Are Deming’s 14 Points Still Valid?

Are Deming’s 14 Points Still Valid?

Researchers and practitioners in quality management continue to honor Deming’s valuable contributions today, and in fact, my recent bibliometric analysis of the Quality Management Journal (to be published in the January 2013 edition) indicates that Out of the Crisis has been the most central and authoritative resource influencing quality management research over the past two decades. ... But are Deming’s 14 Points still valid in the post-2008 economic era, where vibrant growth and globalization can no longer be expected to dominate the global economy?

Yes they are still valid. On points:

  #1 - I think this is definitely still needed and much underdeveloped today.
  #2 - Dr. Deming's "new philosophy" framework presented a new view of his management system; he found 14 points failed to convey the systemic nature. The points are fine, but the new view he presented captured what is still the best management system I know of.
  #4 - I don't think size matters. Personal relationships are easier but also super fragile, that person leaves and your system is broken. Establishing a culture that supports suppliers is harder but much more robust.
  #11 - I do. Good book Free, Perfect and Now by Rodin. This is a big deal to lots of committed Deming folks. I agree those that just use some of Deming's ideas without the system or really thinking of him much don't pay much attention. Lots of software development folks realize this strongly (they lose respect for "suits" that think try to dangle goals and quotas in front of people). Related: the problems with targets or goals, The Trouble with Incentives: They Work by Gipsie Ranney.

People Leave Jobs When Frustrated with the Results of the Management System and Their Manager

So people join organisations, and leave Top Leaders!

I participated in a Twitter exchange following the CIPD’s report – along the lines of who is the biggest problem – rubbish leaders, managers, HRDs or organisations?  But thinking it through, I would go for the leaders – as they have so much influence over the approach their line managers take.
...
there are clearly a range of factors involved in exit decisions and an individual's line manager is certainly one of these. But I do agree with the researchers, and therefore disagree with Gallup, in that I believe it is the senior leadership which is increasingly the most important of these.

I think your focus on the nuance is where I would put my, granted non-expert, opinion.  I believe what you say about the big impact executives/leaders have in setting and maintaining the management system.  The direct boss I do think has a big impact.  But it is true that much of the direct boss' impact steams from the system - if they are not a good manager that is usually a system results.

It is rare that the organization does a great job of selecting and developing managers and your manager is lousy and you want to leave.  In broken systems (unfortunately many - which is why Dilbert connects with so many) often the direct supervisor becomes the focus of complaints but really they are largely at the mercy of the larger system.

Related: posts from my management blog on managing people - Practical Ways to Demonstrate Respect to Employees - Create a Climate for Joy in Work

The Right Culture Creates a Robust Management System That Delivers Over the Long Term

First, I don't agree with your claim on the only reason for companies to exist, I believe Deming had a better view (considering all the stakeholders).

But I do agree with the general premise: a "culture" isn't an aim.  The reason a culture matters is that it embodies a robust system that delivers the best results over the long term.  The problem of not having a good culture (but doing well today - reducing waste, gaining customers...) is that over and over we see these companies collapse.  The reason a "quality culture" matters is as a strategy to achieve an aim: long term success.

Comments on:  Quality Culture and Feelings
Related: Creating a Quality Culture - Posts on Creating a Management Culture

Rewards Don't Create the Employees You Want

Trying to motivate with carrots and sticks is a bad idea and should not be done.


"Motivation" is not something for a manager to give.  Often the organization saps employee's motivation so a manager can help by removing those bad practices.

Comments on:  The Rewards Edition
\ See more thoughts on managing motivation.

What is a Project Manager?

Response to What is a project manager?

Often PM role is to cope with weaknesses in the current management system.  While you might say just fixing the system is better I think that is often unrealistic.

I see the PM as someone shepherding the project which often means

  1) making sure the pieces proceed properly to meet deadlines (making sure they, or whoever should, make decisions on what to do if things need to be done).  I see the PM often making sure it happens but if the system has a good method that is working fine the PM just watches that.  So if there is good agile software development, the process is working and things are done in order no big surprises sitting around… then fine the PM doesn't have to worry.

   2) dealing with institutional issues so others can focus on doing their jobs.  If the software developers are frustrated with whatever phb action, the PM takes care of it somehow…  That kind of stuff.

   3) improving the system - again this is best done by setting up the system so others can.  This is a bit outside of the scope of the existing project.  The PM (to me) is also responsible for making the system for delivering projects good.  If something new is needed, look at putting it in place.  Develop people as part of this.  Again if management is doing their job this is happening.  Often management isn't though, then I think the PM should.  This is stepping a bit far from what most everyone else thinks though.

  4) coaching people and arranging coaching.  This is probably more for #3 than for meeting the current project needs, but it is also to meet the current project needs.

  5) protect people from blame and give people credit.  Again this is often just dealing with poor current management systems.  Blaming people is ineffective.  If there are failures figure out what is wrong with the system and improve.  When people are trying to blame others (which happens a lot) don't let that be done and instead focus the thoughts on how to improve.  In organizations where business managers run roughshod over others (developers, testers…) don't let them.  In that case communication goes through PM.  If the communication is good then it is better for the developers to communicate directly…

I see communication as part of #1.  It is important.  It becomes even more important as the organization fails at it.  That is often my view the PM is to see where there is weakness and deal with it.  Maybe it means getting more resources.  Maybe it is assuring better test coverage is included.  Maybe it means arguing this project needs to be scoped way down as it isn't a priority given the business needs…  This requires knowledge of the organization, business thinking, software development (for software projects) practices, coaching...

My whole way of think is very Deming based.  So I see improving the system as a big part of everyones role.  It isn't surprising I see it that way for a PM too.

To me the main PM roles are

 #1 manage the existing system to achieve the result for the project
 #2 improve the existing system

Coaching: Don't be Too Timid

Beginning to understand the power of coaching – seeing the connection to respect for people by Connor Shea

Coaching is less focused on specific content then it is on the person, and the relationship’s ability to empower the coachee to find capabilities and a self sufficiency they didn’t fully believe in or know they have. ... This process keeps the understanding, ownership of the problem, and ultimately the action, in the coachee’s hands – increasing their ability to solve the immediate problem and most importantly, future ones.

I think the "lean" world is in general too passive in coaching. There are plenty of times when you are coaching a specific skill (whether that is how to notice a problem in the operational definition [maybe just missing one altogether] that leads to bad data or how to create a flowchart...). The same thing is true for coaches teaching a big man a post move or how to improve free throw shooting.

I appreciate that very wise people can just ask the right questions and get the best results (I think this is really hard to do well and the reluctance to provide any judgement in coaching is often a much bigger problem than being too prescriptive).

I see this as the prevailing attitude in "lean" attempts: "this process keeps the understanding, ownership of the problem, and ultimately the action, in the coachee’s hands – increasing their ability to solve the immediate problem and most importantly, future ones." Doesn't that seem a bit like an artificial barrier in the system? Doesn't the system context include the coaches and support system for the organization as well as the individual? I don't think the most of the success or failure rests with the coachee. They are responsible. But, whatever the results, it is the whole system that succeeded or failed, not the coachee alone.

Related: Continual Feeding - Building a Great Workforce

Right in What Way?

The Tyranny of Being Right

It’s such an easy thing to fall into: the desire, the need, to be right. It creates huge divides between us, drives us to say and do things that cause others to either disengage or retaliate. Later, we may console ourselves with the satisfaction of winning but it’s pretty much a cold dinner left on a table that’s been deserted by friends. And if the friends are important and powerful enough, it can even turn out to be more like a last supper. The alternative is being wrong, of course, and that’s where I believe the problem lies. After all, if I am wrong, it can become a chink in the armor of my self-confidence and self-trust, and in the self-perceived, self-protected perfection of my reputation. One chink leads to another, you know, so that the possibility is all the armor might fall away and I’ll have to just stand there, both vulnerable and alone.

The way I look at it the "rightness" depends on the question.  Normally as we live the decisions we make don't really address only 1 question.  There is the question of what will be the least disruptive action.  There is the question of if it is fair to change the rules for an employee in mid stream.  There is the question of what should you spend your time on.  There is the question of what you should do to help yourself.  Etc.  You can be "right" on 1 question and that same action can be "wrong" or problematic or dangerous for another question.

Often standing for principle may be taken as doing the "right" thing.  Lets even say it is right when asking what is in the interests of the company.  But it is certainly common that doing so is the wrong thing for your career (or any of a number of other way of considering what to do).

I do definitely have the desire to be right. But I understand it isn't as simple as being right from one point of view. It is finding the right answer that optimizes to overall success on many different fronts. Sometimes the right answer is to accept that the wrong decision will be made in the meeting today, because the things necessary to get the right decision are not worth the cost.

Related: Long Term Thinking with Respect for People - We are Being Ruined by the Best Efforts of People Who are Doing the Wrong Thing

Are We A Few Heros or a Society

Drucker Institute tweet: "Does government tax policy “prevent and penalize” entrepreneurship? Weigh in!" On their post: Who Really Built This Blog Post?

President Obama, speaking to an audience last Friday, said the following: “Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.” In response, Romney, highlighting the line “if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that,” has called Obama’s words “insulting to every entrepreneur, every innovator in America.” To insinuate “that Steve Jobs didn’t build Apple, that Henry Ford didn’t build Ford Motor, that Papa John didn’t build Papa John’s Pizza,” Romney added, is “wrong.” ... What do you think: What’s the best way for the government to foster entrepreneurship?

I think far worse than any of the taxes is the extremely bad job that has been done with the health care system. Deming noted this as one of the 7 deadly diseases over 3 decades ago and it is in much worse shape today. Costing twice as much as other rich countries with no better results is bad. Since the costs are so large they are huge barriers to entrepreneurs.

Even worse for entrepreneurship though is the poorly designed system where 1 employees medical expenses can cause serious damage to small companies. And the poorly designed system that makes it difficult to get coverage for previous conditions - which greatly increase the cost (in risk) of changing jobs, starting your own new business…

The recent reforms did help some, but it is an extremely small step after 3 decades of failures and making things worse. There is so much more that needs to be done. The costs and uncertainty related to health care are likely the most critical problem for entrepreneurs. Another contender is liability costs (yet another one of the decades old deadly diseases). 

The next contender is the broken patent and copyright system (which I think of as one of the new deadly diseases - along with excessive executive pay). I would put all of these far ahead of tax system issues for entrepreneurs. The biggest thing government can do is fix the 3 deadly diseases I mentioned above. People like Jobs (and Wozniak), Henry Ford, Larry Page and Sergey Brin are extremely valuable to a society. They make great contributions. Thinking they are therefore the reason for Apple, Ford and Google's success is ludicrous. They contributed. They contributed a lot. Dump them in Mali when they were born and they would not have created those companies as adults.

Saying that society doesn't play a huge role is false (a failure to understand systems thinking). Saying governments role is the same as societies also shows a poor ability to reason. The good things that Jobs, Gates, Bezos... are related to government in some ways but are much much more related to the entirety of growing a business in the USA. Inside those companies many others helped make the organizations a success.

Certain individuals do have an amazing ability to create successful systems. Again they can't do it themselves. They need other people. Granted a few of these leaders are extremely special. 95% of CEO's are decent at their jobs (or even not that good at their jobs) but replacing them with any of hundreds of other people would make little difference. But those CEO's all think they are more like Steve Jobs - they are not.