Support of Top Management is Not Sufficient

Action is Required

Support of top management is not sufficient. It is not enough that top management commit themselves for life to quality and productivity. They must know what it is they are committed to — that is, what they must do. These obligations can not be delegated. Support is not enough: action is required.

“…and if you can’t come, send nobody”

These are the words in a letter that William E. Conway (president and chief executive officer of the Nashua Corporation) wrote to a vice-president in response to the latter’s request for an invitation to visit the Nashua Corporation.

In other words, Mr. Conway told him, if you don’t have time to do your job, there is not much I can do for you.

A quality program for a community, launched by ceremonies with a speech by the governor, raising of flags, beating of drums, badges, all with heavy applause, is a delusion and a snare.

- Dr. W.E. Deming. Out of the Crisis. (p. 21)

“We’re here to learn what management must do. That’s why we’re here. This seminar is about the responsibility of management for improvement [of] quality, productivity, and competitive position. I summarized the obligation under fourteen points. And these fourteen points require action. A woman started to say something to me not long ago. She said “we have the support of top management.” I said, wait a minute, don’t finish your sentence. You’ve got to have more than support. Support isn’t going to do it. You need action under a top management.”

- Dr. W.E. Deming, Presentation to CEOs, “Why Productivity Increases as Quality Improves”, 1981

14. Put everybody in the company to work to accomplish the transformation. The transformation is everybody’s job.

- Dr. W.E. Deming. Out of the Crisis. (p. 24)

2. Management in authority will take pride in their adoption of the new philosophy and in their new responsibilities. They will have courage to break with tradition, even to the point of exile among their peers.

- Ibid. (p. 85)

WHEN I first started working with agile software development practices and techniques over two decades ago there was not a lot of appetite for changing the prevailing way things were done with new, untested ideas which are commonplace today. At the time, half-measures were seriously advocated to blend the siloed, stage-gate processes of the prior thirty years (derisively known as “waterfall”) with newer “agile” practices in a “hybrid model”. Best of both worlds, said the courageous souls of the time. And of course, that’s exactly what happened.

In the two decades since, transformations have followed this “cynical” template, believing that you could have your cake and eat it, too. Too few understood that pursuing a hybrid strategy with one foot on either side sent a strong signal to everyone involved that this wasn’t really a serious change in direction, just a the latest fad. As Peter Scholtes astutely wrote in Chapter 5 of The Leader’s Handbook:

The workplace is filled with ambiguity and uncertainty. People have always had to deal with the inconsistency of their leaders, migrating from one fad to another. Workers learned to hang on because “This, too, shall pass.” I’ve heard this described as the BOHICA syndrome. “Bend Over Here It Comes Again!”

Hybrid transformations are BOHICA perfected, wasting the time, energy, and good-will of all involved on nothing more than a managerial passion project. If the intent is to improve, as it should be, then we improve together. As Dr. Deming advises in the excerpts above, this requires leadership to cease spectating and get involved.

What Action Is Not Required?

Some may cringe at the thought of their leadership getting any more involved with their daily work than they already do — it’s hard enough as it is. Dr. Deming would be the last to advise harassing people with hit-and-run micromanagement (credit: Joel Spolsky, More Joel on Software, p. 38), something he’d refer to as “MBWA” or management by walking around, because quite often leadership doesn’t know what questions to ask about how the daily work is done. It’s also contradictory to a systems view of the organization, directed at optimizing parts and not their interactions.

Dr. Deming’s view is that the job of transformation belongs to everyone and begins with leadership learning the new theory and philosophy that will guide it, then practising and teaching it forward. As an old colleague of mine used to say, “Leadership goes first.”

Reflection Questions

Consider the transformations you’ve either participated in or observed in other organizations. How would you characterize the leadership disposition? Leading from the front, or from behind? What evidence is there of the desired philosophy being taught and practised? What limitations can you think of to the recommendations Dr. Deming makes above? Is there a practical limit to the notion of transformation through direct participation by leadership? Why?