention
• Stakeholder & Customer confidence – leading to increased competitiveness in the market place
• Long-term sustainability – through achievement of aims and financial strength
• Resilience and adaptable to change – built upon a firm foundation of risk management and control

The key guidance on corporate governance is directed towards companies listed upon the stock exchange and is set out within the Combined Code, which was originally published in 1998 but has been revised in 2003 and 2006. The code is voluntary and is designed to strengthen and increase the effectiveness of the unitary Board system (one main board with a chairman and a CEO). The main principles of the code are as follows:

A. Every company should be headed by an effective board collectively responsible for the Company. Their duties should include:

o Setting the company’s strategic aims

o Providing the leadership to put strategies into effect

o Supervising the management of the business

o Reporting to shareholder on their stewardship

B. Levels of remuneration should be sufficient to attract, retain and motivate directors. There should also be a transparent policy for setting executive remuneration.

C. The Board should carry out a balanced and understandable assessment of the company’s position:

o The board should maintain a sound system of internal control to safeguard shareholder’s investment and the company’s assets

o The board should at least annually conduct a review of the effectiveness of the system of internal control and should report to shareholders that they have done so.

o The review should cover all material controls, including Financial, Operational and Compliance controls and Risk Management systems

D. Dialogue with shareholders based on objectives, including an AGM to encourage shareholder participation

Since the publication of the Combined Code and related guidance upon the nature of internal control issued in 1999 (Turnbull Report) there has been a great deal of debate and academic research upon what represents best practice with regard to corporate governance. There are differences of opinion but the following list, reported in Tottel’s Corporate Governance Handbook2005, is generally regarded as a useful summary

Principles of Corporate Governance, Tottel’s Handbook 2005.

1. Stakeholder involvement and control in the business
2. A strong, involved board of directors
3. Risk assessment and control
4. A strong, independent element on the board
5. A balanced board composition
6. Maximum and reliable public reporting
7. Avoidance of excessive power at the top of the business
8. Effective monitoring of management by the board
9. Competence and commitment
10. A strong audit process

While much of this may seem remote and of passing interest to small or medium size companies there are a several practical aspects that can be drawn from the detail that could provide a competitive advantage to small and medium size organisations. Consider the action you can take under the following categories to improve governance

Strategic

• Fully document and communicate your values and business objectives to stakeholders: employees, customers, investors. Seek feedback
• Set specific targets and objectives for the most senior managers and hold review meetings
• Establish a simple and effective system of risk management that will prevent things from going wrong. Encourage involvement is risk
• Find or appoint a critical friend(s) who is prepared to ask challenging questions about performance and direction of the business

Operational

• Look at how you receive assurance that the business complies with regulations and contractual conditions, such as the Companies Act, Inland Revenue, VAT, Data Protection, and Health & Safety etc
• Consider the need for audit processes to gain full assurance
• Create a simple set of measures (key performance indicators) that tell you how the business is performing. Include stakeholder measures to provide a balanced scorecard
• Set out standards of behaviour and customer expectations to emphasis the importance of customer care

Financial

• Prepare long-term financial plans, cash flow projections and annual budgets that link directly to your business plans and objectives
• Establish decision and authority levels for managers so that financial risks are understood and applied.
• Set credit limits for your key customers and carefully monitor and mange your debts.
• Ensure that there is reconciliation of your balance sheet figures to supporting records. Report and regularly review financial performance

If you would like to discuss corporate governance issues further or would like to implement risk management and audit processes within your business please contact Capable People

Chris Baker

Technical Development Manager for the Institute of Internal Auditors,

and critical friend of Capable People

Post from: Capable People Blog

Corporate Governance

There’s a good article on isixsigma about how a US Army Garrison, in an attempt to garner acceptance and enthusiasm for their Lean Six Sigma projects, has offered personnel an incentive for making suggestions on work related improvements. That is, if they make a suggestion that ultimately leads to an improvement to a demonstrable level of $2600 or greater, they get a day off work

That strikes a cord with us. As, many, many years ago, as a keen young management trainee, we were asked to perform a review of our organisation’s staff suggestion scheme. It was a pretty simple job, actually, as nobody we asked was aware of it, and there had not been a single suggestion for 14 years. Digging back through the archives we noted that the scheme dangled pretty small rewards, described in the vaguest and most non-committal terms, and the suggester was barred from making suggestions about anything to do with their own immediate job (the argument being that they were paid to do that in any case). It would seem that the suggestion scheme was disabled by design, and this was subsequently borne out by inactivity. Soon afterwards we began working for another organsation that did allow suggesters to make local improvement suggestions, it publicised the results and the scale of the rewards. Some of the rewards ran into the thousands. The scheme was quite well used, surprisingly, and it put us firmly in the “make it worth their while” corner. Agree with it or not, it appeared to be a practical necessity

There was, however, a perceived problem with the second scheme. There was a view held by some that it encouraged people to “hold back” on the day job, and try to exploit the scheme, gaining rewards for things that they should have been doing anyway as a salaried employee. It appeared that a happy middle ground was not so easy to identify. We were still firmly in the “make it worth their while” corner however as, when offered the choice between an over-exploited scheme or an obsolete one, the former certainly appeared to be the lesser of the two evils as it did move the organisation forward in degrees

There is another way to look at it. Check out this article that outlines W E Deming’s view on motivation. The argument here is that there is an intrinsic motivation within all of us (to take pride in a good job) and the provision of external motivation through reward schemes is only ever a work-around fix for a broader systemic failure. That is, somehow the organisation has successfully found a way to demotivate people, and the reward scheme is no more than a patch thrown over the more fundamental problem

Wow. Where do we go with that one? Say, for example, you’re a new senior manager in a business, reviewing the performance of a reward scheme (such as the one at Fort Leavenworth) and you start debating the whys and wherefores of it all. If it subsequently becomes apparent that people will not engage without incentives, what do you do? Clearly the damage has been done over the years. What are the options? Let’s go through the main ones:

Option 1
Decide that Deming was right and that reward schemes are wrong. Elect to address the underlying systemic demotivators

Option 2
Decide Deming was right, but decide the damage has already been done and that an incentivised suggestion scheme is the only practical way to re-engage people in the short term

Option 3
Decide Deming was wrong and implement an incentivised scheme

Option 4
Do nothing

It does not take a genius to identify that there are pros and cons associated with each approach, and also no guarantee that any of them is actually “right”. There are dozens of respected motivational theories none of which have been sufficiently proven to become “laws” and not all of them even consistent with one another. Option 1 offers us only a possibility longer term gain, with few obvious quick wins. Option 2 offers us some potential short term gains, but leaves us with the problem of an “exit strategy” once we have started to address the systemic weakness. Option 3 offers us some short term gains but runs the risk of making things worse in the long run, while Option 4 offers us the cozy satisfaction of not having to do anything at all just now, but leaves us with an unsatisfactory status quo

Even after considering all of this, we are STILL in the “make it worth their while” camp. Not necessarily via incentivised suggestion schemes, mind you, just that we firmly believe in the “What’s in it for me?” influence on most life choices. People are, after all, just animals. Anyone who keeps a pet will have observed the basic simplicity of rules that they appear to abide by. Given a choice an animal will generally take the option that appears to give them the most favourable outcome, and we suggest people are no different. You give a person two choices and they will always take the route they judge will result in the most favourable outcome to themselves (they may not always get it right of course)

So ultimately if people are to be “conditioned” to take pride in their work and do a great job without the need for added incentives, this must be made an attractive long term proposition. And if people are our greatest asset, all this should be worth the effort

Post from: Capable People Blog

Incentive schemes, good or bad for quality?

What is Management?

I’ve been doing some deep thinking, trying to work out what “management” actually is. When somebody tells you that they are “a manager”, what does that mean they do? Frankly, I am not sure I know

Shaun the manager

In times past I have been “a manager” and for the life of me I can’t remember much about what I physically did. In fact a while ago I reached the firm conclusion that I wasn’t cut out for this management mallarky. I liked nothing more than when people just got on with things and left me alone. When they came to me and gave me something to do, it usually meant that something or someone wasn’t working properly, or that something unexpected or inconvenient had cropped up. Either way it meant hassle for me and the potential to screw up. So for years I’ve been telling people that I was a really, really bad manager. I could only manage people and systems that didn’t need “managing”

Anyway, my conclusion, based on my own experiences and reflections, has been that “management” is some sort of intervention, that is required when something has gone wrong, to either mitigate or rectify a situation. Or sometimes to hide it

Why do systems need “management”?

I think this is a burning question, rather than a rhetorical one. Am I so wrong to yearn for systems that don’t need “management”? Systems that don’t really have “problems” and don’t need continual management intervention? I don’t think I am. A system that didn’t need management, or not much of it, would by definition work well all of the time. It would also be efficient, as its overhead would be lower

Conversely, then, is it such a stretch to suggest that systems that need lots of this “management” must have pretty big problems? Could we argue that the heavier the management burden (and I do see it as a burden) the worse shape the system is in? So far as system health is concerned, less is more. I could go so far as to say that “management” could be viewed as not much more than a systematic and accepted “work around”, there to compensate for endemic and inherent system weaknesses

Research project anyone?

I would love some bright (but not necessarily young) thing to take this on as a thesis, as I’d really like to see some statistical analysis done on it. If anyone out there wishes to take it on, please cite me as your inspiration, and let me in on what you find

Post from: Capable People Blog

Management or a Symptom of Dysfunction?

As I sit here looking at my newly delivered corporate pens it takes me back to the time that I started Capable People. I had just left a company that had quite a weak brand image and I’d decided that I wanted Capable People to be stronger. I quickly realised I had no idea what “brand” actually was. Fortunately these days we don’t have to sit and wonder about anything anymore. We have search engines. So after typing “what is brand” into Google (and scrolling past a few references to that tiresome and ubiquitous prick Russell Brand) I started getting somewhere

Lesson one was “it’s not the logo”. Apparently lots of companies think that it is. Well, it’s not. Brand is about everything you do. It is what identifies you, what defines you and ultimately what differentiates you. In that respect it can work for good and for bad

If there was one nugget of wisdom that stuck with me it was the advice that consistency was the key. People trust consistency and mistrust inconsistency. It means that, so far as visual queues go, that consistency in your colours, fonts, use of language and your style etc need some firm “do” and “do nots”. For me it also means that I have to be able to walk the talk. So no fibs and no wild exaggerations in other words

Our trust, and ultimately our loyalty, in brand relates to the way we are wired as human animals. In our human relationships we prefer people to be consistent. Truth is more consistent than lies you understand, and we prefer consistency because this is much more likely to be the truth. Inconsistent people are likely to be liars – so we see inconsistency in brand as an indicator or unreliability

So anyway, if you understand nothing else about “brand” this may get you started. It certainly helped me a lot, and continues to do so. Like so may things, it is the simplest of principles that deliver the most valuable lessons

Post from: Capable People Blog

What is “brand”?

In ISO 9001 terms there is this requirement for “Management Commitment”. Quite right, you may say. What hope for the QMS if the top level support is not there? Well, I’m with you so far. Management can make things happen, they can also make sure they don’t, or can’t. That’s why their support is so important. For stuff that matters anyway. Not so important for stuff that doesn’t

The only problem is, as soon as ISO 9001 is put on the table, it is amazing how this criteria of “Management Commitment” gets assessed, with radically different interpretations of how that commitment must materially manifest itself. For example, is the failure of the Quality Policy Statement to be signed by the Top Guy (or Gal) a fatal weakness? Is it necessarily a weakness at all?

Clearly the contributors to this thread would argue the case for the prosecution. However, let’s be grown up about it for a moment. What actually happens as a result of this “weakness”? Will it affect the ability of  “the workers” to achieve their objectives? Wooooah!!!! Hold on a minute (some might say) if they can’t be bothered to sign the statement that will probably be the thin end of the wedge.

They’ll probably not participate actively in management review, they will probably under-resource quality projects and and and …. and they probably eat babies too! ….. (and then laugh about it later)

Well, wooooah yourselves. If some of those secondary issues are true then that would certainly constitute a lack of commitment that could easily affect the QMS in a detrimental way. However, the fatal weakness is the failure of the management review and resource allocation process. The policy signature “problem” pales into insignificance in the face of these bigger sins. In the same way if we see active participation in objective setting, management review and resource allocation, then the lack of a signature on the policy (again) pales into insignificance. It does not matter one jot either way, If we look at it in a grown up way, which, as it’s ISO 9001, we might not want. Then there is the punchline.

Despite what a lot of third party auditors would have you believe, a signature on the Policy is not even a specific ISO 9001 requirement. Check clause 5.3 yourselves. It may well be assessed through custom and practice as though it is a cornerstone of the standard and some sort of critical success factor, but it is a myth. And (for once) there’s a good reason that it is omitted as a specific requirement and that reason is, from a business risk perspective ….

IT DOESN’T MATTER

Post from: Capable People Blog

What is management commitment?

- More than 50% of the GDP in developed economies is knowledge based
- All ten leading US growth companies are in the service sector
- Intellectual activities generate the bulk of added value in manufacturing (R&D, product and process design)

Considering these statistics (sources in Dr Morrell’s Original Piece), does it stand to reason that a failure to manage the intellectual capital of the organisation may be an increasingly critical flaw? Not too big a leap to make is it?

If we are to agree that Organisational Learning is important, and maybe we should strive to encourage it somehow, we need to develop a clear understanding of what it is and how it works. For example, what are the barriers to Organisational Learning? Clearly these need to be managed or avoided. So what are they? It seems a major one is fear and protectionism, and this can take several forms

Barriers to Organisational Learning

1. Unwillingness to learn or even to acknowledge the need for learning
Well, a failure to learn from research, experience and mistakes is a very common phenomenon, but one which is rarely seen as acceptable under any circumstances. So we can all buy into that one

2. Blaming clients and customers for operational shortcomings
Easy way out isn’t it? Does anyone ever admit to taking it?

3. Hiding behind desks offices and bureaucracy
Capable Blog would be the last ones to argue with this, having been particularly vocal on the subject of transparency quite recently

4. Blame culture
A knee jerk reaction for managers who’ve run out of ideas but is this ever a good things?

Interestingly Kevin’s work also identifies another significant dynamic, and one we’ve picked up on before :

(an) “Absence of conflict can lead to conformity and groupthink”

and that organisations actually need:

“Upward communication of doubt”

Wow. This would be a major evolutionary step for some organisations. To actually discourage conformity (of thoughts and behaviours) and to encourage doubt and even conflict? That would take some managing, of that there can be no doubt, left to run riot it could certainly have destructive side affects. However if it’s important on the other hand it may be worth the effort. Ultimately it will definitely be beyond the capabilities of some, who as a fall back may well adopt defensive routines, that is;

” … actions and policies…that are intended to protect individuals from experiencing embarrassment or threat, while at the same time preventing individuals, or the organisation as a whole, from identifying the causes of embarrassment or threat in order to correct the relevant problems”

The ostrich syndrome in other words. Cut a long story short, it seems that a true learning organisation needs both maturity and talent in order to flourish, and this is probably bad news if you have little of either, as they are notoriously difficult to develop from a standing start. We at Capable Blog hope and pray that this is the way that the world is headed as there can be a lot worse scenarios for the world than being taken over by the mature and the talented

Post from: Capable People Blog

The Learning Organisation

Think about poor old Menzies Campbell. When he resigned as leader of the Lib Dems the consensus was that his downfall was caused by all this hubub about his age – should it really matter? Well, the question of whether or not it should matter is completely irrelevant. The fact that it clearly DOES matter is the ONLY thing that matters. If the followers don’t follow, then he ain’t leading. We can all feel sorry for him and agree how shallow “people” are for allowing this age thing to dictate their feelings and actions, but true leadership’s a very fragile thing, and we humans are ruthlessly fickle, given the freedom to choose. And then what about Obama? You could argue the reverse is true. Does he have a lot of experience or a long list of notable achievements? Probably not … but for whatever reason, and for the moment at least, people are following, so he’s a leader

Anyway, finally the point of this post. Can anyone think of a better way to evaluate the effectiveness of the leadership function other than asking the followers a short set of tough questions and being brave enough to take the answers on the chin?  The problem with that is that if we don’t get the answers we want then the only realistic solution may be …. well … it’s a ruthless business … business

Post from: Capable People Blog

The Inconvenient Truth of Leadership

Quality gurus come and go, and we all have our favourites.

Some shine brightly for a while, but are very much “of their time” (remember Tom Peters anyone?), others have managed to maintain a longer shelf-life (we’re thinking of Philip Crosby and Joseph Juran). Maybe the key to it is the substance of the work. There is one guru, however, who occupies a position of incomparable status in the quality field, a visionary whose work speaks to people at all levels, from statisticians, to technicians, to academics, to human resource professionals, through to hard-nosed commercial bods. Over the course of almost 4 decades W Edwards Deming produced a body of work that has truly stood the test of time, losing little of its relevance along the way, notwithstanding the incredible changes that we have seen in society and world markets in that time

Over the course of the next couple of weeks I’ll be trying to use the insight and work of Deming to try to develop a deeper understanding of ISO 9001 and, particularly, the 8 principles of quality management. We have a view that these principles, as published in the official text (ISO 9000 series), are introduced and described in quite a trite and unhelpful way, leading to poor management systems application. So we’re trying to do something about it by attempting to put some substantial flesh on those bare bones

Starting with …Leadership
“The aim of leadership should be to improve the performance of man and machine, to improve quality, to increase output and simultaneously to bring pride of workmanship to people. Put in a negative way, the aim of leadership is not to find failures of men, but to remove the causes of failure, to help people do a better job and with less effort”

W E Deming, Out of Crisis

Defining and making sense of “leadership” can be a bit like trying to nail a jelly to a wall. Can we establish any parameters that are helpful in any practical way? Well, in the above quote, Deming is advocating that the various tiers of leader use their authority, and the resources at their disposal, to make life easier and better for the poor souls doing the work. Now hang on a minute, that can’t be right can it? How many of us have thought our boss considerably more likely to do just the opposite?

Deming did. In his publication “Quality, productivity and competitive position” he describes the incredible but universal paradox of leadership, that is:

“Most acts of supervision in management … instead of providing help to people, accomplish just the opposite”

It was Deming’s view that the most constructive application
of leadership would be “ … to help people do a better job and with less effort”. This is highly significant, as it has implications beyond the attitude and commitment of “leaders” because for that to happen leaders not only need to support the system, but the system needs to be designed to support its leaders. It is much more than a question of having your heart in the right place. For “quality” to be truly embedded into both process and system, barriers often need to be removed

While leaders themselves can often sanction the removal of significant barriers, the poor old workers can only build in “work-arounds”. This is obviously unsatisfactory, but nonetheless commonplace, as a fall back position in the absence of the preferred option. We could therefore conclude that a system that is pock marked with such “work-arounds” is likely to be suffering from poor leadership. A tell tale symptom, maybe

For things to work properly top-to-bottom, with leaders living up to Deming’s ideal, a number of things need to be true and effectively implemented, such as:

There needs to be a common understanding of the nature of work, what is important, the nature of the system and the role of leadership in it

There needs to be transparency across and within the system to enable problems and barriers to be readily identifiable, and therefore removable

There needs to be open and effective communication in all directions, top-down, bottom-up and laterally

There needs to be a decent level of mutual trust.

Transparency can be a double edged sword. The workforce needs to be comfortable that transparency will not be used against it, whilst leaders need to be comfortable that upward communication channels will not be abused and manipulated for matters of self-interest

Critically Deming notes:

“One important characteristic of a leader is that he will forgive a mistake – there will be mistakes”

If we look hard enough, we can see that there has been an attempt to integrate these principles into section 5 of ISO 9001 – but it is clumsy. Perhaps it is the way standards have to be written or maybe it is a consequence of letting a load of engineers loose on the text, but the over-use of the “shall” word does little to encourage a clear and practical understanding of the key principles and the subtleties of the function. Remember, not all management information is either known or knowable, so the lack of elasticity implicit with the heavy use of the “shall” word may well be at odds with the realities of leadership

In ISO 9001 we see that “management commitment” is important (clause 5.1) and that part of it includes the provision of resources. We see an attempt to put a framework around the use of performance information by leaders via “management review”, (clause 5.6). In principle this is consistent with Deming’s view, but again we have to ask ourselves how often the auditor is happy to see a tatty set of minutes with little productive output, without really examining the integrity and, dare we say it, the value, of the process?

Could it be that few auditors really understand the nature of that beast? If we’re honest we have to acknowledge that few 3^rd party auditors have “risen” to the role of auditor following a successful career in management, so we
have to question their first hand knowledge and consequently their competence in assessing the discipline. It is a little ironic that such care is taken, especially with the advent of ISO 17021, to ensure that only auditors with the appropriate sector and technical competence are allocated to particular clients, whilst there is no apparent problem with the same people auditing management processes of which they have little experience or practical understanding (with heavy emphasis on the word practical … and understanding for that matter)

Moving on, we might note that Deming did not see the promotion of quality through slogans to be in any way a good thing – in fact he was dead against it. So this presents somewhat of an anomaly when we consider the requirement in ISO 9001 for a visible and communicated quality policy (clause 5.3). In an earlier post we’ve asked the question “does it (the Policy) really matter?”, but we could even interpret Deming as going a step farther so as to declare things of that nature counter productive. What is perhaps clear is that we should not see the Quality Policy document as the be all and end all of top management commitment. The very practical and value adding leadership activities examined in the earlier part of this article should be seen as infinitely more important, if a little more difficult to jab with a finger, declaring  “NON-CONFORMANCE!”

So what is the solution? What can we do to encourage a more balanced approach to quality and intelligent solutions? Maybe it’s time for a bit of WED in the lead auditor training programs. The application of the technical standard would be so much better if the fundamental points of understanding were established first

Post from: Capable People Blog

Deming on leadership