Worker’s Rights: The Bedrock of True Quality Management – A May Day Reflection

As we celebrate International Workers’ Day this May 1st, it is an opportune moment to reflect on the profound connection between workers’ rights and effective quality management. The pursuit of quality cannot be separated from how we treat, empower, and respect the rights of those who create that quality daily. Today’s post examines this critical relationship, drawing from the principles I’ve advocated throughout my blog, and challenges us to reimagine quality management as fundamentally worker-centered.

The Historical Connection Between Workers’ Rights and Quality

International Workers’ Day commemorates the historic struggles and gains made by workers and the labor movement. This celebration reminds us that the evolution of quality management has paralleled the fight for workers’ rights. Quality is inherently a progressive endeavor, fundamentally anti-Taylorist in nature. Frederick Taylor’s scientific management approach reduced workers to interchangeable parts in a machine, stripping them of autonomy and creativity – precisely the opposite of what modern quality management demands.

The quality movement, from Deming onwards, has recognized that treating workers as mere cogs undermines the very foundations of quality. When we champion human rights and center those whose rights are challenged, we’re not engaging in politics separate from quality – we’re acknowledging the fundamental truth that quality cannot exist without empowered, respected workers.

Driving Out Fear: The Essential Quality Right

“No one can put in his best performance unless he feels secure,” wrote Deming thirty-five years ago. Yet today, fear remains ubiquitous in corporate culture, undermining the very quality we seek to create. As quality professionals, we must confront this reality at every opportunity.

Fear in the workplace manifests in multiple ways, each destructive to quality:

Source of Fear	Description	Impact on Quality
Competition	Managers often view anxiety generated by competition between co-workers as positive, encouraging competition for scarce resources, power, and status	Undermines collaboration necessary for system-wide quality improvements
“Us and Them” Culture	Silos proliferate, creating barriers between staff and supervisors	Prevents holistic quality approaches that span departmental boundaries
Blame Culture	Focus on finding fault rather than improving systems, often centered around the concept of “human error”	Discourages reporting of issues, driving quality problems underground

When workers operate in fear, quality inevitably suffers. They hide mistakes rather than report them, avoid innovation for fear of failure, and focus on protecting themselves rather than improving systems. Driving out fear isn’t just humane – it’s essential for quality.

Key Worker Rights in Quality Management

Quality management systems that respect workers’ rights create environments where quality can flourish. Based on workplace investigation principles, these rights extend naturally to all quality processes.

The Right to Information

In any quality system, clarity is essential. Workers have the right to understand quality requirements, the rationale behind procedures, and how their work contributes to the overall quality system. Transparency sets the stage for collaboration, where everyone works toward a common quality goal with full understanding.

The Right to Confidentiality and Non-Retaliation

Workers must feel safe reporting quality issues without fear of punishment. This means protecting their confidentiality when appropriate and establishing clear non-retaliation policies. One of the pillars of workplace equity is ensuring that employees are shielded from retaliation when they raise concerns, reinforcing a commitment to a culture where individuals can voice quality issues without fear.

The Right to Participation and Representation

The Who-What Matrix is a powerful tool to ensure the right people are involved in quality processes. By including a wider set of people, this approach creates trust, commitment, and a sense of procedural justice-all essential for quality success. Workers deserve representation in decisions that affect their ability to produce quality work.

Worker Empowerment: The Foundation of Quality Culture

Empowerment is not just a nice-to-have; it’s a foundational element of any true quality culture. When workers are entrusted with authority to make decisions, initiate actions, and take responsibility for outcomes, both job satisfaction and quality improve. Unfortunately, empowerment rhetoric is sometimes misused within quality frameworks like TQM, Lean, and Six Sigma to justify increased work demands rather than genuinely empowering workers.

The concept of empowerment has its roots in social movements, including civil rights and women’s rights, where it described the process of gaining autonomy and self-determination for marginalized groups. In quality management, this translates to giving workers real authority to improve processes and address quality issues.

Mary Parker Follett’s Approach to Quality Through Autonomy

Follett emphasized giving workers autonomy to complete their jobs effectively, believing that when workers have freedom, they become happier, more productive, and more engaged. Her “power with” principle suggests that power should be shared broadly rather than concentrated, fostering a collaborative environment where quality can thrive.

Rejecting the Great Man Fallacy

Quality regulations often fall into the trap of the “Great Man Fallacy” – the misguided notion that one person through education, experience, and authority can ensure product safety, efficacy, and quality. This approach is fundamentally flawed.

People only perform successfully when they operate within well-built systems. Process drives success by leveraging the right people at the right time making the right decisions with the right information. No single person can ensure quality, and thinking otherwise sets up both individuals and systems for failure.

Instead, we need to build processes that leverage teams, democratize decisions, and drive reliable results. This approach aligns perfectly with respecting workers’ rights and empowering them as quality partners rather than subjects of quality control.

Quality Management as a Program: Centering Workers’ Rights

Quality needs to be managed as a program, walking a delicate line between long-term goals, short-term objectives, and day-to-day operations. As quality professionals, we must integrate workers’ rights into this program approach.

The challenges facing quality today-from hyperautomation to shifting customer expectations-can only be addressed through worker empowerment. Consider how these challenges demand a worker-centered approach:

Challenge	Impact on Quality Management	Worker-Centered Approach
Advanced Analytics	Requires holistic data analysis and application	Develop talent strategies that upskill workers rather than replacing them
Hyper-Automation	Tasks previously done by humans being automated	Involve workers in automation decisions; focus on how automation can enhance rather than replace human work
Virtualization of Work	Rethinking how quality is executed in digital environments	Ensure workers have input on how virtual quality processes are designed
Shift to Resilient Operations	Need to adapt to changing risk levels in real-time	Enable employees to make faster decisions by building quality-informed judgment
Digitally Native Workforce	Changed expectations for how work is managed	Connect quality to values employees care about: autonomy, innovation, social issues

To meet these challenges, we must shift from viewing quality as a function to quality as an interdisciplinary, participatory process. We need to break down silos and build autonomy, encouraging personal buy-in through participatory quality management.

May Day as a Reminder of Our Quality Mission

As International Workers’ Day approaches, I’m reminded that our quality mission is inseparable from our commitment to workers’ rights. This May Day, I encourage all quality professionals to:

Evaluate how your quality systems either support or undermine workers’ rights
Identify and eliminate sources of fear in your quality processes
Create mechanisms for meaningful worker participation in quality decisions
Reject hierarchical quality models in favor of democratic, empowering approaches
Recognize that centering workers’ rights isn’t just ethical-it’s essential for quality

Quality management without respect for workers’ rights is not just morally questionable-it’s ineffective. The future of quality lies in approaches that are predictive, connected, flexible, and embedded. These can only be achieved when workers are treated as valued partners with protected rights and real authority.

This May Day, let’s renew our commitment to driving out fear, empowering workers, and building quality systems that respect the dignity and rights of every person who contributes to them. In doing so, we honor not just the historical struggles of workers, but also the true spirit of quality that puts people at its center.

What steps will you take this International Workers’ Day to strengthen the connection between workers’ rights and quality in your organization?

Quality, Decision Making and Putting the Human First

Quality stands in a position, sometimes uniquely in an organization, of engaging with stakeholders to understand what objectives and unique positions the organization needs to assume, and the choices that are making in order to achieve such objectives and positions.

The effectiveness of the team in making good decisions by picking the right choices depends on their ability of analyzing a problem and generating alternatives. As I discussed in my post “Design Lifecycle within PDCA – Planning” experimentation plays a critical part of the decision making process. When designing the solution we always consider:

Always include a “do nothing” option: Not every decision or problem demands an action. Sometimes, the best way is to do nothing.
How do you know what you think you know? This should be a question everyone is comfortable asking. It allows people to check assumptions and to question claims that, while convenient, are not based on any kind of data, firsthand knowledge, or research.
Ask tough questions! Be direct and honest. Push hard to get to the core of what the options look like.
Have a dissenting option. It is critical to include unpopular but reasonable options. Make sure to include opinions or choices you personally don’t like, but for which good arguments can be made. This keeps you honest and gives anyone who see the pros/cons list a chance to convince you into making a better decision than the one you might have arrived at on your own.
Consider hybrid choices. Sometimes it’s possible to take an attribute of one choice and add it to another. Like exploratory design, there are always interesting combinations in decision making. This can explode the number of choices, which can slow things down and create more complexity than you need. Watch for the zone of indifference (options that are not perceived as making any difference or adding any value) and don’t waste time in it.
Include all relevant perspectives. Consider if this decision impacts more than just the area the problem is identified in. How does it impact other processes? Systems?

A struggle every organization has is how to think through problems in a truly innovative way. Installing new processes into an old bureaucracy will only replace one form of control with another. We need to rethink the very matter of control and what it looks like within an organization. It is not about change management, on it sown change management will just shift the patterns of the past. To truly transform we need a new way of thinking.

One of my favorite books on just how to do this is Humanocracy: Creating Organizations as Amazing as the People Inside Them by Gary Hamel and Michele Zanini. In this book, the authors advocate that business must become more fundamentally human first. The idea of human ability and how to cultivate and unleash it is an underlying premise of this book.

it’s possible to capture the benefits of bureaucracy—control, consistency, and coordination—while avoiding the penalties—inflexibility, mediocrity, and apathy.
Gary Hamel and Michele Zanini, Humanocracy, p. 15

The above quote really encapsulates the heart of this book, and why I think it is such a pivotal read for my peers. This books takes the core question of a bureaurcacy is “How do we get human beings to better serve the organization?”. The issue at the heart of humanocracy becomes: “What sort of organization elicits and merits the best that human beings can give?” Seems a simple swap, but the implications are profound.

Bureaucracy versus Humanocracy. Source: Gary Hamel and Michele Zanini, *Humanocracy*, p. 48

I would hope you, like me, see the promise of many of the central tenets of Quality Management, not least Deming’s 8th point. The very real tendency of quality to devolve to pointless bureaucracy is something we should always be looking to combat.

Humanocracy’s central point is that by truly putting the employee first in our organizations we drive a human-centered organization that powers and thrives on innovation. Humanocracy is particularly relevant as organizations seek to be more resilient, agile, adaptive, innovative, customer centric etc. Leaders pursuing such goals seek to install systems like agile, devops, flexible teams etc. They will fail, because people are not processes. Resiliency, agility, efficiency, are not new programming codes for people. These goals require more than new rules or a corporate initiative. Agility, resilience, etc. are behaviors, attitudes, ways of thinking that can only work when you change the deep ‘systems and assumptions’ within an organization. This book discusses those deeper changes.

Humanocracy lays out seven tips for success in experimentation. I find they align nicely with Kotter’s 8 change accelerators.

Humanocracy’s Tip	Kotter’s Accelerator
Keep it Simple	Generate (and celebrate) short-term wins
Use Volunteers	Enlist a volunteer army
Make it Fun	Sustain Acceleration
Start in your own backyard	Form a change vision and strategic initiatives
Run the new parallel with the old	Enable action by removing barriers
Refine and Retest	Sustain acceleration
Stay loyal to the problem	Create a Sense of Urgency around a Big Opportunity

Comparison to Kotter’s Eight Accelerators for Change

Management’s Job

In episode 48 of the Deming Len’s podcast, the host refers back to Deming’s last interview, “Dr. Deming: ‘Management Today Does Not Know What Its Job Is‘”

Why Strategic Plans Fail (And What Actually Works Instead) – In Their Own Words

Why do good strategic plans so often fail to produce different results? John Dues joins Andrew Stotz to explore a simple idea: organizations do not run on strategic plans. They run on the routines leaders and teams follow every day. From meetings and priorities to problem solving and learning, those routines form the management system that shapes results. Listen to a practical conversation about strategy, leadership, Deming, and designing an organization that can continually learn. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:00.0 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussion with John Dues, who is part of the new generation of educators striving to apply Dr. Deming's principles to unleash student joy in learning. Well, John, your most recent blog post, you titled it "The System Your Organization Actually Runs." Interesting title. And it starts with a question that I think every leader has probably asked at some point, which is, how does this strategic plan actually change what leaders do on Monday morning? Why did you start at that point? 0:00:50.1 John Dues: Yeah, thanks for having me back, Andrew. I think the article kind of gets at a question that I've found myself asking over the years as I've led school systems. And I've seen a lot of different strategic plans, and I've seen a lot of different strategic plans at my own organization. And most of them contain worthwhile goals. Most of them are written by leaders that want to genuinely improve their organization. I think the problem is, it wasn't the quality of the goals. It was… After reading the plan, I often couldn't tell how the leadership of that particular organization was actually going to operate once the plan was finished, or how at least how it was going to operate differently. And this is true of my own organization. The plan would tell me or those leaders where the organization wanted to go but it rarely said like how that was going to happen, what was going to happen differently every day in order to get there. And what I eventually basically came to the realization that this wasn't just a minor oversight or omission, it was like the central issue. And so that realization really changed how I started to think about strategic planning, 'cause I do think that's an important component of running an organization, but it's not the management system itself. It's just the starting point basically. 0:02:22.7 Andrew Stotz: There's a great book on strategy that I like called Good Strategy Bad Strategy by Richard Rumelt and he basically focuses in on how bad most strategy is, and it's just lofty statements and generalizations with very little action and trade-offs that the senior management or the leaders are really making. And so it just plops in people's lap like, "Here's a good-feeling thing." So was there a specific moment when that clicked for you? 0:02:59.4 John Dues: Yeah, that's a good question. I mean, I think what I think of when you mentioned that book, which I haven't read, "Good Strategy Bad Strategy," I think there certainly is good strategy and there is certainly bad strategy. But what I most often was seeing is like pretty good strategy that maybe a consultant would write. Like we did a strategic plan with a consultant, a great consultant about a decade ago and the strategic plan that that work resulted in was great and useful in some ways. But by and large, it did end up in the sort of stereotypical fancy binding and all kinds of colors and graphs and stuff like that, but it was mostly sitting on shelves and closets. It really wasn't formatted like literally and figuratively, it wasn't formatted in a way that was going to guide our work on a daily or a weekly or a monthly basis. So that experience, and I went through a couple of those types of strategic planning sessions with consultants over the years. So then I was thinking about what's actually happening is that, well, if the strategic plan mostly gets shelved, what is it exactly that is guiding and running the organization on that day-to-day basis? 0:04:30.4 Andrew Stotz: Interesting kind of distinction between the plan and the day-to-day running. So let's answer that question. If the strategic plan isn't the management system, what is it? 0:04:45.9 John Dues: Well, I think one thing is some people might be familiar with the management system terminology and some people may not. It probably has a technical meaning for a lot of people that are doing this type of work. But whether you use that terminology, "management system," in your organization or not, every organization has one. And so when a lot of people hear management system, they may picture some type of software system or some more formal operating manual. But that's not what I mean when I say there is a management system whether you realize it or not. I don't mean something formal necessarily. I'm just talking about a management system as a simple collection of like recurring leadership routines that determine how the organization actually functions. So it's things like how are priorities established? When you have meetings, how are they run? How frequently do the meetings occur? What measures are the leaders reviewing on a regular basis? How are problems surfaced in the organization? How do decisions get made? How the information flows? How leaders learn whether the organization is improving. So there's all kinds of these routines, and in some places they are not intentionally designed at all. But some version of those things are happening in every single organization. And in a lot of places they sort of just simply kind of evolve naturally on their own over time. But the thing that's similar, and it's pretty remarkable, is that whether you're doing this deliberately or not, these become like powerful behavior shapers in the day-to-day of an organization. So I think the key thing is that people respond much more to that daily management system, those leadership routines, and those things reinforce more so like the behavior of people that work in an organization more than what leaders say is important or more than what is written in a strategic plan that people often sort of shelve after the initial rollout and don't reference back very often. 0:07:16.7 Andrew Stotz: This makes me think of a quote by a guy named Stafford Beer, who is a systems thinker, and he said, "The purpose of a system is what it does." 0:07:23.8 John Dues: That's it, yes. That is it in essence, yeah. 0:07:31.0 Andrew Stotz: And the meaning of this is like never judge a system by its stated goals. This is also what Rumelt is talking about in "Good Strategy Bad Strategy." Don't judge it by its stated goals or its mission statement or what its designers have intended it to do. Really, we've gotta judge it by what it does. So you're saying every organization already has a management system then? 0:07:57.6 John Dues: Yeah, that's exactly right. I mean, I think that's probably the biggest idea I was trying to get through in that most recent blog post, this idea that every organization has a management system whether they call it that or not. So the question is not its existence. The real question is, is there any intentionality behind the design of that system? 0:08:22.2 Andrew Stotz: So to follow that up, if every organization already has a management system, why do so many strategic plans fail to produce different results? 0:08:33.7 John Dues: Yeah, I mean, I think from what I've seen is that the goals and maybe the tactics and the strategic plans change every three years or every five years depending on how your organization does it but those management routines don't. So you spend all this time creating a new strategic plan and you may even do some things differently for a short time period, kind of like when you make a New Year's resolution, but you kind of settle back into those natural patterns if any changes were made in the first place at all. And so if you're a leader, you kind of just keep holding those same meetings, you kind of keep looking at the same reports, looking at the same data, you make decisions in the same way, you respond to problems in the same way. New initiatives sort of get absorbed up into that old existing management system. And so these initiatives come and they go but the system really doesn't change, kind of just like what you were saying with that quote. And then because the system doesn't change, the results usually don't change very much either. I think one follows from the other. So I think this is why two organizations, like two school systems can have pretty identical strategies and then produce completely different outcomes. And the difference usually isn't the plan, it's that management system that sort of lives underneath the plan. That's kind of how I think about it. 0:10:06.8 Andrew Stotz: It kind of makes me think of like a military. An army is told by their leader, "We're gonna take that hill," and then a new guy comes in and he goes, "I'm gonna change the plan. We're gonna take that hill and that hill." And then a new guy comes in and he goes, "We're gonna take that hill and that hill and that hill." And all of a sudden there's no tradeoff, there's no letting go, there's no sacrifice. And when you don't have a clear tradeoff, you're basically saying that we've got all these resources and we can do all this stuff. So it's interesting because most people would probably say that the problem is execution. 0:10:44.7 John Dues: Yeah. And I think… I mean, you run a business. I mean, execution, obviously… 0:11:01.7 Andrew Stotz: That's hard. 0:11:02.7 John Dues: It's critical. It's very critical. But the execution, how that goes, the execution itself is shaped by that management system. And so I think if you want different execution, you have to design a different set of management routines that people are gonna then follow to implement that plan. 0:11:22.6 Andrew Stotz: Well, it's not only me working in a real business. Of course you are too. So how did this change the way you approach strategic planning at United Schools? What are you doing differently? 0:11:34.3 John Dues: Yeah, I think the last couple rounds of strategic planning, so kind of in the middle of the pandemic, we decided that we were gonna take a stab at creating our own plan internally. And by that, I just mean that we were gonna do it ourselves and not utilize a consultant. And I think there can be times when utilizing someone from the outside, a consultant, there's lots of good ones out there, we've worked with a couple different ones over the years that I'd recommend, but I think there is something to be said for writing the strategic plan yourself if you have that capability. I mean… So we have a very stable senior leadership team, and so because of that cohesiveness, I think that's one sort of condition that allowed us to write it ourselves. And so I think one of the things then that happens when you write it yourself is you internalize it in a different way than if someone else wrote it for you. Even if you're studying it and reading it carefully, there's just something about writing it yourself and workshopping different goals and tactics and things like that that really make you deeply internalize. And that just doesn't happen when you use a consultant for something, in my opinion. And then one other, I think some people might see this as a small thing, but the strategic plan actually is in a Google Document. And the great thing about Google Documents, of course, is that they are dynamic and easy to collaborate in. And so this may seem like a small thing, but when a consultant hands off a finished product, it's often in a slide deck or a PDF. And that's actually kind of hard to change. There are programs where you can obviously change a PDF fairly simply, but there's something about it living in a PDF versus living in a Google Document. Now, it's not something that we're just changing all the time. However, we're regularly in that Google Document and adjusting things, let's say on a quarterly basis as we adjust and as we learn as conditions change and stuff like that. So I think it's sort of like a two-part thing. More internalization happens when you do it yourself, and then we made this decision to put it in a Google Doc and let it live there. And it's sort of a working document that gets continually updated across the life of that particular strategic plan. 0:14:03.5 Andrew Stotz: I've just spent probably 500 hours developing a corporate strategy module for my Profit Bootcamp and I also have been teaching it and developing it with executive education here in Bangkok. And I have 12 activities that, I basically look at the best books on this topic, break it down, and then it's a series of activities. And I just couldn't imagine a consultant, and even myself, what I'm trying to do is guide people through it, but ultimately you gotta think about it and you gotta really… And it starts, in my case it starts with why. Why are you doing what you're doing? And for me, a lot of what I try to do is inspire learning that leads to lasting change. And lasting change is because I had some people in my life that delivered lasting change to me. They provided an environment and the knowledge that allowed me to absorb it and make a lasting change in my life. In my case, it was stop using drugs and alcohol, which has worked for more than 40 years. And so it starts with why and then it goes through a lot of things. But one of the questions is like, what trade-offs are you making? If somebody's not upset with your strategy, you got it wrong because you must… You have limited resources and you're gonna have to pull it from one place to another. And I think that's part of what people miss and what they avoid a lot of times. So I love the idea of developing it yourself and going through it. But the document, of course, itself isn't really the point, is it? 0:15:53.5 John Dues: Yeah, I think the fact that it lives in a Google Document is just kind of one component of it that works for us. But yeah, I think you're exactly right. I mean, I think ultimately what we're looking for the strategic plan to do is kind of reaffirm or reassess what our long-term purpose is. For us, that's a time for us to look at our purpose and our mission, our values, and kind of reaffirm those things or make adjustments if we need to. But I think the key is, and this is where the management system comes, is that the plan then immediately flows into things like annual goals, quarterly priorities. Our senior leaders have management plans that sort of guide their work and outline their work for the year. It's gonna inform what's happening. All of our schools start with a daily huddle amongst the staff team, much like you'll see on the floor of a hospital or something like that. Our biweekly leadership team meetings, the quarterly strategic reviews that we do with our leadership team, and then the annual planning, all that, all of those routines are flowing from the strategic plan, but they're like the management system that sort of brings it alive. And these routines that I just mentioned really create these learning cycles that then feed back into the strategic plan, and that's the sort of updates that it gets over the course of its lifespan. And so if I had to boil it down, it's like the strategic plan provides the constancy of purpose, to kind speak in Deming's terms, and then the management system helps us continually learn and how to achieve that particular purpose. 0:17:35.5 Andrew Stotz: I like your distinction of the routines because that helps us understand like these are cycles that we're going through and routines that we're doing and as long as that routine is serving the ultimate aim of the system, then fantastic. So towards the end of the blog, you say something that really stood out to me, and that is you said, "The real work of leadership is designing an organization that can learn." What do you mean by that? 0:18:08.0 John Dues: Yeah, I think what I was trying to get at is that early in my career, I really thought leadership was mostly about developing better strategy. If you just had better strategy, you'd be on the right course. And today I have a more nuanced view that's only one part of the job. I think the larger responsibility is designing an organization that continually improves its own thinking. And that requires those intentional routines that you were just talking about. And I think, of course, you're gonna review performance over time. If you have a Deming lens, you're gonna study variation. You gotta have some collaborative ways that you're solving problems. For us, that includes running PDSA cycles to refine our methods. And then through it all, you're keeping everyone connected around this common purpose. And I think that when those routines become a part of the everyday work, improvement then becomes much less dependent on a single leader, or sometimes it's a heroic leader that drives the organization. It's the organization itself that's capable of learning then because these various routines have become a part of the behavior pattern of the organization itself. 0:19:24.5 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, that sounds very Deming. 0:19:26.2 John Dues: It's very Deming, very Deming. Yeah, I think I kind of think of one of Deming's greatest insights is that organizations don't improve because people simply work harder. They improve because leaders improve the system deliberately. And this, the article and then this podcast is one particular part of that system, about one particular part of that system, the management system itself. 0:19:54.6 Andrew Stotz: In the strategy course that I do, I talk about identifying strengths. And then I looked at 8,500 companies globally, and I do a measure where I look at each company relative to its global peers each year. And then I say, where is its ranking on two things: how profitable it is and how fast it's growing earnings. Both of these are opposing forces, so it's very hard to have both of them at a high level. But that's what I do as a score I call the profitable growth score. And then I ask the question, how many companies out of 8,500 sustain a number one or number two ranking out of one to 10 over five years? And out of 8,500 companies, it's 400. 0:20:36.7 John Dues: Wow. 0:20:48.2 Andrew Stotz: And I would say that these have a clear competitive advantage that's illustrated in their numbers. Where it's coming from, how they're getting it, okay, those are deeper questions. But this is where I talk with the executives that I work with, the companies I work with, and I ask them, how do we look for a strength in your business that we can convert to a competitive advantage? Because right now, looking at the financial performance of almost everybody, we just have a lot of strengths, which is great. But strategy really is about how do we do that? And the second component of that, which kind of relates back to this learning, is that if you have an all-star in your company and they leave and the sales go down or the business goes down, then you didn't have a real competitive advantage. And so the concept of building learning into a company where everybody's learning creates what I call a hard to copy strength or competitive advantage and that ultimately leads to a long-term performance that is reflected. And it's a little bit like, some people listening may think, "Oh, I'm not into the numbers and all that stuff, Andrew." Well, just imagine that your kid comes to you and says, "Hey, Dad," or "Mom, I'm gonna get A's next semester." And you go, "Right, great. How are you gonna do it?" And they go, "Well, I'm gonna do this, I'm gonna do that, and I'm gonna change this and I'm gonna change that." "That sounds like a good plan. Go for it." And then at the end of the term, they had been getting C's and then they come back and they say, "I got C's." Well, is there no meaning in the output of that? I think there's meaning in it. And then that's ultimately where I say a strength has to convert to be a competitive advantage, and the competitive advantage has to be reflected in the financial performance, or what is it? 0:22:49.8 John Dues: Yeah. Yeah, that's a great sort of sum-up of the discussion today. 0:22:53.2 Andrew Stotz: So if someone's listening and only remembers one thing from today's conversation, what would it be? 0:23:01.7 John Dues: Yeah, I mean, I think what I would hope they remember is that what we've talked about is organizations don't actually run on strategic plans. They run on a management system. So every organization has one, whether they've called it that or not. Everybody has a management system that's sort of running the organization. And I think the key question is whether it's intentionally designed or not. So in my mind, if a leader wants different results, then they have to examine those recurring routines that shape how work is getting done every day. And ultimately, organizations improve not because they have impressive plans but because they have these intentionally built management systems that continually translate that long-term purpose into better daily practice and operations, basically. 0:23:56.3 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, it's great and personally, I really like the routine aspect of what you talked about today 'cause I think about a management system, sometimes it's a little bit nebulous or hard to grasp, but a routine is very clear. And I was just thinking about what often happens is we have routine stacking where the prior manager had these five routines and now a new manager comes in and he added two, now we got seven. And then the next one comes in and he added three, now we got 10. But looking at these underlying routines really was something that hit me with what you're talking about. So that's pretty exciting. 0:24:38.1 John Dues: Yeah. And you drew the battle plan analogy and you talked about the leader with one hill and then the next guy says two hills, the next guy says three hills and it's like, did you take any hills? Those are all strategic plans. The management system is the operation that actually allows you to accomplish that thing. 0:24:56.6 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, exciting. Well, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org and jump into DemingNEXT to continue your journey. And you can find John's book, Win-Win: W. Edwards Deming, the System of Profound Knowledge and the Science of Improving Schools on amazon.com. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, and that is "People are entitled to joy in work."

I’ve written recently about driving fear out of the organization. Without a doubt I think this is the number one task for us. True North for the quality profession.

The source of innovation is freedom. All we have—new knowledge, invention—comes from freedom. Somebody responsible only to himself has the heaviest responsibility. “You cannot plan to make a discovery,” Irving Langmuir said. Discoveries and new knowledge come from freedom. When somebody is responsible only to himself, [has] only himself to satisfy, then you’ll have invention, new thought, now product, new design, new ideas.
Dr. W. Edwards Deming

Drive Out Fear on International Workers Day

Happy International Workers Day. Let’s celebrate by Driving Out Fear!

Thirty-five years ago Deming wrote that “no one can put in his best performance unless he feels secure.” Unfortunately, today we still live in a corporate world where fear and management by fear is ubiquitous. That fear is growing after more than a year of a global pandemic. As quality professionals we must deal with it at every opportunity.

Fear undermines quality, productivity, and innovation. The existence of fear leads to a vicious downward spiral.

Some sources of fear include:

Competition: Many managers use competition to instill fear. Competition is about winners and losers. Success cannot exist without failure. Managers deem the anxiety generated by competition between co-workers a good thing as they compete for scarce resources, power and status. Therefore, management encourage competition between individuals, between groups and departments and between business units.
“Us and Them” Culture: The “us and them” culture that predominates in so many organizations proliferated by silos. Includes barriers between staff and supervisors.
Blame Culture: Fear predominates in a blame culture. Blame culture can often center around enshrining the idea of human error.

We drive out fear by building a culture centered on employee well-being. This is based on seven factors.

Factor	Means	Obtained by
Responsibility	Well defined responsibilities and ownership	The opportunity an employee has to provide input into decision making in his department An individual employees’ own readiness to set high personal standards An individual employee’s interest in challenging work assignments The opportunity an employee has to improve skills and capabilities Excellent career advancement opportunities The organization’s encouragement of problem-solving and innovative thinking
Management Competence	Managers trained with skills that lend themselves to contributing to the work of their team ensures that they will be looked to for help. Managers need to be able to guide.	Direct Supervisor/Manager Leadership Abilities Management is engaged and leads by example (Gemba walks) Management by Facts
Consideration	When managers act as if employees have no feelings and just expect them to do their work as if they are robots, it can make employees uneasy. Such behavior makes them feel detached and merely a tool to carry out an end. In such environments, many times the only times employees hear from the manager is when something goes well or really bad. In either case, the perception could be that the manager has mood swings and that also adds to the employee’s insecurity. They may feel reluctant to talk to their manager for fear he is in one of his bad moods.	Senior Management’s sincere interest in employee well-being An individual employee’s relationship with their supervisor Open and effective communication Trust in management and co-workers
Cooperation	The feeling that every person is on their own to look out for their interest is a sad state to be in. Yet when everyone has a fear that the other workers will take advantage of them or make them look bad at the first opportunity, a selfish and insecure environment will result. Employees should be able to work together for the benefit of the company. They should focus on group goals in addition to their personal goals, recognizing that individually there will be failures, but that the whole is more important than the individual parts.	Trust Well trained employees Collaboration as a process Organizational culture (psychological safety) Hire and promote the right behaviors & traits to match the culture
Feedback	Information that is given back to the employee regarding their performance on the job.	Know what is expected of them (clear job descriptions) Effective processes for timely feedback Recognition Know their opinion matters
Information	Transparency is critical. When employees know nothing about how a company is doing in terms of where they should be, it is a source of uneasiness. Without that knowledge, for all they know the company could be doing very poorly and that could be a bad thing for everyone. When they have a better sense of where the company is in the scheme of their objectives set by management, it helps them feel more secure. That is not to say it is the news being good or bad that affects their security, but rather the fact that they actually have the news.	Strategy and Mission — especially the freedom and autonomy to succeed and contribute to an organization’s success Organizational Culture and Core/Shared Values Feel that their job is important
Stability	Employees feel more secure when their role does not change frequently and they understand what tomorrow will mean.	Job Content — the ability to do what I do best Availability of Resources to Perform the Job Effectively Career development – opportunities to learn and grow

Driving out Fear

Norm Howe, a colleague in the ASQ and a great guy, wrote on his company’s blog “It Doesn’t Make Any Difference How Nice the Boss Is” and I want to strongly recommend that people read it.

Norm tells an engaging story where he shares a formative experience on the value of driving out fear. He then explains that we as managers grew up in these cultures and it requires work to build a new culture.

He hits on a great note, managers are part of the cultures they grew up in. We are like trees with many rings, and it can be very difficult just to change that.

I love story-sharing like this.