Reconciliation of differences in organizational and strategic leadership

Edwards Deming, Mary P. Follett and Frederick W. Taylor: reconciliation of differences in organizational and strategic leadership

Lonnie D. Phelps


Much has been written and researched about Deming’s ‘total quality management’ (TQM), Follett’s ‘law of situation’, and Taylor’s ‘scientific management’. Yet, these management scholars differ in their organizational and strategic leadership abilities and practices and remained in three different corners of a triangle. Though the differences in their thinking may be attributed to the changing nature of management as a discipline over a period of time and consequent changes in the fractionalized corporate ownership, there are some interesting commonalities found in their approaches. The purpose of this paper is to highlight some of the commonalities between total quality and scientific management, and explain how Follett’s law of situation bridges the gap between these seemingly different approaches. The commonalities found in Taylor, Follett and Deming provide enduring lessons for the practitioners and academicians, and enrich the organizational and strategic leadership literature.


A review of the scientific management theory of Taylor, total quality management perspective of Deming, and systems thinking of Follett gives an impression that these scholars differ dramatically in their approaches apples to oranges (and grapes). However, by turning to the original works of Taylor, Deming and Follett (rather than others’ interpretations) one may opine that Taylor’s ideas have reemerged in the form of Deming’s quality management and Follett’s systems thinking paved a bridge between these perceived polar theories. This paper is divided into four sections. The first section gives a brief description of Deming’s total quality management (TQM); the second compares the scientific management principles of Taylor with TQM; and the third section compares Follett’s theory with Deming’s. In the final section we synthesize these approaches, contrary to the conventional wisdom, and conclude that these theories have more in common than it would seem.


Deming, with a doctorate in mathematical physics from Yale and a nomination for the Nobel Prize in 1992, was an extraordinary and remarkable individual. In fact, Deming was an institution in himself (he passed away in December 1993 at the age of 93 years), and an astute businessman who brought Japan back from the ashes of the World War II. In his time, Deming was the most powerful management consultant anywhere in the world, and a friend-consultant-advisor who made the Japanese post-second world war miracle possible (Stupak, 1999). Unsurprisingly, the emphasis on ‘quality’ placed the Japanese companies on the Fortune list. Having acted as a savior of Japan for three decades, Deming was invited by US business houses to make recommendations for retaining competitive strength and ensuring corporate survival. Deming pointed out seven deadly sins that plagued American businesses and suggested fourteen remedies in his outstanding book, “Out of Crisis”, published in 1986. By the 1990’s, American companies unquestionably started implementing the magic ‘quality pill’ as advocated by Deming in order to come ‘out of crisis’. The deadly sins and Deming’s 14 points are summarized in Table 1.

Several scholars have documented the importance of Deming’s legacy in the development of what is commonly known as Total Quality Management (TQM), although Deming himself never used the term TQM (Vinzant & Vinzant, 1999). According to Deming, “Western style of management must change to halt the decline of Western industry, and to turn it upward. There must be awakening to the crisis, followed by action–management’s job. The transformation can only be accomplished by man, not by hardware (computers, gadgets, automation, and new machinery). A company cannot buy its way into quality” (Deming, 1986: 18). Deming suggested a total transformation through four major themes, which refers to the system of ‘profound knowledge’. The themes are:

a. appreciation of the system (i.e. interdependence of all the organizational units that work to accomplish the goals in an organization)

b. knowledge of variation (i.e. understanding what variables can reveal about the capabilities of the system)

c. understanding of the theory of knowledge

d. psychology (i.e. intrinsic motivation)

Deming’s theory of knowledge is derived from the work of Lewis (1929), who taught that knowledge is built on theory, observation of the past, and predictions about future outcomes. Deming contends that rational prediction requires theory and builds knowledge through systematic revision based on the comparison of actual outcome with the predicted one. Deming asserts that “information, no matter how complete and speedy, is not knowledge. Knowledge has temporal speed. Without theory, there is no way to use the information that comes to us on the instant” (Deming, 1993: 104-105). In addition, Deming contends that the system of profound knowledge as outlined in the four major themes will enable managers to make the transformation necessary for survival and success in volatile economic climates.

At the time when Japanese companies were doing well, American businesses were showing downturn. The characteristics of American businesses during early 1980’s were: (a) short-term orientation, (b) declining R&D expenditures, (c) declining capital investment, (d) sluggish productivity growth over the period 1960-68 (USA was last out of the ten industrialized countries; Japan was first), (e) excessive concern with marketing and reliance on the power of the marketing effort to ‘shift produce’, (f) excessive promotion of people with finance and/or law background to the top management with a corresponding neglect of people with engineering background, (g) pseudo-professionalism, and (h) a preoccupation with mergers and acquisitions at the expense of product development (Haynes & Albernathy, 1980). Thus, American businesses experienced a market deterioration of competitive vigor and a growing unease about its overall economic well-being. Japanese companies earned success because they followed a simple formula, i.e. competing over the long run by offering superior products. As expected, Japanese companies were committed to compete in the global marketplace on technological grounds (Lawrence, 1996). Much credit goes to Deming who advocated that Japanese firms compete on the basis of quality of output, rather than quantity. In retrospect, it may be safely inferred that some of the problems faced by American businesses could have been averted had they followed Deming’s messages three decades earlier.


Taylor was interested in achieving efficiency in the production processes. He advocated scientific study of the work to determine a proper day’s work, and called on management to implement the standardization of procedures to complete the work. He also suggested that management send a ‘competent teacher to guide, help and encourage’ (Taylor, 1911: 70) when workers repeatedly failed to do a task. Deming expressed the same content using the statistical control theory using different terminology. For example, what Taylor classifies as a ‘proper day’s work’ is equivalent to ‘process capability’ in Deming’s terminology. Furthermore, Taylor’s suggestion of involving a competent teacher to help guide the failing worker is akin to taking necessary rectificational measures in Deming’s terminology. When Taylor emphasized efficiency, Deming went one step further and suggested that quality is antecedent to efficiency. Deming’s philosophy has its roots in statistical theory, which involves stochastic analysis of processes. Deming was interested in measurement and analysis of how variation can erode the quality of both products and processes. While Deming focuses on variation in the quality, Taylor’s emphasis was on variation in the production by individual workers.

Taylor was discredited for his purely scientific approach and neglecting the human element partly because his messages were not interpreted in proper perspective. However, Taylor did emphasize the development of workers and expressed his concern for their welfare. For instance, according to Taylor, “The principal object of management should be to secure maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employee … maximum prosperity means not only higher wages than are usually received by men of his class, but, of more importance still it also means the development of each man to his state of maximum efficiency, so that he may be able to do, generally speaking, the highest grade of work for which his natural abilities fit him, and it further means giving him, when possible, this class of work to do” (Taylor, 1911: 9). Taylor was very emphatic about improving the system (through efficiency), which is the capstone of Deming’s philosophy. Deming recommends constant improvement in the system to improve quality and productivity and thus decrease costs. Deming recommends Shewhart Cycle or PDCA (i.e. plan, do, check, and act) to ensure continued improvement in the system of production (Deming, 1986). As Deming suggests, “improvement of the process includes better allocation of human effort. It includes selection of people, their placement, their training, to give everyone, including production workers, a chance to advance their learning and to contribute to the best of their talents. It means removal of barriers to pride of workmanship both for production workers and for management and engineers” (Deming, 1986: 51).

Taylor and Deming offer the same perspectives with regard to the selection of workers. Taylor contends that management should “scientifically select and then train, teach, and develop the workman, whereas in the past he chose his own work and trained himself as best as he could” (Taylor, 1911: p.36). In the similar vein, Deming argues that “the aim of leadership should be to improve the performance of man and machine, to improve quality, to increase output, and simultaneously to bring pride of workmanship to people …; the aim of leadership is to help people do a better job with less effort” (Deming, 1986: p.249).

The similarities and differences between Taylor and Deming are captured in Table 2.


Mary Parker Follett (1868-1933) was a philosopher and political scientist. She was primarily interested in studying interactions between individuals and groups in society. She believed that individuals have the incredible potential to grow personally and also develop groups in which they operate. Follett viewed business as a social setting rather than purely an ‘economic setting’. She argued for the substitution of demographic authority in place of Weberian bureaucratic authority and suggested networks of people involved in all stages of production process. She was, in this sense, way ahead of her time. Some of the major contributions of Follett include (a) the development of a relational concept of authority that relied on the ‘law of situation’; (b) the importance of participatory decision making, and (c) the importance of group processes characterized by reciprocity and inter-penetration of conflicting ideas of individuals. These processes of reciprocal conditioning and evocation are central to Deming’s notion of total quality management (Fry & Thomas, 1996).

One of the hallmarks of Follett’s philosophy is that an organization should keep abreast of its changing external environment and the features of its internal environment. Follett maintained that the coherence/fit between external environment and internal environment is the guideline for the success of an organization. She argued that coherence is created when collective action responds to and anticipates both internal and external situational imperatives. Understanding of the view from each department and the perspective of each employee involved in a situation is fundamental in securing the benefits of the whole organization. The law of situation implies that all the organizational participants should be united in discovering and obeying specific situational laws (Eylon, 1998).

According to Follett, true power is ‘power with’ another, not ‘power over’ another. Until everyone within an organization realizes that they are bound together, each will see only their ‘own’ situation. In a contrast, ‘power with’ can come only from obedience to a single, ‘shared situation’. Follett called this ‘the law of situation’. The essence of this philosophy is that one person should not give orders to another person, but both should agree to take their orders from the situation. This gradually paved the way toward what is presently known as ’empowerment’.

Follett’s contributions are linked with Deming’s 14 points through (a) creation of corporate culture, (b) promoting teamwork, and (c) organizational design (See Figure 1).


Follett’s philosophy of teamwork can be seen in Deming’s language when he explains the need for consistency of effort. According to Deming, “suppose that (1) everybody knew what to do, (2) everybody did his best. Result: dissipation of knowledge and effort; results, far from optimum. There is no substitute for teamwork and good leaders of teams to bring consistency of effort, along with knowledge” (1986: p 19).

Follett emphasized the importance of horizontal authority, empowerment, constructive conflict, and cross-functional teamwork in making business a social institution. Follett’s identification of the importance of horizontal authority is found in creation of cross-functional committees and conferences of parallel heads. As a departure from formal authority, Follett prescribed empowerment because she believed that power conferred always fails and reiterated that the most effective way to exercise authority is to depersonalize the giving of orders and emphasize the importance of task. Follett’s concept of mutual problem solving by participative management and employee involvement is insightful philosophical foundation to the conflict management. It is important to create organizational design to show the importance of reciprocal relationships, instead of focusing only on task. Crating corporate culture, actions to promote teamwork and decisions about organizational design are the means to achieve Follett’s principle messages.

Deming’s creation of constancy of purpose, ceasing dependence on mass inspection and adopting a new philosophy reflect creating the corporate culture as espoused by Follett. Further, Deming’s ways of promoting teamwork involve education and training the employees and removing barriers. Deming’s approach of changing structure involve improvement in the total system and driving the employees out of fear, and put an end to reward based on price alone.


As the objective of this paper is to reconcile the seemingly contradictory theories and philosophies of three well known scholars in the field of management viz., Taylor, Follett and Deming, we attempt to provide Follett’s philosophy as the bridge between Taylor’s scientific management principles and Deming’s 14 points to bring the organizations out of crisis. (See Figure 2) on the following page.



Taylor’s managerial philosophy, as espoused in principles of scientific management, provide the basis for focusing on increased performance. Taylor was aware of the quality requirements and efficiency and insisted on (a) scientific methods of working replacing the rule-of-thumb method, (b) the scientific selection of employees, (c) scientific education and development, and (d) friendly cooperation between management and employees. Through these principles Taylor believed that employees would be able to share responsibility with the management and make the workplace a success. Further, Taylor advocated for the management to develop every branch of the business to the ‘best’ state of excellence. Taylor, however, was criticized for advocating the ‘best’ way of doing things, since, critics argue, it is almost impossible to find the single ideal way of performing a task.

Follett’s philosophy of management is understood from her innovative ideas of empowerment, cross-functional teamwork, horizontal communication, adaptive behavior, and the role of conflict in organizations in the development of entrepreneurial spirit. Moving away from the Taylorian concept of vertical authority, Follett believed that authority should be based on function rather than position, and that authority is exercised in reciprocally conditioned relationships dominated by an impersonal ‘law of the situation’ (Fry & Thomas, 1996). Follett emphasized participatory decision making so that employees would be able to contribute to the organization in a productive way. Further, instead of top-down authority, Follett emphasized bottom-up authority. She therefore advocated a totally new approach to management, which became forerunner of current management practices.

Deming’s philosophy of management is centered on core processes and quality of products and services. He emphasized total quality management in the sense that managers need to continuously monitor production process, give quality the top priority, and define quality standards precisely so that customers will be able to understand what the firm is producing. Deming also argued that management should involve everyone in the continuous improvement process.

Follett has systematically integrated the ideas of scientific management and human relations school of management and provided a bridge, which foretold the later writing of total quality management guru, Deming (Graham, 1995). Follett, the pragmatic prophet, examined the effects and consequences of social processes in the efficiency-driven world of work (Snider, 2000). Follett also emphasized “the need to resolve conflict through integrative unity the advantage depending on the law of the situation” (Metcalf & Urwick, 1941: 59).


Taylor’s scientific management emphasizes the best methods and tools so that employees will be able to achieve efficiency in output. He focused on preventing deliberate soldiering (i.e. under-working). In addition to second-class (lazy) workers, Taylor was concerned about “larger wastes of human effort, which go on everyday through blundering, ill-directed, or inefficient actions” (Taylor, 1911: 5). He therefore considered training and education as important parts of management of people at work.

Deming concurs with Taylor’s ideas and claims that the “greatest waste in America is the failure to use the abilities of people” (Deming, 1986: 52); thus, it is essential that management provide training to employees in order for workers to satisfy the customers. Taylor believed that management should scientifically select workers and then “train, teach and develop the workman” (Taylor, 1911: 36). Deming goes one step further and recommends that old workers should be in a position to provide training to new workers (Deming, 1986: 53). Taylor placed heavy emphasis on training of employees and equated it with the ‘training of a surgeon’ (Taylor, 1911: 126).

Follett’s bridge with regard to training the employees can be seen in her advocacy of empowerment. Follett recommends that workers in a social setting should share and develop individual skills through effective cooperation with other people. She also contended that the real service of business is to develop individuals through coordination of relationships such that group activities enhance the individual potential of members. The essence is the creation of organizational synergy. In the process of cooperation and coordination, members provide training for each other and contribute to the development of the organization as a whole. Follett contends that empowerment is an ongoing process, which results in the development of new abilities and insights and provides boundless resources for the organization (Florin & Wandersman, 1990; Vogt & Murrell, 1990). Deming’s points 8, 10, 12, and 13 are related to management of people and these reflect the basic underlying philosophy of Follett. For example, following Follett’s ’empowerment’, Deming theorizes that employees will be able to ‘drive out fear’ and the leaders will be able to lead and manage with knowledge rather than by ‘slogans’. While providing empowerment, management will be able to ‘remove barriers that rob people of pride in their work’. Thus, empowerment is the key to manage employees effectively.


While Taylor emphasized the importance of achieving ‘efficiency’ by focusing on time and methods study and concentrating on the ‘best’ methods of production, Deming focused on improvement in production process and ensuring ‘quality’. Though both Taylor and Deming argue that efficiency is important, they differ with regard to the methods of achieving efficiency. Taylor believed that improvement in work occurs only through careful and continued study of work, and finding best processes and methods through implementation of best methods (Taylor, 1911: 25). Since in those days statistical quality control techniques were not available, Taylor used methods that were tested and also encouraged the workers to ‘suggest improvements’ both in methods and in implementation process (Taylor, 1911: 128). Taylor contended that if the new method suggested by the workers was “better than the current method it would be adopted as the standard for the whole establishment” (Taylor, 1911: 128). According to Deming, continued improvement in process is possible through customer satisfaction rather than by fulfilling the quota. Further, using statistical control charts, Deming suggests plotting data and studying the results to identify the special and common cause of variation.

It is interesting that Follett also focused on ‘process’ rather than ‘product’ or function. Follett contended that organizational synergy is the core of all organizational functioning and is possible only by achieving functional unity. Continuous improvement in quality is possible only when the organization focuses on the ‘process’ as dictated by the law of situation. Thus, Follett bridges the gap between the Taylorian concept of achieving efficiency and the quality management of Deming through the focus on process as situation demands.


Securing workplace cooperation is important, according to Taylor, to increase efficiency in the production process. Taylor highly recommends coordination between management and workers and suggests that management should change the system such that ‘interests of workmen and the management should become the same (congruent), instead of antagonistic (incongruent)” (Taylor, 1911: 53). To do this, Taylor advocated breaking the job into some basic elements so that workers study the job well and improve while working. Taylor recommended that eight functional foremen (Taylor, 1911: 122) will act as specialists to aid the workers and achieve ‘personal cooperation between the management and the men’ (Taylor, 1911: 26). Functional foremen were supposed to be the “expert teachers, who are at all times in the shop, helping and directing the workmen” (Taylor, 1911: 124).

Deming’s approach of securing workplace cooperation is somewhat different from that of Taylor’s. Deming was of the view that, instead of breaking the job into elements, it is necessary to ‘break down the barriers between staff areas’ (see point #9 from Table 1). Deming considers that 12

while appraising performance and determining the variation in performance, it is necessary to see if the variation is caused by the system itself. Contrary to the Taylorian concept of ‘knowledge of work’ as the basis of cooperation, ‘knowledge of system’ is the basis of cooperation according to Deming.

Follett provides an interesting link between these slightly different approaches. Follett argues that by changing organizational design, introducing empowerment, and cross-functional teamwork, organizations will be able to secure workplace cooperation. Further, Follett proposed a new kind of cooperative conflict resolution resulting in win-win situations for both management and workers. She advocated flatter organizations and opined that cross-functional teams and participative management is the key to achieve workplace cooperation. Cross-functioning would foster a freer exchange of knowledge within organizations. Thus, Follett provides a bridge of ‘knowledge’ as the basis for securing cooperative workplace–the basis also incorporated by Deming. Taylor’s functional foremanship is embedded in Follett’s cross-functional teams.


In this short essay we attempted to provide a link between Taylor’s scientific management and Deming’s total quality management through Follett’s innovative ideas on management. The differences in thinking of these three scholars may be primarily due to differences in the way ‘management’ was thought and progressed as a discipline. As the work on management progressed from procedures, techniques, methods and practices to processes and human relationships, the thinking of the scholars also a reflection of these changes. One should acknowledge that increasingly fractionalized corporate ownership is one of the contributory factors in thinking by different scholars at different time periods. Despite the differences, there were some common denominators that we tried to capture in this paper.

Follett’s contributions were largely unheralded for over five decades, but now some scholars are calling her ‘the pragmatic prophet of management’ (Graham, 1995). At the time when Follett developed innovative ideas (during early the 1920s and 30s), Taylor’s scientific management was in full swing in both US and UK and this may be one of the reasons why organizations did not realize the contributions of Follett. Follett advocated several concepts well ahead of her time: empowerment, flatter organizational structures, work teams and cooperative labor-management relations (Linden, 1995). These concepts foretold Deming’s ideology of bringing total quality management. Deming’s outline of 14 points and focus on managerial leadership, knowledge of people, and statistical science for continuous improvements can be successfully linked to Follett’s innovative ideas of cross-functional teams, horizontal authority, empowerment, power and conflict. In turn, these provide a necessary link between scientific management principles and total quality management. It is fitting to quote Rossler & Beruvides (1994) who boldly state that, “perhaps too many people are just a little too willing to let others interpret for them what others have written or said or done. An elaborate game of telephone then plays itself out” (1994:15). Thus, to fully understand the contributions of Follett as a bridge between Taylor and Deming we encourage you to read the original works of these three scholars.


Deming, W.E. (1986). Out of the Crisis, Cambridge, MA: MIT, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.

Deming, W.E. (1993). The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education, Cambridge, KA: MIT Press.

Florin, P & Wandersman, A. (1990). An introduction to citizen participation, voluntary organization, and community development: Insights for empowerment through research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1): 41-54.

Follett, M.P. (1924). Creative experience, London: Longmans, Green & Co.

Fry, B.R., & Thomas, L.L.(1996). Mary Parker Follett: assessing the contribution and impact of her writings, Journal of Management History, 2(2):12-19.

Graham, P. 1995. Mary Parker Follett–Prophet of management: A celebration of writings from the 1920s. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Hayes, R.H & Abernathy, W.(1980). Managing our way to economic decline, Harvard Business Review, July-August. Lawrence, P. (1996). Management in the USA, London: Sage Publications.

Lewis, C.I.(1929). Mind and The World Order: an Outline of a Theory of Knowledge New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, reprinted in paperback by Dover Publications, Inc. New York, 1956.

Linden, D.W. (1995). The mother of them all, Forbes, 155(2): 75

Metcalf, H.C., & Urwick, L.(1941). Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett. New York: Harper & Row.

Rossler, P.E., & Beruvides, M.G. (1994). Management theory deja vu? Scientific and total quality management, Engineering Management Journal, 6(2): 6-15.

Snider, K. (2000). Rethinking public administration’s roots in pragmatism: The case of Charles A. Beard. American Review of Public Administration, 30(2), 123-145.

Taylor, F.W. (1903). Shop Management, American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Taylor, F.W. (1972). Testimony before the Special House Committee, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Taylor, F. W. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management, New York: Norton.

Vinzant, J.C., & Vinzant, D.H. (1999). Strategic management spin-offs of the Deming approach, Journal of Management History, 5(8): 516-531.

Voehl, F. (1995). Deming: The way we knew him, Florida: Lucie Press.

Vogt, J.F & Murrell, K.L. (1990). Empowerment in organizations: How to spark exceptional performance. San Diego, CA: University Associates, Inc.

Lonnie D. Phelps, McNeese State University

Satyanarayana Parayitam, McNeese State University

Bradley J. Olson, University of Lethbridge

Table 1: Deadly diseases and prescriptions by Deming

Diseases that plagued the companies The prescriptions advocated by

in the Western world (Deming, Deming (Deming, 1986: pp 23-24)

1986: pp 96-97)

1. Lack of constancy of purpose 1. Create constancy of purpose

for improvement of product and


2. Emphasis on short-run profits 2. Adopt the new philosophy

3. Evaluation by performance, 3. Create dependence on mass

merit rating and annual review inspection

of performance

4. Mobility of management 4. End the practice of awarding

the business on the price tag


5. Running company on visible 5. Improve constantly and forever

figures alone the system of production and


6. Excessive medical costs for 6. Institute training

employee health care, which

increase the final cost of

goods and services

7. Excessive cost of warranty, 7. Institute leadership

fueled by lawyers who work

on the basis of contingency fees

8. Drive out fear

9. Breakdown barriers between

staff areas

10. Eliminate slogans, exhorta-

tions and targets for workforce

11. Eliminate numerical quotas

12. Remove barriers to pride of


13. Institute a rigorous program

of education and training.

14. Take action to accomplish the


Table 2: Taylor vs Deming (Some points of similarities and differences)

Viewpoint Taylor’s Organizational and

Strategic Leadership

1 Control of business Established by staffing positions of

(Difference) responsibility and authority with

professional managers trained in the

theory of scientific management and

systems analysis (Taylor, 1911: p.36)

2. Division and concurrency Improvements occur because of

of work (Similarity) management’s increasing division of

work, and increasing concurrency i.e.

different aspects of work being done

at the same time, within a project or

process (Taylor, 1911: p 37)

3 Using systems Develop systems to perform

(Similarity) repetitive tasks (Taylor, 1911:

p 135)

4 Optimum systems The optimum system is created by

(Difference) proper formulation of the objectives

of the system and evaluation of

alternatives to meet those objectives.

To create optimum system, adequate

information is available (Taylor,

1911: p 137; Taylor, Shop

Management, 1911: p 135)

5 Finding of causes Upon proper installation of system,

(Difference) any failure to meet standards or

stated objectives must come from

outside the system. (Taylor, 1911: pp


6. Role of Management Continuous monitoring of the status

(Difference) of system for deviations from the

system objectives to see if proper

selection, poor motivation,

inadequate training, or inefficient

supervision are the causes of

deviation. (Taylor, 1911: p.152)

7. Control Control is the goal and management

(Difference) is the most important. (Taylor, 1911

: p.9)

8. Leadership Goal of leadership is to secure

(Difference) maximum efficiency in the system.

Prescriptive method is recommended.

(Taylor, 1911: p.10)

9. Cooperation Enforcement of goal is done by strict

(Difference) adherence to standards and offering

threats if standards are not met.

(Taylor, 1911: p26)

Viewpoint Deming’s Organizational and

Strategic Leadership

1 Control of business Established by leadership and

(Difference) cooperation (Deming, 1986: p. 117)

2. Division and concurrency Improvements are primarily due to

of work (Similarity) increasing division of work, and

creativity, and to increasing

concurrency, within a project or

process, or among projects or

processes (Deming, 1986: p 122)

3 Using systems Develop systems to perform

(Similarity) repetitive tasks (Deming, 1986: p


4 Optimum systems The optimum system does not exist in

(Difference) organizations. Every system must be

analyzed to understand natural

behavior of the system and variation

within it. Information for creating the

optimum system is unknown and

unknowable. (Deming, pp 336-338)

5 Finding of causes Even upon the installation of system,

(Difference) inconsistencies and contradictions

might be apparent and periodical

analysis is necessary to detect and

isolate the built-in flaws in the

system itself. (Deming, pp 306-311)

6. Role of Management Create a secure environment free

(Difference) from fear so that the defects in the

system can be identified and rectified.

Secure environment offers support,

reassurance and appreciation for

workers. (Deming, pp 59-62)

7. Control Control is the effect and everyone is

(Difference) important. (Deming, pp59)

8. Leadership Goals of leadership are to help

(Difference) people, learning, set and reset the

goals of the organization. The method

is example. (Deming, p 249)

9. Cooperation An effect of leadership is seen in

(Difference) making people feel secure. (Deming,


COPYRIGHT 2007 The DreamCatchers Group, LLC

COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning