Where is Quality Really Made? An Insider's View of Deming's World

In this episode, Bill Scherkenbach, one of W. Edwards Deming’s closest protégés, and host Andrew Stotz discuss why leadership decisions shape outcomes far more than frontline effort. Bill draws on decades of firsthand experience with Deming and with businesses across industries. Through vivid stories and practical insights, the conversation challenges leaders and learners alike to rethink responsibility, decision-making, and what it truly takes to build lasting quality. Bill's powerpoint is available here.

TRANSCRIPT

0:00:02.2 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussions with Bill Scherkenbach, a dedicated protégé of Dr. Deming since 1972. Bill met with Dr. Deming more than a thousand times and later led statistical methods and process improvement at Ford and GM at Dr. Deming's recommendation. He authored the Deming Route to Quality and Productivity at Deming's behest and at 79, still champions his mentor's message: Learn, have fun, and make a difference. The discussion for today is, I think we're going to get an answer to this question. And the question is: Where is quality made? Bill, take it away.

 

0:00:44.9 Bill Scherkenbach: Where is quality made? I can hear the mellifluous doctor saying that. And the answer is: In the boardroom, not on the factory floor. And over and over again, he would say that it's the quality of the decisions that the management make that can far outweigh anything that happens on the shop floor. And when he would speak about that, he would first of all, because he was talking to the auto industry, he would talk about who's making carburetors anymore. "Nobody's making carburetors because it's all fuel injectors," he would say. And anyone who has been following this, another classic one is: Do you ever hear of a bank that failed? Do you think that failed because of mistakes in tellers' windows or calculations of interest? Heck no. But there are a whole bunch of other examples that are even more current, if you will. I mean, although this isn't that current, but Blockbuster had fantastic movies, a whole array of them, the highest quality resolutions, and they completely missed the transition to streaming. And Netflix and others took it completely away from them because of mistakes made in the boardroom. You got more recently Bed Bath & Beyond having a great product, a great inventory.

 

0:02:51.4 Bill Scherkenbach: But management took their eyes off of it and looked at, they were concerned about stock buybacks and completely lost the picture of what was happening. It was perfect. It was a great product, but it was a management decision. WeWork, another company supplying office places. It was great in COVID and in other areas, but through financial mismanagement, they also ended up going bust. And so there are, I mean, these are examples of failures, but as Dr. Deming also said, don't confuse success with success. If you think you're making good decisions, you got to ask yourself how much better could it have been if you tried something else. So, quality is made in the boardroom, not on the factory floor.

 

0:04:07.9 Andrew Stotz: I had an interesting encounter this week and I was teaching a class, and there was a guy that came up and talked to me about his company. His company was a Deming Prize from Japan winner. And that was maybe 20, 25 years ago. They won their first Deming Prize, and then subsidiaries within the company won it. So the actual overall company had won something like nine or 10 Deming Prizes over a couple decades. And the president became...

 

0:04:43.5 Bill Scherkenbach: What business are they in?

 

0:04:45.5 Andrew Stotz: Well, they're in...

 

0:04:47.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Of winning prizes?

 

0:04:48.7 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, I mean, they definitely, the CEO got the distinguished individual prize because he was so dedicated to the teachings of Dr. Deming. And he really, really expanded the business well, the business did well. A new CEO took over 15 years ago, 10 years ago, and took it in another direction. And right now the company is suffering losses and many other problems that they're facing. And I asked the guy without talking about Deming, I just asked him what was the difference between the prior CEO and the current one or the current regimes that have come in. And he said that the prior CEO, it was so clear what the direction was. Like, he set the direction and we all knew what we were doing. And I just thought now as you talk about, the quality is made at the boardroom, it just made me really think back to that conversation and that was what he noticed more than anything. Yeah well, we were really serious about keeping the factory clean or we used statistics or run charts, that was just what he said, I thought that was pretty interesting.

 

0:06:06.7 Bill Scherkenbach: Absolutely. And that reminds me of another comment that Dr. Deming was vehement about, and that was was the management turnover. Turnovers in boardrooms every 18 months or so, except maybe in family businesses. But that's based on the quality of decisions made in the boardroom. How fast do you want to turn over the CEOs and that C-suite? So it's going to go back to the quality is made in the boardroom.

 

0:06:50.0 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, and I think maybe it's a good chance for me to share the slide that you have. And let's maybe look at that graphic. Does that makes sense now?

 

0:07:00.9 Bill Scherkenbach: Sure, for sure.

 

0:07:02.2 Andrew Stotz: Let's do that. Let's do that. Hold on. All right.

 

0:07:15.8 Bill Scherkenbach: Okay, okay, okay. You can see on the top left, we'll start the story. I've got to give you a background. This was generated based on my series of inputs and prompts, but this was generated by Notebook LM and based on the information I put in, this is what they came up with.

 

0:07:48.6 Andrew Stotz: Interesting.

 

0:07:50.1 Bill Scherkenbach: Based on various information, which I think did a fairly decent job. In any event, we're going to talk about all of these areas, except maybe the one where it says principles for active leadership, because that was the subject of a couple of our vlogs a while ago, and that is the three foundational obligations. And so the thing is that quality, even though Dr. Deming said it was made in the boardroom, one of the problems is that management did not know what questions to ask, and they would go, and Dr. Deming railed against MBWA, management by walking around, primarily because management hadn't made the transition to really take on board what Dr. Deming was talking about in profound knowledge. And that is, as you've mentioned, setting that vision, continually improving around it, and pretty much absolutely essential was to reduce fear within the organization.

 

0:09:25.9 Bill Scherkenbach: And so management by walking around without profound knowledge, which we've covered in previous talks, only gets you dog and pony shows. And with the fear in the organization, you're going to be carefully guided throughout a wonderful story. I mentioned I was in Disney with some of my granddaughters over the holidays, and they tell a wonderful story, but you don't ever see what's behind the scenery. And management never gets the chance because they really haven't had the opportunity to attain profound knowledge. So that's one of the things. I want to back up a little bit because Dr. Deming would... When Dr. Deming said quality is made at the top, he only agreed to help companies where the top management invited him, he wasn't out there marketing. If they invited him to come in, he would first meet with them and they had to convince him they were serious about participating, if not leading their improvement. And given that, that litmus test, he then agreed to work with them. Very few companies did he agree to on that. And again as we said, the quality of the decisions and questions and passion that determine the successfulness of the company. And so.

 

0:11:40.0 Andrew Stotz: It made me think about that letter you shared that he was saying about that there was, I think it was within the government and government department that just wasn't ready for change and so he wasn't going to work with it. I'm just curious, like what do you think was his... How did he make that judgment?

 

0:12:00.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, it wasn't high enough. And again, I don't know how high you'd have to go in there. But quite honestly, what we spoke about privately was in politics and in the federal government, at least in the US, things change every four years. And so you have management turnover. And so what one manager, as you described, one CEO is in there and another one comes in and wants to do it their way, they're singing Frank Sinatra's My Way. But that's life….

 

0:12:49.3 Andrew Stotz: Another great song.

 

0:12:50.7 Bill Scherkenbach: Another, yes.

 

0:12:52.1 Andrew Stotz: And it's not like he was an amateur with the government.

 

0:12:57.5 Bill Scherkenbach: No.

 

0:13:00.3 Andrew Stotz: He had a lot of experience from a young age, really working closely with the government. Do you think that he saw there was some areas that were worth working or did he just kind of say it's just not worth the effort there or what was his conclusions as he got older?

 

0:13:16.9 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, as he got older, it might, it was the turnover in management. When he worked for Agriculture, although agriculture is political, and he worked for Census Bureau back when he worked there, it wasn't that political, it's very political now. But there was more a chance for constancy and more of a, their aim was to do the best survey or census that they could do. And so the focus was on setting up systems that would deliver that. But that's what his work with the government was prior to when things really broke loose when he started with Ford and GM and got all the people wanting him in.

 

0:14:27.0 Andrew Stotz: I've always had questions about this at the top concept and the concept of constancy of purpose. And I'm just pulling out your Deming Route to Quality and Productivity, which, it's a lot of dog ears, but let's just go to chapter one just to remind ourselves. And that you started out with point number one, which was create constancy of purpose towards improvement of product and service with the aim to become competitive, stay in business and provide jobs. One of my questions I always kind of thought about that one was that at first I just thought he was saying just have a constancy of purpose. But the constancy of purpose is improvement of product and service.

 

0:15:13.6 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, yes and no. I mean, that's what he said. I believe I was quoting what his point number one was. And as it developed, it was very important to add, I believe, point number five on continual improvement. But constancy of purpose is setting the stage, setting the vision if you will, of where you want to take the company. And in Western management, and this is an area where there really is and was a dichotomy between Western and Eastern management. But in Western management, our concept of time was short-term. Boom, boom, boom, boom. And he had a definite problem with that. And that's how you could come up with, well, we're going to go with this fad and that fad or this CEO and that CEO. There was no thinking through the longer term of, as some folks ask, "what is your aim? Who do you think your customer base is now?" don't get suckered into thinking that carburetors are always going to be marketable to that market base. And so that's where he was going with that constancy of purpose. And in the beginning, I think that was my first book you're quoting, but also, in some of his earlier works, he also spoke of consistency of purpose, that is reducing the variation around that aim, that long-term vision, that aim.

 

0:17:19.2 Bill Scherkenbach: Now, in my second book, I got at least my learning said that you've got to go beyond the logical understanding and your constancy of purpose needs to be a mission, a values and questions. And those people who have who have listened to the the previous vlogs that we've had, those are the physiological and emotional. And I had mentioned, I think, that when when I went to GM, one of the things I did was looked up all the policy letters and the ones that Alfred Sloan wrote had pretty much consistency of three main points. One, make no mistake about it, this is what we're going to do. Two, this is why we're going to do it, logical folks who need to understand that. And to give a little bit of insight on on how he was feeling about it. Sometimes it was value, but those weren't spoken about too much back then. But it gave you an insider view, if you will. And so I looked at that, maybe I was overlooking. But I saw a physiological and emotional in his policy letters.

 

0:19:00.7 Bill Scherkenbach: And so that's got to be key when you are establishing your vision, but that's only the beginning of it. You have to operationalize it, and this is where management has to get out of the boardroom to see what's going on. Now, that's going to be the predictable, and some of your clients, and certainly the ones over in Asia, are speaking about Lean and Toyota Production System and going to the Gemba and all of those terms. But I see a need to do a reverse Gemba and we'll talk about that.

 

0:19:49.6 Andrew Stotz: So, I just want to dig deeper into this a little bit just for my own selfish understanding, which I think will help the audience also. Let's go back in time and say that the, Toyota, let's take Toyota as an example because we can say maybe in the 60s or so, they started to really understand that the improvement of product quality, products and service quality and all that was a key thing that was important to them. But they also had a goal of expanding worldwide. And their first step with that maybe was, let's just say, the big step was expanding to the US. Now, in order to expand to the US successfully, it's going to take 10, maybe 20 years. In the beginning, the cars aren't going to fit the market, you're going to have to adapt and all that. So I can understand first, let's imagine that somebody says our constancy of purpose is to continuously improve or let's say, not continuously, but let's just go back to that statement just to keep it clear. Let's say, create constancy of purpose towards improvement of product and service with the aim to become competitive, stay in business and provide jobs.

 

0:21:07.2 Andrew Stotz: So the core constancy in that statement to me sounds like the improvement. And then if we say, okay, also our vision of where we want to be with this company is we want to capture, let's say, 5% of the US market share within the next 15 years or five or 10 years. So you've got to have constancy of that vision, repeating it, not backing down from it, knowing that you're going to have to modify it. But what's the difference between a management or a leadership team in the boardroom setting a commitment to improvement versus a commitment to a goal of let's say, expanding the market into the US. How do we think about those two.

 

0:21:53.6 Bill Scherkenbach: Well as you reread what I wrote there, which is Dr. Deming's words and they led into the, I forget what he called it, but he led into the progression of as you improve quality, you improve productivity, you reduce costs.

 

0:22:33.6 Andrew Stotz: Chain reaction.

 

0:22:34.5 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah, the chain reaction. That's a mini version of the chain reaction there. And at the time, that's what people should be signing up for. Now the thing is that doesn't, or at least the interpretations haven't really gone to the improvement of the board's decision-making process. I mean, where he was going for was you want to be able to do your market research because his sampling and doing the market research was able to close the loop to make that production view a system, a closed-loop system. And so you wanted to make sure that you're looking far enough out to be able to have a viable product or service and not get caught up in short-term thinking. Now, but again, short-term is relative. In the US, you had mentioned 10 or 20 years, Toyota, I would imagine they still are looking 100 years out. They didn't get suckered into the over-committing anyway to the electric vehicles. Plug-in hybrids, yes, hybrids yes, very efficient gas motors, yes. But their constancy of purpose is a longer time frame than the Western time frame.

 

0:24:27.1 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, that was a real attack on the structure that they had built to say when they were being told by the market and by everybody, investors, you've got to shift now, you've got to make a commitment to 100% EVs. I remember watching one of the boardroom, sorry, one of the shareholder meetings, and it's just exhausting, the pressure that they were under.

 

0:24:55.2 Bill Scherkenbach: Yep, yep. But there... Yeah.

 

0:25:00.0 Andrew Stotz: If we take a kid, a young kid growing up and we just say, look, your main objective, and my main objective with you is to every day improve. Whatever that is, let's say we're learning science.

 

0:25:17.3 Bill Scherkenbach: You're improving around your aim. What is your vision? What are you trying to accomplish? And that obviously, if you're you're saying a kid that could change otherwise there'd be an oversupply of firemen.

 

0:25:38.5 Andrew Stotz: So let's say that the aim was related to science. Let's say that the kid shows a really great interest in science and you're kind of coaching them along and they're like, "Help me, I want to learn everything I can in science." The aim may be a bit vague for the kid, but let's say that we narrow down that aim to say, we want to get through the main topics of science from physics to chemistry and set a foundation of science, which we think's going to take us a year to do that, let's just say. Or whatever. Whatever time frame we come up with, then every day the idea is, how do we number one improve around that aim? Are we teaching the right topics? Also, is there better ways of teaching? Like, this kid maybe learns better in the afternoon and in the morning, whereas another kid I may work with works better in another... And this kid likes five-minute modules and then some practical discussion, this kid likes, an hour of going deep into something and then having an experiment is when we're talking about improvement, is the idea that we're just always trying to improve around that aim until we reach a really optimized system? Is that what we're talking about when we're talking about constancy of purpose when it comes to improving product and service?

 

0:27:14.4 Bill Scherkenbach: Well there's a whole process that I take my clients through in coming up with their constancy of purpose statement. And the board should be looking at what the community is doing in the next five years, 10 years, where the market is going, where politics is going, all sorts of things. And some of it. I mean, specifically in the science area, it's fairly well recognized that the time of going generation to generation to generation has gone from years to maybe weeks where you have different iterations of technology. And so that's going to complicate stuff quite honestly, because what was good today can be, as Dr. Deming said, the world could change. And that's what you've got to deal with or you're out of business. Or you're out of relevance in what you're studying. And so you have to... If you if you have certain interests, and the interests are driven... It's all going to be internal. Some interests are driven because that's where I hear you can make the most money or that's where I hear you can make the most impact to society or whatever your internal interests are saying that those are key to establishing what your aim is.

 

0:29:25.7 Andrew Stotz: Okay. You've got some PowerPoints and we've been talking about some of it. But I just want to pull it up and make sure we don't miss anything. I think this is the first text page, maybe just see if there's anything you want to highlight from that. Otherwise we'll move to the next.

 

0:29:43.0 Bill Scherkenbach: No I think we've we've covered that. Yeah, yeah. And the second page. Yeah, I wanted to talk and I only mentioned it when the Lean folks and the Agile folks talk about Gemba, they're pretty much talking about getting the board out. It's the traditional management by walking around, seeing what happens. Hugely, hugely important. But one of the things, I had one of my clients. Okay, okay. No, that's in the the next one.

 

0:30:29.4 Andrew Stotz: There you go.

 

0:30:30.7 Bill Scherkenbach: Okay, yeah. I had one of one of my clients do a reverse Gemba. And that is, that the strategy committee would be coming up with strategies and then handing it off to the operators to execute. And that's pretty much the way stuff was done in this industry and perhaps in many of them. But what we did was we had the operators, the operating committee, the operations committee, sit in as a peanut gallery or a, oh good grief. Well, you couldn't say a thing, you could only observe what they were doing. But it helped the operators better understand and see and feel what the arguments were, what the discussions were in the strategy, so that they as operators were better able to execute the strategy. And so not the board going out and down, but the folks that are below going up if it helps them better execute what's going on. But vice versa, management can't manage the 94%, and Dr. Deming was purposely giving people marbles, sometimes he'd say 93.4%. You know the marble story?

 

0:32:37.5 Andrew Stotz: I remember that [laughter]. Maybe you should tell that again just because that was a fun one when he was saying to, give them marbles, and they gave me marbles back.

 

0:32:45.7 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, he said there was this professor in oral surgery that said there was a an Asian mouse or cricket, whatever, that would... You put in your mouth and they would eat all of the... Be able to clean the gums of all the bacteria better than anything. And described it in detail. And that question was on the test. Okay, please describe this mouse procedure. And he said all of the people, or a whole bunch of people except one, gave him back exactly step by step that he had taught. And one said, Professor, I've talked to other professors, I've looked around, I think you're loading us, that's what Deming said. And so he made the point that teaching should not be teachers handing out marbles and collecting the same marbles they they handed out. And so to some extent, he was testing, being overly precise.

 

0:34:12.8 Bill Scherkenbach: He wanted people to look into it, to see, go beyond as you were speaking of earlier, going beyond this shocking statement that there perhaps is some way that that really makes sense. So he wants you to study. Very Socratic in his approach to teaching in my opinion. And any event, management can't understand or make inputs on changing what the various levels of willing workers, and you don't have to be on the shop floor, you can be in the C-suite and be willing workers depending on how your company is operating. Go ahead.

 

0:35:12.0 Andrew Stotz: So let me... Maybe I can, just for people that don't know, Gemba is a Japanese word that means "the actual place," right? The place where the value is created.

 

0:35:23.8 Bill Scherkenbach: Sure.

 

0:35:26.2 Andrew Stotz: And the whole concept of this was that it's kind of almost nonsense to think that you could sit up in an office and run something and never see the location of where the problem's happening or what's going on. And all of a sudden many things become clear when you go to the location and try to dig down into it. However, from Dr. Deming context, I think what you're telling us is that if the leader doesn't have profound knowledge, all they're going to do is go to the location and chase symptoms and disrupt work, ultimately...

 

0:36:02.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Get the dog and pony shows and all of that stuff. And they still won't have a clue. The thing is...

 

0:36:08.6 Andrew Stotz: So the objective at the board level, if they were to actually go to the place, the objective is observation of the system, of how management decisions have affected this. What is the system able to produce? And that gives them a deeper understanding to think about what's their next decision that they've got to make in relation to this. Am I capturing it right or?

 

0:36:40.2 Bill Scherkenbach: Well there's a lot more to it, I think, because top management, the board level, are the ones that set the vision, the mission, the values, the guiding principle, and the questions. And I think it's incumbent on the board to be able to go through the ranks and see how their constancy of purpose, the intended, where they want to take the place is being interpreted throughout the organization because, and I know it's an oversimplification and maybe a broad generalization, but middle management... Well, there are layers of management everywhere based on their aim to get ahead, will effectively stop communication upstream and downstream in order to fill their particular aim of what they want to get out of it. And so this is a chance for the top management to see, because they're doing their work, establishing the vision of the company, which is the mission, values and questions, they really should be able to go layer by layer as they're walking around seeing how those, their constancy, their intended constancy is being interpreted and executed. And so that's where beyond understanding how someone is operating a lathe or an accountant is doing a particular calculation, return on invested capital, whatever.

 

0:38:47.5 Bill Scherkenbach: Beyond that, I think it's important for management to be able to absolutely see what is happening. But the Gemba that I originally spoke about is just the other way. You've got the strategy people that are higher up, and you have the operations people that are typically, well, they might be the same level, but typically lower. You want the lower people to sit in on some higher meetings so they have a better idea of the intent, management's intent in this constancy of purpose. And that will help them execute, operationalize what management has put on paper or however they've got it and are communicating it. It just helps. So when I talk about Gemba, I'm talking the place where the quality is made or the action is. As the boardroom, you need to be able to have people understand and be able to see what's going on there, and all the way up the chain and all the way down the chain.

 

0:40:14.4 Andrew Stotz: That's great one. I'm just visualizing people in the operations side thinking, we've got some real problems here and we don't really understand it. We've got to go to the actual place, and that's the boardroom[laughter]. It's not the factory line.

 

0:40:31.7 Bill Scherkenbach: Yes. Absolutely. And if the boardroom says you're not qualified, then shame on you, the boardroom, are those the people you're hiring? So no, it goes both ways, both ways.

 

0:40:46.8 Andrew Stotz: Now, you had a final slide here. Maybe you want to talk a little bit about some of the things you've identified here.

 

0:40:53.4 Bill Scherkenbach: Okay, that's getting back to, in the logical area of this TDQA is my cycle: Theory, question, data, action. And it's based on Dr. Deming and Shewhart and Lewis saying, where do questions come from? They're based on theory. What do you do with questions? Well, the answers to questions are your data. And you're just not going to do nothing with data, you're supposed to take action. What are you going to do with it? And so the theory I'm going to address, the various questions I've found helpful in order to, to some extent, make the decisions better, the ability to operationalize them better and perhaps even be more creative, if you will. And so one of the questions I ask any team is, have you asked outside experts their opinion? Have you included them? Have you included someone to consistently, not consistently, but to take a contrarian viewpoint that their job in this meeting is to play the devil's advocate? And the theory is you're looking for a different perspective as Pete Jessup at Ford came up with that brilliant view of Escher's.

 

0:42:47.1 Bill Scherkenbach: Different perspectives are going to help you make a better decision. And so you want to get out of the echo chamber and you want to be challenged. Every team should be able to have some of these on there. What's going to get delayed? The underlying theory or mental model is, okay, you don't have people sitting around waiting for this executive committee to come up with new things, time is a zero-sum game. What's going to get delayed and what are they willing to get delayed if this is so darn important to get done? Decision criteria. I've seen many teams where they thought that the decision would be a majority rule. They discuss and when it came down to submit it, they said, "no, no, this VP is going to make the decision." And so that completely sours the next team to do that. And so you have to be, if you're saying trust, what's your definition of trust? If the people know that someone is going to make the decision with your advice or the executive's going to get two votes and everyone else gets one, or it's just simple voting.

 

0:44:35.3 Bill Scherkenbach: The point is that making the decision and taking it to the next level, the theory is you've got to be specific and relied on. Team turnover, fairly simple. We spoke about executive turnover, which was a huge concern that Dr. Deming had about Western management. But at one major auto company, we would have product teams and someone might be in charge of, be a product manager for a particular model car. Well, if that person was a hard charger and it took product development at the time was three and a half years, you're going to get promoted from a director level to a VP halfway through and you're going to screw up the team, other team members will be leaving as well because they have careers. You need to change the policy just to be able to say, if you agree that you're going to lead this team, you're going to lead it from start to finish and to minimize the hassle and the problems and the cost of turnover, team turnover. And this is a short list of stuff, but it's very useful to have a specific "no-fault policy."

 

0:46:20.6 Bill Scherkenbach: And this is where Dr. Deming speaks about reducing fear. I've seen teams who know they can really, once management turns on the spigot and says, let's really do this, this is important, the team is still hesitant to really let it go because that management might interpret that as saying, "well, what are you doing, slacking off the past year?" As Deming said, "why couldn't you do that if you could do it with no method, why didn't you do it last year?" but the fear in the organization, well, we're going to milk it. And so all of these things, it helps to be visible to everyone.

 

0:47:23.0 Andrew Stotz: So, I guess we should probably wrap up and I want to go back to where we started. And first, we talked about, where is quality made? And we talked about the boardroom. Why is this such an important topic from your perspective? Why did you want to talk about it? And what would you say is the key message you want to get across from it?

 

0:47:47.1 Bill Scherkenbach: The key message is that management thinks quality's made in operations. And it's the quality of the... I wanted to put a little bit more meat, although there's a lot more meat, we do put on it. But the quality of the organization, I wanted to make the point depends on the quality of the decisions, that's their output that top leaders make, whether it's the board or the C-suite or any place making decisions. The quality of your decisions.

 

0:48:28.9 Andrew Stotz: Excellent. And I remember, this reminds me of when I went to my first Deming seminar back in 1990, roughly '89, maybe '90. And I was a young guy just starting as a supervisor at a warehouse in our Torrance plant at Pepsi, and Pepsi sent me there. And I sat in the front row, so I didn't pay attention to all the people behind me, but there was many people behind me and there was a lot of older guys. Everybody technically was pretty much older than me because when I was just starting my career. And it was almost like these javelins were being thrown from the stage to the older men in the back who were trying to deal with this, and figure out what's coming at them, and that's where I kind of really started to understand that this was a man, Dr. Deming, who wasn't afraid to direct blame at senior management to say, you've got to take responsibility for this. And as a young guy seeing all kinds of mess-ups in the factory every day that I could see, that we couldn't really solve. We didn't have the tools and we couldn't get the resources to get those tools.

 

0:49:47.9 Andrew Stotz: It just really made sense to me. And I think the reiteration of that today is the idea, as I'm older now and I look at what my obligation is in the organizations I'm working at, it's to set that constancy of purpose, to set the quality at the highest level that I can. And the discussion today just reinforced it, so I really enjoyed it.

 

0:50:11.2 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, that's great. I mean, based on that observation, Dr. Deming many times said that the master chef is the person who knows no fear, and he was a master chef putting stuff together. And we would talk about fairly common knowledge that the great artists, the great thinkers, the great producers were doing it for themselves, it just happened that they had an audience. The music caught on, the poetry caught on, the painting caught on, the management system caught on. But we're doing it for ourselves with no fear. And that's the lesson.

 

0:51:11.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. Well, I hope that there's a 24-year-old out there right now listening to this just like I was, or think about back in 1972 when you were sitting there listening to his message. And they've caught that message from you today. So I appreciate it, and I want to say on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, of course, thank you so much for this discussion and for people who are listening and interested, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And of course, you can reach Bill on LinkedIn, very simple. He's out there posting and he's responding. So feel free if you've got a question or comment or something, reach out to him on LinkedIn and have a discussion. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'm going to leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, and it doesn't change. It is, "people are entitled to joy in work."