🚀 go-pugleaf

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 01:12:40 -0400
From: JAPayson <japayson@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Deming vs Crosby (fwd)

I have read extensively both authors.  I would be interested in discussing.
As an overview the two have few differences.  For 20 years Deming scoffed at
 the idea of "zero defects" as unrealistic and uneconomical.  Eventually he
 understood that Crosby was speaking with his own invented vocabulary where
 "zero defects" first means that you define what YOU mean by defect.   Crosby
 really means in the simplest terms  "say what you do, and do what you say"
 without exceptions.  Deming eventually came to terms with that.  Deming's
 focus was on people, and teamwork.  Understanding the capability of each
 person, and allowing them to create the satisfaction of being a contributor.
 He hated the competition that occurs so often, both in business and in
 schools.  He rightfully pointed out I think that a winning company (or school)
 needs to be made up of winners.  If you introduce internal competion to an
 organization, then you produce one winner, everyone else is a loser.  To build
 a strong organization, why would you want to label everybody losers?  Why
 would you want to destroy your people's will?  Good question that does not get
 answered well.  To many people manage their business by analogy of sports or
 war.  Well, sports are a fun game, but it is not real life.  After the game,
 the winners and losers have a beer together, and go home to plan the next
 contest.  And in war the losers are killed and the winners are left to clean
 up in misery.  Neither are a good model for business.

Crosby was more focused on managing things in more practical terms;  more
 specific techniques.  Deming felt if the management understood his theory of
 variation (profound knowledge) that the management method & details would
 follow.  Crosby did not have so much faith, he built a business to teach
 details and methods that would create a lot of the understanding later.  It is
 hard to say how successful either approach has been.