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

Measuring Training Effectiveness for Organizational Performance

When designing training we want to make sure four things happen:

Training is used correctly as a solution to a performance problem
Training has the the right content, objectives or methods
Trainees are sent to training for which they do have the basic skills, prerequisite skills, or confidence needed to learn
Training delivers the expected learning

Training is a useful lever in organization change and improvement. We want to make sure the training drives organization metrics. And like everything, you need to be able to measure it to improve.

The Kirkpatrick model is a simple and fairly accurate way to measure the effectiveness of adult learning events (i.e., training), and while other methods are introduced periodically, the Kirkpatrick model endures because of its simplicity. The model consists of four levels, each designed to measure a specific element of the training. Created by Donald Kirkpatrick, this model has been in use for over 50 years, evolving over multiple decades through application by learning and development professionals around the world. It is the most recognized method of evaluating the effectiveness of training programs. The model has stood the test of time and became popular due to its ability to break down complex subject into manageable levels. It takes into account any style of training, both informal and formal.

Level 1: Reaction

Kirkpatrick’s first level measures the learners’ reaction to the training. A level 1 evaluation is leveraging the strong correlation between learning retention and how much the learners enjoyed the time spent and found it valuable. Level 1 evaluations, euphemistically called a “smile sheet” should delve deeper than merely whether people liked the course. A good course evaluation will concentrate on three elements: course content, the physical environment and the instructor’s presentation/skills.

Level 2: Learning

Level 2 of Kirkpatrick’s model, learning, measures how much of the content attendees learned as a result of the training session. The best way to make this evaluation is through the use of a pre- and posttest. Pre- and posttests are key to ascertaining whether the participants learned anything in the learning event. Identical pre- and posttests are essential because the difference between the pre- and posttest scores indicates the amount of learning that took place. Without a pretest, one does not know if the trainees knew the material before the session, and unless the questions are the same, one cannot be certain that trainees learned the material in the session.

Level 3: Behavior

Level 3 measures whether the learning is transferred into practice in the workplace.

Level 4: Results

Measures the effect on the business environment. Do we meet objectives?

Evaluation Level	Characteristics	Examples
Level 1: Reaction	Reaction evaluation is how the delegates felt, and their personal reactions to the training or learning experience, for example: ▪ Did trainee consider the training relevant? ▪ Did they like the venue, equipment, timing, domestics, etc? ▪ Did the trainees like and enjoy the training? ▪ Was it a good use of their time? ▪ Level of participation ▪ Ease and comfort of experience	▪ feedback forms based on subjective personal reaction to the training experience ▪ Verbal reaction which can be analyzed ▪ Post-training surveys or questionnaires ▪ Online evaluation or grading by delegates ▪ Subsequent verbal or written reports given by delegates to managers back at their jobs ▪ typically ‘happy sheets’
Level 2: Learning	Learning evaluation is the measurement of the increase in knowledge or intellectual capability from before to after the learning experience: ▪ Did the trainees learn what intended to be taught? ▪ Did the trainee experience what was intended for them to experience? ▪ What is the extent of advancement or change in the trainees after the training, in the direction or area that was intended?	▪ Interview or observation can be used before and after although it is time-consuming and can be inconsistent ▪ Typically assessments or tests before and after the training ▪ Methods of assessment need to be closely related to the aims of the learning ▪ Reliable, clear scoring and measurements need to be established ▪ hard-copy, electronic, online or interview style assessments are all possible
Level 3: Behavior	Behavior evaluation is the extent to which the trainees applied the learning and changed their behavior, and this can be immediately and several months after the training, depending on the situation: ▪ Did the trainees put their learning into effect when back on the job? ▪ Were the relevant skills and knowledge used? ▪ Was there noticeable and measurable change in the activity and performance of the trainees when back in their roles? ▪ Would the trainee be able to transfer their learning to another person? is the trainee aware of their change in behavior, knowledge, skill level? ▪ Was the change in behavior and new level of knowledge sustained?	▪ Observation and interview over time are required to assess change, relevance of change, and sustainability of change ▪ Assessments need to be designed to reduce subjective judgment of the observer ▪ 360-degree feedback is useful method and need not be used before training, because respondents can make a judgment as to change after training, and this can be analyzed for groups of respondents and trainees ▪ Online and electronic assessments are more difficult to incorporate – assessments tend to be more successful when integrated within existing management and coaching protocols
Level 4: Results	Results evaluation is the effect on the business or environment resulting from the improved performance of the trainee – it is the acid test Measures would typically be business or organizational key performance indicators, such as: volumes, values, percentages, timescales, return on investment, and other quantifiable aspects of organizational performance, for instance; numbers of complaints, staff turnover, attrition, failures, wastage, non-compliance, quality ratings, achievement of standards and accreditations, growth, retention, etc.	The challenge is to identify which and how relate to the trainee’s input and influence. Therefore it is important to identify and agree accountability and relevance with the trainee at the start of the training, so they understand what is to be measured ▪ This process overlays normal good management practice – it simply needs linking to the training input ▪ For senior people particularly, annual appraisals and ongoing agreement of key business objectives are integral to measuring business results derived from training

4 Levels of Training Effectiveness

Example in Practice – CAPA

When building a training program, start with the intended behaviors that will drive results. Evaluating our CAPA program, we have two key aims, which we can apply measures against.

Behavior	Measure
Investigate to find root cause	% recurring issues
Implement actions to eliminate root cause	Preventive to corrective action ratio

To support each of these top-level measures we define a set of behavior indicators, such as cycle time, right the first time, etc. To support these, a review rubric is implemented.

Our four levels to measure training effectiveness will now look like this:

Level	Measure
Level 1: Reaction	Personal action plan and a happy sheet
Level 2: Learning	Completion of Rubric on a sample event
Level 3: Behavior	Continued performance and improvement against the Rubric and the key review behavior indicators
Level 4: Results	Improvements in % of recurring issues and an increase in preventive to corrective actions

This is all about measuring the effectiveness of the transfer of behaviors.

Strong Signals of Transfer Expectations in the Organization	Signals that Weaken Transfer Expectations in the Organization
Training participants are required to attend follow-up sesions and other transfer interventions. What is indicates: Individuals and teams are committed to the change and obtaining the intended benefits.	Attending the training is compulsory, but participating in follow-up sessions or oter transfer interventions is voluntary or even resisted by the organization. What is indicates: They key factor of a trainee is attendance, not behavior change.
The training description specifies transfer goals (e.g. “Trainee increases CAPA success by driving down recurrence of root cause”) What is indicates: The organization has a clear vision and expectation on what the training should accomplish.	The training description roughly outlines training goals (e.g. “Trainee improves their root cause analysis skills”) What is indicates: The organization only has a vague idea of what the training should accomplish.
Supervisors take time to support transfer (e.g. through pre- and post-training meetings). Transfer support is part of regular agendas. What is indicates: Transfer is considered important in the organization and supported by supervisors and managers, all the way to the top.	Supervisors do not invest in transfer support. Transfer support is not part of the supervisor role. What is indicates: Transfer is not considered very important in the organziaiton. Managers have more important things to do.
Each training ends with careful planning of individual transfer intentions. What is indicates: Defining transfer intentions is a central component of the training.	Transfer planning at the end of the training does not take place or only sporadically. What is indicates: Defining training intentions is not (or not an essential) part of the training.

Good training, and thus good and consistent transfer, builds that into the process. It is why I such a fan of utilizing a Rubric to drive consistent performance.

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‘”

Don't Just Do Something – In Their Own Words

What do you fix first when everything seems to need attention? Caroline faced that question while helping former students navigate life beyond United Schools. She wanted to jump in and start fixing everything, but she took a surprising step instead. In this episode, John Dues shares how a simple Post-it exercise helped them clarify what was affecting much of her department's work and gave Caroline a direction for her energy. Along the way, he and host Andrew Stotz get into "solutionitis," the danger of seeing too much, and why tempting solutions can lead us astray. If you've ever felt the pull to just do something, this one is for you. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.1 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. Now, the topic for today is See Before You Solve, and it gets to a tension that I think we all face and leaders face. We know something needs to improve and our instinct is to immediately start figuring out what to do about it. Like, "Do something, don't just stand there." And John, before we turn on the recorder, you mentioned something about the alumni services department at United Schools and what you were doing with it and what was happening a few years ago. Maybe you can kick off with that. 0:01:00.2 John Dues: Yeah, I thought, well, it's good to be back, Andrew. And I thought it'd be interesting… This has come up and in my work, and kind of, applying some of these Deming ideas. The Deming philosophy to something real life sometimes can help kind of bring it alive. So I thought this could be an interesting topic for this episode. And for folks that… We haven't mentioned United Schools in a while, but that's where I work. It's a K-8 system. It's a bit unique in that our relationship with our students doesn't end after that eighth grade year. We don't have a high school in our system right now. And so what we do have, kind of the next best thing, is this alumni services department that serves those eighth graders once they leave our program and then go on to high school. And they not only follow them… The folks in that department… They don't just follow them into high school, but beyond too. 0:01:55.8 John Dues: So once they get through high school and they help them sort of navigate that, then whatever it is they do next, whether that's college or military, trade, or a career, we continue to provide follow-on services. And that department has a director that I work with on a regular basis. Her name's Caroline Durbin, and she was kind of a high school counselor and then came to work for us about seven years ago and has kind of built this department from scratch. And so she… Lots of things kind of went off the rails during the pandemic in schools. And kind of, along those lines, she's thinking about, as we're kind of, turning a corner a few years ago from that pandemic time, or at least the heart of it, she knew that her department needed to improve too. And I think the thing that she was struggling with, though, was where does she start? There's no shortage of possibilities when you run a department like that. 0:02:58.3 John Dues: She was thinking about things like, how do you increase alumni engagement? How do you get kids, once they leave us, to enroll in those services? How do you deal with information about alumni that's incomplete? And there were some other pain points too. Any one of these things could have become its own improvement project. And I think that's a situation that a lot of leaders face. It's like, you know things aren't working as well as they should. You see five or [chuckle] even 10 legitimate problems that you could tackle, and the natural reaction is then, "Okay, which one of these are we going to fix? Where do we start?" That's the kind of thing. 0:03:42.0 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. And before we get to where you're going to start, I want to tip my hat to Caroline and also to my counselor from high school, Fred Zigler. Fred helped a lot of us at a very challenging time in our lives. And I was thinking about this idea of alumni services for you guys. Like, "Oh, just let them go, kids go." But really, the relationships that we build are so critical. And Fred helped me address alcohol and drug addiction and get me into treatment, talked with my parents, helped me. And to this day. Now, that was 1982 when he helped me, and to this day, I'm still in touch with him and still see the value that he brought to my life at that moment. So just tipping my hat there. So, John. 0:04:29.9 John Dues: Yeah, that's incredible. In fact, Caroline, just this week, one of the things they do is they take our alumni once they get into high school, they take them on college visits. So they just went to Kent State and Xavier, two different groups this week, and she led them on those college visits. Pretty cool stuff. 0:04:46.5 Andrew Stotz: I imagine the Kent State campus has changed a lot since I was there studying, but yeah, just a good memory right there. So tell us, where did you start? 0:04:57.8 John Dues: Yeah, I mean, I think that's a great question. What we did was we didn't just pick one of those problems and immediately get to work. The first thing that we did together was just sort of slow things down a bit and really what we were trying to do is just kind of step back and start by trying to better understand what was happening. And so basically, we just literally took the various pain points that Caroline brainstormed, the different things she was seeing in her department. We just literally wrote each one on a Post-it note. Then we took the Post-it notes and kind of grouped them into common themes. And then we basically looked at how each of those themes was impacting the others. And over time, we basically used this exercise to see which one had the most arrows pointing away from it, meaning it was causing other problems. And the thing that came out on top was unknown alumni data. 0:06:09.8 John Dues: So basically, what was happening was that we didn't always have or completely capture students' data as they were leaving us or, over time, things would change. They would change high schools or change programs or whatever. And so we had all this incomplete information about our alumni. And that really was impacting Caroline's ability to understand other parts of the department's work. I mean, it made it hard to know how former students were doing, where did they need support, and it also made it hard to understand where our efforts were actually making a difference. So that gave Caroline a place to start. 0:06:51.5 Andrew Stotz: So she knew she had problems before you did the exercise. So what changed? 0:06:58.8 John Dues: Yeah, I mean, I think she didn't necessarily have more information, but she just had this better way of seeing the information that she already had, frankly. And that's an important distinction. Caroline knew something needed to improve, but she didn't start by choosing a solution. She started by literally stepping back and seeing her alumni system. 0:07:27.0 Andrew Stotz: And I guess this is probably pretty hard for all of us in leadership in that we get caught up in what we're doing and then we kind of narrow our focus, I'm thinking. So we tend to jump from seeing a problem directly to just trying to say, "Let's fix this. Do something." 0:07:45.2 John Dues: Yeah. And I think, that's what we're paid to do as leaders. We're paid to solve problems. And I think it's natural that when something isn't working, we turn our attention toward some type of action because that feels good. What are we going to change? Who's going to do it? How quickly can we get started? And I don't think that bias towards action is inherently bad because organizations, you don't improve your organization by endlessly discussing your problems or admiring your problems. Eventually, you have to act. But I think knowing that a system needs to improve, it's not the same as knowing where to begin. And I think that's really where leaders can get into trouble. This disappointing result appears and then immediately plausible solutions start coming to mind. This happens all the time. Your reading scores are low, adopt a new curriculum. Your team has communication problems, let's add another meeting to the calendar. A department's having trouble keeping track of its work, let's buy a new technology platform. And sometimes those things can be useful, but I think that the key thing is that seeing a problem isn't the same as understanding what's producing that underlying problem. 0:09:13.1 Andrew Stotz: And I think you use the term solutionitis. [laughter] What…tell us about that? 0:09:20.7 John Dues: Yeah, I mean, I like a lot of these ideas. I can't take credit. I'm sure I came across it in a book. I think maybe Learning to Improve, Tony Bryk's book, is maybe where I originally saw that. But basically, solutionitis is this tendency to prescribe changes before we've adequately understood what's happening. So the thing is we make this leap almost immediately from "something isn't working" to "here's what we should do about it." And I think the real problem is when that solution comes before an adequate diagnosis. And one of the dangers there is that then the most visible problem or maybe the most frustrating problem, it isn't necessarily always the best place to focus improvement or where to start, 'cause problems rarely exist in isolation. They're part of a system, and it's the relationship among those parts that can be just as important as the individual problems themselves. And I think that's really what that Post-it exercise, a very simple Post-it exercise with Caroline, it helped us to kind of, see together eventually. 0:10:31.4 Andrew Stotz: I visualize going into the doctor's office and just about to explain what problem I'm having, and the doctor says, "Here's the prescription." [chuckle] 0:10:41.8 John Dues: Right. Right. 0:10:44.0 Andrew Stotz: Wait a minute, isn't there a diagnosis step in between? [chuckle] 0:10:48.3 John Dues: Yeah. Yep. And sometimes people kind of, I actually asked people recently, like, "Where do I add value as an improvement advisor?" I asked a series of questions. And then I also asked them, "Where when I'm not effective as an improvement advisor, what's the situation?" And one person said, "Sometimes when something needs to happen really quickly, sometimes you want to make it into a process, which most of the time I appreciate, but sometimes you just need to move quickly." And I take that. That is a perfect description of me. But my only pushback to that is almost all the time, even though I tend to slow things down in most situations, it almost always, in the long run, you sort of create a more robust solution. So it's very hard, especially when the pressure is on. [chuckle] 0:11:47.7 Andrew Stotz: I'm picturing them drawing a picture of you sitting, smoking a cigar in a comfortable chair, and behind you is a burning house. 0:11:56.3 John Dues: Yeah. Yeah. 0:11:57.2 Andrew Stotz: And they think, "House on fire, house on fire, you gotta do." But what they don't realize, of course, is that almost all of it is common cause variation, and by reacting to it, you're actually just… So anyways, so you described what you did with Caroline as almost like a funnel. So maybe tell us a little bit more about that. 0:12:20.7 John Dues: Yeah, I mean, I think what I'm trying to get at there is that when you're trying to sort of understand a problem at the beginning, the funnel is very wide, meaning there's all kinds of possible opportunities for improvement. So the challenge isn't necessarily generating more ideas. I mean, I think the challenge is really narrowing those possibilities intelligently. With Caroline, we started with all those pain points that she had pointed out. We put them on Post-it notes. And then the thing about that was we just got them out of her head and made them visible. We wrote them down and then we again grouped them to see those larger themes. And then when we took a look at the relationships among the different themes, it really helped us to sort of distinguish between problems that were relatively isolated and those that were really impacting multiple parts of her alumni services system. 0:13:19.8 John Dues: And that's how the unknown alumni data went from being one problem among many to a really logical place to begin the work, to begin that improvement work. And I think that's really what I mean by "see the system." So get clear about what you're trying to accomplish, understand what's happening now, look for patterns and relationships, and then use that understanding to identify something of consequence that's an opportunity for improvement. It doesn't give you the solution, but it does give you a more informed place to begin. 0:13:54.6 Andrew Stotz: And once the unknown alumni data emerged as the place to begin, I'm trying to think about how I would deal with that. I mean, for me, that just feels overwhelming. Like it's just every day that goes by, it's harder to get that data. It's just, I'm just curious. So tell us more about what happened. 0:14:19.3 John Dues: Yeah, and then that's where really Caroline then kicked into high gear. She started taking action pretty quickly. And what that action ultimately sparked was this complete redesign of United's alumni data tracking system. She created some new trackers, some new data visualizations, and she actually, we tapped an ex-employee that had gotten into data, advanced data work, and we kind of hired her as a consultant to help us. But she didn't just design this whole new thing and then declare it finished after a month or something. She basically, since we did this work a few years ago, she's kept refining the system and used it and then learned what's working and what's not, and she continually improves this data system. And now sort of, when I kind of followed up with Caroline recently about that work we had started a number of years ago, she said, the alumni data, it's the most complete that it's ever been. 0:15:26.6 John Dues: And I think the sequence that she followed really mattered. She didn't begin with, "We need a new tracker." The tracker was downstream or the visualization dashboard was downstream from the learning about the system. First thing we did was develop enough understanding to identify the alumni data as a meaningful leverage point, and then she started developing the solutions around that basically. 0:15:53.6 Andrew Stotz: And you just said, "enough understanding." So that's another important distinction. Because couldn't "see the system first" become an excuse? I mean, for the whole point is this analysis paralysis, the sitting in front of a burning house. I don't know, tell us more about that. 0:16:15.0 John Dues: Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. I think that's the danger of taking that particular idea too far. "We need to understand the system" can definitely become an excuse for endless analysis. And that's definitely not what I'm suggesting. Caroline and I, we didn't sit down and map every process in alumni services. We didn't collect every possible piece of data. We didn't resolve every uncertainty. We just needed enough understanding to make a reasoned choice about where to focus. And once we chose that alumni data, the unknown alumni data as the focus, as that key leverage point, Caroline began to move forward. So this happened pretty quickly. That sort of see the system, the step back transitioned into action within just a month or so, pretty quickly. But the key thing is that seeing before solving doesn't mean seeing everything before acting. It just means seeing enough to choose intelligently where to begin, then you act. And then once you start acting, you continue that learning process. 0:17:23.2 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, I like that because it's so easy to get into overwhelm when you say, "Let's look at the system." [chuckle] And the next thing you know, there's you're thinking about the US Congress and the system of global trade or whatever. It's like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. We went too far. So now there's another part of this story that I found interesting and that's that you describe Caroline as having the inside view and you as bringing an outside view. Tell us more what you mean. 0:17:54.2 John Dues: Yeah, we both work for the same organization. So this can happen with two people that work for the same organization or often this will happen with someone that hires an outside consultant for this reason. But what I'm basically saying is that Caroline knew alumni services far better than I did. She understood our alumni, she understood the department's processes, she knew what information they had and didn't have. She understood the frustrations that came with her work. That's what I mean by the inside view. And I think that type of knowledge is absolutely essential. I couldn't have walked into alumni services and told Caroline what she needed to change because I didn't know enough about it. I brought something different. It's almost a good thing that I wasn't immersed in the department's day-to-day work. Instead, sort of what I was bringing was the improvement methods, basically. So I could bring this process for stepping back from the individual problems and making the system more visible and deciding where to focus. That's what I mean by the outside view. 0:19:00.5 Andrew Stotz: So which perspective is more important? You've got someone on the inside, you can't do what they're doing, and someone on the outside and they can't do what you're doing. How do we think about these two? 0:19:11.8 John Dues: Yeah, I think it's interesting. I think Deming said something to the effect of a person can understand everything about their job except for how to improve it. Right. And so I think that's what this inside-outside thing really gets at. It's neither one is sufficient by itself. And I think that's really one of the most important lessons from Caroline's story. I didn't know enough about alumni services to tell her what needed to change, but Caroline's deep experience with the department hadn't automatically revealed to her where she should begin either. I think the value came from putting that inside and that outside view together. When I asked her to sort of reflect on this work from a few years ago, she really described my role as providing improvement expertise and guidance while giving her the space to identify what needed improvement, and then she was able to create something that worked for her department. And I think that's exactly right. I think that's the right balance for those two things. 0:20:09.2 Andrew Stotz: And that's a very different role for the leader or advisor than coming in with the answer, which I think a lot of people expect that the leader is going to come in and go, "I know how to handle this." 0:20:19.6 John Dues: Yeah, I mean, I think that's exactly right. And I think that's where this becomes a broader leadership principle rather than just a story about improvement advising. I think the people closest to the work often possess knowledge, like Caroline, that someone on the outside can never have. And I think that's incredibly valuable. It's a prerequisite for improvement, I think. But at the same time, being so immersed in that day-to-day work in that system can also make it difficult to step back and see those patterns and relationships and possibilities differently. And I think that's really where that outside perspective can provide some distance, and it can bring some different questions, and it can bring, again, those improvement methods. But I think the purpose of that outside perspective shouldn't be to replace the knowledge of the people closer to the work. 0:21:10.3 John Dues: It should be to help them see their own systems more clearly. And ideally, it strengthens their ability to improve the system themselves. And that's really what happened with Caroline. Once she had a clear place to start, my role became much smaller. She owned the work. She developed the new data system. She's continued to refine it over time. And that's really, I think, what we should want as organizational leaders. 0:21:38.2 Andrew Stotz: So successful improvement advising makes the advisor less necessary over time, or what does it mean? 0:21:47.8 John Dues: Yes, I think that's exactly right. [chuckle] If I'm the only person who can see the problem, determine what to change, and direct the improvement work, then what I'm creating is dependence. And that's definitely not the goal. The goal is to build that improvement capability in the people that own the work. In Caroline's case, the outside perspective helped her see the system differently, but she had the knowledge to build something that actually worked for her department. And then, like I said, she's continued to improve it over time. And that's, to me, that's a much more sustainable model of improvement than we often see. 0:22:24.2 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, and it's hard because I think as an advisor, you want to feel like you're bringing value, and when you're working yourself out, it's, kind of, it goes against what some people may feel. But I can see the value of saying, basically, I'm helping you solve this and then get on with what you're doing. So if someone… If a listener remembers only one thing from this conversation, what do you want them to get from it? 0:22:51.3 John Dues: Yeah, I mean, I would say, remember that title: See Before You Solve. So when leaders know something needs to improve… We've talked about this across many episodes that… Yeah, pressure to start solving can be intense. And there's no shortage of problems in organizations and even more possible solutions. And so knowing that something needs to improve isn't the same as knowing where to begin. So I just go back to, before "What are we gonna do about it?", start making that system visible. Look for those patterns, look at relationships. Combine the knowledge of the people closest to the work with perspectives that can help them step back and see the system differently. And don't wait for perfect understanding. See enough to make an intelligent choice about where to begin and then get to work. If I had to reduce the topic to three basic ideas, they'd be, first, see the system. Start there. Start by seeing the system. Second, combine those inside and the outside views. And then third, see enough to start. You eventually have an answer to "What are we gonna do about it?", but first, see that system well enough to know where to begin. 0:24:09.5 Andrew Stotz: Well, I'd say that's a pretty good wrap-up. So 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. 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, "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

Whataboutism

Whataboutism is the common term for a version of the tu quoque fallacy, a diversionary tactic to shift the focus off of an issue and avoid having to directly address it by twisting criticism back onto the critic and in doing so revealing the original critic’s hypocrisy.

Whataboutism often results in a comparison of issues as pure deflection. We see it when individuals are always focused on why others get ahead and they don’t, looking for comparisons and reasons they are being treated unfairly instead of focusing on their own opportunities for improvement. It is so easy to use when we are faced with criticism, “Well, what about … ?”

We also see whataboutism in our cultures. Maybe it is a tendency to excuse your own team’s shortcomings because obviously the sins of another team is so much worse. This is a result of, and strengthens, silo-thinking.

Building the feedback process to reduce and eventually eliminate whataboutism is critical.

Transparency

Transparency in organizations generally falls into one of two categories: proactive and demand-driven.

Proactive dissemination refers to information that the organization’s leadership makes known about its activities and performance. Practical expressions can range from strategic and tactical goals, third-party evaluations, and organizational risks.
Demand-driven access refers to an organizational commitment to respond to employee requests for specific kinds of information or documents which otherwise would not be accessible.

The idea of transparency can also be unpacked in terms of its directionality. Disclosure cuts both ways, channeling information upwards as well as downwards in the organization. Leadership sharing insight into decisions is an example of downwards, where idea management processes are upwards.

The type of transparency also matters:

Opaque or fuzzy transparency involves the dissemination of information that does not reveal how organizations actually behave in practice, whether in terms of how they make decisions, or the results of their actions. The term also refers to information that is divulged only nominally, or which is revealed but turns out to be unreliable.
Clear transparency sheds light on organizational behavior, which permits interested employees to pursue strategies of constructive change.

This distinction between clear and opaque is grounded on the premise that if transparency practices are going to meet their goals of transforming organizational behavior, then they must be explicit in terms of who does what, and who gets what.

Transparency requires not only a willingness, but processes to drive it.