PDCA doesn’t stand for “Perform Doubtless, Confident Acts”

In my post from a few days ago, I typed these words:

The PDCA cycle.  It doesn’t stand for “Perform Doubtless, Confident Acts.”  Rather, it is based on the likelihood that your actions won’t go exactly as planned, and that the best you can do is to learn from what didn’t work out as you’d expected.

Over the past few days, I’ve been contemplating those words more and more.  What keeps coming into my mind are the words of a senior manager I worked with who stated, quite confidently, “I’ve found that the best way to deal with problems is just to make a decision and drive it.”

Of course, that approach necessitated always driving decisions, since there was never a time when anyone ever agreed with the decision that was made.  Without collaboration, confrontation was the only result.  You have to admire the manager for his attempted leadership, however.  He did show that he was willing to step up and aggressively enforce a policy, which tends to be a very admirable trait.

What wasn’t happening with this approach, however, was the promotion of understanding as to why decisions were made, and the development of teamwork.  So, eventually, people who had decisions rammed down their throats grew frustrated and moved on.  The manger eventually moved on, too, leaving behind a power vaccuum and a long period of down time for the entire department while someone else determined what decisions to drive.

The Kolb Cycle of Experiential Learning

PDCA seems to share some attributes with Experiential Learning

The up-down, up-down cycle went on indefinitely, all because no one ever bothered to try and understand a problem and involve all stakeholders in the decision, and then measure the results.  Instead, stubborn personalities commanded what would be done, and were rewarded not for the excellence of their decisions, but for their tenacity in forcing others to do what they wanted – even if it was demonstrably inferior.

Fact of the matter is, the only way of achieving excellence is to allow for failure.  That’s done by pushing the limits, even if just  a little bit, and embracing humility.  You have to be aware that you don’t know everything, and then be willing to learn.  Be confident enough to expand the boundaries a little bit, and see what happens.  It doesn’t require anything radical, just an incremental step in a new direction and a way to gauge the impact.

My advice: Don’t view your work (or your life, for that matter) as a set of must-follow laws to be learned, practiced and forced upon others.  Think of it, instead, as an endless experiment full of opportunities to learn and improve.

Learn to Experiment, Experiment to Learn.

avatar

About the author David M. Kasprzak

I am a seasoned project and management analyst with over 14 years of experience as a trusted advisor to all levels on planning, measuring and analyzing activities. From small-scale internal projects to multi-year development efforts supporting enterprise-wide initiatives at the C-level, I “get geeky” seeing great management practices yield great outcomes. I am a fierce & vocal advocate for learning, collaborative approaches to work and pursuing Operational Excellence through challenging the status quo and fostering management innovation

  • http://twitter.com/LeanBlog Mark Graban

    Without honest reflection and a non-punitive environment where it’s possible for things to not work out in the “check” phase of PDCA, you often have what I call the PDJR cycle: Plan – Do – Justify – Rationalize.

    Not a healthy cycle.

    • http://myflexiblepencil.com David M. Kasprzak

      Thanks, Mark! I like the characterization of non-learning as the PDJR cycle. Once again, your command of acronymns rocks (just like “L.A.M.E”).

      Rmprovement requires the ability to capture reality. If we don’t admit to failures and shortcomings, clearly, we’re capturing just the opposite.

      Thansk again!

  • http://ganeshmuthiah.com/ Ganesh Muthiah

    Dave, i guess, its a norm for busy operation where the daily activities is to fight the fire and got no time to plan on prevention.

    Its normal to see some family business are run like the senior manager way of problem solving. I have personally encountered back office manager claiming no time to engage people for planning. 

    • http://myflexiblepencil.com David M. Kasprzak

      Thanks again, Ganesh. I recall from a Shingo workshop where it was pointed out that the person who fought the fire is very often the same person responsible for letting it get out of control – usually due to some inaction on his or her part. In many cases, it gets to the point that people will sit and wait for a fire to get really bad just to reap the rewards for putting it out. It really is a waste of resources.

      -DMK