Deming's System of Profound Knowledge Flashcards
Briefly explain the 4 elements of System of Profound Knowledge
From the perspective of the 4 elements of the SoPK discuss the ‘Rank and Yank’ approach… Does SoPK support this proposition?
Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge consists of 4 interrelated elements that require consideration of consequences of actions beyond the boundaries of our concern/control. They are the following:
System: Focus on whole. not parts. Viewing the whole organisation in terms of many internal and external interrelated connections and interactions, as opposed to discrete and independent departments or processes.
Statistics: (Variation) Ability to distinguish between common and special cause variations, understanding causes and responding appropriately. Not reacting to single data points.
Psychology: Understanding your people and what motivates them to perform at their best; intrinsic needs such as pride in workmanship and working with others towards a common goal, as opposed to monetary reward, which is shortsighted form of motivation.
Knowledge: Avoiding a dogmatic management approach but testing ideas and enabling continual organisation-wide learning.
The ‘Rank and Yank’ approach can be assessed using the SoPK as follows:
System: This approach may probably ensure that the most motivated people are promoted the fastest but it has several negative effects on the system. Firstly, this could create to many hierarchical layers as people are promoted on a yearly basis. This system also doe not factor in the learning curve and how the process of learning varies with each individual, this especially would effect new recruits who still haven’t gained as much knowledge as those who have been in the organisation for much longer. This approach also affixes blame on the people and assumes they are bottleneck; that a small population of people can drag down the entire performance of the organisation. It shows a potential weakness in the recruitment process, and more focus could be put in the calibre of new intake. The approach is summative and results in undue focus on the customer, which is counterproductive.
Statistics: The approach assumes being at the top or bottom is a special cause; the root being the individual at that position. However, without sufficient data to support this, acting on this assumption is effectively tampering with the system and could potential lead to worse effects such as cheating, misreporting. Also, there seems to be no rational behind the 10% and this rigidity is problematic as someone who achieved 999 sales in the year could be sacked whilst another who achieved 1000 would remain in post, which is obviously absurd. The approach also ignores consistency, for example; an employee may have had several years of great performance but for one reason or the other performed badly for the year. Sacking them would be ruthless and irrational. Lastly, the approach also relies on growth, since the number must be replaced and it doesn’t factor those who have voluntarily left the organisation.
Psychology: Positive aspects of this approach include possible healthy competition especially for the most motivated. This approach may also produce quick short-term productivity gains. However, the negative effects exceed these points. This approach is very focussed on individual performance and hence destroys teamwork instead producing rivalries and potential sabotage, for example not taking calls on behalf of a colleagues or colleagues stealing customers. This approach resembles management-by-carrot-and-stick, creating a short-term focus and reducing intrinsic motivation. It encourages playing the system in order to escape bottom position and also risky acts such as overstating profits. Another effect is that innovation is avoided as people are scared to take risks and potentially fail. Alternatively, huge risks and drastic measures could be taken by those weary of being at the bottom. Most importantly, the sharing of knowledge and expertise is unlikely, preventing organisational learning.
Knowledge: This overarching element brings up questions such as how is the bottom 10% defined? How are performance measures weighed and what measure is being used and why? How can the unique contribution of one individual be accurately determined?
The SoPK enables a broad analysis of this approach and shows it to be counterproductive throughout each elements.
