Police Shootings and Tampering

Tim J. Clark Quality Leadership

Responding to an event without an understanding of common and special cause variation leads to tampering which creates the opposite effect from what was intended.

The recent police shootings of black men in Louisiana and Minnesota that have led to national protests and motivated the murder of police officers in Dallas, Texas is a case in point.

The immediate perception of the shootings is that blacks are disproportionately the victims of police shootings.  In other words, the conclusion is drawn that the shootings represent “SPECIAL CAUSE” variation when the facts indicate that the incidences represent COMMON CAUSE variation.

The following two articles indicate that blacks are not disproportionately involved in police shootings.  Applying the accepted methods for determining common and special causes will help shift the focus to needed improvements in the system.

Surprising New Evidence Shows Bias in Police Use of Force but Not in Shootings – New York Times

National Bureau of Economic Research: ‘No Racial Differences’ in Officer-Involved Shootings – Breitbart.com

The “So what?”  A common cause indicates predictability, and if you can predict it, you can improve it by addressing the root causes of the problem that will lead to reductions in shootings.

A special cause can indicate a temporary or fleeting event or a shift in the system that something “unusual” may be happening.  In the case of the police shootings, this can incite more violence and lower community support for the police.  This situation can then lead to less policing that results in increased crime.

Ignorance of variation nationally leads to further division and hostility that detracts from the unity needed to improve the system.

Blacks, Whites Disagree Over Whether There’s A War on Police. While police killings are escalating in America, voters are less convinced that there is an actual war on those in blue, although most still blame politicians who are critical of the police for making their jobs more dangerous. But blacks and whites sharply disagree on both questions.

The Way Ahead?  Raise awareness of the better approach and support the type of change that leads to improvement.  As Dr. Deming reinforced, it’s all about reducing variation from the ideal.

 

 

FBI Investigation, Variation, System Improvement

Tim J. Clark LinkedIn, National Policy, Quality Leadership, Reducing Variation

The Director of the FBI completed the agency’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email and concluded that her actions represented COMMON CAUSE variation.

In Director Comey’s words: “… one of my employees would not be prosecuted for this,” and he further stated that “They would face consequences …”   (Typically, “consequences” for a federal employee, a member of the military or federal contractor would not be made public and could include revocation of the security clearance, the loss of the job, and being ineligible for a security clearance in the future).

To indict, although Comey concluded that the management of the emails was “extremely reckless,” the FBI did not find the evidence needed to prove an intent to violate the law.

Comey has further stated that it would have been “virtually unprecedented to bring a criminal case against Clinton under current laws” and it would have only been the second case in 100 years.

 Comey: ‘Nobody’ Uses 1917 Law Making Gross Negligence in Handling Classified Material a Crime

Why hasn’t a law that cannot be enforced been changed?  

A poll of voters conducted by Rasmussen concluded that “Most Disagree with Decision Not to Indict Clinton.”

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey – taken last night – finds that 37% of Likely U.S. Voters agree with the FBI’s decision. But 54% disagree and believe the FBI should have sought a criminal indictment of Clinton. Ten percent (10%) are undecided.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll also identified that the majority of Americans disagree with the decision not to charge Clinton on emails.
What the situation does provide is an opportunity to clarify the AIM of the System, educate the citizenry and to make the needed improvements.

Could most everyone agree that an ideal outcome would have been a recommendation by the FBI and a decision by the Justice Department that most, if not all citizens would conclude was just, fair and protected national security?

Will the decision by the Justice Department lead to improvements in the system to include changes in the law, or will it be concluded that the “status quo” is good enough?

In America by law, We the People are “top management.” What improvement to the system do “we” need to make to support needed change?

Working with Idiots and Getting Better Results

Tim J. Clark National Policy, Quality Leadership, Reducing Variation, Transformation, Uncategorized

The first step needed to improve any situation is to admit that you have a problem.

In his Washington Post article “We think our enemies are idiots, and that’s a problem – The psychological explanation for our partisan strife,” psychologist and college professor Adam Waytz suggests that among the causes that prevent people from effectively working together to resolve problems is the belief that others, especially those who disagree with us, have lesser minds. Waytz and his colleagues have coined this as “the lesser minds problem.” He goes on to state that “Physiological research shows that in virtually every way, we assume that the minds of our peers are less rich than our own minds.”

Those with “lesser minds”—i.e., “the idiots”—are thought to be less sophisticated, thoughtful and empathic, with a lower capability for reason, emotion and discipline. Waytz further states that “The minds of our peers may seem lesser, but the minds of our political opponents seem downright moronic.”

Given that someone will disagree with us and we will disagree with others, everyone may be considered an idiot by someone at one time or another.

In my article “Improving Health Care – A Better Way,” I introduce the work of Jonathan Haidt, who also identified a theory to help explain conflict between people that may account for some of the political polarization.

“Haidt’s research indicates that moral responses are instinctual—human beings are born preloaded with basic moral values. He believes that political attitudes are an extension of our moral reasoning, which accounts for much of the vitriol that surrounds liberal and conservative ideology.

According to Haidt, an individual’s beliefs and actions are influenced through a filter of values that include caring, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity and liberty. These values provide a foundation that is needed for a society to function. He believes that liberals focus more on caring and fairness and undervalue the importance of loyalty, authority, sanctity and liberty. Conservatives also value caring and fairness, but not at the exclusion of loyalty, authority, sanctity and liberty.”

However, as Waytz points out:

“Bridging the gap between our own minds and other minds requires colossal efforts of deliberation, humility and cooperation, but recognizing why this gap exists to begin with can help start us on our way.”

Bridging the Divide – A Better Method

Waytz reinforces that judgments regarding the variation between people can become a self-fulfilling prophecy:

“If we believe our political opponents are as rational, thoughtful and empathic as we are, then we are likely to pursue political compromise through rational debate, civil discussion and collaborative analysis of the facts. But if we think our opponents are mindless, then rational bias rather than objectivity.”t makes sense to forgo civility and push our opinions across the table with brute force and discount any counterarguments as rooted in irrational bias rather than objectivity.”

The contributions of W. Edwards Deming in helping organizations and industries do the right things were recognized by the editors of FORTUNE magazine as among the greatest contributions in business history.

Deming felt that American management failed to tap the potential of all employees. As a result, he believed that the United States was one of the most underdeveloped nations in the world. He also remarked that if he were to reduce his message to just a few words, it all had to do with reducing variation.

“Businesses” are organizations that consist of people. Put another way, the Deming application framework for improving individual and group capability by reducing variation from the ideal may be among the greatest contributions in human history.

The underlying premise of the Deming application method includes the following:

  • Every individual is unique. As a result, each individual will have unique potential and capabilities.
  • People can agree on facts and ideals. Within organizations, ideals are expressed in vision statements and facts are provided in accounting and performance-related reports.
  • People can find common causes to problems, can choose to agree to disagree and then can choose to work together to get results where everyone wins. For example, when discussing the gap between the ideal end state expressed in the vision and the actual performance that occurs as part of a strategic assessment, organizational leaders can develop a consensus on the actions that need to be taken to close the gap (i.e., reduce variation).
  • People will always have different opinions, beliefs, perceptions, values, norms, morals and theories as to the identification of problems, their root causes and the solutions to solve those problems. These differences are fundamental to understanding, learning and improvement. An organization that “learns” leverages the diversity in the workforce to identify and implement better solutions.
  • There will never be the “perfect answer” in any given situation. The number of solutions could be infinite, but when implemented, some solutions will have better results than others in the near, mid and long term. Deming advocated the application of the Shewhart cycle for learning and development (also referred to as the scientific method).

The Shewhart cycle consists of four phases:

  • Plan a change or test aimed at improvement.
  • Carry out the change or test, preferably on a small scale.
  • Study the effects to help ensure that the change minimized the cost of the two types of mistakes—treating common-cause variation as special-cause variation and vice versa—that can be made. This information is the basis for determining if change resulted in improvement.
  • Act on what was learned.

Applying Deming-based methods requires an understanding and basic knowledge of the interrelationships between people, systems and their respective variability. This awareness and insight leads to the “new knowledge” that is needed for helping determine when changes to policies, systems and processes result in improvement.

The U.S. Founding Fathers applied an unconscious or intuitive understanding of these principles when they designed the U.S. political system. The justice system also integrates these principles. I provide a little more background on this in my papers “Drive Out Fear: Having the Courage To Do The Right Thing” and “The Deming Paradigm for Reducing Variation: Unknown by Most, Misunderstood by Many, Relevant to All” which I presented at the Deming International Research Seminars.

A quick assessment of your knowledge of variation can be completed in a couple of minutes. If you have five minutes, my article “Revolutionize Government in Five Minutes or Less” may be of interest.

A Way Ahead

French intellectual and author Marcel Proust remarked that “The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes.” Bridging the gap Waytz identified between our own minds and other minds requires “new eyes” and a method.

Deming provides the new eyes and the method that successful leaders have always used on an unconscious or intuitive level when leading others to achieve success.

A more common knowledge (conscious awareness and understanding) is an alternative for getting past individual differences. With conscious awareness and understanding, you can accept the fact that individuals vary and choose to develop more positive relationships with those individuals opposing your point of view instead of considering them enemies or idiots.

The more pervasive application of the Deming principles and methods has the potential to support a new era of leadership that is critical in addressing the challenges of our times. These challenges include unemployment, underemployment, adequate healthcare, national and economic security and a better method for exercising our individual and collective responsibility to take action that results in progress toward achieving the more perfect union our Founding Fathers envisioned.

Deming’s genius in providing the framework needed to successfully address these challenges may one day be considered as among the greatest contributions in human history.

 

The longer version of this article written to support civil server reform is available at FedSmith.com.

Is the culture killing you?

Tim J. Clark Quality Leadership, Transformation

In her book review at the New York Times of  Sebastian Junger’s “Tribe: On Homecoming and Belonging”,  which addressed the  assimilation of veterans back into society, Jennifer Senior highlights Junger’s observation that the American culture may have adverse impacts on health:

“But Mr. Junger’s most powerful — and surprising — argument is the one he makes about the military’s epidemic of post-traumatic stress disorder, which in many cases he suspects may not be PTSD at all.”

“Why, if you think about it, would roughly 50 percent of our Iraq and Afghanistan veterans apply for permanent PTSD disability when only 10 percent of them saw combat?”

“The problem doesn’t seem to be trauma on the battlefield,” he concludes, “so much as re-entry into society.” And, he suggests, this problem might deserve its own diagnostic term.”

PTSD has been cited as a contributing factor in many suicides ( Reserve suicides up 23 percent — active-duty count remains steady).

The term “Tribe” in a military context, describes that soldiers work within a cultural hierarchy of shared values that optimizes their respective power  in pursuit of the common aim to protect and defend the United States.   In a  combat zone, when making and supporting the decisions that have life or death consequences, the focus shifts to supporting your fellow soldiers.  As Junger reinforces:

“After months of combat, during which “soldiers all but ignore differences of race, religion and politics within their platoon,” they return to the United States to find  a society that is basically at war with itself.”

“It’s a formula for deep despair. “Today’s veterans often come home to find that, although they’re willing to die for their country,” he writes, “they’re not sure how to live with it.”

Society, Culture, and The Prevailing Style of Management (TPSM)

The contributions of W. Edwards Deming in the application of a new philosophy and methods for improving leadership and management within an organization were recognized by U.S. News and World Report as one of the nine hidden turning points in world history and by FORTUNE Magazine as among the greatest contributions in business history.

I suggest that Deming’s “diagnostic term” for the condition that links poor health to culture could be referred to as “The Prevailing Style of Management (TPSM).”

Deming’s analysis on TPSM in America supports the conclusion that organizations, as well as the society, were at war with itself.   He remarked:

“What is the world’s most underdeveloped nation? With the storehouse of skills and knowledge contained in its millions of unemployed, and with the even more appalling underuse, misuse, and abuse of skills and knowledge in the army of employed people in all ranks in all industries, the United States may be today the most underdeveloped nation in the world.”

As an Army reservist, I served two and a half years on active duty from 2001-2004 supporting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the 2009-2010 timeframe, I served a tour in South Korea where I supported the transformation of the 8th Army to an operational-level Field Army.

Although I did not serve in a designated combat zone and I do not suffer from PTSD, I can certainly relate to the stress of transitioning from a high performing culture dedicated to protecting and defending the country back to an organization and “a society that is basically at war with itself.”

In order to raise awareness within the civil service and society on the need for transformation from the prevailing style of management to the better methods for improving quality and productivity, I started writing articles at FedSmith.com.  I recently developed a blog – QualityLeadershipBlog.com to help  raise awareness on the importance of applying a new standard for Quality Leadership.

Democratize the enterprise

Tim J. Clark LinkedIn, National Policy, Quality Leadership, Transformation

Escaping the Prison of the Prevailing System of Management in the Western World: Observations from a Deming Four-Day Seminar in May 1991, by  Craig Anderson, Audit Resolution Specialist at FEMA

The LinkedIn post from a current federal employee reinforces the impact that the contributions of W. Edward Deming continues to have in helping to address the political and economic issues facing America.

As a federal employee, I attended Deming’s four-day in 1988. The question that Deming asked that had the most impact on my life was when he asked: “What percent of your performance is due to the system?” I was an auditor at the time for the Navy and wrote down 98%. (A correct answer can range from 85-100%).

This conclusion led to the realization that in America, “We the People” own the system and are what Deming would refer to as “top management.” This understanding leads to the question: “How do “we” transition from our “prevailing style of management” that supports action by our political representatives that lead to solutions where we all win or at least, are not any worse off?

For private sector organizations, one of the most positive trends for organizations that have embraced the Deming philosophy has been the transition to Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs).  Given Deming’s admonition that transformation is everyone’s job, creating more “owners” (top management) along with applying the better methods is a great way of optimizing the performance of the organization.

Federal employees as owners, work in and on the system but must have the support of their fellow owners to bring about the needed improvements. Within the federal government, perhaps a good first step for us is to support policy changes to adopt the better approach for managing and interpreting data along with eliminating individual rankings and performance bonuses for federal employees.

Additional information to support the needed transformation

Deming’s PDSA vs Lean PDCA

Tim J. Clark Lean, LinkedIn, Quality Leadership

My LinkedIn reply to a post on Lean’s use of the Plan, Do Study, Act (PDCA) cycle.

Common Mistakes with the PDCA and also its History |Allaboutlean.com .  Overview of the main causes of failures in a PDCA which will cause lean projects to fail. Also, the history…

 

For a history on the PDCA and comparison of the PDCA to the Deming-based PDSA, I recommend the following article:  Foundation and History of the PDSA Cycle

The PDCA was developed in 1950. Deming improved upon the concept in 1986 and replaced the PDCA with the Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) cycle. “Deming never embraced the PDCA.”

The “So what?”  For advocates of Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI), we need a better strategy for leveraging the various methodologies and tools.

Deming is the only expert that correctly identified that reducing variation from the ideal is THE key to CQI.

Broader description of the variation principle

Employee Suggestions: Deming versus Lean

Tim J. Clark Lean, LinkedIn, Quality Leadership, Reducing Variation

LinkedIn reply to a “re-post” of a 2007 post at leanblog.org on the topic of employee suggestions:

A Different “Lock Box” No, this isn’t about Al Gore and his infamous Social Security ‘lock box.’ This is about suggestion boxes that we sometimes see hanging on[..]

The contributions of W. Edwards Deming provides context for suggestions.  For instance, if you ask employees “What’s not perfect ?” , the suggestion box would always be overflowing.

The follow-up question is asking if the “imperfection” are recurring (common cause variation), or represent a temporary effect (special cause).  The majority of the imperfection will be common cause variation that requires a permanent change in the system.

Deming also accurately estimated that failure to understand variation resulted in a situation where 95% of change results in no improvement.

I’ve seen too many “lean” projects waste resources overreacting to a special cause and too many claiming success from changes that could not be sustained.  Assess your knowledge of variation at the following:  http://successthroughquality.com/uploads/3/4/5/1/34513631/a_quick_assessment_of_your_quali.pdf

The fact that the topic was re-posted from 2007 indicates the need for application of a better methodology. Without a change in strategy, this post  can be re-posted in another 9 years.

Neither Party Has Answers to Problems Plaguing America

Tim J. Clark Quality Leadership, Transformation

Walther Mead in his article “A Drought of Ideas” posted at RealClearPolitics.com under the heading  “Neither Party Has Answers to Problems Plaguing Americans” uses an example of a political dysfunction in addressing the funding problems  of a small state college. He concludes that:

“It is time for America to step up its game, and as the first step in that process it is time for a wave of creative social thought, some coming from the Right and some from the Left, so that the present stale competition between parties bereft of serious policy ideas can be replaced by something meaningful and real.”

In this 2016 U.S. election cycle, the dissatisfaction of the voters on both the left and the right reinforce that the system is not meeting the needs and expectations of the citizenry.

Dr. W. Edwards Deming in his book “Out of the Crisis ” published in 1986, was prescient is his assessment of the results of NOT applying the better paradigm for reducing variation from the ideal.  He remarked:

“What is the world’s most underdeveloped nation? With the storehouse of skills and knowledge contained in its millions of unemployed, and with the even more appalling underuse, misuse, and abuse of skills and knowledge in the army of employed people in all ranks in all industries, the United States may be today the most underdeveloped nation in the world.”

Dr. Deming was adamant that “top management” was responsible for quality.  In America by law, aren’t “we the people”  top management”? The political parties offer products (candidates)  and services (policies and legislation)  that are producing results that the citizenry is concluding is unacceptable.  For instance, average survey results at RealClearPolitics.com identify that 66 %  of respondents believe the country is on the wrong track.

A Way Ahead?   U.S. policies have an impact not only on the country but globally as well.   Can a nation be treated as an organization that can be transformed through the Deming philosophy and methods?  Is the better strategy to improve organizations in hopes that this will lead to national level transformation, and if so, how has this been working out?

Quality Leader Frame of Reference

Tim J. Clark Quality Leadership

A leader’s frame of reference includes the ability to perceive and incorporate new information, relationships, and possibilities. (1)

W. Edwards Deming identified four components that are common to any successful change initiative that he referred to as a System of Profound Knowledge (SoPK).  The SoPK is the foundation of a Quality Leaders frame of reference.

Anyone or any group that has made a positive change (at any time in history) has applied the SoPK using different terms. Helping people transition to a Deming based framework is the “What’s new?” that would support transformation to the world that works for almost everyone.

The SoPK: Common sense that is not so common – yet.

PSYCHOLOGY. People are motivated to take action to achieve a need and want.  Actions are influenced by facts, perceptions, and expectations that are shaped by a respective culture.  The two types of motivation are extrinsic and intrinsic.

SYSTEMS.  An action is accomplished through a process in the context of a system.

Commuting to work through the use of a car is accomplished through a process that is only possible because of an existing transportation system.  The “system” can include millions of people and trillions of dollars of investment in infrastructure. The system determines the majority of the result.

KNOWLEDGE. Individual action is guided by a stated or implied theory. Knowledge is acquired through actions guided by the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, which Deming referred to as the Shewhart Cycle for Learning and Development.

IF I continue to do this, e.g., follow your commuting process, THEN I predict that I will usually get the expected results.  IF you want to reduce the cost, time, and the environmental impact of your commute, THEN you need to make a change which implies a prediction that change will result in the expected improvement.

“There is no substitute for knowledge. There is no knowledge without prediction and theory. “ — WED

VARIATION. Feedback.  Objective and subjective information is always used to assess results.  Walter Shewhart developed the new paradigm for managing the variation in feedback.

Variation: Description and Terms

“Little v”  (variation) is using a trend/Shewhart chart along with interpretation standards to help determine if change resulted in improvement.  Test your knowledge.

“Big V ” (variation) is taking action that results in a situation where everyone wins or at least, are not any worse off.  This is a common aim identified in many religious and philosophical doctrines.

Humanity is affected by systems that are created by humans. In working to reduce variation from the ideal, it might help if WE all shared a common language for determining if and when changes result in improvement. In his book “When Jesus Came to Harvard, Making Moral Choices Today”, Harvey Cox made the following observation regarding moral choices:

“…. there has been an emerging convergence of the two ways of thinking that includes the consequences of action and inaction.  We can now do great evil without intending to. What we need today is more awareness, a wider recognition of how vast systems we are caught up in can do terrible things and how we can contribute to evil without even being conscious of it.”

Deming reinforced that transformation to the better methods was everyone’s job.  He further offered the definition of transformation as meaning a “change of form, shape or appearance.” He thought the term metanoia may be more suitable and defined it as “penitence, repentance, reorientation of one’s way of life, spiritual conversion.”

Additional Information: Frame of Reference.

(1) Strategic Leadership Primer, 3rd Edition, Department of Command, Leadership, and Management, United States Army War College, pgs 23, 28.

(2) National Defense University, Strategic Leadership and Decision Making Part Two, The Strategic Leader as an Individual, Chapter 7, Developing Strategic  Leaders.

Supporting articles:

(3) The Deming Paradigm for Reducing Variation: Unknown by Most, Misunderstood by Many, Relevant to All.

(4) Transformed leadership starts with a transformed individual

(5) Putting Demings’s principles into action to transform individuals, communities and organizations

 

 

LinkedIn Post Reply: A New Theory For Transforming Society

Tim J. Clark LinkedIn, Quality Leadership, Transformation

A New Theory for Transforming Society by Jim Rough : In 1993 I had a mind-blowing insight about how to transform our society so we could solve many of our most intractable issues. Since that moment I’ve been explaining, experimenting and developing the idea —published a book about it (“Society’s Breakthrough! Releasing Essential Wisdom and Virtue in All the People“);” hosted a TV show; co-founded a non profit organization (The Center for Wise Democracy); convened conferences, gave talks, etc.  Recently on Skype I was getting reacquainted with an old friend, Jim Wanless, and wow. Jim’s questions brought out a whole new way of explaining the idea. (See the informal, edited, 23 minute video.)

Jim – great concept – enjoyed the video. I think an additional component that would enhance the transformation strategy is integrating a more explicit knowledge and application of the variation principle. This principle creates a new standard for Quality Leadership that “We the People” can apply in working towards a more- perfect union.  A summary of the variation principle applied to a “controversial issue” such as abortion is available at the following link.  I think your dynamic facilitation  concept  aligned with the explicit aim to reduce variation would help reinforce a better way of making the types of changes that to improvements that can be sustained.

Resolving Controversial Issues – Abortion Issue:

On major change, the first step in Kotter’s 8 stage process for leading change is to start with a sense of urgency. As you mentioned, a “crisis” can provide the extrinsic motivation to bring about needed change.  However, sustaining a quality approach requires people to be more intrinsically motivated which is supported by the fact that variation either gets better or it gets worse.

Thoughts?  If interested in discussing further, you can also contact me at  tjclark2036@gmail.com.