Pragmatism is the foundation upon which Deming formulated and developed his
theory of quality. While providing us with his theory of quality, Deming also
provided an answer to one of his most famous questions; "By what method!?" The
answer is contained within the system of profound knowledge. Intimate
understanding of the system of profound knowledge will not provide one with
metaphysical truths, but rather, will provide one with the basis for
understanding the organization as a system and point to the method for a pursuit
of quality. The component parts of the system of profound knowledge demonstrate
employment of the pragmatic method. The pragmatic method, according to William
James, "tries to interpret each notion by tracing its respective practical
consequences . . ." The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in
the way of belief, and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons.
That pragmatism is the basis of Deming's theories is no accident. Often
called the philosophy of business, pragmatism reveals the uniquely American
trait of problem solving through invention, science and democratic means. That
it is associated with business reveals the entrepreneurial spirit which
accompanies a democracy. There are direct and indirect connections between the
leading proponents of pragmatism to Deming. The pragmatic 'lineage,' so to
speak, will be traced through the pragmatist and empiricist philosophers Peirce,
James, Dewey, Lewis, and Bridgman, to the pragmatic practitioners, Shewhart and
Deming.
The Foundations
When considering the intellectual foundations of W. Edwards Deming's theory
of quality, proper consideration must be given to the philosophical and the
scientific heritages. Inherent in each was the impulse towards fusion with the
other. Deming's conception of philosophy must be viewed in the same way as his
conception of science because, instrumentally, they are nearly
indistinguishable. Philosophy, therefore, is at the core of Deming's theory of
management.
The seeds of the theory of quality seemed to have been planted at a point
when the world's information and knowledge base had reached a critical mass and
had figuratively exploded as an act of creation. The advances in the hard and
theoretical sciences against the backdrop of philosophy and the emerging "human
relations movement" in the workplace combined and contributed to the conditions
conducive to Deming's theoretical postulating. No discussion of Deming's
teachings would be complete without an account of those individuals who
influenced him. From two of the pioneer statisticians, R. A. Fisher and Jerzey
Neyman came the design of modern statistics including Fisher's contribution in
the analysis of variance. Fisher's and Neyman's impact upon Deming cannot be
understated. Not only were they the pioneers in the discipline that Deming chose
to go into, but Deming actually went to England in 1936 to study directly under
them.
Deming also owed an intellectual debt to P. W. Bridgman who established the
use of operational definitions in physics. It is very interesting to note that
Sir Percy Bridgman's name and achievements in the development of operationalism
appear under "Pragmatism" in Runes' Dictionary of Philosophy. This occurs, I
believe, because Bridgman's operationalism is very much akin to the pragmatic
concept of experimentalism. According to the Dictionary of Philosophy, "if the
operation is (or can be) carried out, the proposition has meaning; if the
consequences which it forecasts occur, it is true, has 'warranted assertibility'
or probability." The Dictionary's explanation of operationalism also underscores
the pragmatic theory of knowledge, namely that knowledge concerns
prediction:
Scientific propositions are, roughly speaking, predictions and a
prediction is an if-then proposition: If certain operations are performed, then
certain phenomena having determinate properties will be observed.
Bridgman was a physicist and, philosophically, he considered himself to be an
operationalist and an empiricist. Bridgman's emphasis on operationalism and
operational definitions, however, place him as an important contributor to
pragmatic thought. Bridgman's own formulation of operationalism is very
comparable with and expresses the same viewpoint and sentiment as the pragmatic
maxim:
In general we mean by any concept nothing more than a set of operations; the concept is synonymous with the corresponding set of operations.
The fact that Bridgman's quote is found both in Deming's Out of the Crisis
and in Runes' Dictionary of Philosophy, under the section on pragmatism
underscores the similarities between Deming and the pragmatists. Interestingly,
Deming bemoaned the fact that one is more likely to learn about operational
definitions and operationalism "in colleges of liberal arts, in courses in
philosophy and theory of knowledge, but hardly ever in schools of business or
engineering in the United States." Bridgman emphasized that clarity of language
and meaning was critical to all who engaged in science. Deming devoted a whole
chapter of Out of the Crisis to operational definitions and, of course, cited
Bridgman as the source.
Walter A. Shewhart's influence on Deming demands special note. Most of
Deming's pragmatism came to him through Shewhart. It was Shewhart who introduced
Deming to the works of C. I. Lewis, a leading logician and 'conceptionalistic
pragmatist.' Shewhart was deeply concerned with statistical theory and how it
could be put to work to serve the needs of industry. Described in a Quality
Progress Profile, he was noted as a man of science who patiently developed and
tested his ideas and the ideas of others. He was also described as an astute
observer of developments in the world of science and technology. Perhaps the
most historic occasion for the field of quality control was when, in 1924,
Shewhart proposed the control chart to his superiors.
Shewhart was what could be called a practitioner of pragmatism. He was
concerned with the application of philosophy in the real world. Such an
application is very much in line with what pragmatism is all about as it was
intended to be used for earthly and practical concerns. Pragmatism, again,
should be considered a method of philosophy as well as a philosophical method
for life. It is what James called, ". . . against dogma, artificiality, and the
pretense of any finality in truth." Shewhart was not a philosopher, rather, he
used pragmatism as a method of science. The Shewhart Cycle, later know as the
PDCA Cycle and, most recently, the PDSA Cycle, was developed as a tangible and
pragmatic method of verification. This was an embodiment of the pragmatic method
and a mechanism for process improvement.
Shewhart stressed the importance of operational definitions to Deming and
recommended that he study Bridgman for the best articulation of the subject.
Shewhart succinctly defined operational definitions as ones on which reasonable
men could agree. Indeed, Shewhart emphasized, according to Deming, "that the
standards of knowledge and workmanship required in industry and public service
are more severe than the requirements in pure science."
Shewhart served as a lightning rod and a bridge for Deming. No one person
exerted as much direct influence on Deming or brought him closer to his
conclusions in life as Shewhart. Shewhart was the key individual in Deming's
intellectual life because he was a bridge between Deming and the philosophy of
Lewis, the operationalism of Bridgman, and the statistical advances made by
Fisher, Neyman and other pioneers. Shewhart's relationship with Deming was one
of friend and mentor. Deming became interested in Shewhart's quest for
scientific quality control methodologies and statistical applications.
Others, like Fisher and Neyman, influenced Deming through their work or
through the impact that they had upon their respective disciplines. Still others
influenced those who came into direct contact with Deming. A connection between
Peirce and Neyman, for example, was recently noted in a paper by Anderson and
Finison. They also cited a direct link between Lewis and Peirce. Apparently,
Lewis spent two years in the Peirce Archives at Harvard and reported that he was
very influenced by what he learned. Again, the impact of C. I. Lewis upon
Shewhart led him to recommend that Deming study Lewis's Mind and the World
Order. It is also my speculation that Alfie Kohn, as an educator, was familiar
with educational theory and the leading educational theorist, John Dewey. Deming
cited Kohn in The New Economics as the authority regarding some very Deweyian
assertions.
It could also be said that the influence of psychology upon Deming was
profound even though the direct connection to any one theorist is lacking. The
impact, in the realm of industrial psychology, of the Hawthorne Studies was
great. Even though Deming was largely unaware of them until later in life, the
Hawthorne Studies shaped the thinking of those concerned with labor relations
and human resources. Further, the humanistic psychology of Maslow, McGregor,
Herzberg and others also had an effect upon management thinking and certainly
upon Deming. Clearly Deming shared much common ground with Maslow and the
others. In fact, Gabor noted that: Although Deming doesn't recall reading the
works of these theorists [Herzberg, Maslow, McGregor], he has surrounded himself
with psychologists and organizational behaviorists who would have exposed him to
their ideas.
Although it may seem that the seeds of Deming's theory of quality have been
gathered from near and far, the foundation of his theoretical structure is
firmly anchored in pragmatic method. It may be said that pragmatism served as
the unifying mechanism and verifying agent for all the contributions to the
theory of quality.
The advent of the philosophy of pragmatism led, in part, to the act of
creation mentioned earlier. The pragmatic concern for the postulate,
implications and conclusions or science were results of inquiry presupposed by
the scientific method. The pragmatic method of philosophy is contingent upon
meaning and the verification of meaning. This point of view was conceived first
by Peirce and developed into both a philosophy of science and a method for
clarifying ideas. Peirce's pragmatic maxim served as an inspiration for later
pragmatists and for operationalists as well:
Consider what effects that
might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our
conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our
conception of the object.
What does this maxim mean? In short it means that our understanding of the
meaning of a conception is apparent in its observable consequences. For example,
we understand the internal combustion engine by what it provides, i.e. its
ability to propel a vehicle. Pragmatism maintained that 'truth' must have
reliability and validity to be classified as such.
The pragmatic maxim is formed as a question and, as such, asks us to consider
under what conditions does a statement have meaning and what meaning attaches to
it in the light of these conditions. Peirce, through this maxim, was responsible
for pragmatism as a method of philosophy: that the sum of the practical
consequences which result by necessity from the truth of an intellectual
conception constitute the entire meaning of that conception.
The pragmatic view of reality is one in which the human's contact with
reality is extremely complex. What humans suppose or assert to be real is their
socially shared, interpretive interactions with the world, in its many
manifestations. Further, what is thought to be real and reality's
characteristics are determined by inquiry. This view of reality does not come
out and reject other, more traditional philosophies' ideas of antecedent
reality, but maintains that an antecedent reality is not verifiable. Platonic
idealism and Aristotelian realism both presume an antecedent reality or a
universal, unchanging, absolute truth or natural law. For the most part the
metaphysical question regarding the nature of ultimate reality is not given much
attention by the leading pragmatists. Pragmatism presumes that the human
conception of reality is determined by experience and through the senses, which
are the only means by which we can experience reality. Personal metaphysics,
religiosity and speculation about 'first causes' are left up to each individual
to examine privately. Epistemological issues or issues concerning the theory of
knowledge are the most likely subject of study, inquiry and speculation among
pragmatists.
Therefore, as a rule of thumb, pragmatism mistrusts absolutes. In this
material world, there are no absolute truths only probable truths. Deming echoed
that view when he declared that there are no true values. There are instrumental
or 'working' values and, to visualize their relative positions, they may be
thought to be points on a continuum, some more precise than others, some
reaching towards perfection while others lag behind. James introduced the idea
of the 'cash value' or worth of propositions and theories based upon their
'workability' in experience. "The pragmatist," James went on, "clings to facts
and concreteness, observes truth at its work in particular cases and
generalizes. Truth for him became a class-name for all sorts of definite working
values in experience."
The true value of the speed of light is an example which Deming utilized in
Out of the Crisis. When Deming stated that there is no true value for the speed
of light, he echoed the pragmatic assertion about the nature of truth. Since
there have been several numerical values assigned to the speed of light over the
years, we may assume that continuous improvement is at work. Continuous
improvement, then, fits in nicely with the pragmatic notion of 'tentative
truth.'
Presumably, scientists have been assigning more accurate or more precise
values as time has gone by. Currently, the accepted speed of 186,000 miles per
second is the most accurate. But that the value has changed and will likely
change again precludes it as a hard and absolute fact. It is not a hard fact
that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second, rather, it is only a
'tentative truth' which will, in time, be replaced by another, more precise
'tentative truth.' Peirce believed that scientific hypotheses could enjoy
varying degrees of probability, however, they are all subject to possible
revision. Similarly, when Deming said that there can never be zero defects, he
has accepted this idea of tentative truth, since zero defects would imply
perfection and perfection would imply an absolute.
Even though pragmatism is a philosophy concerned with 'practical bearings,'
theory plays a definitive role. To those who would state that pragmatism is a
philosophy of practice only, it was Peirce who told us that theory and practice
go together and that the pragmatic analysis of scientific hypothesis can be said
to look forward to conduct or action; but in itself the analysis is a
theoretical inquiry. James declared that, within the pragmatic method, "Theories
thus become instruments, not answers to enigmas, in which we can rest." Deming
took this approach to his theory of quality and, while attributing his
epistemology to Lewis, it should be recognized that the relationship between
theory and practice was established from the beginning of the pragmatic
movement.
The relationship between theory and practice forms the tension which makes
the pursuit of quality dynamic. Theory and practice are utilized pragmatically
in the Plan-Do-Study-Act Cycle. The PDSA cycle, for example employs the
pragmatic (Lewisian) theory of knowledge as an approach to process improvement.
Combined, each component part of the PDSA Cycle reflects the pragmatic
method. The first part, Plan, asks us to theorize with the intention of
predicting a possible outcome. The second part, Do, is the actual experiment or
test of the theory. The third, Study, is the verification aspect where the
experimental outcomes are compared with the predictions. The last, Act, is the
implementation of the theory if the experiment verifies the theory. The theory,
if verified, is a warranted assertibility or a tentative truth. It will remain
as such until another, perhaps more precise, theory is developed, tested and
implemented. This device, as well as a myriad of other 'quality' tools and
concepts such as the Shewhart's control charts, fish bone diagram, the Taguchi
loss function, the histogram, and so on, are entirely pragmatic in their uses.
The devices are intended to establish 'working values' with which to provide the
data or information necessary for prediction and the obtainment of knowledge. In
light of the pragmatic method, it is appropriate to examine the main points of
the philosophy of pragmatism as it relates to the theory of quality. They may be
summed up as the following:
Peirce, James, Dewey and Lewis, who constitute the vanguard of the pragmatist
movement are considered here as those whose contributions to philosophy and
science influenced Deming either directly or indirectly. Each of the
aforementioned is considered to be directly and consciously associated with
pragmatism. Peirce and James were the instigators of pragmatism (although
elements of pragmatism had surfaced prior to the 19th Century) while Dewey was
the most prolific writer among them. Lewis did not achieve the notoriety of the
others, however he published one of the most important pragmatist papers, "The
Pragmatic Element in Knowledge." Further, through Mind and the World Order, his
influence upon Deming was the most direct and profound.
Acknowledging that a direct connection between Deming and the two founders of
pragmatism is virtually unknown, it can, however, be stated that the indirect
connection is great. Peirce's influence upon James and the later pragmatists,
Dewey and Lewis, is well documented. Likewise, the fact that Peirce had a direct
influence upon E. B. Wilson, a colleague of and co-author with Jerzey Neyman, a
fellow statistician of Deming's establishes a solid 'indirect' connection.
Coupled with the Wilson/Neyman connection, Peirce's direct influence upon Lewis
establishes a 'lineage' which runs down from Peirce to Shewhart and Deming.'
Further, James' influence upon Dewey is evident as is his influence in the field
of humanistic psychology. Likewise, there is growing circumstantial evidence of
Dewey's indirect but important influence upon Deming. Further, Peirce's
influence upon Bridgman is especially apparent when you compare Peirce's
pragmatic maxim with Bridgman's formulation of operationalism. Bridgman, as
mentioned, directly contributed to Deming's reliance of operational definitions.
Finally, we come to the fact that Lewis had a direct effect upon Deming's
theories establishing the best and most often cited reference to the pragmatist
movement.
Aside from being the founder of pragmatism, Peirce maintained that within the
fundamental hypothesis of "the method of science" there exist "real things,
whose characters are entirely independent of our opinions about them." He
believed that of all the methods used in forming and defending man's beliefs,
only the method of science presented a real distinction between a right and a
wrong way of "fixing" them; this included also an objective criterion for
establishing their truth or falsehood. The assumption, then, is that real,
external, and objective "things" allow humans "an external condition of
authentication and validation" which is based on the coinciding of opinions with
facts. This standard is uninfluenced by opinion. All the other methods, lacking
this external standard of validation, are arbitrary.
William James, as co-founder of pragmatism came to philosophy by way of
psychology (having published The Principles of Psychology in 1890). His
pragmatism followed the main lines of the pragmatic method as conceived by
Peirce. However, gradually the two grew apart philosophically. Whereas Peirce
conceived of pragmatism as a scientific philosophy akin to the mathematical
method, James was more concerned with a theory of meaning, a theory of truth and
verification, and with moral issues. In fact, in a letter to the editor in
Quality Progress (August 1997), a letter writer chastised Michael Lovitt, author
of "The New Pragmatism: Going Beyond Shewhart and Deming," for comparing William
James to Shewhart and Deming. Making a case for the idea that Shewhart and
Deming were actually closer to Peirce in outlook, the letter writer complained
that comparisons with James make little sense. Despite that complaint, I believe
that a comparison may be worth establishing. James and Deming did share common
values, and it makes for good conversation if not for any earth-shattering
insight into either's philosophical orientation. What is of special interest to
the Deming scholar about James is his personal or "empirical" idealism.
Striking similarities between Peirce and Deming exist in their methodologies
and mathematical expertise. DemingÕs adherence to the pragmatic method, the
pragmatic theory of knowledge, and, importantly, operational definitions
underscores those similarities. In Peirce's "How to Make Our Ideas Clear,"
originally published in Popular Science Monthly in January of 1878, he wrote: A
clear idea is defined as one which is so apprehended that it will be recognized
wherever it is met with, and so that no other will be mistaken for it.
In so stating, Peirce foreshadowed Bridgman's conception of operational
definitions. Further, he emphasized a concern for the exactness in language
before Shewhart declared that operational definitions were "those upon which
reasonable men could agree" and that the need for exactness was more important
for the man in industry and the applied scientist. Peirce, anticipating this
need, stated, "A distinct idea is defined as one which contains nothing which is
not clear." Deming, of course, devotes Chapter 9 of Out of the Crisis as
testimony to the importance of operational definitions. This was Deming's
approach to "making our ideas clear."
In his personal world view, like James, Deming was a religious man. Like
Deming, James's religiosity had no direct bearing upon his scientific or
pragmatic method or his opinion about absolutes. Deming maintained that there
were no "true values" or "facts" when it came to empirical observations. James
agreed with this as he identified truth with verifiability. James stated, "the
true is only the expedient in the way of thinking. . .". James went on to state,
"But as the sciences have developed farther, the notion has gained ground that
most, perhaps all, of our laws are only approximations." In associating truth
with verifiability, James anticipated the experimentalism of Dewey and the
operationalism of Bridgman and the logical positivists. Deming's pragmatism is
evidenced along the same lines. He had an operationalist answer to the question
"why is it that there can be no operational definition of the true value of
anything?" His answer: "An observed numerical value of anything depends on the
definitions and operations used. The definitions and operations will be
constructed differently by different experts in the subject matter." In
answering this way, Deming demonstrated a pragmatic relativism in the area of
the theoretical and applied sciences.
James had to reconcile his personal world view with his method of
philosophizing. Pragmatism, as a method of philosophy rather than a
philosophical system, does not address the metaphysical question of antecedent
reality, nor does it subscribe to the absolutist position towards truth. James,
however, was somewhat of an exception to this rule-of-thumb as he did not shy
away from metaphysical questions. The belief in a personal God is, one would
presume, a metaphysical assertion which is associated with an absolutist
position and belief in an antecedent reality. James did not discount the
absolute. Rather, he applied the pragmatic method to consideration of such a
proposition and came up with the following: Some day. . . even total union, with
one knower, one origin, and a universe consolidated in every conceivable way,
may turn out to be the most acceptable of all hypotheses.
James, in effect, built a theory of truth based upon a theory of meaning
[pragmatism] that originated in an analysis of empirical hypotheses, and he used
it to support his religious beliefs. In essence, using pragmatism as a theory of
meaning, James argued that since God makes a difference in the life of the
believer, the belief must be meaningful. The point being that it is not the
statement itself [there is a God] that has consequences, but rather the
believing of the statement. In this respect James [and Lewis, to an extent]
represents the minority view in the pragmatist movement.
The fact that both Deming's and James' working methodologies had no apparent
bearing upon their personal idealism underscores their pragmatism. It may even
be true that pragmatism may have reinforced their religiosity. James believed
that it was pragmatically consistent to have religious belief because: We cannot
escape the issue [of religion] by remaining skeptical. . . because, although we
do avoid error in that way if religion be untrue, we lose the good, if it be
true, just as certainly as if we positively choose to disbelieve. The position
of the religious skeptic is: Better risk loss of truth than chance of error.
It would be of great interest to know if Deming had read James's "The Will to
Believe" or "The Varieties of Religious Experience". Certainly a case could be
made that they both chose to engage in what has been coined empirical idealism.
Peirce, on the other hand, felt that pragmatism was similar to the mathematical
method and he felt that James had deviated from this conception and was
uncomfortable with his overt religiosity being associated with pragmatism.
Although Peirce maintained a great respect for James, he wanted to distance
himself philosophically. Peirce went so far as to change the name of his
philosophical system to that of "pragmaticism," thinking that the word was "ugly
enough to be safe from kidnappers."
Regardless of any direct or indirect connection between the two, the
startling fact is that Dewey and Deming articulated the same points on a number
of issues, held similar beliefs, and even shared a propensity towards using the
same language to describe their respective positions on the same issues. Both
believed that the leaders in the Western world were engaged in destructive
practices. Deming wrote of the inadvisability of using reward/incentive systems
within the school and workplace and was a kindred spirit in that respect with
Dewey. Both argued that extrinsic motivators were destructive because they were
controlling devices which destroy the natural, intrinsic sources of motivation
in people. In fact, modern treatment of motivation theory could benefit from
Dewey's prior and cogent views of the issue. Dewey wrote that, "the child's own
instincts and powers furnish the material and the starting point for education."
Dewey elaborated on the point that the aim of education must be centered on the
impulses, interests and initiative of the particular individual:
An
educational aim must be founded upon the intrinsic activities and needs
(including original instincts and acquired habits) of the given individual to be
educated.
There has been general support for Deming's and Dewey's ideas about
motivation as well as a strong case for the move towards abandoning extrinsic
motivation. Support can be cited in the works of such psychologists as Deci,
Ryan, Maslow, Herzberg, McGregor, and so on. Maslow, Herzberg and McGregor are
considered to be members of the humanistic movement in psychology (as opposed to
the behaviorist tradition). The humanistic hypothesis of motivation conceives of
humans as being distinctly different from all the other organisms. This is very
much in line with the pragmatic view of humanity according to Abraham Kaplan who
says that the lens we view life with is the human lens. It is this view that was
the basis of Maslow's as well as Deci's and Ryan's scholarship and which has
supported the assumptions of intrinsic motivation. According to Deci and
Ryan:
Intrinsic motivation is based on the innate, organismic need for
competence and self-determination. It energizes a wide variety of behaviors and
psychological processes for which the primary rewards are the experiences of
effectance and autonomy. . . The intrinsic needs for competence and self
determination motivate an ongoing process of seeking and attempting to conquer
optimal challenges. When people are free from the intrusion of drives and
emotions, they seek situations that interest them and require the use of their
creativity and resourcefulness.
Interestingly, Deci and Ryan cite Dewey throughout their classic work,
"Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior." Dewey's work
actually precedes much of the work done in this area, both behaviorist and
humanistic, and his writings reflect an astute and naturalistic understanding of
motivation within the realm of education. Dewey believed that the central
assumption about human motivation and the self which it expresses, is antecedent
to, rather than shaped by the natural (including the social) environment. Ralph
Ross, in the introduction to Dewey's "Interest and Effort in Education" reveals
that:
"Had there existed in 1913 a doctrine of positive reinforcement in the
fashion of B. F.Skinner, Dewey might have attacked it directly and at length. As
it was, he thought of such "motivating" behavior as a sort of bribe, only
externally related to the real question of interest in the subject."
Both Deming and Dewey believed that a mythology of culture and practice
existed which led to these destructive practices. Deming cited the myth of the
"rugged individualist as an example." Dewey, as well, devoted a considerable
amount of energy to this subject including his well known work, "Individualism
Old and New." Their mutual position is that society's emphasis on rewards and
materialism is an expression of individualism as manifested in the western
world. The "forces of destruction" that Deming wrote about are all
manifestations of the extreme individualism apparent in the western world and,
in particular, the United States. Individualism may have developed as an
ideology in England with the writings of Herbert Spencer, but the home-grown
variety known as "rugged individualism" was a combination of romantic and
realistic beliefs associated with the "taming" of the frontier and manifest
destiny. A romantic notion of the hardy pioneer or entrepreneur exploiting the
vast natural resources of this continent through his own perseverance, hard
work, and ingenuity developed and was reinforced through the popular media.
In this Social Darwinistic worldview, what is good for the individual is
considered good for society. Ideologically, this conception of individualism may
be considered the root cause for the "forces of destruction" to which Deming
referred. Aggressive competition for the securing of material rewards is
stressed. Cooperation is not only discouraged, but is suspect; thought to be
akin to socialism.
The image of the "rugged individualist" is one in which the individual rises
to the top through the successful overcoming of all obstacles, both natural and
artificial (eg. the social). Only the fittest survive. The fittest's survival is
not only deserved but performs a function of natural selection in both nature
and in society. Individualism uses the mechanism of competition to separate the
winners from the losers in the quest for material gain, or fame, or power
(rewards). Individualism became an ideology, as precious as any in the American
psyche. In fact, it may be stated that individualism, as an ideological precept,
took over and controlled the American psyche, even in the face of dramatic
evidence to the contrary.
Both Deming and Dewey recognized the opposing evidence. In Individualism Old
and New, Dewey called for the development of a "new individualism" in which
social responsibility would be paramount. Dewey believed that a new
individualism would be necessary to counter the extreme individualism of the
nation. To not act, Dewey asserted, would place the individual in a precarious
position within the context of modern social realities. To underscore this Dewey
stated: "Individuals vibrate between a past that is intellectually too empty to
give stability and a present that is too diversely crowded and chaotic to afford
balance or direction to ideas and emotion." Similarly, Deming wrote of the
"restoration" of the individual as part of a greater enterprise and as inherent
and important participants in the system. This would only be possible through an
organizational transformation and by a management willing to banish the "forces
of destruction."
Acknowledging the damage that had been done in the name of "healthy
competition," Deming called for cooperation in the workplace and cooperative
learning in the classroom. Despite the ideology of individualism that held
otherwise, cooperation was the real reason why America was successful.
Economically and socially, it was cooperation which built the infrastructure of
this country (example: competitors began using the same gauge of railroad tracks
to everyone's benefit).
Deming stated that it was "rugged individualism" which prevented adequate
water rights laws in the west, and which led to deforestation in many areas and
to the degradation of the iron ore content of the Mesabe Range in Minnesota.
"America was cursed with natural resources," he stated over and over again.
"We've been living off the fat of the land and ignoring our true natural
resource, that of our people." "Rugged individualism," gave us permission to
exploit the land and natural resources, but did not spur us on to develop our
human resources. This was increasingly a contradictory state of affairs as Dewey
emphasized:
"Our material culture is verging upon the collective and corporate. Our moral
culture, along with our ideology, is, on the other hand, still saturated with
ideals and values of an individualism derived from the prescientific,
pretechnological age."
Thorstein Veblen's "The Theory of the Leisure Class" described the American
propensity for valuing the attributes of initiative, competition and lack of
group loyalty in the quest for material gain. It may be significant that he was
the one who introduced the term "conspicuous consumption" to the vernacular
thereby providing an implicit critique of the materialistic path taken by our
society. Success in the quest for material gain was seen as the reward for
aggressive competitiveness. Accumulation of wealth and the ability to consume
more than what was necessary to survive were also viewed as signs of success. To
Dewey, the time for this type of individualism was passing. The fact that these
beliefs lingered, to Dewey, was a roadblock to a new conception of individualism
in which individuals are conscious of their debt to the social. Dewey recognized
the forces that were at work:
"It is difficult for us to conceive of individualism of an earlier epoch which arrest and divide the operation of the new dynamics. It is difficult for us to conceive of individualism except in terms of stereotypes derived from former centuries. Individualism has been identified with ideas of initiative and invention that are bound up with private and exclusive economic gain.
Highly reminiscent of Dewey's exhortation that the individual could not be
separated from the social, Deming challenged us to consider the individual as
part of the system. Although the immediate similarity between the two ideas
might be missed by us, the system in question could just as well be the social
system as the organizational system. Dewey recognized that, at work as well as
within other social organizations, the individual's role was to be socially
defined, his identity was to be formed and his ties to this world were to be
found in functional relationships with others. The debasement of the individual
was at the very core of the crisis of the "lost individual." Dewey wrote
powerfully about this:
"The very habit of introducing a separation between them [the terms
individual and social] has been a powerful factor in justifying and intensifying
the factors of which the present crisis is the overt public manifestation. Put
in the language of common use, the movement that goes by the name of
Individualism is very largely responsible for the chaos now found in human
associations--the chaos which is at the root of the present debasement of human
beings."
The irony of this picture, however, was that by promoting a highly
individualistic competitive society, the opposite effect was actually being
realized. Veblen agreed with this idea when he wrote that, "the temperament
induced by the predatory habit of life makes for the survival and fullness of
life of the individual under a regime of emulation." Individual self interest in
the material realm, then, differs from any sort of freedoms associated with a
true individualism. Dewey saw a social crisis in the making and called for a
rethinking of individualism in order to initiate social reconstruction. In so
doing, Dewey really called for a "new individualism," in which education would
be pivotal in addressing social problems.
Reminiscent of Dewey's view that education should be instrumental in social
reconstruction, Deming's fundamental vision included transforming the
organization into one which could successfully initiate and sustain a long term
quest for quality. Social reconstruction, the reconstruction of philosophy, and
the transformation of the organization are all very similar ideas. Dewey spoke
of the "new individualism" in which the individual maintained autonomous thought
but was dedicated to the social good or social progress. Deming, of course,
believed in a "restoration" of the individual. The restoration of whom occurred
"in the system," or a part of the greater organization (or society).
Just as Deming saw education as necessary for the transformation of the
organization, Dewey had a vision that education could promote democracy at the
local level with the school and the workplace as laboratories of change. This
vision also contains ideas for strengthening society by emphasizing a more
participatory form of democracy and by exploring new forms of legitimate and
voluntary cooperation. Similarly, Deming called for a transformation of the
organization towards that of a "Learning Organization" where everybody wins.
Dewey articulated their common vision succinctly:
"there is already an opportunity for an education which, keeping in mind the
larger features of working, will reconcile liberal nurture with training in
social serviceableness, with ability to share efficiently and happily in
occupations which are productive."
Dewey saw human organizations (whether school, church, business, etc.) as
socially important. In fact, Dewey believed that business organizations, in
particular, could serve society through their conception as forms of associated
living, much like the democracy itself. He offered the following
observation:
"How unreasonable to expect that the pursuit of business should be in itself
a culture of the imagination, in breadth and refinement; that it should
directly, and not through the money which it supplies, have social service for
animating principle and be conducted as an enterprise in behalf of social
organization."
Even if it proves to be coincidental that Dewey and Deming shared similar
viewpoints, the fact of the matter is that Deming developed his theory of
knowledge based upon pragmatic assumptions. The pragmatic connection is through
Lewis's epistemology. While the emphasis within Dewey's brand of pragmatism was
on the reconstruction of society, democracy, and education, Lewis devoted
himself to the study of symbolic logic and its philosophical expression as a
theory of truth. In this respect it may be appropriate to call him a "Peircian
Realist," that is to say his interests were in the methodologies of logic and
mathematics. Regardless, both Dewey and Lewis acknowledged an intellectual debt
to Peirce.
It was no coincidence that Deming followed Lewis and adopted his ideas,
particularly his epistemology. As mentioned, Shewhart introduced Deming to
Lewis' work. Deming was so impressed with it that he actually invited Lewis to
lecture at the USDA Graduate School's series of lectures on the Philosophy of
Science for the Fall of 1940. Interestingly, Lewis declined but stated in a
letter to Deming that if he could, "sit in with Shewhart and the rest of your
group, I could learn a lot. There are a number of questions I should be eager to
ask, but you would learn nothing unless as a by-product of formulating your
ideas for a stupid but stubborn inquirer." This amazingly modest letter
demonstrated the mutual respect that Lewis and Deming had for each other.
Lewis appeared on the scene and published shortly after Werner Heisenberg
described the uncertainty principle and at the same time that, in academic
circles at least, Einstein's theory of relativity was gaining wide recognition.
This prepared the intellectual ground for accepting the probabilistic universe
of quantum mechanics and, according to Cunningham, "caused sufficient concern
for Lewis to form the basis of his work." Deming not only cited Lewis throughout
his work but also gave Lewis credit as the source of his views on the theory of
knowledge. One might venture to say that Deming's entire system of profound
knowledge rests upon Lewis's epistemology. In Mind and the World Order, which
Deming referred to frequently, Lewis presented a "conceptualistic pragmatism"
which was based on the thesis that:
Deming developed the system of profound knowledge because he believed that a
deep understanding and comprehension of all aspects of an organization's systems
was necessary for the pursuit of quality. Within Deming's theory of quality,
understanding how knowledge is obtained is critical. Deming believed that
knowledge was built on theory. There could be no learning or attainment of
knowledge without first developing a theory. Lewis stated that experience
without theory teaches nothing; that, as Deming paraphrased, "experience could
not even be recorded without theory, however crude, which would lead to a
hypothesis and a system by which to catalog observations." Lewis also stated
that there is no knowledge without interpretation. He asked, "If interpretation,
which represents an activity of the mind, is always subject to the check of
further experience, how is knowledge possible at all?" The answer to Lewis's
rhetorical question is that the conclusion of the learning process must end with
interpretation or evaluation. Likewise, Deming viewed the act of learning as
beginning and ending with the ideational, theory, test of theory (the
experiential) and interpretation of data (again, ideational). This became an
epistemological assertion by Deming.
Demings theory of knowledge is instrumental. This came in part from Lewis,
but also from his training as a mathematician and statistician and from his
experiences, most notably from his association with Shewhart and Dr. H.
Rossbacher. Rossbacher was the head of all development at the Hawthorne plant
and it was he who first emphasized the importance of theory to any improvement
in quality or uniformity of product. It was Rossbacher who stated: "All we have
accomplished here [at the Hawthorne plant] has been through work that someone
had declared to be too theoretical."
Deming paraphrased Lewis when he argued that: "experience without theory
teaches nothing; . . . experience could not even be recorded without theory,
however crude, which would lead to a hypothesis and a system by which to catalog
observations." Evidence is not enough. Deming, again citing Lewis, explained
that no matter how strong one's belief [in evidence], one must always bear in
mind that empirical evidence is never complete. At best, evidence establishes
only a tentative truth or fact. And Deming's view on facts is clear enough in
his writing when he stated that there really is no such thing as a fact
concerning an empirical observation. Lewis would have agreed with this. In his
view of the a priori, Lewis believed that "some knowledge must be a priori: that
there must be some propositions the truth of which is necessary and independent
upon the particular character of future experience."
The pragmatic a priori is the rationalistic aspect of Lewis. His ability to
reconcile the a priori with pragmatism's emphasis on the experiential
differentiated him from other pragmatists. Lewis, in constructing a logical
premise for the a priori, wrote:
"The source of this rationalist conviction that the a priori must have some
peculiar psychological warrant is fairly easy to make out. Universal
propositions drawn from experience are contingent and problematic unless they
have some prior warrant. Knowledge which is certain can not be grounded in the
particulars of experience if it is to apply to particular experiences in
advance; it can only come from the possession of some universal by which the
particular is implied. Nor can these universals be reached by generalization.
Hence there must be universal truths which are known otherwise than through
experience. Such universal propositions cannot be logically derived unless from
other such universals as premises. Hence there must be some universal truths
which are first premises logically underived and representing an original
knowledge from which we start. Such propositions must be axiomatic,
self-evident."
Deming's connection with Lewis is clear. Lewis was well read in and influenced early on by Kant, although he later rejected Kant's logic. However, in the above quote by Lewis, the rationalistic influence of Kant is clear. This Kantian influence was passed along to Deming. In The New Economics, Deming cited chapters 6, 7, and 8 in Mind and the World Order as the most important. Theory, according to Deming, allowed one to engage in prediction:
"The theory of knowledge teaches us that a statement, if it conveys
knowledge, predicts future outcome, with risk of being wrong, and that it fits
without failure observations of the past. Rational prediction requires theory
and builds knowledge though systematic revision and extension of theory based on
comparison of prediction with observation."
Deming asserted: "the risk of being wrong in a prediction cannot be stated in
terms of probability, contrary to some textbooks and teaching. Since empirical
evidence is never complete Deming believed that a 'tentative truth' can always
be replaced with a more complete, but still tentative truth." There is always
the opportunity to revise theory. This is the philosophical foundation for the
Shewhart Cycle of process improvement. There is always room for improvement of a
process. Deming believed that one can always expect a greater degree of accuracy
or improved performance.
The lynch pin of the concept of quality is the awareness of Deming's
[Lewis's] contention that: "All empirical knowledge is probable only," and that
"knowledge is knowledge of probabilities." According to Cunningham, Deming's
views as a statistician fit neatly with Lewisian epistemology in that the
fundamental principle of the world is probability and that statistics, the
language of probability, is the method by which we gain access to the knowable
world.
The predictive nature of theory is important because without it, there is no
knowledge, probable or not. Nor are there any true values of any characteristic,
state, or condition that is defined in terms of measurement or observation.
Deming actually paraphrased Lewis, who reasoned that:
"If knowledge is knowledge only as it is predictive and verifiable, does it
cease to be knowledge when it is completely verified? We now see the answer to
be that knowledge - the knowledge of empirical particulars at least - never is
completely verified."
Deming, paraphrasing Lewis, wrote that knowledge has "temporal spread."
Knowledge will take you back to the past and hint at logical possibilities for
the future. Lewis, in Mind and the World Order, stated:
"Even that knowledge is implied by naming or the apprehension of anything
presented, is implicitly predictive, because what the concept denotes has always
some temporal spread and must be identified by some orderly sequence in
experience."
Peirce described pragmatism as not-so-much a philosophy, but a method. This
is contrary to the popular reading of the word pragmatic, where the emphasis is
all about results, goals, and objectives. The pragmatist's emphasis is not on
results but on method. This is familiar territory to those in the quality
movement. Deming was known to have demanded upon more than one occasion, "By
what method?"
According to The Dictionary of Philosophy, the pragmatist is unprejudiced by
dogmatic presuppositions. This statement, perhaps more than any other, best
describes Deming. In the face of societal endorsement for ranking, rewards, and
the concept of merit, Deming held true to the evidence to the contrary which, in
his mind, was pragmatically verified. Similarly, he saw that the exploitation of
America's natural resources as short sighted and ill conceived. He felt that the
true natural resource, the human resource, had been sorely neglected. Further,
he saw that competition was not so healthy in society and that cooperation was
the better method for pursuing quality.
The pragmatist adheres to the principle of Contextualism, that is; every
problem must be put into its concrete behavioral and social setting. Every idea
must be viewed as an abstraction from some context of action or experience. Both
the data and solution must be treated as relative to the factors at work in the
context in which the problem arises and is to be solved. Deming understood this
principle as evidenced by his advice to appreciate the effects of variation and
suboptimization within organizational systems as well as his belief in the
utility of theory. Along with the Peircian belief in methodology, the Jamesian
belief in warranted propositions, the Deweyan approach to human motivation and
the Lewisian approach to how we obtain knowledge, the influence of pragmatism
and the pragmatic method upon Deming's theory of quality is apparent.
Considering Deming as a pragmatist takes no leap of faith. His contributions
to science, scholarship, business, education and to the quality movement in
general are contributions of meaning and action. Deming's whole life was spent
translating the theoretical into practice. He did so with a pragmatic theory of
knowledge and a pragmatic methodology.
As a final observation concerning Deming's love of learning, I would like to
relate the following, obtained during my research at the Library of Congress. In
a note that was attached to a letter Deming wrote to a Mr. Hugh Smith, dated
April 23, 1991, he listed several philosophical works as important preparatory
books to the reading to the study of theory of knowledge and of LewisÕs Mind and
the World Order. They are listed below, with comments by Deming.
Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy. A quite basic and so rather
superficial, but well-written introduction to modern theory of knowledge.
John Oesterle, Logic: The Art of Defining and Reasoning. A rather difficult
but solidly written introduction to the liberal art of logic and understood
within the Aristotelian tradition.
Readings Preparatory to the Reading of Mind and the World Order
Renee Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy
John Locke, An Essay on
Human Understanding
George Berkeley, Three Dialogues between Hilus and
Philonious
David Hume, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Emanuel
Kant, Prolegormena to Any Future Metaphysics.
These books, all referred to at some point in Russell's Problems of
Philosophy, make for extremely difficult reading. I cannot recommend that anyone
attempt them without the assistance of somebody with considerable mastery of the
history and problems of philosophy, as well as an evident capacity to teach this
difficult subject to beginners.
Anderson, Thomas and Finison, Lorenz A. "Contributions to the modern quality
movement: W. Edwards Deming, Walter A. Shewhart and Charles Peirce," Paper
presented to the XXIX Annual meeting of Cleiron, Richmond: University of
Richmond Press, June 19 - 22, 1997.
ASQC PROFILE. "Walter A. Shewhart--Father of Statistical Quality Control,"
Quality Progress, Milwaukee: ASQC., 1986.
Box, Joan Fisher. R. A. Fisher: The Life Of A Scientist New York: John Wiley
& Sons, 1978.
Boydston, Jo Ann., Ed. John Dewey: The Middle Works, 1899-1924: Vol. #7,
1912-1914 Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1981.
Boydston, Jo Ann., Ed. John Dewey: The Middle Works, 1899-1924: Vol. #9, 1916
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1981.
Boydston, Jo Ann., Ed. John Dewey: The Later Works, 1885-1953: Vol. #17,
1885-1953 Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1991.
Boydston, Jo Ann., Ed. John Dewey: The Collected Works, 1882 -1953: Index
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1991.
Bridgman, P. W. The Logic of Modern Physics New York: Macmillan, 1928.
Bridgman, P. W. The Way Things Are Cambridge:Harvard University
Press,1959.
Collinson, Diane. Fifty Major Philosophers: A Reference Guide New York:
Routledge Publications, 1987.
Copelston, Frederick, S. J. A History of Philosophy Volume VIII: Modern
Philosophy New York: Image Books/Doubleday, 1994.
Cunningham, Nina. "Deming and the Vindication of Knowledge in the Philosophy
of C. I. Lewis" Quality Management Journal 1, no. 3 (April, 1994): 7-15.
Deci, Edward L., Ryan, Richard M. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination
in Human Behavior New York: Plenum Press, 1985.
Deming, W. Edwards. note attached with paper clip to a letter addressed to
Mr. Hugh Smith, dated April 23, 1992. This letter was found in Container #18,
Folder #13 of the Deming Papers on Collection in the Manuscript Division of The
Library of Congress.
Deming, W. Edwards. Out of the Crisis Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Press, Center for Advanced Engineering Study, 1982.
Deming, W. Edwards. The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education
Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Center for Advanced
Engineering Study,1993.
Dewey, John. Interest and Effort in Education Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,
1913.
Dewey, John. Psychology and Social Practice Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1909.
Dworkin, Martin S. Dewey on Education: Selections New York: Teachers College
Press, Columbia University, 1959.
Fienberg, S.E. and D.V. Hinkley, Eds. R. A. Fisher: An Appreciation New York:
Springer-Verlag, 1980.
Fisch, Max H. Classic American Philosophers New York: Fordham University
Press, 1996.
Gabor, Andrea. The Man Who Discovered Quality Toronto: Times, Random House,
1990.
Gani, J. Ed. The Making of Statisticians New York: Springer-Verlag, 1982.
Gillespe, Richard. Manufacturing Knowledge: A History of the Hawthorne
Experiments New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Hillesheim, James W. Intellectual Foundations of American Education: Locke to
Dewey Lawrence: The University of Kansas, 1993.
Kaplan, Abraham, The New World of Philosophy New York: Vintage Books,
1961.
Karlin, John, "Tribute to Shewhart," Industrial Quality Control (August,
1967): 116.
Kilian, Cecelia S. The World of W. Edwards Deming (Knoxville: SPC Press,
1992.
Kilian, Cecelia S. "W. Edwards Deming: In the World, Of the World, Over the
World," American Statistical Association Amstat News no. 206 (February 1994):
7.
Kohn, Alfie. No Contest: The Case Against Competition Boston, Mass.: Houghton
Mifflin Co., 1986.
Kohn, Alfie. Punished by Rewards Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin Co.,
1993.
Lewis, C. I. Mind and the World Order New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,
1929.
Lovitt, Michael R. Quality Progress Milwaukee: ASQC., April 1997.
Maslow, Abraham H. Motivation and Personality New York: Harper and Brothers,
1954.
McGregor, Douglas. The Human Side of Enterprise New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Co., 1960.
Peirce, Charles Sanders, essay. "The Fixation of Belief," reprinted in Theory
and Practice in the History of American Education: A Book of Readings, by
Hillesheim and Merrill (Washington D.C.: University Press of America, 1980).
Petty, Priscilla, interviewer. "The Deming of America" The Deming Library
Video tape June 25, 1993.
Porter, Theodore M.The Rise of Statistical thinking: 1820-1900 Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1986.
Reid, Constance. Neyman-From Life New York: Springer-Verlag, 1982.
Rockefeller, Steven C. John Dewey: Religious Faith and Democratic Humanism
New York: Columbia University Press, 1991.
Rosenthal, Sandra. The Pragmatic A Priori: A Study in the Epistemology of C.
I. Lewis St. Louis: Warren H. Green, 1976.
Runes, Dagobert, Ed., Dictionary of Philosophy, Savage Md.: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, 1983.
Schlip, Paul, A., Ed., The Philosophy of C. I. Lewis London: Cambridge
University Press, 1968.
Shewhart, Walter A. Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product New
York: D. Van Nostrand Co. 1931.
Shewhart, Walter A. Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control
Washington: Graduate School, Department of Agriculture, 1939.
Tankard, James W., Jr. The Statistical Pioneers Cambridge: Schenkman
Publishing Co., 1984.
Thayer, H.S. Meaning and Action: A Study of American Pragmatism,
Indianapolis, New York: The Bobs-Merrill Co., 147.
Tiles, J. E. Dewey London, New York: Routledge, 1988.
Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class New York: Dover
Publications, 1994.
Westbrook, Robert B., John Dewey and American Democracy Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1991.
This page was created by Jim Clauson on 01DEC97.
Contents, images, and structure Copyrighted by the Deming Electronic Network, 1995-97 (unless otherwise noted). All rights reserved.