A Taxonomy of Root Causes
As the term radical quality seeks to present the quality discipline as a cognitive system based on ways of thinking and modes of action, it likewise brings out the difficulties that organizations encounter when other cognitive systems – based on different perceptions, beliefs, values, and actions – are embraced within organizations. These competing cognitive systems inhibit the acceptance of quality as the sine qua non for enabling organizations to obtain sustainable excellence.
Consider this field observation. As a result of a detailed analysis of reportable occurrences at an organization that conducted a root cause analysis on each occurrence, (all part of the facility’s oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission), it became clear that most of the root causes fell within the category of “management controllable” causes. The reason that these problems existed was due to perceptions and actions from management which influenced the thinking and conduct of employees across the facility.(1) This analysis happened to independently confirm the observation made by Dr. W. Edwards Deming that 94% of the problems in an organization were due to conditions that only management could control.(2) These problems are not simply failures with the quality of products and services, but are also the source of deviations related to safety, threats to employee and public health, and environmental disasters. In order to avoid these problems, Deming advocated that managers needed to embrace a new way of thinking, reinforcing the notion that quality is all about cognition.
The concept of radical quality embraces Dr. Deming’s observation and offers a different taxonomy of root causes that organizes them around a variety of faulty belief systems that may be embraced by leaders. These belief systems are what Jack Mezirow defined as “meaning perspectives” – high- order theories, propositions, and beliefs. (3) This taxonomy organizes root causes into seven belief systems which each create dysfunction in an organization thereby inhibiting organizational performance. Unless leaders understand the belief system that is actually in use in their organization, they cannot lead their organization to a sustainable level of success. This realization draws heavily from the well-known and respected observations made by Dr. Chris Argyris and Dr. Donald Schon regarding the problem of the gap between and “espoused theory” and the actual “theory in use” in an organization.(4)
This taxonomy of root causes includes the following:
Placing budget ahead of quality.
Placing schedule ahead of quality.
Placing politics ahead of quality.
Arrogance
Lack of knowledge, research, or education.
Entitlement
Autocracy and Endullment
The problem with these competing belief systems or meaning perspectives, is that they not only inhibit the understanding and actions that support quality, but that they are also self-perpetuating in organizations. Leaders select their successors as people with “high potential” because they perceive that these “up and coming” people embrace the same belief system as the leaders. Most leaders often do not want to have people questioning their world view by bringing up embarrassing facts and pointing out systemic issues related to how the organization defines the manner in which work should be done.
This section of the web site explores each of these seven “theories in use” or meaning perspectives in further detail.
(1) John R. Dew. “The Seven Deadly Sins of Quality Management” Quality Progress, September, 2003.
(2) W. Edwards Deming. Out of the Crisis. MIT Press, 1982. (page 315)
(3) Jack Mezirow. Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood. Jossey-Bass, 1990.
(4) Chris Argyris and Donald Schon. Theory In Practice. Jossey-Bass, 1974.
Next: Budget Ahead of Quality