Not MY People

by Don Harkey

A couple of friends of mine are both business owners and they also happened to be husband and wife. The husband owns a service oriented technology company. The wife owns a research company specializing in motivation. The three of us were talking recently about applying motivational principles to an organization. The service company owner complained that while he understood the principles of the motivation theory and agreed with them, he had difficulty applying them. He went on to admit that despite numerous offers, he had not utilized his wife's consulting services for his own business. "I just struggle to see how it applies to MY people.", he said.

This is a constant barrier to consultants in my line of work. As a consultant, I have to be very knowledgeable in a the areas in which I consult. I spend a lot of my time reading books and articles on organizations, people, management and anything else that offers some insight. The way I look at it, I am building on my foundation of knowledge by examining different theories.

Through the years, I have read enough books that I can assess and evaluate the material to determine its value based my collective knowledge. Its as if I have a "grand unified" theory of management in my head and every book presents a new hypothesis that can either add, take away from, or be discarded from the theory. This may be giving too much insight into my brain, but that is how I am trained to think. What do I use to determine if I buy into a new theory or reject it?

First, I use experience. Does the new theory "feel" right? When "Freakonomics" came out with the theory that the crime rate drop is largely caused by the legalization of abortion, I think to myself, do they make a compelling argument. They do (read it for yourself!). My next question is how can this knew information be applied to my general knowledge. The result from this example is that it doesn't apply directly, but the analysis is an interesting example of thinking outside of the box. Thus, a small building block in Don's Great Unified Theory has been placed onto the wall.

I especially like when I get the same information from two different approaches. Deming talks about a "pride of workmanship" in his books "Out of the Crises" and "The New Economics" and how people are not well motivated by "stuff", I can apply my experience to conclude that he is probably right. When I read research driven articles on "self-determination theory" that supports this same information, I get really excited and I put a little more mortar on the wall of knowledge (nice imagery, eh?).

However, having a wall of knowledge just to have a wall is not very useful to a consultant. The bottom line is that all knowledge is useless it can be applied. What is the point of knowing how people are motivated unless you can apply it to companies who have trouble with unmotivated employees? Guess what... that's where the consultant comes in!

The devil, as my service company owner says, is in the detail. Theory is often general and difficult to apply in itself. That is why management often dismisses some of the "touchy-feely" theories in favor of hard theories that use metrics or scorecards. Math has a right answer where philosophy struggles to even find the right question! Management is about answers!

This is where a good consultant earns their money. Applying theory to specific circumstances with baggage and ugliness and cloudiness and uncertainty is challenging, but possible. I have worked in the shops where the workers all hate each other and their supervisor. I have seen them spit on their product and collect their low wages while on this latest stop in their career bouncing from one company to another as a human commodity. I have seen these same people realize that they can make a positive impact at work and suddenly find joy in what they do. I have seen their supervisors show them grace, direction, and some trust and begin to heal the wounds of years of mistrust. It is possible!

I have seen the professional staff who have damaged their relationships with each other beyond repair begin to come together under a common purpose and begin to release their baggage and plan for the future.

All of these improvements come from theory, but more importantly, they come from the ability to apply the theory. I often spend time with companies teaching the theory, but this is only the first step. The next step, applying the theory, is where the real benefits arise. Not sure how? I can help with that. It my be YOUR people, but its MY job!

Management 101 - Back to Deming

by Don Harkey

"We are living in a prison, under tyranny of the prevailing style of interaction between people, between teams, between divisions. We need to throw overboard our theories and practices of the present, and build afresh. We must throw overboard the idea that competition is a necessary way of life. In place of competition, we need cooperation."

- W. Edwards Deming from "The New Economics" (1994)

Many people have asked me where my central philosophy in management was derived. I often talk (or write) about how I see flaws in what is currently the popular idea of good management. I read articles from management professors, which, forgive me, are not only wrong, but reflect the core of many of the problems faced in organizations today. So if you believe that there is a better way, where do you start?

My answer is simple. Start with W. Edwards Deming.

I will let you look up information on Deming and learn about his long career. There is plenty of information available on the web or in the library about Deming's principles and his life. To me, Deming is to management what Einstein is to physics. In the field of physics, scientists are still working hard to fully understand the theories that Einstein first introduced to the world almost a century ago. Deming's ideas are similar. Few management gurus will dispute Deming outright, but few also truly understand and follow his philosophy.

Summarizing Deming's views is like summarizing Einstein's Theory of Relativity. However, there is simplicity to it. Deming's belief is that our culture has developed to think of a free market as one where competition at all levels leads to success. This is Adam Smith's view of economics. If Deming is Einstein in our analogy, then Smith is Isaac Newton. Like Newton, Smith is almost right.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

- Adam Smith from "The Wealth of Nations" (1776)

In essence, Smith says that competition drives prices down and cooperation drives prices up. He has a point. Companies have pulled together to "fix prices" in the market just as Smith describes above (ex: ADM in the early 90's). It is also true that competition can lower prices, especially as consumers are given more choices. Smith's theory can be (and is regularly) applied to individuals as well. Employees who band together can fix their output and demand more wages (ex: auto worker's union). Employees who are put in competition with each other will work harder because they have to.

However, like Newtonian physics, this theory doesn't work all of the time... and the exceptions are extremely important.

There are plenty of examples of "people of the same trade" pulling together to decrease costs and improve quality for the consumer. Professional organizations have developed standards that provide professionals with a collective knowledge. An example is the American Society for Mechanical Engineers (ASME), which provides best practices for use throughout the world, which has lead to decrease costs from manufacturers who don't need to develop their own standards, and improved quality because the collected knowledge is better than any individual organization could have developed. This cooperation has lead to lower costs and improved quality.

What about individuals? Professional athletes are often inspired by competition, but history shows us that the best performances come from teams that consist of individuals who cooperate toward a common goal. The Yankees regularly have the best players in all of the baseball, but they are often defeated by teams consisting of young, start-up players.

This is a complex topic, but I am trying to leave you with 2 key points. First, the more I learn about Deming, the more I see that he right. Second, think about competition and cooperation and how they impact your organization. Challenge yourself and question conventional wisdom. Let's start digging our tunnel out of the "prison" that Deming talks about!