Deming, Democracy, Quality, and Performance

A few weeks ago I posted on quality in government and the need to build trust in public organizations. That brought a response from John Hunter  at  Curious Cat Management Improvement.  John expressed concern about my comments regarding W. Edwards Deming's patience with the public sector:

Paul Soglin also stated:

Deming did not have an appreciation for the democratic nature of government, and did not acknowledge that the kind of decision making that takes place in the public sector may have both legal and ethical requirements to slow down the advance of 'quality.'

My  (Hunter's) response to his post:

Actually Deming did acknowledge that the United States government was not designed to be as efficient as possible. From page 198 of Out of the Crisis "Government service is to be judged on equity as well as on efficiency." He then quotes Oscar Ornati "We have forgotten that the function of government is more equity oriented than efficiency oriented."

Deming did not focus on the nature of government extensively, but my recollection is that he acknowledged the wisdom of the American style of government (with checks and balances and fairly complex process for creating legislation) even though parts of that system intentionally makes change difficult. My recollection is that he understood the wisdom in designing the system in this way to optimize long term benefits to the whole society, even though that creates sub optimization of certain aspects of the system.

To be fair to Deming I must stress that he never questioned our form of democracy.  Where he and I disagreed was in my insisting that there was a need for legislative (city council) support for the implementation of quality in Madison.  Deming felt my executive authority to order and fashion the transformation was greater than I perceived.

That said, let us move on the real issue, which I think John Hunter and I wish was furthered in the public sector: moving towards quality in an environment that often is more complicated and more difficult to move than the private sector.  My own opinion is that in the public and the private sector, the solutions lie in the same place: leadership at the top. 

There must be public sector leaders who are more concerned about their legacy than the next election.  There must be an environment of trust so that as review is done of past failures, it is free from recrimination and blame.  The purpose of the checking and reviewing must be to learn for the future not to assign blame.

To find a mayor or a governor with the inclination, the time, and the values to focus on serious management issues is no easy task. In today's environment, with Katrinas, failing bridges, poor school systems, and the prospect of terrorism at every corner, the matter is even more pressing.