Transformation from Mythology to the New Philosophy
Last month, I posed the following question - Do we really need to transform our education system? - and posited that any attempts at transformation needed to sit on top of a solid philosophical foundation. The purpose of this blog post is to make the case for transformation from the prevailing style of management to the philosophy developed by W. Edwards Deming across a lifetime of continual improvement work. It is on this foundation that our education system should stand rather than constantly shifting in the wind based on management mythology, the latest testing data points, and political pet projects.
Perhaps the most radical idea put forth by Dr. Deming is the idea that any outcome we see within our system is the result of more than the skills and efforts of the individuals who work within the organization. Most of the performance differences observed between individuals are generated by the complex and dynamic system in which workers are only one part. Understanding this idea and moving away from a number of common management myths may be the most important part of the new philosophy.
What is transformation?
Transformation implies a change in state from one thing to another. W. Edwards Deming pushed us to transform from the prevailing style of management, a modern invention that seeds “competition between people, teams, departments, pupils, schools, universities,” to a new philosophy of management. The transformation will allow everyone to work together as a system with the aim for everybody to win. He was advocating for cooperation and transformation to this new style of management.
The route to transformation is what Deming called Profound Knowledge. Even though it has been three decades since he described his theory for transformation, the prevailing system of management is still the dominant management philosophy in school systems. This prevailing system is rooted in a management mythology, a false foundation. Table 1 outlines a few examples of faulty practices from the prevailing style of management and better practices from the new philosophy. The right side of the table outlines the relationship between each of the better practices to the four components of Profound Knowledge. It will be helpful here to pause and review Table 1. For each of the pairs of “Present Practices” and “Better Practices”, put a check mark in the box that best describes your organization. Then, study the relationship between the pairs of practices and Profound Knowledge. The System of Profound Knowledge is the light that illuminates the path to transformation and the new philosophy for educational systems leadership.
Table 1. Transforming Faulty Practices Using Profound Knowledge
Education Reform in the Age of Management Mythology
W. Edwards Deming often began his famous four-day seminars by saying that management is living in an age of mythology. This idea applies just as well today as it did in the 1980s and early 1990s when Deming was delivering these seminars to tens of thousands of people each year. It also applies just as well to educators as it did the industry and government leaders that predominantly made up his seminar audiences. By “Age of Mythology,” he meant that leaders of industry, government, and education alike operate according to assumptions and myths that harm their organizations. Transformation is the process of understanding these assumptions and myths and then working to move away from them. My posts in January and February will describe the assumptions and mythology of the prevailing system of management on which Deming railed. In the late winter and spring, I’ll transition to describing a set of principles for transformation to the new philosophy.
Management Myth Origins
The evolution of management practices can be tracked across four broad themes over the last few centuries. First, there was management by doing the work yourself. Think here of the farmer in their field or the craftsman in their workshop. Second, there was management by directing. Think here of the craftsman taking on and teaching an apprentice. Third, there was management by results. Think here of numerical quotas and the quip, “I don’t care how you do it, just get it done.” Third-generation management practices were the dominant paradigm of the 20th Century and continue in many organizations to this day. Fourth, there was management by method. W. Edwards Deming urged leaders to move from third-generation to fourth-generation management. He was calling on leaders to work with people on methods rather than judging them on results.
While myths can help us understand the world, Deming saw many traditional management myths as erroneous and lacking sound theoretical foundations. Many school system leadership ideas have come from industry and government and are built on these same false premises and beliefs. A good example of a false belief is the idea: “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.” As I studied Deming’s written work and watched recordings of his seminars over the last several years, I’ve gotten quite good at picking out quotes that have been misattributed to him or ideas of his that have been misunderstood. The aforementioned, “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it” idea may be the most mis-quoted and misunderstood of all. What he actually said was, “It is wrong to suppose that if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it – a costly myth.” Deming was a statistician, so of course he believed in the value of using data to help improve the management of organizations. However, he also believed that looking at data wasn’t enough, that many things that cannot be measured still must be managed, and that there are many things that cannot be measured on which leaders must make decisions.
Another myth is rooted in the basic idea that we should rate and rank people in our society, be it in schools or at work, based on their individual performance. This assumes that problems are always the result of people working within the system as opposed to the underlying system itself. This focus on individual performance is so fundamental to our society that I suspect that many of us have never even stopped to question it. After a few years studying the Deming philosophy, I’ve become much more comfortable with this idea, but I type these words with trepidation of the pushback that may come as a result. Individuals have agency for sure, but that idea is not mutually exclusive with the idea of the role of systems in performance.
Blog Series: Transformation from Mythology to the New Philosophy
As I’ve mentioned, the next two posts will be spent describing other common management myths Deming worked to dispel. As you read the myths, it will be important to keep in mind that you may very well experience some cognitive dissonance. There is a counterintuitive thread to much of the Deming philosophy, which of course makes sense given that he advocated for a change in state from the prevailing system of management to something better. It is also important to understand that there may be some kernels of truth within the myths that are explored; the key is to understand why the overarching idea is in fact a myth. It is with an eye towards nuance that I’ll attempt to unpack the various myths over the coming months.
***
John A. Dues is the Chief Learning Officer for United Schools Network, a nonprofit charter management organization that supports four public charter schools in Columbus, Ohio. Send feedback to jdues@unitedschoolsnetwork.org.