Creativity and stability

["Anton O. Tolman, Ph.D." <ANTON@wsh.state.wy.us>]

Roger Key posted a provocative message with a central theme:

> Essentially what I am getting to is that without the space to play our
> people will not be creative - they cannot be.  If we use the quality tools
> to remove the variation from the system and then deal with the redundancy
> through efficancy savings - OK loseing staff etc.  Then we may well create
> a stable system that is incapeble of creativity.

I have enjoyed reading the responses to this thread and found them useful.  I
especially want to jump in on the side of James who originally wrote that in
stable systems one can be creative.  He followed this up with commentary
relating this to driving out fear.

I think that James is right on.  Most of the discussion on the thread has
focused on the implications of removing variation and to that I would only
add that there is a distinction between improving *process* stability and
optimizing the *system*.  I think this was part of Roger's confusion about
Deming's ideas and creativity.  This is also part of the distinction, at
least in healthcare, between "CQI or Continuous Quality Improvement" which is
often defined in terms of process outcomes and improvement vs. "Quality
management" which is often not practiced at all.  It is not unusual to find
companies who claim to be "doing quality" when they are really doing CQI or
some variant of CQI, but are *not* engaged in quality management.

Deming's philosophy encompasses both.  In fact, the elements of quality
management or leadership that he espouses are a crucial part of his repeated
talk about the critical importance of the "unknowables".  Process improvement
occurs with knowable numbers -- tracking variation, eliminating special
causes, etc.  The unknowables include the amount of fear in the organization,
the organizational culture, whether managers lead or manage by numbers, etc.
I think that James is exactly right; in a critical, harsh organizational
climate where fear is prevalent, creativity may occur, but it is in the form
of ways to avoid the system or to circumvent the system.  In a climate that
is founded upon Deming's teachings, there is acceptance of learning, there is
in fact encouragement of learning, and of making mistakes.  There is open
dialogue about problems and issues in a search for new solutions -- there is
*increased* input from employees because they feel safe to speak up; in such
an environment, there has been effort made to break down barriers between
departments, allowing contacts and flow of information to occur which can
spark new creativity and new ideas, etc.  None of these things can be
measured per se -- none of these things can be "reduced" in an effort to
create stable processes.  And without these things, process improvement is
doomed to create the company that Roger worried about.

Thus, I, too, do not see any conflict between Deming's ideas and an
environment that fosters and encourages creativity.

Anton Tolman, PhD, CPHQ, Psychological Services Manager &
Quality Management Coordinator, Wyoming State Hospital
P.O. Box 177, Evanston, WY  82931-0177
Anton@wsh.state.wy.us    (307) 789-3464
===================================================================