I’ve spent years studying management philosophies that actually work, and there’s one principle that keeps coming back to haunt me: W. Edwards Deming’s 85/15 rule[1]. It’s brilliant, it’s proven, and it’s almost completely ignored by British and American businesses. The rule states that when things go wrong in your organisation, there’s roughly an 85% chance the system (management, machinery, processes, and rules) is at fault[2]. Only about 15% of the time is the individual employee to blame[3].
This isn’t just another management theory gathering dust on academic shelves. This is a fundamental truth about how organisations function, backed by decades of research and real-world application[4]. Yet most business leaders I meet have never heard of it. That’s a problem we need to address.
Understanding Deming’s 85/15 Rule
Dr. W. Edwards Deming, born on 14 October 1900, developed this principle through his extensive work in statistical process control and quality management[5]. He observed that when problems occur in organisations, the natural human reaction is to blame individuals, the worker who made the mistake, the manager who missed the deadline, or the salesperson who lost the client[6]. But Deming’s research showed this instinct is wrong most of the time.
The 85/15 rule emerged from Deming’s broader philosophy about systems thinking[7]. He understood that organisations are complex systems where individual performance is largely determined by the environment in which people work[8]. When someone fails to perform, it’s usually because the system they’re operating within is flawed, not because they lack competence or motivation[9].
Think about it this way: if you have good people consistently producing poor results, the problem isn’t the people…it’s the system[10]. This concept revolutionised Japanese manufacturing after World War II when Deming taught these principles to Japanese business leaders[11]. The results were extraordinary, helping transform Japan from a producer of cheap, low-quality goods into a manufacturing powerhouse[12].
What This Means for Your Business
The implications of Deming’s 85/15 rule are profound for any business leader serious about improvement. When problems arise, and they will, your first instinct should be to examine the system, not blame the individual[13]. This shift in thinking can transform how you approach everything from customer complaints to productivity issues.
Consider a typical scenario in your business: a customer service representative receives complaints about rude treatment. The traditional approach is to discipline or retrain that individual[14]. But Deming’s rule suggests you should first examine the system. Are representatives overworked? Do they lack proper training? Are they measured on call volume rather than customer satisfaction? Are they given authority to solve problems, or must they constantly refer customers to supervisors[15]?
In most cases, you’ll find systemic issues causing individual performance problems. Perhaps representatives handle too many calls per hour, creating stress that manifests as rudeness[16]. Maybe they lack access to information needed to help customers effectively[17]. Or possibly, management policies prevent them from providing solutions, leading to frustration for both representatives and customers[18].
The Cost of Blame Culture
When organisations focus on individual blame rather than system improvement, they create what researchers call a “blame culture”[19]. This environment breeds fear, reduces innovation, and actually makes problems worse[20]. Employees become reluctant to report issues or suggest improvements because they’re afraid of being scapegoated[21].
Blame cultures are particularly destructive because they discourage the kind of open communication necessary for genuine improvement[22]. When people fear punishment for mistakes, they hide problems until they become crises[23]. They also avoid taking calculated risks that could lead to breakthrough innovations[24].
I’ve seen this pattern repeatedly in organisations I’ve worked with. Companies that consistently blame individuals for system failures develop workforces that are risk-averse, demotivated, and focused more on self-protection than performance[25]. Meanwhile, organisations that apply Deming’s principles—focusing on system improvement rather than individual blame—tend to have more engaged employees and better long-term results[26].
Why Systems Thinking Matters More Than Ever
In our increasingly complex business environment, systems thinking becomes even more critical. Modern organisations are intricate networks of processes, technologies, and relationships[27]. Individual performance depends on countless factors beyond personal control: the quality of training received, the tools available, the clarity of expectations, the support provided by management, and the overall culture of the organisation[28].
Deming understood that excellence emerges from well-designed systems, not from exceptional individuals[29]. While individual talent certainly matters, sustainable high performance requires systems that enable ordinary people to do extraordinary work[30]. This is why some organisations consistently outperform others despite having similar talent pools.
The most successful companies I’ve studied don’t rely on heroic individual efforts to succeed[31]. Instead, they build robust systems that make good performance the natural outcome[32]. They design processes that prevent errors rather than catching them after they occur[33]. They create environments where continuous improvement is everyone’s responsibility, not just management’s[34].
The Japanese Quality Revolution
The power of Deming’s approach becomes clear when you examine what happened in Japan after 1950. When Deming first arrived in Japan, the country was known for producing cheap, low-quality goods[35]. Japanese manufacturers were struggling to compete in global markets, and “Made in Japan” was synonymous with inferior products[36].
Deming taught Japanese business leaders to focus on system improvement rather than individual blame[37]. He introduced concepts like statistical process control and continuous improvement that became cornerstones of the Japanese quality revolution[38]. The results were remarkable: within decades, Japanese companies dominated industries from automobiles to electronics[39].
What made the Japanese approach so successful was their commitment to Deming’s systems philosophy[40]. Rather than blaming workers for defects, they examined and improved the processes that created defects[41]. Rather than accepting variation as inevitable, they used statistical methods to understand and reduce it[42]. Rather than focusing on short-term profits, they invested in long-term system improvements[43].
This transformation didn’t happen overnight, and it required fundamental changes in how Japanese managers thought about their role[44]. Instead of supervising and controlling workers, they became facilitators of improvement[45]. Instead of punishing mistakes, they treated them as learning opportunities[46]. Instead of competing internally, departments began collaborating to optimise the overall system[47].
The Problem with Traditional Management Thinking
One reason Deming’s 85/15 rule remains relatively unknown is that it contradicts deeply held beliefs about management and accountability. Traditional Western management philosophy emphasises individual responsibility and performance[48]. We’re taught that good managers hold people accountable, set clear targets, and reward or punish based on results[49].
This approach feels intuitively correct and satisfies our need to identify causes and assign responsibility[50]. When something goes wrong, pointing to a specific person provides a sense of control and closure[51]. It’s much more difficult and uncomfortable to acknowledge that the problem might be systemic and that management itself might be partly responsible[52].
The Quarterly Earnings Trap
Modern business culture exacerbates this problem through its obsession with short-term results[53]. Public companies face intense pressure to deliver quarterly earnings that meet analyst expectations[54]. This short-termism encourages managers to focus on immediate fixes rather than long-term system improvements[55].
When quarterly results disappoint, it’s easier to blame individual performance than to acknowledge systemic issues that might take years to address[56]. Firing underperforming managers or implementing new incentive schemes provides quick action that satisfies stakeholders’ demand for immediate response[57]. Meanwhile, the underlying system problems that caused the poor performance remain unaddressed[58].
Research shows that this short-term focus actually undermines long-term performance[59]. Companies that prioritise quarterly results often sacrifice investments in training, process improvement, and system development that would yield better results over time[60]. They become trapped in cycles of blame and quick fixes that never address root causes[61].
Management by Objectives and Its Flaws
Another factor working against Deming’s principles is the continued popularity of Management by Objectives (MBO) and similar performance management systems[62]. These approaches assume that setting specific targets and measuring individual performance will drive better results[63]. But Deming argued that such systems often do more harm than good[64].
The problem with MBO is that it treats symptoms rather than causes[65]. If a salesperson misses targets, the system assumes the problem is with the individual’s effort or skill[66]. But what if the real issues are poor lead generation, inadequate product training, or unrealistic territory assignments? Focusing on individual performance metrics distracts from these systemic problems.
Deming observed that numerical targets often become ends in themselves rather than means to improvement. People game the system to hit their numbers, sometimes in ways that actually harm overall performance. Sales representatives might push inappropriate products to reach monthly targets. Manufacturing workers might rush to meet production quotas while ignoring quality. Customer service representatives might focus on call duration rather than problem resolution.
Why Business Schools Ignore Deming
Part of the reason Deming’s principles remain obscure is that business schools largely ignore them. Most MBA programmes focus on functional areas like finance, marketing, and strategy rather than systems thinking and quality management. Students learn sophisticated analytical techniques but little about how to design and improve organisational systems.
This educational gap reflects broader problems with how we teach management. Business schools emphasise individual decision-making and leadership skills but pay little attention to understanding organisations as complex systems. Students graduate believing that good management is about making smart decisions and motivating people, not about designing systems that enable good performance.
The result is managers who instinctively blame individuals when problems occur because they’ve never learned to think systemically. They know how to analyse financial statements and develop marketing strategies, but they don’t understand how to identify and address systemic causes of poor performance.
The Fragmented Curriculum Problem
Business education also suffers from fragmentation that works against systems thinking. Students study accounting separately from operations, marketing separately from finance, and strategy separately from implementation. This silo approach makes it difficult to understand how different parts of an organisation interact and influence each other.
Real business problems don’t respect functional boundaries. Poor customer service might result from inadequate training (HR issue), insufficient staffing (operations issue), confusing product design (marketing issue), or misaligned incentives (finance issue). Understanding and solving such problems requires systems thinking that most business education doesn’t provide.
Deming’s approach to management is inherently interdisciplinary. His System of Profound Knowledge integrates psychology, statistics, systems theory, and epistemology. This holistic perspective is difficult to teach within traditional business school structures that organise knowledge into separate departments and courses.
The Psychological Barriers to Systems Thinking
Even when people encounter Deming’s ideas, psychological factors make them difficult to accept and implement. Human beings have strong tendencies to look for simple explanations and individual causes for complex problems. We prefer stories about heroes and villains to analyses of systemic factors.
This bias toward individual attribution serves evolutionary purposes but works against effective management in complex organisations. When something goes wrong, our instinct is to find someone to blame because that provides a sense of control and closure. Accepting that problems are usually systemic feels less satisfying and more overwhelming.
The Fundamental Attribution Error
Psychologists call this tendency the “fundamental attribution error”; our inclination to attribute others’ behaviour to their personal characteristics rather than situational factors. When someone fails to perform, we assume it’s because they lack ability or motivation. We don’t naturally consider how the system they’re working in might be constraining their performance.
This error is particularly strong when we’re evaluating people we don’t know well or when explanations for behaviour aren’t immediately obvious. Managers often fall into this trap because they don’t fully understand the day-to-day challenges their employees face. They see the results but not the systemic factors that influence those results.
Overcoming the fundamental attribution error requires conscious effort and systematic analysis. It means looking beyond individual performance to understand the context in which that performance occurs. It means asking questions about processes, resources, training, and support rather than focusing solely on personal accountability.
Real-World Applications of the 85/15 Rule
Despite these barriers, some organisations have successfully applied Deming’s principles with remarkable results. These companies demonstrate what becomes possible when you shift focus from individual blame to system improvement.
Toyota provides perhaps the most famous example of Deming-inspired management. The company’s Toyota Production System embodies many of Deming’s principles, including the belief that most problems are systemic rather than individual. When defects occur, Toyota’s first response is to examine the process, not blame the worker.
This approach has made Toyota one of the most reliable manufacturers in the world. But it required fundamental changes in management thinking. Supervisors learned to see their role as supporting workers and improving processes rather than controlling and monitoring individual performance. The company developed systems for capturing and acting on employee suggestions for improvement.
Healthcare Applications
Healthcare provides another compelling example of Deming’s principles in action. Medical errors are a serious problem in hospitals, traditionally addressed through individual training and disciplinary action. But research shows that most medical errors result from systemic factors: poor communication, inadequate procedures, time pressure, or design flaws in medical devices.
Hospitals that have adopted Deming-inspired approaches focus on system improvement rather than individual blame. They use root cause analysis to identify underlying factors that contribute to errors. They design procedures and technologies that make errors less likely to occur. They create cultures where staff can report near-misses without fear of punishment.
The results have been impressive. Hospitals that embrace systems thinking have significantly reduced error rates, improved patient satisfaction, and created more positive working environments for staff. They’ve shown that complex, high-stakes environments can become safer and more effective through systematic improvement rather than increased individual accountability.
Service Industry Success Stories
The service industry has also seen successful applications of Deming’s principles. Call centres, for example, traditionally manage performance through individual metrics: calls handled per hour, average call duration, customer satisfaction scores. But companies that focus on system improvement often achieve better results than those that rely primarily on individual performance management.
Successful call centre operations examine factors like staffing levels, training quality, technology reliability, and process efficiency. They recognise that individual performance depends heavily on these systemic factors. Rather than pressuring representatives to handle calls faster, they improve systems that enable faster resolution.
This approach typically produces better outcomes for both customers and employees. Customer problems get resolved more effectively when representatives have proper training, adequate time, and effective tools. Employee satisfaction improves when people aren’t constantly pressured to meet arbitrary targets that may conflict with providing good service.
Building Systems That Enable Success
Implementing Deming’s 85/15 rule requires more than just changing how you think about problems, it requires building systems that enable consistent good performance. This means designing processes, procedures, and support structures that make success the natural outcome rather than the exception.
The first step is understanding your current systems and how they influence performance. This requires careful observation and analysis, often revealing factors that aren’t immediately obvious. What information do people need to do their jobs well? What tools and resources are available? How clear are expectations and procedures? What barriers exist that prevent good performance?
Process Documentation and Standardisation
Many organisations struggle with consistency because their processes aren’t clearly documented or standardised. When procedures exist primarily in people’s heads, performance varies depending on individual knowledge and interpretation. New employees struggle to learn their roles, experienced workers develop their own ways of doing things, and errors occur because people don’t understand the proper procedures.
Effective process documentation goes beyond simple step-by-step instructions. It explains the purpose of each step, identifies potential problems and how to handle them, and provides clear criteria for acceptable outcomes. Good documentation makes it possible for ordinary people to achieve extraordinary results because they understand not just what to do but why they’re doing it.
Standardisation doesn’t mean rigidity. Well-designed standards provide a foundation for improvement rather than constraints on innovation. When everyone understands the current best practice, deviations become visible and can be evaluated systematically. This makes continuous improvement possible because changes can be tested against established baselines.
Training and Development Systems
Another critical element is ensuring people have the knowledge and skills needed for their roles. Many performance problems that appear to be individual failures are actually training failures. People may be willing and motivated but lack the specific knowledge needed to perform effectively.
Effective training systems go beyond initial orientation to provide ongoing development and support. They recognise that learning is continuous and that job requirements evolve over time. They also acknowledge that people learn differently and may need various types of support to succeed.
The best training systems are integrated with daily work rather than separated from it. They provide just-in-time learning that helps people handle specific situations as they arise. They also create opportunities for experienced workers to share knowledge with newcomers, building organisational capability over time.
Measurement and Feedback Systems
Traditional performance measurement often works against Deming’s principles by focusing on individual metrics rather than system performance. While individual measurement has its place, it shouldn’t be the primary focus if you want to improve overall results. System-level measurements provide better insights into what’s actually happening and where improvement efforts should focus.
Effective measurement systems track leading indicators that predict future performance rather than just lagging indicators that report past results. They measure process quality as well as outcomes, providing early warning of problems before they affect customers or other stakeholders. They also measure system capability, whether processes are stable and predictable enough to support consistent performance.
Creating Learning Opportunities
One of the most powerful applications of Deming’s principles is treating failures as learning opportunities rather than blame occasions. When problems occur, the question shouldn’t be “who did this?” but rather “what can we learn from this to prevent similar problems in the future?”
This requires creating psychological safety where people feel comfortable reporting problems and near-misses. If the immediate response to any problem is to find someone to blame, people will hide problems until they become crises. But if the response is genuine curiosity about what went wrong and how to prevent it, people become partners in improvement.
Effective learning from failures requires systematic investigation that goes beyond obvious causes. Root cause analysis, when done properly, reveals multiple contributing factors and helps identify system changes that will prevent recurrence. It also builds organisational knowledge about how things can go wrong and how to design better systems.
The Economic Impact of Systems Thinking
Organisations that successfully implement Deming’s principles often see significant economic benefits. These improvements come not from working harder but from working more intelligently within better-designed systems. When systems enable good performance rather than fighting against it, productivity increases naturally.
The economic logic is straightforward: preventing problems costs less than fixing them after they occur. When systems are designed to minimise errors, waste, and rework, resources can be directed toward value-creating activities. When people can focus on doing good work rather than working around system deficiencies, both quality and efficiency improve.
Long-term Competitive Advantage
Perhaps more importantly, systems thinking creates sustainable competitive advantages that are difficult for competitors to copy. Individual expertise can be hired away, but organisational systems and culture are much harder to replicate. Companies that build superior systems for developing people, solving problems, and continuous improvement create advantages that compound over time.
This is why Japanese companies that embraced Deming’s principles maintained their competitive positions for decades. Their success wasn’t based on temporary factors like low labour costs or government protection. Instead, it was built on systematic approaches to quality and improvement that created ongoing advantages.
Modern examples include companies like Amazon, which has built sophisticated systems for everything from logistics to customer service. These systems enable consistent performance across millions of transactions and hundreds of thousands of employees. Competitors can see what Amazon does, but replicating the underlying systems that make it possible is much more difficult.
Overcoming Resistance to Change
Implementing Deming’s principles often encounters resistance because they challenge fundamental assumptions about management and accountability. People who have built their careers on traditional command-and-control approaches may feel threatened by systems thinking. They may worry that reducing individual blame means reducing accountability altogether.
This resistance is understandable but misguided. Systems thinking doesn’t eliminate individual responsibility—it directs that responsibility toward more productive activities. Instead of spending time assigning blame for past failures, people focus on designing systems that prevent future failures. Instead of managing through fear and punishment, managers become coaches and facilitators of improvement.
Building Support for Change
Successful implementation of Deming’s principles requires building broad support within the organisation. This means helping people understand the benefits of systems thinking and addressing their concerns about change. It also means starting with small pilots that demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach before attempting organisation-wide transformation.
Leadership commitment is absolutely essential. If senior managers continue to blame individuals for system problems, the change effort will fail. Leaders must model the new approach by examining their own role in creating the conditions that lead to poor performance. They must also resist the temptation to revert to blame when under pressure.
Change also requires patience because system improvement takes time to show results. Unlike quick fixes that provide immediate but temporary relief, system changes may initially seem slower but produce more sustainable improvements. Organisations need to maintain focus on long-term improvement rather than being distracted by short-term pressures.
The Future of Management
As business environments become increasingly complex and interconnected, systems thinking becomes more crucial for success. The challenges facing modern organisations, from digital transformation to sustainability to workforce engagement, require approaches that go beyond individual performance management. They require understanding and improving the systems that determine organisational capability.
Deming’s 85/15 rule provides a foundation for this evolution in management thinking. By focusing on system improvement rather than individual blame, organisations can build the capability needed to thrive in uncertain and rapidly changing environments. They can create resilience that comes from robust systems rather than heroic individual efforts.
The companies that will succeed in the future are those that learn to harness collective intelligence and systematic improvement. They will be organisations where problems become learning opportunities, where continuous improvement is everyone’s responsibility, and where systems enable ordinary people to achieve extraordinary results. This is the promise of Deming’s approach, and it’s more relevant today than ever before.
As I reflect on decades of studying and applying management principles, I’m convinced that Deming’s insights represent one of the most important yet underutilised approaches to organisational improvement. The 85/15 rule isn’t just a statistical observation, it’s a fundamental truth about how human systems work. Until more leaders embrace this truth and build their organisations accordingly, we’ll continue to see the waste, frustration, and missed opportunities that come from focusing on individual blame rather than system improvement.
The choice is ours: we can continue managing the way we always have, achieving the results we’ve always achieved, or we can embrace the profound insights that Deming offered and build organisations capable of sustained excellence. I know which path leads to success, and I hope this post helps you see it too.
References and Further Reading
The research and insights presented in this post draw from numerous sources documenting W. Edwards Deming’s work and its applications across various industries. Key resources include academic papers on statistical process control, case studies of organisations implementing systems thinking approaches, and contemporary research on blame culture and its alternatives in workplace management.
References and Further Reading
[1] Using the 85/15 Rule to Identify Root Causes of Problems in the … https://study.com/academy/lesson/using-the-85-15-rule-to-identify-root-causes-of-problems-in-the-workplace.html
[2] The Significance of Process and the 85/15 Rule – The ReWild Group https://www.rewildgroup.com/blog/2023/4/11/the-significance-of-process
[3] Before Deming’s 14 Points for Management – The W. Edwards … https://deming.org/before-demings-14-points-for-management/
[4] Deming’s 85% rule – LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/demings-85-rule-arun-kumar
[5] Bad People or Bad Process https://quantumassocinc.com/bad-people-or-bad-process/
[6] Deming’s Perspective on Quality Management – Pages of Interest https://www.pagesofinterest.net/faults-of-the-system
[7] Deming’s 14 Points: Total Quality Management Principles – ASQ https://asq.org/quality-resources/tqm/deming-points
[8] Workers advised to live by ’85:15′ rule to save themselves from burnout https://www.ladbible.com/lifestyle/85-15-rule-avoid-work-burnout-288734-20230915
[9] Deming The Man – The W. Edwards Deming Institute https://deming.org/deming-the-man/
[10] W. Edwards Deming – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming
[11] The biography of W. Edwards Deming https://www.fr-deming.org/whoised.html
[12] W. Edwards Deming – Wikipédia https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming
[13] W. Edwards Deming – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Deming
[14] Japan’s post‐war economic success: Deming, quality, and contextual realities https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/13552529910290539/full/html?skipTracking=true
[15] [PDF] SUMMARY OF DEMING’S SYSTEM OF PROFOUND KNOWLEDGE https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/66b0e4d83d127684db2c1ea1/66f2d27e7acf725de094903f_Systems%20Thinking%20and%20Demings%20Theory.pdf
[16] W. Edwards Deming | Quality Control, Management Theory, Total … https://www.britannica.com/biography/W-Edwards-Deming
[17] [PDF] Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge: An Overview – ERIC https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED401635.pdf
[18] A Systems Thinking Alternative to Performance Reviews http://winnipegagilist.blogspot.com/2012/12/a-systems-thinking-alternative-to.html
[19] Microsoft Word – Deming.doc https://www-users.york.ac.uk/~aew6/Courses/People%20and%20Quality/deming.pdf
[20] Deming in Business & Leadership – The W. Edwards Deming Institute https://deming.org/deming-in-business-leadership/
[21] Deming’s 14 Points In A Nutshell – FourWeekMBA https://fourweekmba.com/demings-14-points/
[22] Deming.PDF https://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~mullins/quality/Deming.pdf
[23] Application of the https://people.wku.edu/aaron.hughey/pdf/deming.pdf
[24] 1 https://deming.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Deming-2.5-Day-Seminar-Overview-2022-V5.pdf
[25] Deming on Management: Education – The W. Edwards Deming … https://deming.org/deming-on-management-education/
[26] Deming on Education – Lean Blog https://www.leanblog.org/2008/03/deming-on-education/
[27] Why Business Education is Failing – Intelligent Management – https://intelligentmanagement.ws/business-education-failing/
[28] Reconsidering the Impact of Systems – The Deming Institute https://deming.org/reconsidering-the-impact-of-systems/
[29] Make Schools More Like Business? (Part 2) – InterACT https://accomplishedcaliforniateachers.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/schools-like-business-pt2-2/
[30] Waving or drowning? Re-evaluating the place of systems thinking in https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/conf/olkc/archive/olkc6/papers/id_207.pdf
[31] Run Schools Like Businesses? Sure. Here’s How. – Education Week https://www.edweek.org/education/opinion-run-schools-like-businesses-sure-heres-how/2013/08
[32] Cultivating Systemic Thinking https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cc98/2fb3be91a4e53cd2368f10d156045629d90f.pdf
[33] Why is Short-Termism a Problem? – Greenly https://greenly.earth/en-gb/blog/ecology-news/why-is-short-termism-a-problem
[34] The Devastating Effects of Short-Term Thinking: Why Society and … https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/devastating-effects-short-term-thinking-why-society-businesses-wang
[35] How Short-Term Orientation Dominates Western Businesses … – MDPI https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/13/1/25
[36] The Perils of Short-Term Thinking | INSEAD Knowledge https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/perils-short-term-thinking
[37] Short-term Thinking in U.S. Markets: A Growing Trend With Lasting Implications – McDonough School of Business https://msb.georgetown.edu/news-story/short-term-thinking-us-markets/
[38] Quarterly reporting — Just a distraction? https://www.standard.co.uk/business/markets/quarterly-reporting-just-a-distraction-9123581.html
[39] Eliminate Management By Objectives https://jonathanbecher.com/2009/02/02/eliminate-management-by-objectives/
[40] Short-Termism: The Corporate Achilles Heel | The Jabian Journal https://journal.jabian.com/short-termism-the-corporate-achilles-heel/
[41] Building a No Blame Culture in the Workplace | DavidsonMorris https://www.davidsonmorris.com/no-blame-culture/
[42] Blame Culture: How to Address It and Cultivate Accountability https://leadershiptrust.co/insights/addressing-blame-culture/
[43] Blame Culture Is Toxic. Here’s How to Stop It. https://hbr.org/2022/02/blame-culture-is-toxic-heres-how-to-stop-it
[44] Blame in organizations – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blame_in_organizations
[45] The Rise and Toll of the Blame Culture https://www.innovativehumancapital.com/article/the-rise-and-toll-of-the-blame-culture
[46] The Consequence of Blaming the Individual – Social Work Internships https://sowkassignments.wordpress.com/required-readings/why-are-people-poor/the-consequence-of-blaming-the-individual/
[47] Dealing with a Line Manager Who Scapegoats and Fails … – LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dealing-line-manager-who-scapegoats-fails-communicate-sirajudeen-syd1c
[48] End the Blame Game: Use Corporate Culture to Focus on Solutions – https://blog.culturewise.com/corporate-culture-solutions-blame
[49] Statistical Process Control according to W. Edwards Deming https://www.thomas-huehn.com/deming/
[50] The First Control Chart – The W. Edwards Deming Institute https://deming.org/the-first-control-chart/
[51] W. Edwards Deming’s Contributions to the Practice of Analytics https://analyticstrategy.com/demings-contributions-to-the-practice-of-analytics/
[52] Fundamentals of Statistical Process Control https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1300/J075v09n01_02
[53] Deming’s Story – Eastern Illinois University https://castle.eiu.edu/~pingliu/TEC5970ProblemSolving/Notes/Statistical/Statistical.htm
[54] The Deming System of Profound Knowledge® (SoPK) https://deming.org/explore/sopk/
[55] Edward Deming’s Principles Fall Flat in American Manufacturing https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/edward-demings-principles-fall-flat-american-don-fite
[56] Some Statistical Logic in the Management of Quality by W. Edward … https://deming.org/some-statistical-logic-in-the-management-of-quality-by-w-edward-deming/
[57] System Problem or People Problem? – The Systems Thinker https://thesystemsthinker.com/system-problem-or-people-problem/
[58] Deming’s 14 Points | Vector Solutions https://www.vectorsolutions.com/resources/blogs/demings-14-points-of-quality-management/
[59] How W. Edwards Deming Revolutionized Japan’s Industry and … https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-w-edwards-deming-revolutionized-japans-industry-d-amico-cssbb-tinqe
[60] Creating Winning Businesses: Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge https://www.processexcellencenetwork.com/innovation/whitepapers/creating-winning-businesses-deming-s-system-of-pro
[61] Quarterly earnings guidance and real earnings management https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0fef/83bc4fb34dac782e489ea831b77304d34dd7.pdf
[62] Deming’s Point 11.b of 14 – Deming versus Drucker https://michelbaudin.com/2012/08/26/metrics-in-lean-deming-versus-drucker/
[63] Don’t just blame the system https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2287259/
[64] Creating Scapegoats in the Workplace – Psych Central https://psychcentral.com/pro/recovery-expert/2020/06/creating-scapegoats-in-the-workplace
[65] Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge: An Overview | Quality https://www.qualitygurus.com/demings-system-of-profound-knowledge-an-overview/
[66] The Road Not Taken: How Ignoring Deming’s Philosophy Shaped … https://www.josephaltiericonsulting.com/post/the-road-not-taken-how-ignoring-deming-s-philosophy-shaped-the-fate-of-american-manufacturing-and-g
Leave a Reply