>On the question of special causes, Deming would say that they are
>statistically determined. One can use an attribute chart to find the
>mean, standard deviation, and control limits of the population's
>performance. If the individuals concerned lie outside of the control
>limits, you can eliminate them (one at a time, from the largest deviation
>to the smallest). Recalculate to determine their effect on the
>statistics.
>
>Simple inferential statistics are a major part of Deming's system of
>profound knowledge.
>
>John Zavacki
Dear John,
A particular company that makes ....paint....responded
statistically to the pressure being put from their "clients"
for greater "productivity" and (or with) lower costs for
their products. They accomplished this by "stressing"
their staff (lower half) and eliminating inventory in the
upkeep of their factory while pressuring their staff
(lower half) with the threat of downsizing the middle,
which they proved by letting go of the "cushion" or maybe
"cussin" or is it "cousin" workers who backed up the
essential (lower half) personnel.
>"If the individuals concerned lie outside of the control
>limits, you can eliminate them (one at a time, from the
>largest deviation to the smallest).">
This threat to the middle and essential (lower half)
personnel was enough to get them to keep their mouths
shut, (except to me) and to work until they "dropped."
(How did that go? "Freiheit durch...or you can drive
a cab or wait tables," CNN job counselor for out of
work middle managers.) The company saved the rent
on the buildings that housed the machine parts, saved
the salaries of their downsized detainees and increased
output in sales and made a profit of 6 million in 1995
which they promptly used to buy another company.
The exhausted workers were not thrilled.
Why were they exhausted? Because they put out a better
product? Because they wanted and received more pay or
security for their effort? Or because they were afraid
that not being exhausted would get them "downsized" or
eliminated one at a time. Did the Senior Management
create a Chaos process that could return to their "initial
conditions" or did they set up a linear differentiable
dynamic system that could be described by the management
"state-istically" as the "company created workers" involved
themselves in covert retaliation?
To return to Diane's problem of being a leader in a shop where
she is concerned with the problems of 1. mis-casting,
2. poor timing in relational skills and 3. learning blocks.
They are lucky to have someone, like Diane, concerned about
both company and people. (Probably likes her work)
A lot of people speak of the attractiveness of the new models
but this is where the models collide. Chaos is supposed to
be sensitive/in pursuit of the continually unique. It allows
for an individual's creative flowering (we call it the broccoli
effect) while others who have completed their work, rest.
Like the firing of a well coordinated skeletal muscle, it
is the understanding of the efficient MOVEMENT of the "whole,"
that defines success or failure, not whether an individual
"is taking a break when its their time." This model demands
a very high degree of supervisory trust and individual worker
responsibility in working through the down times, (as Diane's
workers 1, 2 and 3 build the energy for "flowering"). If
the developing worker is to take the big risk by entering a
creative process then it demands a balance of profit with
social responsibility on the part of senior management.
In the performing arts we are (and I hope are closed to have
finished) passing through a period of social irresponsibility.
We still have vestiges of it often masquerading as "creative
reaction against censorship." We tolerate it because they
eventually grow up or go to medical school. Art is a Mirror
of and an Ideal of what constitutes negotiated reality in a
culture. Artistic reality is a psycho-physical pursuit of
cultural values in a medium. The functions of Art in a
society are not, as has been said in the Oscar Wilde reaction
against the Utilitarians, to be found within itself. The
meaning, intent and purpose of the Fine Arts spreads out
and reaches into every corner of a culture. It makes absolute
sense that our competitors constitute one third of the
population of our artistic schools. It is interesting that
the New York Times article on the super rich quoted them as
saying that they were artists at making money, for its own sake.
Hopefully our artists are growing out of this type of silliness.
Our great orchestras have grown out of this trap and now
demand a living wage for themselves and their families. They
can do this because each individual worker is a Master and
has pride in that Mastery. Often the Conductor, (middle
management plant supervisor) has to get out of their way and
let them do their work. They WANT to succeed! You can make
a statistical chart about this but you cannot chart WHY they
do it or how the hundreds of small unstable, non-repeatable
improvisations happen that define the difference between Art
and derivative banality. If I may paraphrase Stephen Kellert:
they are a sensitive/intimate/perpetually unique deterministic
nonlinear dynamic system that will practice all day long in
rehearsal--go home and practice some more--then perform an
8:p.m. curtain (until 10:30) seven shows a week, just to keep
it a "sensitive/intimate/perpetually unique deterministic
nonlinear dynamic system (Chaotic). If senior management does
not "facilitate" an orchestra's success, it creates monumental
"passive-aggressivity" on the part of the workers. Management
must balance the living wage and benefits with profit realized
from the business side. The only problem is, there is NO
profit. They are great LOs and Chaos structures but their
personnel size makes them totally unprofitable. Orchestras
are notoriously un-productive in the economic sense of the
word. Also, the expertise and stress level in a major symphony
is comparable only with the stress of Airline Pilots. You are
always on the edge of horrendous failure in front of thousands.
Only Mastery sustains them (and a living wage).
Chaos models are information rich and thus easily overload
individuals who are not prepared or as Bateson says:
"practiced." The "practice" is almost theological and
often sounds "hokey." You must first meet the challenge
with a deep sense of joy and a feeling of "grounded
reality." It brings to mind the attitude of the Inuit
hunter lost at sea:
"The great sea
Has sent me adrift
It moves me as the weed in a great river,
Earth and the great weather
Move me,
Have carried me away
And move my inward parts with joy."
Second you must be very clear about your reasons for what
you do. Third, your reasons must include real work
relationships with your fellow workers. You create
the company, every morning with your co-workers. It is
no more than what you imagine in negotiation with your
colleagues.
This is where I think Bateson, the anthropologist, had
it right. He understood that you create reality with
your relationships. (Even the bi-noculer visual reality
of your two eyes negotiating about what is out there.)
You must make your decisions, about your colleagues,
from your whole being and negotiate with them over
that decision as they do the same about you. Often
passive-aggressive behavior is simply a lack of under-
standing of the relational nature of their work, from
their side (or yours).
As for Deming, special causes and my "paint" company? I
understand that Dr. Senge believes in the LOs ability to
humanize that environment while still remaining profitable,
at this point, I am not convinced. I would rather suggest
that you find a way to live within the "system" of your
company as conceived by ALL of the minds at your work. As
you evolve, struggle and communicate with your colleagues,
find a way to enjoy it and create the company together.
-- Ray Evans Harrell mcore@soho.ios.com