Deconstructing Deming VIII – Drive out fear

8. Drive out fear.

W Edwards Deming Point 8 of Deming’s 14 Points and quite my least favourite of all his slogans. As Harry Lime averred in the motion picture The Third Man:

Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love – they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.

It’s a wisecrack and not analysis but I quote Lime to remind myself that fear isn’t inevitably the debilitating sentiment that Deming made it out to be. Inspirational writer Helen Keller vividly captured an alternative reality.

Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of humankind as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or it is nothing at all.

In Out of the Crisis, Deming recounts several anecdotes of corrosive fear in the workplace. He directs his criticism at managers who threaten their subordinates with dire consequences for future outcomes that are, in fact, beyond the control of the workers. There is a recurring theme in Deming’s writing, and it is a good one, that many of the factors that determine an outcome are often outside the control of the person superficially held answerable. Any business process is influenced by diverse sources of variation. The aggregate of those sources determines the capability of the process and provides a fundamental bound on its future performance. An incapable process will never meet the aspirations of the business. Berating the person who works within it will never improve it because intervention is needed to re-engineer the process. Blind attempts to coax more out of an incapable process generally lead to over adjustment and even worse outcomes.

However, there have to be some people in an organisation for whom it wasn’t my fault isn’t available as an analysis of unsatisfactory outcomes. Some people willingly and enthusiastically own the goal of re-engineering the business process, of achieving higher and higher degrees of capability, of influencing the organisation’s environment, desensitising the system to external variation, of (following Eliyahu Goldratt) bringing the constraint back inside the system, fostering radical thinking, of managing unknown and unknowable risks.

Brian Joiner used to argue that it was wishful thinking to expect a prescribed outcome next year when the responsible manager had been incapable of achieving it last. Yet business is always a matter of resources and priorities. Typically, people do not energetically pursue objectives whose importance has not been urged upon them. They already have plenty to do. It is simply disingenuous to suggest that telling somebody that something is critical, and that they will be rewarded only for achieving it, is ultimately inexpedient.

Some people must manage and take responsibility for outcomes. They are responsible for the business system. They can change it.

There is nothing wrong in holding those who have the power to effect change responsible for outcomes.

Alternatively, some employees are responsible principally for operating a process in a disciplined and repeatable way. They are not responsible if that process is ultimately incapable but they are answerable for any lack of discipline. Their managers expect them to operate in a disciplined way, so do their co-workers. They should have no comfort that safety and security will be the consequence of failure to do their job.

Those workers will though, I fear, not be able to rest easily just because they turn up and do their job conscientiously. If management fail to take on the goal of the continual improvement of the alignment between the voice of the process and the voice of the customer then their diligence will be in vain. As business leader Ian MacGregor observed:

Management is a calling and people ought to be dedicated to it. British managers have far too much security. A poor manager should be dumped. What’s at stake is the happiness of society, not the comfort of managers.

Advertisements

Trust in data – IV – trusting the team

Today (20 November 2013) I was reading an item in The Times (London) with the headline “We fiddle our crime numbers, admit police”. This is a fairly unedifying business.

The blame is once again laid at the door of government targets and performance related pay. I fear that this is akin to blaming police corruption on the largesse of criminals. If only organised crime would stop offering bribes, the police would not succumb to taking them in consideration of repudiating their office as constable, so the argument might run (pace Brian Joiner). Of course, the argument is nonsense. What we expect of police constables is honesty even, perhaps especially, when temptation presents itself. We expect the police to give truthful evidence in court, to deal with the public fairly and to conduct their investigations diligently and rationally. The public expects the police to behave in this way even in the face of manifest temptation to do otherwise. The public expects the same honest approach to reporting their performance. I think Robert Frank put it well in Passions within Reason.

The honest individual … is someone who values trustworthiness for its own sake. That he might receive a material payoff for such behaviour is beyond his concern. And it is precisely because he has this attitude that he can be trusted in situations where his behaviour cannot be monitored. Trustworthiness, provided it is recognizable, creates valuable opportunities that would not otherwise be available.

Matt Ridley put it starkly in his overview of evolutionary psychology, The Origins of Virtue. He wasn’t speaking of policing in particular.

The virtuous are virtuous for no other reason that it enables them to join forces with others who are virtuous, for mutual benefit.

What worried me most about the article was a remark from Peter Barron, a former detective chief superintendent in the Metropolitan Police. Should any individual challenge the distortion of data:

You are judged to be not a team player.

“Teamwork” can be a smokescreen for the most appalling bullying. In our current corporate cultures, to be branded as “not a team player” can be the most horrible slur, smearing the individual’s contribution to the overall mission. One can see how such an environment can allow a team’s behaviours and objectives to become misaligned from those of the parent organisation. That is a problem that can often be addressed by management with a proper system of goal deployment.

However, the problem is more severe when the team is in fact well aligned to what are distorted organisational goals. The remedies for this lie in the twin processes of governance and whistleblowing. Neither seem to be working very well in UK policing at the moment but that simply leaves an opportunity for process improvement. Work is underway. The English law of whistleblowing has been amended this year. If you aren’t familiar with it you can find it here.

Governance has to take scrutiny of data seriously. Reported performance needs to be compared with other sources of data. Reporting and recording processes need themselves to be assessed. Where there is no coherent picture questions need to be asked.

Trust in data – I

I was listening to the BBC’s election coverage on 2 May (2013) when Nick Robinson announced that UKIP supporters were five times more likely than other voters to believe that the MMR vaccine was dangerous.

I had a search on the web. The following graphic had appeared on Mike Smithson’s PoliticalBetting blog on 21 April 2013.

MMR plot

It’s not an attractive bar chart. The bars are different colours. There is a “mean” bar that tends to make the variation look less than it is and makes the UKIP bar (next to it) look more extreme. I was, however, intrigued so I had a look for the original data which had come from a YouGov survey of 1765 respondents. You can find the data here.

Here is a summary of the salient points of the data from the YouGov website in a table which I think is less distracting than the graphic.

Voting   intention Con. Lab. Lib. Dem. UKIP
No. Of   respondents 417 518 142 212
% % % %
MMR safe 99 85 84 72
MMR unsafe 1 3 12 28
Don’t know 0 12 3 0

My first question was: Where had Nick Robinson and Mike Smithson got their numbers from? It is possible that there was another survey I have not found. It is also possible that I am being thick. In any event, the YouGov data raises some interesting questions. This is an exploratory date analysis exercise. We are looking for interesting theories. I don’t think there is any doubt that there is a signal in this data. How do we interpret it? There does look to be some relationship between voting intention and attitude to public safety data.

Should anyone be tempted to sneer at people with political views other than their own, it is worth remembering that it is unlikely that anyone surveyed had scrutinised any of the published scientific research on the topic. All will have digested it, most probably at third hand, through the press, internet, or cooler moment. They may not have any clear idea of the provenance of the assurances as to the vaccination’s safety. They may not have clearly identified issues as to whether what they had absorbed was a purportedly independent scientific study or a governmental policy statement that sought to rely on the science. I suspect that most of my readers have given it no more thought.

The mental process behind the answers probably wouldn’t withstand much analysis. This would be part of Kahneman’s System 1 thinking. However, the question of how such heuristics become established is an interesting one. I suspect there is a factor here that can be labelled “trust in data”.

Trust in data is an issue we all encounter, in business and in life. How do we know when we can trust data?

A starting point for many in this debate is the often cited observation of Brian Joiner that, when presented with a numerical target, a manager has three options: Manage the system so as to achieve the target, distort the system so the target is achieved but at the cost of performance elsewhere (possibly not on the dashboard), or simply distort the data. This, no doubt true, observation is then cited in support of the general proposition that management by numerical target is at best ineffective and at worst counter productive. John Seddon is a particular advocate of the view that, whatever benefits may flow from management by target (and they are seldom championed with any great energy), they are outweighed by the inevitable corruption of the organisation’s data generation and reporting.

It is an unhappy view. One immediate objection is that the broader system cannot operate without targets. Unless the machine part’s diameter is between 49.99 and 50.01 mm it will not fit. Unless chlorine concentrations are below the safe limit, swimmers risk being poisoned. Unless demand for working capital is cut by 10% we will face the consequences of insolvency. Advocates of the target free world respond that those matters can be characterised as the legitimate voice of the customer/ business. It is only arbitrary targets that are corrosive.

I am not persuaded that the legitimate/ arbitrary distinction is a real one, nor how the distinction motivates two different kinds of behaviour. I will blog more about this later. Leadership’s urgent task is to ensure that all managers have the tools to measure present reality and work to improve it. Without knowing how much improvement is essential a manager cannot make rational decisions about the allocation of resources. In that context, when the correct management control is exercised, improving the system is easier than cheating. I shall blog about goal deployment and Hoshin Kanri on another occasion.

Trust in data is just a factor of trust in general. In his popular book on evolutionary psychology and economics, The Origins of Virtue, Matt Ridley observes the following.

Trust is as vital a form of social capital as money is a form of actual capital. … Trust, like money, can be lent (‘I trust you because I trust the person who told me he trusts you’), and can be risked, hoarded or squandered. It pays dividends in the currency of more trust.

Within an organisation, trust in data is something for everybody to work on building collaboratively under diligent leadership. As to the public sphere, trust in data is related to trust in politicians and that may be a bigger problem to solve. It is also a salutary warning as to what happens when there is a failure of trust in leadership.