Numbers in Decision-making

Chang said she’s not surprised by the influence numbers have on behavioral decision-making, but what stands out to her is the robustness of the effect, which was replicated across 21 experiments involving 23,000 randomly selected participants. Despite the significant sample size, the predilection for numbers never wavered, except when numbers were presented in ways that were harder to process. Chang and her co-authors describe the mechanism underlying quantification fixation as “comparison fluency,” or the ease of judging numerical values compared with non-numbers, such as words and pictures.
“How Numbers Drive Behavioral Decision-making“

Katherine Milkman, one of the coauthors, is a scholar I follow pretty closely, and this article seems pretty insightful and I’ll be reading the research this week. Our field has some difficulty here, none no more so in the mixed legacy of Deming on the subject, mostly misinterpretations if you ask me. Mark Graban wrote a great post on that last year.

The Conundrum that is Dr. Deming on Metrics, Measures, and Data

Profound Knowledge

In his System of Profound Knowledge, Deming provides a framework based on a deep and comprehensive understanding of a subject or system that goes beyond surface-level information to provide a holistic approach to leadership and management.

Profound knowledge is central to a quality understanding as it is the ability to deeply understand an organization or its critical processes, delving beneath surface-level observations to uncover fundamental principles and truths. This knowledge is a guiding force for daily living, shaping one’s thinking and values, ultimately manifesting in their conduct. It embodies wisdom, morality, and deep insight, offering a comprehensive framework for understanding complex systems and making informed decisions. Profound knowledge goes beyond mere facts or data, encompassing a holistic view that allows individuals to navigate challenges and drive meaningful improvements within their organizations and personal lives.

Components of Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge

Deming’s SoPK consists of four interrelated components:

Appreciation for a System: Understanding how different parts of an organization interact and work together as a whole system.
Knowledge about Variation: Recognizing that variation exists in all processes and systems, and understanding how to interpret and manage it.
Theory of Knowledge: Understanding how we learn and gain knowledge, including the importance of prediction and testing theories.
Psychology: Understanding human behavior, motivation, and interactions within an organization.

Applications of Profound Knowledge

Organizational Transformation: Profound knowledge provides a framework for improving and transforming systems.
Decision Making: It helps leaders make more informed decisions by providing a comprehensive lens through which to view organizational issues.
Continuous Improvement: The SoPK promotes ongoing learning and refinement of processes.
Leadership Development: It transforms managers into leaders by providing a new perspective on organizational management.

Profound knowledge, as conceptualized by Deming, provides a comprehensive framework for understanding and improving complex systems, particularly in organizational and management contexts. It encourages a holistic view that goes beyond subject-matter expertise to foster true transformation and continuous improvement.

Depth and Comprehensiveness

Profound knowledge goes beyond surface-level understanding or mere subject matter expertise. It provides a deep, fundamental understanding of systems, principles, and underlying truths. While regular knowledge might focus on facts or specific skills, profound knowledge seeks to understand the interconnections and root causes within a system.

Holistic Perspective

Profound knowledge takes a holistic approach to understanding and improving systems. It consists of four interrelated components:

Appreciation for a system
Knowledge about variation
Theory of knowledge
Psychology

These components work together to provide a comprehensive framework for understanding complex systems, especially in organizational contexts.

Interdisciplinary Nature

Profound knowledge often transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries. It combines insights from various fields, such as systems thinking, psychology, and epistemology, to create a more comprehensive understanding of complex phenomena.

Focus on Improvement and Optimization

While regular knowledge might be sufficient for maintaining the status quo, profound knowledge is geared towards improvement and optimization of systems. It provides a framework for understanding how to make meaningful changes and improvements in organizations and processes.

Knowledge as Object or Social Action

Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge can be easily seen as an application of knowledge as social action.

The concept of knowledge as object versus knowledge as social action represents two distinct perspectives on the nature and function of knowledge in society. This dichotomy, rooted in sociological theory, offers contrasting views on how knowledge is created, understood, and utilized. Knowledge as object refers to the traditional view of knowledge as a static, codified entity that can be possessed, stored, and transferred independently of social context. In contrast, knowledge as social action emphasizes the dynamic, socially constructed nature of knowledge, viewing it as an active process embedded in social interactions and practices. This distinction, largely developed through the work of sociologists like Karl Mannheim, challenges us to consider how our understanding of knowledge shapes our approach to learning, decision-making, and social organization.

Knowledge as Object

Knowledge as object refers to knowledge as a static, codified entity that can be possessed, stored, and transferred. Key aspects include:

Knowledge is seen as propositional or factual information that can be articulated and recorded. For example, knowledge stored in documents or expert systems.
It involves an awareness of facts, familiarity with situations, or practical skills that an individual possesses.
Knowledge is often characterized as justified true belief – a belief that is both true and justified.
It can be understood as a cognitive state of an individual person.
Knowledge as object aligns with more traditional, rationalist views of knowledge as something that can be objectively defined and measured.

Knowledge as Social Action

Knowledge as social action views knowledge as an active, dynamic process that is socially constructed. Key aspects include:

Knowledge is produced through social interactions, relationships and collective processes rather than being a static entity.
It emphasizes how knowledge is created, shared and applied in social contexts.
Social action theories examine the motives and meanings of individuals as they engage in knowledge-related behaviors.
Knowledge is seen as emerging from and being shaped by social, cultural and historical contexts.
It focuses on knowledge as a process of knowing rather than a fixed object.
This view aligns with social constructivist and pragmatist perspectives on knowledge.

Key Differences

Static vs. Dynamic: Knowledge as object is fixed and stable, while knowledge as social action is fluid and evolving.
Individual vs. Collective: The object view focuses on individual cognition, while the social action view emphasizes collective processes.
Product vs. Process: Knowledge as object treats knowledge as an end product, while social action views it as an ongoing process.
Context-independent vs. Context-dependent: The object view assumes knowledge can be decontextualized, while social action emphasizes situatedness.
Possession vs. Practice: Knowledge as object can be possessed, while knowledge as social action is enacted through practices.

Knowledge as object reflects a more traditional, cognitive view of knowledge as factual information possessed by individuals. In contrast, knowledge as social action emphasizes the dynamic, socially constructed nature of knowledge as it is created and applied in social contexts. Both perspectives offer valuable insights into the nature of knowledge, with the social action view gaining prominence in fields like sociology of knowledge and science studies.

Knowledge sharing as a form of social action plays a crucial role in modern organizations, influencing various aspects of organizational life and performance. Here’s an analysis of how knowledge as social action manifests in contemporary organizations:

Knowledge Sharing as a Social Process

In organizations knowledge sharing is increasingly viewed as a social process rather than a simple transfer of information. This perspective emphasizes:

The interactive nature of knowledge exchange
The importance of relationships and trust in facilitating sharing
The role of organizational culture in promoting or hindering knowledge flow

Knowledge sharing becomes a form of social action when employees actively engage in exchanging ideas, experiences, and expertise with their colleagues.

Impact on Organizational Culture

Knowledge sharing as social action can significantly shape organizational culture by:

Fostering a climate of openness and collaboration
Encouraging continuous learning and innovation
Building trust and strengthening interpersonal relationships

Organizations that successfully implement knowledge sharing practices often see a shift towards a more transparent and cooperative work environment.

Enhancing Employee Engagement

When knowledge sharing is embraced as a social action, it can boost employee engagement by:

Making employees feel valued for their expertise and contributions
Increasing their sense of belonging and connection to the organization
Empowering them with information to make better decisions

Engaged employees are more likely to participate in knowledge sharing activities, creating a virtuous cycle of engagement and collaboration.

Driving Innovation and Performance

Knowledge as social action can be a powerful driver of innovation and organizational performance:

It facilitates the cross-pollination of ideas across departments
It helps in identifying and solving problems more efficiently
It reduces duplication of efforts and promotes best practices

By leveraging collective knowledge through social interactions, organizations can enhance their problem-solving capabilities and competitive advantage.

Challenges and Considerations

While knowledge sharing as social action offers numerous benefits, organizations may face challenges in implementing and sustaining such practices:

Overcoming knowledge hoarding behaviors
Addressing power dynamics that may hinder open sharing
Ensuring equitable access to knowledge across the organization

Leaders play a crucial role in addressing these challenges by modeling knowledge sharing behaviors and creating supportive structures.

Technology as an Enabler

Modern organizations often leverage technology to facilitate knowledge sharing as a social action:

Knowledge management systems
Collaborative platforms and social intranets
Virtual communities of practice

These tools can help break down geographical and hierarchical barriers to knowledge flow, enabling more dynamic and inclusive sharing practices.

Psychological Safety and Knowledge Sharing

The concept of psychological safety is closely tied to knowledge sharing as social action:

A psychologically safe environment encourages risk-taking in interpersonal interactions
It reduces fear of negative consequences for sharing ideas or admitting mistakes
It promotes open communication and collective learning

Organizations that foster psychological safety are more likely to see robust knowledge sharing practices among their employees.

Viewing knowledge sharing as a form of social action in organizations highlights its transformative potential. It goes beyond mere information exchange to become a catalyst for cultural change, employee engagement, and organizational innovation. By recognizing and nurturing the social aspects of knowledge sharing, organizations can create more dynamic, adaptive, and high-performing work environments.

Quality Management as Deontological Ethics

I think every quality professional should, somewhere between individual contributor and manager, have to do a deep study into philosophy.

Studying philosophy offers several important benefits for the modern professional, enhancing both personal development and professional capabilities. Here are some reasons why philosophy is valuable in today’s professional quality leader:

Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving: Philosophy teaches individuals to think clearly, carefully, and logically about a wide range of topics. This skill is crucial for analyzing complex problems, making informed decisions, and developing innovative solutions in any professional field.
Communication Skills: Engaging with philosophical texts and discussions enhances one’s ability to read closely, write clearly, and articulate thoughts effectively. These communication skills are essential for conveying ideas persuasively and collaborating with others in a professional setting.
Ethical Reasoning: Philosophy provides a framework for addressing ethical questions and dilemmas. Understanding ethical principles helps professionals navigate moral challenges and make decisions that align with their values and societal norms. Ethical reasoning provides a framework for making decisions that are fair and just to all parties involved, ensuring that the organization’s actions align with its values and ethical standards
Cultural Awareness and Adaptability: Studying philosophy fosters cultural awareness and sensitivity, enabling professionals to work effectively in diverse environments. This awareness is particularly valuable in globalized industries where understanding different perspectives and cultural contexts is crucial.
Leadership and Strategic Thinking: Philosophy encourages big-picture thinking and strategic planning. Leaders who study philosophy are better equipped to anticipate future challenges, understand complex systems, and inspire others with a vision that goes beyond immediate concerns.
Career Versatility: Philosophy graduates pursue careers in various fields, including technology, business, law, government, and journalism. The skills acquired through studying philosophy are transferable and valued across multiple industries, providing a strong foundation for diverse career paths.

I’m certainly not an expert, but I do believe my professional life has benefited from philosophical study. I tend to be drawn to deontological ethics, a branch of moral philosophy that emphasizes the importance of rules, duties, and obligations in determining the morality of actions, rather than focusing on the consequences of those actions.

I can apply deontological ethics to the philosophy of quality management, particularly in the work of one of my favorite thinkers, W. Edwards Deming, which resonates with the principles of duty, rules, and respect for individuals. Here are some of the integrations I draw from:

Duty and Moral Rules: Deontological ethics emphasizes adherence to moral rules and duties. In quality management, this can translate to a commitment to ethical standards and practices that prioritize quality and integrity over short-term gains. Deming’s emphasis on building quality into the product from the start (rather than relying on inspection) aligns with a deontological focus on doing what is right as a matter of principle.
Respect for Individuals: Deontological ethics stresses the importance of treating individuals with respect and dignity. Deming’s philosophy includes driving out fear and fostering an environment where employees can take pride in their work without fear of retribution. This reflects a deontological commitment to respecting the autonomy and rights of workers. Bocheński’s distinction between the nature of authority based on knowledge (epistemic) and authority based on power or obligation (deontic) is a fundamental read for understanding quality culture.
Leadership and Responsibility: Deming’s points on leadership—such as instituting leadership that helps people and systems perform better—can be seen through a deontological lens as a duty to lead ethically and responsibly. This involves creating systems that support ethical behavior and quality improvement as a core value.
Systemic Integrity: Deming’s approach to quality management, which includes breaking down barriers between departments and fostering collaboration, can be aligned with deontological ethics by emphasizing the duty to maintain systemic integrity and fairness. This involves ensuring that all parts of an organization work together ethically to achieve common goals.
Commitment to Continuous Improvement: While utilitarian approaches might focus on outcomes, a deontological perspective in quality management would emphasize the duty to continuously improve processes and systems as a moral obligation, regardless of immediate outcomes. This aligns with Deming’s focus on constant improvement and education.

By integrating deontological ethics into quality management, I feel we can create a framework that not only seeks to improve quality and efficiency but also adheres to ethical principles that respect and empower individuals within the system.

A Reading List

The Right and the Good by W.D. Ross: This classic work introduces Ross’s theory of prima facie duties, which is central to his deontological framework.
The View from Nowhere by Thomas Nagel: This book explores the tension between subjective and objective perspectives, which is relevant to understanding ethical duties and objectivity in decision-making.
On Human Nature by Roger Scruton: Scruton discusses human nature and ethics, providing insights into moral duties and the philosophical underpinnings of ethical behavior.
Intention by G.E.M. Anscombe: This influential work examines the philosophy of action and intention, contributing to discussions on moral responsibility and ethics.
Postures of the Mind by Annette Baier: Baier’s essays explore trust, ethics, and the moral psychology underlying ethical relationships.
What is Authority? by Józef Maria Bocheński: This book delves into the concept of authority, distinguishing between deontic and epistemic authority and is hugely influential.

Quality and a Just Culture

It is fascinating that for all the discussion around quality culture, which borrows from Safety II and other safety movements/submovements, we’ve largely avoided using the term justice, which is so prevalent in certain areas of the safety world. One can replace quality with justice and talk about many of the same things.

Both attempt to realize Deming’s Point 8—to drive out fear—which I consider Deming’s most radical proposition.

We really should see them as building blocks. A just culture enables the open reporting and analysis of errors necessary for a quality culture to identify areas for improvement. The two cultures are complementary—a robust quality program requires psychological safety fostered by a just culture. However, a quality culture has broader aims beyond responding to errors or safety lapses. We cannot have a Quality Culture without a Just Culture.

Psychological safety creates an environment where staff can speak up, enabling a just culture. A just culture defines the balanced accountability approach for responding to errors and safety events. A quality culture is a broader concept that drives improvement across the organization, relying on the foundation of a just culture.

But I really wish we used the term justice more. Promoting justice is an activity I wish we took more seriously as a profession.

Deming Unrealized

W. Edwards Deming’s substantive influence upon management thinking and practice is evidenced by the number of organizations that have worked to implement his key points, the abundance of books and papers related to his ideas, and the impact of his ideas on the practice of business today. While I’m not a fan of the term Quality Guru, it is hard to miss his impact.

Deming’s main concepts can be summarized as:

Visionary Leadership: The ability of management to establish, practice, and lead a long-term vision for the organization, driven by changing customer requirements, as opposed to an internal management control role.

Internal and External Cooperation: The propensity of the organization to engage in non-competitive activities internally among employees and externally with respect to suppliers.

Learning: The organizational capability to recognize and nurture the development of its skills, abilities, and knowledge base.

Process Management: The set of methodological and behavioral practices emphasizing the management of process, or means of actions, rather than results.

Continuous Improvement: The propensity of the organization to pursue incremental and innovative improvements to processes, products, and services.

Employee Involvement: The degree to which employees of an organization feel that the organization continually satisfies their needs.

Customer Satisfaction: The degree to which an organization’s customers continually perceive that their needs are being met by the organization’s products and services.

Summarizing the System of Profound Knowledge

Almost thirty years after the publication of The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education and we are still striving to realize these. They are still as aspirational and, for many organizations, out of reach today as they were in the eighties. We can argue that a lot of the concepts that swirl around Quality 4.0 is just trying out new technologies to see if we meet those objectives.

We can, and should, discuss the particulars of the System of Profound Knowledge. For me, it makes an excellent departure point for what we should be striving for. By looking to the past we can discover…

Strengths that define us
Weaknesses that frustrate us
Causes that energize us
Relationships that inspire us.