Success is usually the product of the faithful and systematic execution of a series of given procedures. High performance athletes, world class corporations and every individual that has achieved a position of prestige and notoriety in society has done so by way of perseverance, methodology and discipline.
According to the late William Edward Deming, simple or complex, the structures of a procedure that aims towards growth and extraordinary levels of performance comprise five fundamental steps:
- Definition of the system, problem, failure, need, or opportunity at hand.
- Measurement of the dependent and independent variables that interact in the system.
- Establishment and analysis of causal relationships.
- Improvement of results through strategic and scientifically justifiable changes in procedure.
- Control of procedure to guarantee certain levels of quality at the output and outcome stages of production in the short, medium, and long term.
This procedural map of sorts has among its chief objectives not only the optimization of business practices by reducing errors and failures to their minimum expression, but also serving as a launching pad for innovation and value creation. Contrary to what some may ascertain, the application of this conceptual structure is not to be thought of nor executed in a piecemeal fashion. It is designed, rather, as an integral and holistic system wherein the individual parts that conform it come together in synergy to yield products and services according to predetermined standards. Hence, whereas the procedure may unfold one step at a time it does not take place in a linear sequence necessarily. If for descriptive purposes we were to give the procedure a shape, it would be that of a spiral whose rings move forward as they travel back to previous steps wherein they draw strength even as hurricanes gain speed as they hover over hot waters.
As I think of this I am reminded of the relational maxim that describes healthy marital growth patterns as “two steps forward, one back”. Although the step back may be perceived as a setback, it is really a blessing in disguise as it serves not as a mere stopgap, but as a definite solution to an issue that was left unresolved amid the busyness of everyday living. And why was it left unresolved to begin with? one might ask. Simply because at first glance lacunas and loose ends are the common trend. Their resolving takes place as one identifies and returns to the juncture that is out of step with the company’s standard of quality and success. Once there, the leader puts his finger where it hurts and extracts any infection or imperfection by exerting pressure even to the point of blood. This, not to kill, but to heal and put the pedal to the metal of the company’s full potential until it becomes an existential set of quality results that further challenge the entity’s talents to ameliorate, innovate, and advance to the next echelon of perfection.
In the same vein, the centrality of integrity in Deming’s framework procedure focuses both individual and corporate efforts on achieving real and effective levels of productivity. Real and effective being defined as the alignment that individual productivities have with the overarching mission and vision of the organization at-large. Some would argue that productivity is welcome regardless of how, when, why, what, and who performs it. But this is not necessarily true. There are cases, for instance, of isolated productivities that do not conform and/or are not properly channeled to the heart that pumps meaning into the otherwise mundane activities in an organization. These, in fact, can be loci of distraction from that which really unites the individual parts into a whole capable of producing extraordinary results.
Sammy Sosa’s one man show with the Chicago Cubs is a case in point. We were all enthralled with his impressive streak of 66 homeruns nearly twenty years ago in 1998. Yet, his stellar productivity in that season and throughout his eighteen-year career in Major League Baseball never resulted in a transcendent corporate success like winning or at least participating in a MLB World Series. In all fairness, he was only one among many players and his role was not that of a manager.
During Sosa’s 12-year career with the Chicago Cubs, the team went through seven different managers. That high turnover rate in such a key leadership position probably took a toll on the team’s performance overall. Hence, whereas the Cubs had many talents in its player arsenal during Sosa’s tenure from 1992 to 2004, it lacked a solid leadership structure capable of coalescing said assets into a well-oiled winning machine with realistic aspirations of bringing home the most coveted prize in the fans’ eyes.
It wasn’t until the year 2016, with Joe Maddon as team manager, that the Chicago Cubs won the World Series against the Cleveland Indians. It’s important to note that Joe Maddon took on the management position with the Cubs in 2015 after having served in that capacity for eight years with the Tampa Bay Rays. Before his tenure with the Rays, Maddon served as coach for a whopping 13 years with the Anaheim Angels. On his watch, the Angels made it to the World Series in 2002 and won 4-3 against the San Francisco Giants.
In sum, Maddon brought stability, experience, and a winning strategy to a team that for many years lacked cohesion and a comprehensive leadership vision. As a matter of fact, upon taking office as manager for the Cubs, Maddon established a series of standard procedures aimed at channeling each effort by team members toward the preeminent outcome: to win games and make it to the World Series. And win the World Series they did just two years after Maddon’s debut in Chicago. How was this accomplished? Going beyond individual and isolated productivities that tend to have more visibility in the short-term, but can, as mentioned before, distract from the end goal.
Maddon’s approach resulted in continuous improvement at the team level, going so far as to achieving the ultimate goal in a relatively short period of time. On the other hand, Sammy Sosa’s success hitting it out of that park did not leave an indelible mark such as Maddon’s management and leadership ability has.
At the end of the day, therefore, as John Maxwell likes to say, everything rises and falls on leadership. And to appropriately nurture and shepherd a hungry and talented following, the leader needs a structured system through which to exert his influence; a system built on values and verified procedures that bring out the best in the whole beyond setting an entertaining, but, ultimatelym disappointing one-man-show.
William Edward Deming’s procedure outlined at the beginning of this essay is designed to accomplish that integral dynamic in a sustainable and recurrent fashion. Yet, as Deming himself acknowledged, for procedures to work they must be seen, embraced, and reworked with profound knowledge of what is and ought to be at both the firm and industry level. More succinctly, managers must master the theory of knowledge (beyond data and information) to establish, sustain and reinvent a culture of success based on systematic forethought and teamwork.
By defining, measuring, identifying, analyzing, perfecting, and controlling quality, profitability and sustainability in an organization, Deming’s proposed procedure has stood and stands as a benchmark for innovation and performance optimization now and in the foreseeable future. Especially for business leaders who want to have a meaningful and lasting impact in the growth and transformation of their industries and organizations. This, beyond the synthetic, sporadic and reversible kind of change that enters the scene with a lot of pomp and circumstance, but in the end, fails to deliver on its promises.
Procedural leadership, by contrast, makes promises based on verifiable track records, and delivers applying the scientific method. Through it the whole becomes greater than its individual parts even as it integrates each of them not as uniform commodities, but as diverse entities that unite with the willingness to learn, unlearn, relearn, and bereave the self for the sake of corporate success.