Why are you here?

["Vic Forte" <vic@vicf.com>]

> John queries the high tone of your deliberations, which I recently
> started to soak-up. IMHO the language we use defines the likelihood of
> our practical success, for example in improving quality, as well as
> defining the problem, and our status in the process, or level of
> membership of the system we hope to change for the better.

I agree with this, but I cannot understand why those who wish to have a more
philosophical discussion have to be censored. Surely there is room for all
kinds of discussion. It is up to those who want to offer something more down
to earth and practical for the DEN to get on and do it.

I am sure that if this is what DEN members want there will be a great
response and lots of helpful discussion will ensue. Why criticise those who
enjoy the play of ideas ?

> Can we use the same language in theoretical discussion and professional
> coalface implementation? If not why not?

Because the language should be designed to suit the people involved - the
"customers" - and their circumstances. I have not noticed that DEN members
were particularly conceptually challenged. But in other circumstances and
for other customers the language used here would be inappropriate.

> It isn't just down to hard
> words. Maybe the Quality concepts needed better words attached to them
> in the first place. Maybe it's not too late to do that.

Yes. Maybe the quality concepts needed better words attached. Most of us
have had a problem with the words "profound knowledge" for instance. But
there is a lot of scope within the Deming project. It's not all heady
concepts. The red bead experiment, for instance I have found appeals greatly
to practical people and can be put across in very simple ordinary language.
It's a powerful message.

Bill Scherkenbach tells us that we have to communicate on three levels -
intellectual, emotional and physical. It is the job of the communicator to
understand his or her audience well enough to appreciate which of these
three communication styles to use. Also to have sufficient self awareness to
realise that a style of language which appeals to "me" does not necessarily
appeal to everyone. Physical people for instance may find a theoretical
approach irrelevant. People who respond well to an emotional message may
find theory rather boring. I enjoy the play of ideas, for me it is fun. But
I have learnt through bitter experience not to push theory too heavily to
some people. I have to learn how to be more practical - or more emotionally
inspiring.

The read beads is a great combination of physical and intellectual.

I do not believe that it is too late to adapt our language.

But we have to recognise also the specific circumstance of the DEN - who we
are and what we want - and what appeals to some will not appeal to others.

I exhort those who want a more practical approach to get on and try it.
Let's see how easy it is using the medium of e-mail.