Podcasts about merit what's become

Do you really deserve the credit for your accomplishments? Should college admissions be determined by lottery? And how did Mike's contribution to a charity auction change his life?  SOURCES:Warren Buffett, investor and philanthropist.James Flynn, political philosopher at the University of Otago.Robert Frank, professor emeritus of management at Cornell SC Johnson College of Business.Rogé Karma, staff writer at The Atlantic.Nicholas Lemann, professor of journalism and dean emeritus at Columbia Journalism School.Daniel Markovits, professor of law at Yale Law School.Charles Munger, investor and philanthropist.John Rawls, 20th-century legal and political philosopher.Guy Raz, creator and host of How I Built This and Wisdom from the Top; founder and C.E.O. of Built-It Productions.Michael Sandel, professor of government at Harvard University.Martin Seligman, professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania.Ryan Smith, founder and executive chairman of Qualtrics; owner of the Utah Jazz. RESOURCES:The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? by Michael Sandel (2020).The Meritocracy Trap: How America's Foundational Myth Feeds Inequality, Dismantles the Middle Class, and Devours the Elite, by Daniel Markovits (2019)."'The Meritocracy Trap,' Explained," by Rogé Karma (Vox, 2019)."Reflections About Intelligence Over 40 Years," by James Flynn (Intelligence, 2018)."Here's Why Warren Buffett Says That He and Charlie Munger Are Successful," by Emmie Martin (CNBC, 2018).Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy, by Robert Frank (2016).The Lottery, film by Madeleine Sackler (2010).The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy, by Nicholas Lemann (1999).“The Psychology of Human Misjudgment,” speech by Charles Munger (1995). EXTRAS:"What's the Point of I.Q. Testing?" by No Stupid Questions (2023)."What's So Bad About Nepotism?" by No Stupid Questions (2022).

In this wide-ranging conversation with one of our favorite authors, philosopher Michael Sandel explains how the concept of meritocracy has helped to create such a massive divide in American politics and culture.  Michael Sandel is a world-renowned philosopher who teaches political philosophy at Harvard University. His course “Justice” is the first Harvard course to be made freely available online and has been viewed by tens of millions of people around the world. Sandel's books relate enduring themes of political philosophy to the most vexing moral and civic questions of our time. They include The Tyranny of Merit (2020), Democracy's Discontent (2022), and more. The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374289980/thetyrannyofmerit Democracy's Discontent: A New Edition for Our Perilous Times https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674270718  Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com Twitter: @PitchforkEcon Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Nick's twitter: @NickHanauer

In Episode 15, Jeffrey delves into the Emersonian theodicy and pragmatism, two philosophical ideas that offer a fresh perspective on individualism, community, and the challenges of modern capitalism. Drawing on the works of Ralph Waldo Emerson and other influential thinkers, the episode explores the nexus between personal virtue and social responsibility, critiquing neoliberal ideologies and Silicon Valley's extractive culture. Through a dialogue on shared values, responsibility, and the pursuit of truth, this episode aims to revive virtues that foster a more compassionate and flourishing society.Topics Covered: Emersonian Theodicy and Its Principles Pragmatism as a Philosophical Approach Individualism and Community Responsibility Critique of Neo-Liberalism and Silicon Valley's Culture Virtues of Self-Reliance, Integrity, Empathy, and Social Responsibility The Dichotomy between Modern Capitalism and Virtue Ethics Envisioning a Creative Democracy The Role of Narrative and Moral Development in Society Engaging with Community and Enlarging ParticipationBooks Discussed: The American Evasion of Philosophy by Dr. Cornel West Regime Change: Toward a Post-Liberal Future by Patrick Deneen The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good by Michael SandelFurther Info: Contact: revivingvirtue@gmail.com Music by Jeffrey Anthony Bookshop page with list of all books discussed across all episodes

If something is "good" is that good enough? Who decides? In this episode, Bill and Andrew discuss how people define "good," what interchangeability has to do with morale, and the problem with a "merit-based" culture. Bonus: Learn how Americans became the first to use the French idea of interchangeable parts in manufacturing. Note: this episode was previously published as Part 5 in the Awaken Your Inner Deming series.  TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.3 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. The topic for today is, Deming Distinctions: Beyond Looking Good. Bill, take it away. 0:00:30.4 Bill Bellows: Funny you mentioned that. You remind me that I've been at this for over 30 years, and coming up in July, I'll be celebrating 40 years of marriage. Like 30 years, 40, where do these numbers come from? 0:00:44.5 AS: Okay. Yeah. Who defines quality in a marriage, Bill? 0:00:47.0 BB: Alright. 0:00:50.8 AS: Okay, we won't go there. Take us, take it away. 0:00:52.2 BB: We won't go there. So we are gonna talk about who defines quality, and to get into "beyond looking good." As I shared with you, I've listened to each of the podcasts a few times. And before we get into who defines quality, I just wanna provide clarification on some of the things that came up in the first five episodes. And so, one, and I think these are kind of in order, but if they're not in order, okay, well, I made reference to black-and-white thinking versus shades-of-gray thinking. And I called black-and-white thinking - black and white data - category data, and the word I was searching for that just wasn't coming out was attribute data. So for those who are keeping score, attribute data is probably the most relevant statistician term in that regard. 0:01:44.9 BB: Attribute data versus variable data. And what I've made reference to, and we'll talk more in a future session, is looking at things in terms of categories. And categories are black and white, or it could be red, yellow, green, that's three categories, or looking at things on a continuum. So I'm still excited by the difference that comes about by understanding when we're in the black-and-white mode or the category mode or the attribute data mode versus the variable mode, and still have a belief that we can't have continuous improvement or continual improvement if we're stuck in an attribute mode. 0:02:22.9 BB: And more on that later, that's one. I talked about Thomas Jefferson meeting Honoré Blanc and getting excited about the concept of interchangeable parts. And I had the date wrong, that was 1785, if anyone's keeping score there. He was ambassador to France from 1785 to 1789, but it was in 1792 that he wrote a letter to John Jay, who was a...I think he was a Commerce Secretary. Anyway, he was in the administration of Washington and shared the idea. I was doing some research earlier and found out that even with the headstart that Blanc had in France, 'cause back in 1785, Jefferson was invited to this pretty high level meeting in Paris where Blanc took a, I guess, like the trigger mechanism of 50 different rifles. Not the entire rifle, but just the...let's just call it the trigger mechanism with springs and whatnot. And he took the 50 apart and he put all the springs in one box, all the other pieces in their respective boxes and then shook the boxes up and showed that he could just randomly pull a given spring, a given part, and put 'em all together. And that got Jefferson excited. And the...what it meant for Jefferson and the French was not just that you can repair rifles in the battlefield quickly. 0:03:56.9 BB: Now, what it meant for jobs in France was a really big deal, because what the French were liking was all the time it took to repair those guns with craftsmanship, and Blanc alienated a whole bunch of gunsmiths as a result of that. And it turns out, Blanc's effort didn't really go anywhere because there was such a pushback from the gunsmiths, the practicing craftsmanship that jobs would be taken away. But it did come to the States. And then in the early 1800s, it became known as the American System of Production. But credit goes back to Blanc. I also made reference to absolute versus relative interchangeability. And I wanna provide a little bit more clarification there, and I just wanna throw out three numbers, and ideally people can write the numbers down, I'll repeat 'em a few times. The first number is 5.001, second number is 5.999, and the third number is 6.001. So it's 5.001, 5.999, 6.001. And some of what I'm gonna explain will come up again later, but...so this will tie in pretty well. So, what I've been doing is I'll write those three words on the whiteboard or throw them on a screen, and I'll call... 0:05:28.9 AS: Those three numbers. 0:05:31.4 BB: A, B, and C. And I'll say, which two of the three are closest to being the same? And sure enough people will say the 5.999 and the 6.001, which is like B and C. And I say that's the most popular answer, but it's not the only answer. People are like, "well, what other answer are there?" Well, it could be A and C, 5.001 and 6.001, both end in 001. Or it could be the first two, A and B, 5.001 and 5.999. So what I like to point out is, if somebody answers 5.999 and 6.001, then when I say to them, "what is your definition of same?" 0:06:14.9 BB: 'Cause the question is, which two of the three are close to being the same? And it turns out there's three explanations of "same." There's same: they begin with five, there's same: they end in 001. And there's same in terms of proximity to each other. So I just wanna throw that out. Well, then a very common definition of "quality" is to say, does something meet requirements? And that's the black-and-white thinking. I've also explained in the past that requirements are not set in absolute terms. The meeting must start at exactly 1:00, or the thickness must be exactly one inch. What I've explained is that the one inch will have a plus or minus on it. And so let's say the plus and minus gives us two requirements, a minimum of five and a maximum of six. Well, then that means the 5.001 meets requirements and the 5.999 meets requirements. 0:07:15.4 BB: And so in terms of defining quality, in terms of meeting requirements, A and B are both good. And then what about the 5.999 and the 6.001? Well, those numbers are on opposite sides of the upper requirement of six. One's just a little bit to the left and one's a little bit to the right. Then I would ask people, and for some of you, this'll ring - I think you'll be smiling - and I would say to people, "what happens in manufacturing if, Andrew, if I come up with a measurement and it's 6.001?" Okay, relative to defining quality as "meeting requirements," 6.001 does not meet requirements. So what I'll ask people is, "what would a non-Deming company do with a 6.001?" And people will say, "we're gonna take a file out, we're gonna work on it, we're gonna hit it with a hammer." And I say, "no, too much work." And they say, "well, what's the answer?" "We're gonna measure it again." 0:08:25.7 AS: Until we get it right. 0:08:27.7 BB: We will measure it until we get it right. We will change the room temperature. We will take the easiest path. So then I said, get people to realize, they're like, yeah, that's what we do. We measure the 6.001 again. Well, then I say, "well Andrew, why don't we measure the 5.001 again?" And what's the answer to that, Andrew? [laughter] 0:08:51.5 AS: 4.999. [laughter] 0:08:54.7 BB: But what's interesting is, we'll measure the 6.001 again. But we won't measure the 5.001 again. We won't measure the 5.999 again. And so to me, this reinforces that when we define quality as "meeting requirements," that what we're essentially saying in terms of absolute interchangeability, what we're pretending is that there's no difference between the 5.001 and the 5.999. At opposite ends, we're saying that Blanc would find them to be interchangeable, and putting all the things together. I don't think so. 0:09:36.7 BB: I think there's a greater chance that he'd find negligible difference between the 5.999 and the 6.001. And that's what I mean by relative interchangeability, that the difference between B and C is nothing, that's relative interchangeability. The closer they are together, the more alike they are in terms of how they're integrated into the gun, into the rifle, into the downstream product. And I just throw out that what defining quality as "requirements" is saying is that the first two are...the person downstream can't tell the difference. Then I challenge, I think there's...in terms of not telling the difference, I think between 5.999 and 6.001, that difference is minuscule cause they are relatively interchangeable. The other two are implied to be absolutely interchangeable. And that I challenge, that's why I just want to throw that out. All right, another thing I want...go ahead, Andrew. 0:10:38.3 AS: One of the things I just highlight is, I remember from my political science classes at Long Beach State where I studied was The Communist Manifesto came out in 1848. And Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were talking about the alienation of the worker. And what you're talking about is the kind of, the crushing of the craftsmen through interchangeable parts that was a lot like AI coming along and destroying something. And after 50 or 60 or 70 years of interchangeable parts, along comes The Communist Manifesto with the idea that when a person is just dealing with interchangeable parts, basically they're just a cog in the wheel and they have no connection to the aim of what's going on. They don't have any connection, and all of a sudden you lose the craftsmanship or the care for work. And I think that the reason why this is interesting is because that's, I think, a huge part of what Dr. Deming was trying to bring was bring back...it may not be craftsmanship for creating a shoe if you were a shoemaker, but it would be craftsmanship for producing the best you could for the part that you're playing in an ultimate aim of the system. 0:12:02.6 BB: Yes. And yes, and we'll talk more about that. That's brilliant. What you said also reminds me, and I don't think you and I spoke about it, you'll remind me. But have I shared with you the work of a Harvard philosopher by the name of Michael Sandel? 0:12:24.3 AS: I don't recall. 0:12:27.0 BB: He may be, yeah, from a distance, one of the most famous Harvard professors alive today. He's got a course on justice, which is I think 15 two- or three-hour lectures, which were recorded by public television in Boston. Anyway, he wrote a book at the beginning of the pandemic. It came out, it's called The Tyranny of Merit. 0:12:54.0 BB: And "merit" is this belief that "I did it all by myself." That "I deserve what I have because I made it happen. I had no help from you, Andrew. I had no help from the government. I didn't need the education system, the transportation system. I didn't need NASA research. I made it happen all by myself." And he said, what that belief does is it allows those who are successful to claim that they did it by themselves. It allows them to say those who didn't have only themselves to blame. And he sees that as a major destructive force in society, that belief. And I see it tied very well to Deming. Let me give you one anecdote. Dr. Deming was interviewed by Priscilla Petty for The Deming of America documentary, which was absolutely brilliant. 0:13:49.8 BB: And she's at his home, and he's sharing with her the medal he got from the Emperor of Japan, and he's holding it carefully, and I think he gives it to her, and she's looking at it, and she says to him something like, so what did it mean to you to receive that? And he said, "I was lucky. I made a contribution." He didn't say I did it all by myself. He was acknowledging that he was in the right place at the right time to make a contribution. And that's where Sandel is also heavily on, is don't deny the role of being born at the right time in the right situation, which is a greater system in which we are. Well, for one of the college courses, I was watching an interview between Sandel and one of his former students. 0:14:48.1 BB: And the point Sandel made that I wanted to bring up based on what you just said, he says, "what we really need to do is get people dignity in work." And that's what you're talking about, is allowing them to have pride in work, dignity in work instead of as they're making interchangeable parts, having them feel like an interchangeable part. And I'm really glad you brought that up because when we talk later about letter grades, I would bring back one of the reasons I find Deming's work astounding, is that he takes into account psychology in a way that I hope our listeners will really take heart to in a deeper way. 0:15:30.2 AS: And so for the listeners out there, just to reinforce, the book is called The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good. Published in 2020 by Michael Sandel. And the ratings on Amazon is 4.5 out of five with about 2,446 ratings. So it's a pretty well-rated book I'd say. And looks interesting. Now you got me wanting to read that one. 0:15:57.0 BB: Oh what I'll do is I'll send you a... Well, what I encourage our listeners to do is find the interview... Harvard Bookstore did an interview in 2020, 2021, with Michael Sandel being interviewed by his former student by the name of Preet Bharara. [laughter] Who used to be the... 0:16:24.3 AS: SEC... 0:16:24.4 BB: Head of these...no, well, he prosecuted a number of people for SEC crimes, but he headed the Justice Department's long oldest district, which is known as SDNY or the Southern District of New York. And so he was a...in one of the first classes his freshman year at Harvard, Preet Bharara's freshman year at Havard was one of Sandel's first years. And so they had an incredible conversation. So I would encourage the listeners to... 0:16:51.8 AS: Yeah, it's titled: Michael J Sandel with Preet Bharara at Harvard. And the channel is called Harvard Bookstore. 0:16:58.6 BB: Yes, absolutely. All right. So another topic I want to get to in terms of clarification and key points, last time we talked about tools and techniques and what I'm not sure I made much about.... First of all, I just wanna really reinforce that tools and techniques are not concepts and strategies. Tools are like a garden tool I use to dig a hole. Technique is how I go about using it, cleaning it, and whatnot. Not to be confused from a concept...and what is concept? We talked about last time is a concept is an abstract idea and a strategy is how do we apply it? So tools and techniques within Six Sigma quality could be control charts, could be design of experiments. And all, by the way, you're gonna find those tools and techniques within the Deming community. So it's not to say the tools and techniques are the differentiator. 0:17:50.8 BB: I think the concepts and strategies are the differentiators, but I don't wanna downplay tools. Lean has tools in terms of value streams, and you won't find value streams per se in Dr. Deming's work. Dr. Deming looks in terms of production viewed as a system. In a later session, I want to talk about value streams versus Deming's work. But I just wanna point out that I find it...it's easy to get lost in the weeds with all we find within Lean, Six Sigma, Deming and whatnot. And this is why last time I wanted to focus on tools and techniques as separate from concepts and strategies. And what I think we did speak about last time, again, for just as a reminder, is what's unique that we both enjoy with Dr. Deming's work is that KPIs are not caused by individual departments, assigned to individual departments. 0:18:46.0 BB: KPIs are viewed as measures of the overall system. And if you assign the KPIs across the organization and give every different function their own KPI, what you're likely to find - not likely - what you WILL find is that those assigned KPIs are interfering with others' abilities to get their KPIs met. And in the Deming philosophy, you don't have that problem because you understand that things are interdependent, not independent. And so I just wanna close by saying what I find in Deming's work to be most enlightening is this sense of "what does it mean to look at something as a system?" And it means everything is connected to everything else. When you define quality in terms of saying "this is good because it meets requirements," what you've just said is, "this is good in isolation." Whether it's the pass from the quarterback to the wide receiver, saying the pass met requirements. 0:19:52.0 BB: What I think Dr. Deming would ask is, "is the ball catchable?" [laughter] And yet, what I've seen in my aerospace experience is parts being measured for airplanes in Australia that they meet requirements because the measurements are taken early in the morning before the sun has had a chance to heat the part up. And we get the 6.001 is now 5.999. You know what that means, Andrew? It's - we can now ship it. [laughter] 0:20:23.9 BB: And send it off to America for some airplane factory. 0:20:26.2 AS: When we shipped it, that's what it was. 0:20:28.9 BB: Exactly. And so, again, interdependence is everything. Go ahead, Andrew. 0:20:34.6 AS: I wanted to point on, there's a company in Thailand that really has gotten on the KPI bandwagon, and I was talking with some people that work there, and they were just talking about how they've been rolling out the KPIs for the last couple of years and down to the number of seconds that you're on the phone and everything that you do is tracked now. And then I just witnessed that company basically use that KPI as a way to basically knock out a whole group of people that they were trying to get rid of by coming in with tight KPIs and then saying, "you're not keeping up with 'em and therefore you're out." And I just thought...and the manager that was involved I was talking to, you could just see, he saw how KPI can just be weaponized for the purposes of the senior management when you're doing KPIs of individuals. And the thing that I was thinking about is, imagine the CEO of that company in a couple of years, in a couple of months, they happen to listen to this podcast, or they pick up a book of Dr. Deming and they think, "Oh my God, what did I just do over the last five years implementing KPIs down to the individual level?" [laughter] 0:21:48.5 BB: Oh, yeah. And that's what we talked about last time is...as I told you, I had a friend of a friend who's worked for Xerox, and he said there wasn't a KPI that was flowed down that they couldn't find a way to beat. And that's what happens, and you end up getting things done, but what's missing is: at whose expense? All right. So we talked about...now, let's get into beyond looking good, Deming distinctions. Who defines quality? Well, from Philip Crosby's perspective, quality's defined by the...it could be the designer. The designer puts a set of requirements on the component, whatever it is. The unit, the requirements have latitude we talked about. They're not exact. There's a minimum of six, a maximum of...or a minimum of five, maximum of six. 0:22:48.8 BB: There's a range you have to meet, is the traditional view of quality. And in my 30 years of experience, I've not seen quality defined any other way than that. It has to be in between these two values. Sometimes it has to be five or below or six or above, but there's a range. But also what we talked about last time is Dr. Deming said "a product or service possesses quality if it helps someone and enjoys a sustainable market." But what I found profound about that definition, it is not me defining quality and saying, "Andrew, the parts met requirements when I threw it. Now, it's your job to catch it." It's me saying, "I've thrown the ball and you tell me, how did I do? You tell me how did I do?" And if you said, "Bill, if you throw it just a little bit higher, a little bit further out, a little bit faster," that's about synchronicity. Now, I'm realizing that my ability to throw the ball doesn't really matter if you can't catch it. So if I practice in the off season, throwing it faster and faster, but don't clue you in, until the first game, how's that helping? So I've got a KPI to throw it really, really hard. And you're thinking, "how's that helping?" So that's... 0:24:19.9 AS: And can you just go back to that for a second? Quality is on a product or service, you were saying that how Dr. Deming defined that, it helps someone... 0:24:26.7 BB: Yeah. Dr. Deming said "a product or service possesses quality if it helps someone and enjoys a sustainable market." And so my interpretation of that is two things. One is, it's not me delivering a report and saying the report met requirements. It's saying, "I get the report to you, and I ask Andrew, how did I do?" And then you say to me, "I had some problem with this section, I had some problem...." But the important thing is that you become the judge of the quality of the report, not me. And it could be information I provide you with in a lecture. It's you letting me know as a student that you had a hard time with the examples. And I'm thinking, "well, I did a great job." So it's not what I think as the producer handing off to you. It's you giving me the feedback. So quality is not a one-way...in fact, first of all, quality's not defined by the producer. It's defined by the recipients saying, "I love this or not." And so that's one thing I wanna say, and does it enjoy a sustainable market? What I talked about in the past is my interpretation of that is, if I'm bending over backwards to provide incredible quality at an incredible price, and I'm going outta business, then it may be great for you, but it may not be great for me. So it has to be mutually beneficial. I just wanna... Go ahead, Andrew. 0:26:03.1 AS: You referenced the word synchronicity, which the meaning of that according to the dictionary is that "simultaneous occurrence of events which appear significantly related, but had no discernible causal connection." What were you meaning when you were saying synchronicity? Is it this that now you're communicating with the part of the process ahead of you, and they're communicating back to you and all of a sudden you're starting to really work together? Is that what you mean by that? 0:26:33.1 BB: Yeah. When I think of synchronicity, I'm thinking of the fluidity of watching a basketball game where I'm throwing blind passes to the left and to the right and to the observer in the stands are thinking: holy cow. That's what I'm talking about, is the ability that we're sharing information just like those passes in a basketball game where you're...I mean I cannot do that without being incredibly mindful of where you are, what information you need. That's what I meant. That's what I mean. As opposed to - I wait until the number is less than...I'm out there in the hot sun. I get the measurement, 6.001, no, no, no, wait. Now it's five. Where's the synchronicity in that? Am I concerned about how this is helping you, or am I concerned about how do I get this off my plate onto the next person? And I'd also say... 0:27:32.6 AS: Yep. And another word I was thinking about is coordination, the organization of the different elements of a complex body or activity so as to enable them to work together efficiently. You could also say that the state of flow or something like that? 0:27:48.7 BB: I'm glad you brought up the word "together." The big deal is: am I defining quality in a vacuum, or am I doing it with some sense of how this is being used? Which is also something we got into, I think in the, one of the very first podcasts, and you asked me what could our audience...give me an example of how the audience could use this. And I said you're delivering a report to the person down the street, around the corner. Go find out how they use it. I use the example of providing data for my consulting company to my CPA, and I called 'em up one day and I said, "how do you use this information? Maybe I can get it to you in an easier form." That's together. I mean relationships, we talked earlier about marriage, relationships are based on the concept of together, not separate, together. Saying something is good, without understanding how it's used is not about "together." It's about "separate." 0:28:54.1 BB: And so what I find is, in Lean, we look at: how can we get rid of the non-value-added tasks? Who defines value? Or I could say, and Lean folks will talk about the...they'll say this: "eliminate things that don't add value." My response to them is, if you tell me that this activity does not provide value in this room for the next hour, I'm okay with that. If you tell me this activity doesn't add value in this building for the next year, I'm okay with that. But if you don't define the size of the system when you tell me it doesn't add value, then you're implying that it doesn't add value, period. 0:29:43.4 BB: And I say, how do you know that? But this is the thinking, this is what baffles me on the thinking behind Lean and these concepts of non-value-added, value-added activities. I think all activities add value. The only question is where does a value show up? And likewise in Six Sigma quality, which is heavily based on conformist requirements and driving defects to zero, that's defining quality of the parts in isolation. What does that mean, Andrew? Separate. It means separate. Nothing about synchronicity. And so I'm glad you brought that point up because what I...this idea of "together" is throughout the Deming philosophy, a sense of together, defining quality in terms of a relationship. 0:30:31.1 AS: And I remember when I was young, I was working at Pepsi, and they sent me to learn with Dr. Deming. And then I came back, and what I was kind of looking for was tools, thinking that I would...and I came back of course, with something very different, with a new way of thinking. And then I realized that Dr. Deming is so far beyond tools. He's trying to think about how do we optimize this whole system? And once I started learning that about Dr. Deming, I could see the difference. Whereas, you may decide - let's say that you wanna learn about Lean and get a certification in Lean or something like that. 0:31:15.5 AS: Ultimately, you may go down a rabbit hole of a particular tool and become a master in that tool. Nothing wrong with that. But the point is, what is the objective? Who defines the quality? And Dr. Deming clearly stated in the seminars that I was in, and from readings that I've read, that the objective of quality isn't just to improve something in...you could improve something, the quality of something and go out of business. And so there's the bigger objective of it is: how does this serve the needs of our clients? So anyways, that's just some of my memories of those days. 0:31:52.4 BB: Yeah. But you're absolutely right. And the point I'm hoping to bring out in our sessions is: I'm not against tools and techniques. Tools and techniques are incredible. They're time savers, money savers, but let's use them with a sense of connections and relationships. And I agree with you, I've done plenty of seminars where people are coming in - they're all about tools and techniques. Tools and techniques is part of the reason I like to differentiate is to say....and again, I think people are hungrier for tools and techniques. Why? Because I don't think they've come to grips with what concepts and strategies are about. And I'm hoping our listeners can help us...can appreciate that they go together. Tools and techniques are about efficiency, doing things faster, doing things cheaper. Concepts and strategies are about doing the right thing. Ackoff would say "doing the right thing right." And short of that, we end up using tools to make things worse. And that's what I'm hoping people can avoid through the insights we can share from Dr. Deming. 0:33:05.4 AS: And I would say that, would it be the case that applying tools, and tools and techniques is kind of easy? You learn how they work, you practice with them, you measure, you give feedback, but actually going to figure out how we optimize this overall system is just so much harder. It's a complex situation, and I can imagine that there's some people that would retreat to tools and techniques and I saw it in the factory at Pepsi when people would basically just say, "well, I'm just doing my thing." That's it, 'cause it's too much trouble to go out and try to negotiate all of this with everybody. 0:33:50.7 BB: I think in part, I think as long as they're managing parts in isolation, which is the prevailing system of management, then, I agree with you. Becoming aware of interdependencies in the greater system, and I'll also point out is whatever system you're looking at is part of a bigger system, and then again, bigger system, then again, bigger system. What you define is the whole, is part of a bigger system. No matter how you define it, it's part of a bigger system because time goes to infinity. So your 10-year plan, well, why not a 20-year plan? Why not a 30-year plan? So no matter how big a system you look at, there is a bigger system. So let's not get overwhelmed. Let's take a system, which Ackoff would say, take a system which is not too big that you can't manage it, not too small, that you're not really giving it the good effort, but don't lose sight of whatever system you're looking at - you'll begin to realize it is actually bigger than that. Again, what Dr. Deming would say, the bigger the system, the more complicated, which is where you're coming from, but it also offers more opportunities. I think we're so used to tools and techniques. 0:35:14.3 BB: I don't think people have really given thought to the concepts and strategies of Deming's work as opposed to Lean and Six Sigma as being different, which is why I wanted to bring it up with our listeners, because I don't think people are defaulting on the tools. I just don't think they appreciate that concepts and strategies are different than tools and techniques. And I like to have them become aware of that difference and then understand where black-and-white thinking works, where continuum thinking has advantages. There's times to look at things as connected, and then there's times to just move on and make a decision, which is a lot easier because the implications aren't as important. But at least now we get back to choice, be conscious of the choice you're making, and then move on. All right, so also on the list we had, who defines quality? 0:36:09.0 BB: We talked about that. What is meant by good: the requirements are met. Who defines good? Again, if you're looking at Phil Crosby, who defines good? Someone has to set, here are the requirements for being "good." I could be giving a term paper and me saying to the students, this is what "good" means. Next thing I wanted to look at is, "why stop at good?" And, I'm pretty sure we've talked about this. A question I like to ask people is how much time they spend every day in meetings, discussing parts, components, things that are good and going well. And what I find is people don't spend a whole lot of time discussing things that are good and going well. So why do they stop? Why not? Because they're stopping at "good." 0:36:57.1 BB: And that goes back to the black-and-white thinking. They're saying things are "bad" or they're "good." We focus on the bad to make it good, and then we stop at good. Why do we stop at good? Because there's no sense of "better." All right. And what does that mean? So again, we have why stop at good? Why go beyond good? And this is...'cause I think we're talking about really smart people that stop at "good." And I think to better understand what that means, what I like to do is ask people, what's the letter grade required for a company to ship their products to the customer? What letter grade does NASA expect from all their suppliers? And I asked a very senior NASA executive this question years ago. He was the highest ranking NASA executive in the quality field. 0:37:50.5 BB: And I said, "what letter grade do you expect from your contractors?" And he said, A+. A+. And I said, actually, it's not A+. And he is like, "What do you mean?" I said, "actually the letter grade, your requirement is actually D-." And he pushed back at me and I said, what...he says, "well, what do you mean?" I said, "how do you define quality?" And he said, "We define quality as requirements are met. That's what we require." I said, "so you think A+ is the only thing that meets requirements?" He's like, "well, where are you coming from?" I said a pass-fail system, now we get back to category thinking, if it's good or bad, what is good? Good is passing. What is passing? What I explained to him: passing is anything from an A+ down to a D-. 0:38:38.9 BB: And he got a little antsy with me. I said, "well, the alternative is an F, you don't want an F, right?" I said, "well, what you're saying is that you'll take anything but an F and that means your requirements are actually D-." And then when I pushed back and I said, "is a D- the same as an A+?" And he said, "no." I said, "well, that's what I meant earlier" in the conversation with him. And I told him that they weren't interchangeable. So when you begin to realize that black and white quality, Phil Crosby-quality, allows for D minuses to be shipped to customers. Again, in this one way I define quality, I hand it off to you. 'Cause in that world, Andrew, I make the measurement, it's 5.999, it meets requirements, I ship it to you, your only response when you receive it is to say, "thank you." [laughter] 0:39:33.2 BB: For a D minus, right? Well, when you begin to understand relationship quality, then you begin to understand that to improve the relationship, what's behind improving the relationship, Andrew, is shifting from the D- to the A. And what does that mean? What that means is, when I pay attention to your ability to receive what I give you, whether it's the pass or the information, the more synchronously I can provide that, the letter grade is going up, [laughter] and it continues to go up. Now, again, what I'm hoping is that the effort I'm taking to provide you with the A is worthwhile. But that's how you can have continuous improvement, is stop...not stopping at the D minus. 0:40:17.6 BB: Again, there may be situations where D minus is all you really need, but I, that's not me delivering to you a D minus blindly. That's you saying to me, "Hey, I don't need an A+ over here. All I really need is a D minus." That's teamwork, Andrew. So on the one hand, and what I think is, our listeners may not appreciate it, is who defines the letter grade? So in your organization, I would say to people, you give everyone a set of requirements to go meet, what letter grade does each of them has to meet to hand off to a coworker, to another coworker, to a customer? Every single one of those people, all they have to do if they're feeling disenfranchised, as you mentioned earlier, they're feeling like an interchangeable part, well, under those circumstances, Andrew, I don't have to call you up, I just deliver a D minus. And you can't complain because I've met the requirements. 0:41:14.2 BB: So what I think it could be a little scary is to realize, what if everybody in the company comes to work tomorrow feeling no dignity in work and decides to hand off the minimum on every requirement, how does that help? And what I find exciting by Deming's work is that Dr. Deming understood that how people are treated affects their willingness to look up, pay attention to the person they're receiving and deliver to them the appropriate letter grade. So I'm hoping that helps our audience understand that if it's a black and white system, then we're saying that it's good or it's bad. What that misses is, keyword Andrew, variation in good. So the opportunities to improve when we realize that there's a range, that "good" has variation. Another point I wanna make is, what allows the Deming philosophy to go beyond looking good? 0:42:16.2 BB: Well, if you look at the last chapter 10, I think, yeah, chapter 10 of the New Economics is...like the last six pages of the New Economics is all about Dr. Taguchi's work, and it's what Dr. Deming learned from Dr. Taguchi about this very thought of looking at quality in terms of relationships, not just in isolation, Phil Crosby-style meeting requirements. And the last thing I wanna throw out is I was listening to a interview with Russ Ackoff earlier today, and he gave the three steps to being creative. This is a lecture he gave at Rocketdyne years ago. And he said, the first thing is you have to discover self-limiting constraints. Second, you have to remove the constraint. And third, you have to exploit that removal. And what I want to close on is what Deming is talking about is the self-limiting constraint is when we stop at good. [laughter] 0:43:20.7 BB: And I'm hoping that this episode provides more insights as to the self-imposed constraint within our organizations to stop at "good." What happens when we go beyond that? And how do you go beyond that? By looking at how others receive your work and then expand that others and expand that others and expand that others. And then what I find exciting is, and the work I do with students and with clients is, how can we exploit every day that idea of synchronicity of quality, and not looking at quality from a category perspective? Again, unless that's all that's needed in that situation. So I don't want to throw out category thinking, use category thinking where it makes sense, use continuum thinking where it makes sense. So that's what I wanted to close with. 0:44:12.1 AS: Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. For listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'm gonna leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, and it's very appropriate for the discussion that we've had today. "People are entitled to joy in work."  

If something is "good" is that good enough? Who decides? In this episode, Bill and Andrew discuss how people define "good," what interchangeability has to do with morale, and the problem with a "merit-based" culture. Bonus: Bill gives us a short history lesson on how Americans became the first to manufacture using interchangeable parts even though the originator was a Frenchman. 0:00:02.3 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. The topic for today is, Deming Distinctions: Beyond Looking Good. Bill, take it away.   0:00:30.4 Bill Bellows: Funny you mentioned that. You remind me that I've been at this for over 30 years, and coming up in July, I'll be celebrating 40 years of marriage. Like 30 years, 40, where do these numbers come from?   0:00:44.5 AS: Okay. Yeah. Who defines quality in a marriage, Bill?   0:00:47.0 BB: Alright.   0:00:50.8 AS: Okay, we won't go there. Take us, take it away.   0:00:52.2 BB: We won't go there. So we are gonna talk about who defines quality, and to get into "beyond looking good." As I shared with you, I've listened to each of the podcasts a few times. And before we get into who defines quality, I just wanna provide clarification on some of the things that came up in the first five episodes. And so, one, and I think these are kind of in order, but if they're not in order, okay, well, I made reference to black-and-white thinking versus shades-of-gray thinking. And I called black-and-white thinking - black and white data - category data, and the word I was searching for that just wasn't coming out was attribute data. So for those who are keeping score, attribute data is probably the most relevant statistician term in that regard.   0:01:44.9 BB: Attribute data versus variable data. And what I've made reference to, and we'll talk more in a future session, is looking at things in terms of categories. And categories are black and white, or it could be red, yellow, green, that's three categories, or looking at things on a continuum. So I'm still excited by the difference that comes about by understanding when we're in the black-and-white mode or the category mode or the attribute data mode versus the variable mode, and still have a belief that we can't have continuous improvement or continual improvement if we're stuck in an attribute mode.   0:02:22.9 BB: And more on that later, that's one. I talked about Thomas Jefferson meeting Honoré Blanc and getting excited about the concept of interchangeable parts. And I had the date wrong, that was 1785, if anyone's keeping score there. He was ambassador to France from 1785 to 1789, but it was in 1792 that he wrote a letter to John Jay, who was a...I think he was a Commerce Secretary. Anyway, he was in the administration of Washington and shared the idea. I was doing some research earlier and found out that even with the headstart that Blanc had in France, 'cause back in 1785, Jefferson was invited to this pretty high level meeting in Paris where Blanc took a, I guess, like the trigger mechanism of 50 different rifles. Not the entire rifle, but just the...let's just call it the trigger mechanism with springs and whatnot. And he took the 50 apart and he put all the springs in one box, all the other pieces in their respective boxes and then shook the boxes up and showed that he could just randomly pull a given spring, a given part, and put 'em all together. And that got Jefferson excited. And the...what it meant for Jefferson and the French was not just that you can repair rifles in the battlefield quickly.   0:03:56.9 BB: Now, what it meant for jobs in France was a really big deal, because what the French were liking was all the time it took to repair those guns with craftsmanship, and Blanc alienated a whole bunch of gunsmiths as a result of that. And it turns out, Blanc's effort didn't really go anywhere because there was such a pushback from the gunsmiths, the practicing craftsmanship that jobs would be taken away. But it did come to the States. And then in the early 1800s, it became known as the American System of Production. But credit goes back to Blanc. I also made reference to absolute versus relative interchangeability. And I wanna provide a little bit more clarification there, and I just wanna throw out three numbers, and ideally people can write the numbers down, I'll repeat 'em a few times. The first number is 5.001, second number is 5.999, and the third number is 6.001. So it's 5.001, 5.999, 6.001. And some of what I'm gonna explain will come up again later, but...so this will tie in pretty well. So, what I've been doing is I'll write those three words on the whiteboard or throw them on a screen, and I'll call...   0:05:28.9 AS: Those three numbers.   0:05:31.4 BB: A, B, and C. And I'll say, which two of the three are closest to being the same? And sure enough people will say the 5.999 and the 6.001, which is like B and C. And I say that's the most popular answer, but it's not the only answer. People are like, "well, what other answer are there?" Well, it could be A and C, 5.001 and 6.001, both end in 001. Or it could be the first two, A and B, 5.001 and 5.999. So what I like to point out is, if somebody answers 5.999 and 6.001, then when I say to them, "what is your definition of same?"   0:06:14.9 BB: 'Cause the question is, which two of the three are close to being the same? And it turns out there's three explanations of "same." There's same: they begin with five, there's same: they end in 001. And there's same in terms of proximity to each other. So I just wanna throw that out. Well, then a very common definition of "quality" is to say, does something meet requirements? And that's the black-and-white thinking. I've also explained in the past that requirements are not set in absolute terms. The meeting must start at exactly 1:00, or the thickness must be exactly one inch. What I've explained is that the one inch will have a plus or minus on it. And so let's say the plus and minus gives us two requirements, a minimum of five and a maximum of six. Well, then that means the 5.001 meets requirements and the 5.999 meets requirements.   0:07:15.4 BB: And so in terms of defining quality, in terms of meeting requirements, A and B are both good. And then what about the 5.999 and the 6.001? Well, those numbers are on opposite sides of the upper requirement of six. One's just a little bit to the left and one's a little bit to the right. Then I would ask people, and for some of you, this'll ring - I think you'll be smiling - and I would say to people, "What happens in manufacturing if, Andrew, if I come up with a measurement and it's 6.001?" Okay, relative to defining quality as "meeting requirements," 6.001 does not meet requirements. So what I'll ask people is, "what would a non-Deming company do with a 6.001?" And people will say, "We're gonna take a file out, we're gonna work on it, we're gonna hit it with a hammer." And I say, "No, too much work." And they say, "Well, what's the answer?" "We're gonna measure it again."   0:08:25.7 AS: Until we get it right.   0:08:27.7 BB: We will measure it until we get it right. We will change the room temperature. We will take the easiest path. So then I said, get people to realize, they're like, yeah, that's what we do. We measure the 6.001 again. Well, then I say, "Well Andrew, why don't we measure the 5.001 again?" And what's the answer to that, Andrew? [laughter]   0:08:51.5 AS: 4.999. [laughter]   0:08:54.7 BB: But what's interesting is, we'll measure the 6.001 again. But we won't measure the 5.001 again. We won't measure the 5.999 again. And so to me, this reinforces that when we define quality as "meeting requirements," that what we're essentially saying in terms of absolute interchangeability, what we're pretending is that there's no difference between the 5.001 and the 5.999. At opposite ends, we're saying that Blanc would find them to be interchangeable, and putting all the things together. I don't think so.   0:09:36.7 BB: I think there's a greater chance that he'd find negligible difference between the 5.999 and the 6.001. And that's what I mean by relative interchangeability, that the difference between B and C is nothing, that's relative interchangeability. The closer they are together, the more alike they are in terms of how they're integrated into the gun, into the rifle, into the downstream product. And I just throw out that what defining quality as "requirements" is saying is that the first two are...the person downstream can't tell the difference. Then I challenge, I think there's...in terms of not telling the difference, I think between 5.999 and 6.001, that difference is minuscule cause they are relatively interchangeable. The other two are implied to be absolutely interchangeable. And that I challenge, that's why I just want to throw that out. All right, another thing I want...go ahead, Andrew.   0:10:38.3 AS: One of the things I just highlight is, I remember from my political science classes at Long Beach State where I studied was The Communist Manifesto came out in 1848. And Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were talking about the alienation of the worker. And what you're talking about is the kind of, the crushing of the craftsmen through interchangeable parts that was a lot like AI coming along and destroying something. And after 50 or 60 or 70 years of interchangeable parts, along comes The Communist Manifesto with the idea that when a person is just dealing with interchangeable parts, basically they're just a cog in the wheel and they have no connection to the aim of what's going on. They don't have any connection, and all of a sudden you lose the craftsmanship or the care for work. And I think that the reason why this is interesting is because that's, I think, a huge part of what Dr. Deming was trying to bring was bring back...it may not be craftsmanship for creating a shoe if you were a shoemaker, but it would be craftsmanship for producing the best you could for the part that you're playing in an ultimate aim of the system.   0:12:02.6 BB: Yes. And yes, and we'll talk more about that. That's brilliant. What you said also reminds me, and I don't think you and I spoke about it, you'll remind me. But have I shared with you the work of a Harvard philosopher by the name of Michael Sandel?   0:12:24.3 AS: I don't recall.   0:12:27.0 BB: He may be, yeah, from a distance, one of the most famous Harvard professors alive today. He's got a course on justice, which is I think 15 two- or three-hour lectures, which were recorded by public television in Boston. Anyway, he wrote a book at the beginning of the pandemic. It came out, it's called The Tyranny of Merit.   0:12:54.0 BB: And "merit" is this belief that "I did it all by myself." That "I deserve what I have because I made it happen. I had no help from you, Andrew. I had no help from the government. I didn't need the education system, the transportation system. I didn't need NASA research. I made it happen all by myself." And he said, what that belief does is it allows those who are successful to claim that they did it by themselves. It allows them to say those who didn't have only themselves to blame. And he sees that as a major destructive force in society, that belief. And I see it tied very well to Deming. Let me give you one anecdote. Dr. Deming was interviewed by Priscilla Petty for The Deming of America documentary, which was absolutely brilliant.   0:13:49.8 BB: And she's at his home, and he's sharing with her the medal he got from the Emperor of Japan, and he's holding it carefully, and I think he gives it to her, and she's looking at it, and she says to him something like, so what did it mean to you to receive that? And he said, "I was lucky. I made a contribution." He didn't say I did it all by myself. He was acknowledging that he was in the right place at the right time to make a contribution. And that's where Sandel is also heavily on, is don't deny the role of being born at the right time in the right situation, which is a greater system in which we are. Well, for one of the college courses, I was watching an interview between Sandel and one of his former students.   0:14:48.1 BB: And the point Sandel made that I wanted to bring up based on what you just said, he says, "what we really need to do is get people dignity in work." And that's what you're talking about, is allowing them to have pride in work, dignity in work instead of as they're making interchangeable parts, having them feel like an interchangeable part. And I'm really glad you brought that up because when we talk later about letter grades, I would bring back one of the reasons I find Deming's work astounding, is that he takes into account psychology in a way that I hope our listeners will really take heart to in a deeper way.   0:15:30.2 AS: And so for the listeners out there, just to reinforce, the book is called The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good. Published in 2020 by Michael Sandel. And the ratings on Amazon is 4.5 out of five with about 2,446 ratings. So it's a pretty well-rated book I'd say. And looks interesting. Now you got me wanting to read that one.   0:15:57.0 BB: Oh what I'll do is I'll send you a... Well, what I encourage our listeners to do is find the interview... Harvard Bookstore did an interview in 2020, 2021, with Michael Sandel being interviewed by his former student by the name of Preet Bharara. [laughter] Who used to be the...   0:16:24.3 AS: SEC...   0:16:24.4 BB: Head of these...no, well, he prosecuted a number of people for SEC crimes, but he headed the Justice Department's long oldest district, which is known as SDNY or the Southern District of New York. And so he was a...in one of the first classes his freshman year at Harvard, Preet Bharara's freshman year at Havard was one of Sandel's first years. And so they had an incredible conversation. So I would encourage the listeners to...   0:16:51.8 AS: Yeah, it's titled: Michael J Sandel with Preet Bharara at Harvard. And the channel is called Harvard Bookstore.   0:16:58.6 BB: Yes, absolutely. All right. So another topic I want to get to in terms of clarification and key points, last time we talked about tools and techniques and what I'm not sure I made much about.... First of all, I just wanna really reinforce that tools and techniques are not concepts and strategies. Tools are like a garden tool I use to dig a hole. Technique is how I go about using it, cleaning it, and whatnot. Not to be confused from a concept...and what is concept? We talked about last time is a concept is an abstract idea and a strategy is how do we apply it? So tools and techniques within Six Sigma quality could be control charts, could be design of experiments. And all, by the way, you're gonna find those tools and techniques within the Deming community. So it's not to say the tools and techniques are the differentiator.   0:17:50.8 BB: I think the concepts and strategies are the differentiators, but I don't wanna downplay tools. Lean has tools in terms of value streams, and you won't find value streams per se in Dr. Deming's work. Dr. Deming looks in terms of production viewed as a system. In a later session, I want to talk about value streams versus Deming's work. But I just wanna point out that I find it...it's easy to get lost in the weeds with all we find within Lean, Six Sigma, Deming and whatnot. And this is why last time I wanted to focus on tools and techniques as separate from concepts and strategies. And what I think we did speak about last time, again, for just as a reminder, is what's unique that we both enjoy with Dr. Deming's work is that KPIs are not caused by individual departments, assigned to individual departments.   0:18:46.0 BB: KPIs are viewed as measures of the overall system. And if you assign the KPIs across the organization and give every different function their own KPI, what you're likely to find - not likely - what you WILL find is that those assigned KPIs are interfering with others' abilities to get their KPIs met. And in the Deming philosophy, you don't have that problem because you understand that things are interdependent, not independent. And so I just wanna close by saying what I find in Deming's work to be most enlightening is this sense of "what does it mean to look at something as a system?" And it means everything is connected to everything else. When you define quality in terms of saying "this is good because it meets requirements," what you've just said is, "this is good in isolation." Whether it's the pass from the quarterback to the wide receiver, saying the pass met requirements.   0:19:52.0 BB: What I think Dr. Deming would ask is, "is the ball catchable?" [laughter] And yet, what I've seen in my aerospace experience is parts being measured for airplanes in Australia that they meet requirements because the measurements are taken early in the morning before the sun has had a chance to heat the part up. And we get the 6.001 is now 5.999. You know what that means, Andrew? It's - we can now ship it.   [laughter]   0:20:23.9 BB: And send it off to America for some airplane factory.   0:20:26.2 AS: When we shipped it, that's what it was.   0:20:28.9 BB: Exactly. And so, again, interdependence is everything. Go ahead, Andrew.   0:20:34.6 AS: I wanted to point on, there's a company in Thailand that really has gotten on the KPI bandwagon, and I was talking with some people that work there, and they were just talking about how they've been rolling out the KPIs for the last couple of years and down to the number of seconds that you're on the phone and everything that you do is tracked now. And then I just witnessed that company basically use that KPI as a way to basically knock out a whole group of people that they were trying to get rid of by coming in with tight KPIs and then saying, "you're not keeping up with 'em and therefore you're out." And I just thought...and the manager that was involved I was talking to, you could just see, he saw how KPI can just be weaponized for the purposes of the senior management when you're doing KPIs of individuals. And the thing that I was thinking about is, imagine the CEO of that company in a couple of years, in a couple of months, they happen to listen to this podcast, or they pick up a book of Dr. Deming and they think, "Oh my God, what did I just do over the last five years implementing KPIs down to the individual level?" [laughter]   0:21:48.5 BB: Oh, yeah. And that's what we talked about last time is...as I told you, I had a friend of a friend who's worked for Xerox, and he said there wasn't a KPI that was flowed down that they couldn't find a way to beat. And that's what happens, and you end up getting things done, but what's missing is: at whose expense? All right. So we talked about...now, let's get into beyond looking good, Deming distinctions. Who defines quality? Well, from Philip Crosby's perspective, quality's defined by the...it could be the designer. The designer puts a set of requirements on the component, whatever it is. The unit, the requirements have latitude we talked about. They're not exact. There's a minimum of six, a maximum of...or a minimum of five, maximum of six.   0:22:48.8 BB: There's a range you have to meet, is the traditional view of quality. And in my 30 years of experience, I've not seen quality defined any other way than that. It has to be in between these two values. Sometimes it has to be five or below or six or above, but there's a range. But also what we talked about last time is Dr. Deming said "a product or service possesses quality if it helps someone and enjoys a sustainable market." But what I found profound about that definition, it is not me defining quality and saying, "Andrew, the parts met requirements when I threw it. Now, it's your job to catch it." It's me saying, "I've thrown the ball and you tell me, how did I do? You tell me how did I do?" And if you said, "Bill, if you throw it just a little bit higher, a little bit further out, a little bit faster," that's about synchronicity. Now, I'm realizing that my ability to throw the ball doesn't really matter if you can't catch it. So if I practice in the off season, throwing it faster and faster, but don't clue you in, until the first game, how's that helping? So I've got a KPI to throw it really, really hard. And you're thinking, "how's that helping?" So that's...   0:24:19.9 AS: And can you just go back to that for a second? Quality is on a product or service, you were saying that how Dr. Deming defined that, it helps someone...   0:24:26.7 BB: Yeah. Dr. Deming said "a product or service possesses quality if it helps someone and enjoys a sustainable market." And so my interpretation of that is two things. One is, it's not me delivering a report and saying the report met requirements. It's saying, "I get the report to you, and I ask Andrew, how did I do?" And then you say to me, "I had some problem with this section, I had some problem...." But the important thing is that you become the judge of the quality of the report, not me. And it could be information I provide you with in a lecture. It's you letting me know as a student that you had a hard time with the examples. And I'm thinking, "well, I did a great job." So it's not what I think as the producer handing off to you. It's you giving me the feedback. So quality is not a one-way...in fact, first of all, quality's not defined by the producer. It's defined by the recipients saying, "I love this or not." And so that's one thing I wanna say, and does it enjoy a sustainable market? What I talked about in the past is my interpretation of that is, if I'm bending over backwards to provide incredible quality at an incredible price, and I'm going outta business, then it may be great for you, but it may not be great for me. So it has to be mutually beneficial. I just wanna... Go ahead, Andrew.   0:26:03.1 AS: You referenced the word synchronicity, which the meaning of that according to the dictionary is that "simultaneous occurrence of events which appear significantly related, but had no discernible causal connection." What were you meaning when you were saying synchronicity? Is it this that now you're communicating with the part of the process ahead of you, and they're communicating back to you and all of a sudden you're starting to really work together? Is that what you mean by that?   0:26:33.1 BB: Yeah. When I think of synchronicity, I'm thinking of the fluidity of watching a basketball game where I'm throwing blind passes to the left and to the right and to the observer in the stands are thinking: holy cow. That's what I'm talking about, is the ability that we're sharing information just like those passes in a basketball game where you're...I mean I cannot do that without being incredibly mindful of where you are, what information you need. That's what I meant. That's what I mean. As opposed to - I wait until the number is less than...I'm out there in the hot sun. I get the measurement, 6.001, no, no, no, wait. Now it's five. Where's the synchronicity in that? Am I concerned about how this is helping you, or am I concerned about how do I get this off my plate onto the next person? And I'd also say...   0:27:32.6 AS: Yep. And another word I was thinking about is coordination, the organization of the different elements of a complex body or activity so as to enable them to work together efficiently. You could also say that the state of flow or something like that?   0:27:48.7 BB: I'm glad you brought up the word "together." The big deal is: am I defining quality in a vacuum, or am I doing it with some sense of how this is being used? Which is also something we got into, I think in the, one of the very first podcasts, and you asked me what could our audience...give me an example of how the audience could use this. And I said you're delivering a report to the person down the street, around the corner. Go find out how they use it. I use the example of providing data for my consulting company to my CPA, and I called 'em up one day and I said, "how do you use this information? Maybe I can get it to you in an easier form." That's together. I mean relationships, we talked earlier about marriage, relationships are based on the concept of together, not separate, together. Saying something is good, without understanding how it's used is not about "together." It's about "separate."   0:28:54.1 BB: And so what I find is, in Lean, we look at: how can we get rid of the non-value-added tasks? Who defines value? Or I could say, and Lean folks will talk about the...they'll say this: "eliminate things that don't add value." My response to them is, if you tell me that this activity does not provide value in this room for the next hour, I'm okay with that. If you tell me this activity doesn't add value in this building for the next year, I'm okay with that. But if you don't define the size of the system when you tell me it doesn't add value, then you're implying that it doesn't add value, period.   0:29:43.4 BB: And I say, how do you know that? But this is the thinking, this is what baffles me on the thinking behind Lean and these concepts of non-value-added, value-added activities. I think all activities add value. The only question is where does a value show up? And likewise in Six Sigma quality, which is heavily based on conformist requirements and driving defects to zero, that's defining quality of the parts in isolation. What does that mean, Andrew? Separate. It means separate. Nothing about synchronicity. And so I'm glad you brought that point up because what I...this idea of "together" is throughout the Deming philosophy, a sense of together, defining quality in terms of a relationship.   0:30:31.1 AS: And I remember when I was young, I was working at Pepsi, and they sent me to learn with Dr. Deming. And then I came back, and what I was kind of looking for was tools, thinking that I would...and I came back of course, with something very different, with a new way of thinking. And then I realized that Dr. Deming is so far beyond tools. He's trying to think about how do we optimize this whole system? And once I started learning that about Dr. Deming, I could see the difference. Whereas, you may decide - let's say that you wanna learn about Lean and get a certification in Lean or something like that.   0:31:15.5 AS: Ultimately, you may go down a rabbit hole of a particular tool and become a master in that tool. Nothing wrong with that. But the point is, what is the objective? Who defines the quality? And Dr. Deming clearly stated in the seminars that I was in, and from readings that I've read, that the objective of quality isn't just to improve something in...you could improve something, the quality of something and go out of business. And so there's the bigger objective of it is: how does this serve the needs of our clients? So anyways, that's just some of my memories of those days.   0:31:52.4 BB: Yeah. But you're absolutely right. And the point I'm hoping to bring out in our sessions is: I'm not against tools and techniques. Tools and techniques are incredible. They're time savers, money savers, but let's use them with a sense of connections and relationships. And I agree with you, I've done plenty of seminars where people are coming in - they're all about tools and techniques. Tools and techniques is part of the reason I like to differentiate is to say....and again, I think people are hungrier for tools and techniques. Why? Because I don't think they've come to grips with what concepts and strategies are about. And I'm hoping our listeners can help us...can appreciate that they go together. Tools and techniques are about efficiency, doing things faster, doing things cheaper. Concepts and strategies are about doing the right thing. Ackoff would say "doing the right thing right." And short of that, we end up using tools to make things worse. And that's what I'm hoping people can avoid through the insights we can share from Dr. Deming.   0:33:05.4 AS: And I would say that, would it be the case that applying tools, and tools and techniques is kind of easy? You learn how they work, you practice with them, you measure, you give feedback, but actually going to figure out how we optimize this overall system is just so much harder. It's a complex situation, and I can imagine that there's some people that would retreat to tools and techniques and I saw it in the factory at Pepsi when people would basically just say, "well, I'm just doing my thing." That's it, 'cause it's too much trouble to go out and try to negotiate all of this with everybody.   0:33:50.7 BB: I think in part, I think as long as they're managing parts in isolation, which is the prevailing system of management, then, I agree with you. Becoming aware of interdependencies in the greater system, and I'll also point out is whatever system you're looking at is part of a bigger system, and then again, bigger system, then again, bigger system. What you define is the whole, is part of a bigger system. No matter how you define it, it's part of a bigger system because time goes to infinity. So your 10-year plan, well, why not a 20-year plan? Why not a 30-year plan? So no matter how big a system you look at, there is a bigger system. So let's not get overwhelmed. Let's take a system, which Ackoff would say, take a system which is not too big that you can't manage it, not too small, that you're not really giving it the good effort, but don't lose sight of whatever system you're looking at - you'll begin to realize it is actually bigger than that. Again, what Dr. Deming would say, the bigger the system, the more complicated, which is where you're coming from, but it also offers more opportunities. I think we're so used to tools and techniques.   0:35:14.3 BB: I don't think people have really given thought to the concepts and strategies of Deming's work as opposed to Lean and Six Sigma as being different, which is why I wanted to bring it up with our listeners, because I don't think people are defaulting on the tools. I just don't think they appreciate that concepts and strategies are different than tools and techniques. And I like to have them become aware of that difference and then understand where black-and-white thinking works, where continuum thinking has advantages. There's times to look at things as connected, and then there's times to just move on and make a decision, which is a lot easier because the implications aren't as important. But at least now we get back to choice, be conscious of the choice you're making, and then move on. All right, so also on the list we had, who defines quality?   0:36:09.0 BB: We talked about that. What is meant by good: the requirements are met. Who defines good? Again, if you're looking at Phil Crosby, who defines good? Someone has to set, here are the requirements for being "good." I could be giving a term paper and me saying to the students, this is what "good" means. Next thing I wanted to look at is, "why stop at good?" And, I'm pretty sure we've talked about this. A question I like to ask people is how much time they spend every day in meetings, discussing parts, components, things that are good and going well. And what I find is people don't spend a whole lot of time discussing things that are good and going well. So why do they stop? Why not? Because they're stopping at "good."   0:36:57.1 BB: And that goes back to the black-and-white thinking. They're saying things are "bad" or they're "good." We focus on the bad to make it good, and then we stop at good. Why do we stop at good? Because there's no sense of "better." All right. And what does that mean? So again, we have why stop at good? Why go beyond good? And this is...'cause I think we're talking about really smart people that stop at "good." And I think to better understand what that means, what I like to do is ask people, what's the letter grade required for a company to ship their products to the customer? What letter grade does NASA expect from all their suppliers? And I asked a very senior NASA executive this question years ago. He was the highest ranking NASA executive in the quality field.   0:37:50.5 BB: And I said, "what letter grade do you expect from your contractors?" And he said, A+. A+. And I said, actually, it's not A+. And he is like, "What do you mean?" I said, "actually the letter grade, your requirement is actually D-." And he pushed back at me and I said, what...he says, "well, what do you mean?" I said, "how do you define quality?" And he said, "We define quality as requirements are met. That's what we require." I said, "so you think A+ is the only thing that meets requirements?" He's like, "well, where are you coming from?" I said a pass-fail system, now we get back to category thinking, if it's good or bad, what is good? Good is passing. What is passing? What I explained to him: passing is anything from an A+ down to a D-.   0:38:38.9 BB: And he got a little antsy with me. I said, "well, the alternative is an F, you don't want an F, right?" I said, "well, what you're saying is that you'll take anything but an F and that means your requirements are actually D-." And then when I pushed back and I said, "is a D- the same as an A+?" And he said, "no." I said, "well, that's what I meant earlier" in the conversation with him. And I told him that they weren't interchangeable. So when you begin to realize that black and white quality, Phil Crosby-quality, allows for D minuses to be shipped to customers. Again, in this one way I define quality, I hand it off to you. 'Cause in that world, Andrew, I make the measurement, it's 5.999, it meets requirements, I ship it to you, your only response when you receive it is to say, "thank you."   [laughter]   0:39:33.2 BB: For a D minus, right? Well, when you begin to understand relationship quality, then you begin to understand that to improve the relationship, what's behind improving the relationship, Andrew, is shifting from the D- to the A. And what does that mean? What that means is, when I pay attention to your ability to receive what I give you, whether it's the pass or the information, the more synchronously I can provide that, the letter grade is going up, [laughter] and it continues to go up. Now, again, what I'm hoping is that the effort I'm taking to provide you with the A is worthwhile. But that's how you can have continuous improvement, is stop...not stopping at the D minus.   0:40:17.6 BB: Again, there may be situations where D minus is all you really need, but I, that's not me delivering to you a D minus blindly. That's you saying to me, "Hey, I don't need an A+ over here. All I really need is a D minus." That's teamwork, Andrew. So on the one hand, and what I think is, our listeners may not appreciate it, is who defines the letter grade? So in your organization, I would say to people, you give everyone a set of requirements to go meet, what letter grade does each of them has to meet to hand off to a coworker, to another coworker, to a customer? Every single one of those people, all they have to do if they're feeling disenfranchised, as you mentioned earlier, they're feeling like an interchangeable part, well, under those circumstances, Andrew, I don't have to call you up, I just deliver a D minus. And you can't complain because I've met the requirements.   0:41:14.2 BB: So what I think it could be a little scary is to realize, what if everybody in the company comes to work tomorrow feeling no dignity in work and decides to hand off the minimum on every requirement, how does that help? And what I find exciting by Deming's work is that Dr. Deming understood that how people are treated affects their willingness to look up, pay attention to the person they're receiving and deliver to them the appropriate letter grade. So I'm hoping that helps our audience understand that if it's a black and white system, then we're saying that it's good or it's bad. What that misses is, keyword Andrew, variation in good. So the opportunities to improve when we realize that there's a range, that "good" has variation. Another point I wanna make is, what allows the Deming philosophy to go beyond looking good?   0:42:16.2 BB: Well, if you look at the last chapter 10, I think, yeah, chapter 10 of the New Economics is...like the last six pages of the New Economics is all about Dr. Taguchi's work, and it's what Dr. Deming learned from Dr. Taguchi about this very thought of looking at quality in terms of relationships, not just in isolation, Phil Crosby-style meeting requirements. And the last thing I wanna throw out is I was listening to a interview with Russ Ackoff earlier today, and he gave the three steps to being creative. This is a lecture he gave at Rocketdyne years ago. And he said, the first thing is you have to discover self-limiting constraints. Second, you have to remove the constraint. And third, you have to exploit that removal. And what I want to close on is what Deming is talking about is the self-limiting constraint is when we stop at good.   [laughter]   0:43:20.7 BB: And I'm hoping that this episode provides more insights as to the self-imposed constraint within our organizations to stop at "good." What happens when we go beyond that? And how do you go beyond that? By looking at how others receive your work and then expand that others and expand that others and expand that others. And then what I find exciting is, and the work I do with students and with clients is, how can we exploit every day that idea of synchronicity of quality, and not looking at quality from a category perspective? Again, unless that's all that's needed in that situation. So I don't want to throw out category thinking, use category thinking where it makes sense, use continuum thinking where it makes sense. So that's what I wanted to close with.   0:44:12.1 AS: Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. For listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'm gonna leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, and it's very appropriate for the discussion that we've had today. "People are entitled to joy in work."  

For the beginning of the year, we are revisiting two previous yet timely conversations, with Adrian Wooldridge (author of "The Aristocracy of Talent: How Meritocracy Made the Modern World") and Michael Sandel (author of "The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good").With them, Bethany and Luigi discuss whether meritocracy creates a better world for everyone, or if it creates massive inequality. Wooldridge makes the nuanced case that while meritocracy is generally beneficial, we as a society need to recapture the notion of merit from the elites. Sandel, on the other hand, argues in a nuanced way that essentially the problem with meritocracy is not the failure to live up to the ideal, but the idea itself.Capitalisn't will be back in your feeds with a brand new episode on January 19. Don't forget to rate and review our podcast if you haven't already, and leave us a voicemail at https://www.speakpipe.com/Capitalisnt.

The behavior of business practitioners is often driven by the defunct theories of economists. But to some extent all theories and models come with limitations and both the financial crisis of 2008 and the recent pandemic have made those limitations hard to ignore.Sir John Kay is one of Britain's leading economists. He was the first dean of Oxford's Said Business School and has held chairs at the London School of Economics, the University of Oxford, and London Business School. His interests focus on the relationship between economics and business. His career has spanned the academy and think tanks, company directorships, consultancies, investment companies and media. For twenty years, he wrote a regular column for the Financial Times and has authored an astonishing number of books. He was awarded a knighthood in the Queen's 2021 Birthday Honours List for services to economics, business and finance.Greg and John discuss how to navigate a complex environment, which we can only imperfectly understand, why we should embrace uncertainty and how to create strategies that are resilient to unpredictable events.Episode Quotes:On why we're not going to get predictability in economics10:02: The world we're dealing with, in economics, business, and finance is not stationary. There are not underlying models in the way we talk about the motion of the planets, which has remained unchanged for several centuries. And not only has it remained unchanged for centuries, but actually we know what these equations are, and they're not affected by what we do or think about them; Venus does not care what we think about its equations of motion. But the people who work in organizations and financial markets do care what we think about. And that world is affected by our interaction with it.Why you shouldn't take models too seriously05:01: To understand economics, to understand social science, we absolutely need models. The mistake is to think that the models we're building are true descriptions of the world. And they're not. I think models and economics are best regarded as parables; they're stories.An observation on how people use models14:07: You can use models to say, "This is what might happen to an unchecked pandemic." You can use a model to say, "This is an indication of the effect we might have if we introduced lockdown measures or vaccinations of the like." You can use models to illustrate scenarios and tell stories. If you think you can use models to predict, then I think you are attempting a kind of pseudoscientific position that is simply not available.Show Links:Recommended Resources:George E. P. BoxJohn Maynard KeynesBlaise Pascal“The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good?” by Michael SandelGuest Profile:Professional Profile at London School of EconomicsFaculty Profile at St. John's College, Oxford UniversityProfessional Profile on Financial TimesJohn Kay's WebsiteJohn Kay on LinkedInJohn Kay on TwitterJohn Kay on FacebookJohn Kay on Talks at GoogleHis Work:Greed Is Dead: Politics After IndividualismRadical Uncertainty: Decision-Making Beyond the NumbersThe Long and the Short of It: A guide to finance and investment for normally intelligent people who aren't in the industryOther People's Money: The Real Business of FinanceObliquity: Why Our Goals Are Best Achieved IndirectlyThe Truth About MarketsThe British tax system

Mike reports back from the Global Talent Summit in Washington, DC. We learn what Ana Rold from Diplomatic Courier and Kelly Ryan Bailey from Skills Baby pulled together with help from Gallup and a team of experts and thought leaders focused on the skilling revolution and its impact on the future of work. Jim Clifton, the Chairman of Gallup, kicked things off by talking about the importance of engagement and awareness of disengagement and unhappiness that is globally on the rise. Mike references Jon Clifton's book, Blind SpotThe Global Rise of Unhappiness and How Leaders Missed It, and makes connections to Michael Sandel's book, The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? as we try to put the skills and talent conversation into a relevant context. Then we explore the work of Dante Disparte on the Blockchain and Beth Rudden on AI ethics as we review highlights from an impressive array of programming from the day. Mike concludes with his thoughts on optimism and hope despite the challenges in a thought-provoking exploration of global talent trends that you won't want to miss. Subscribe to Trending in Education wherever you get your podcasts. Visit us at TrendinginEd.com for more sharp takes on the future of learning.

จากการศึกษาวิจัยล่าสุดของมหาวิทยาลัย Harvard เรื่อง Social Capital หรือทุนทางสังคม พบว่า มีแค่วิธีเดียวเท่านั้นที่จะนำไปสู่การเลื่อนชนชั้นทางเศรษฐกิจอย่างมีนัยยะสำคัญก็คือ การเป็นเพื่อนกับคนที่รวยกว่าตั้งแต่เด็ก โดยพบว่าเด็กที่เติบโตมาในกลุ่มที่มีเพื่อนฐานะดีกว่าจะมีโอกาสจะทำให้รายได้ในอนาคตเพิ่มขึ้นโดยเฉลี่ย 20%  นอกจากนี้เราได้พูดคุยกับอาจารย์ ประจักษ์ ก้องกีรติ ถึงหนังสือ The Tyranny of Merit : What's Become of the Common Good? ที่เขียนโดย Michael Sandel ผู้เขียนได้หยิบเอาความเชื่อที่คนในสังคมมองว่าเป็นเรื่องปกติ นั่นคือ Meritocracy หลักคิด ใครดี ใครได้ มาตั้งคำถามถึงปัญหาของมันว่าจริงๆ แล้วมันกำลังทำร้ายเราอยู่หรือไม่

Have Democrats become too identified with technocratic ways of speaking — about the economy, the pandemic, climate change? Has this deepened the political divide between those with and those without college degrees? Can Democrats reconnect with working-class voters who were drawn to Donald Trump? A few people inside the Democratic Party, including Colorado senator Michael Bennet, are speaking up to do just that, and figure out how to reorient the party to a compassionate and winning strategy. Harvard political philosophy professor Michael Sandel lays out a similar argument in his recent book “The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good?” Bennet and Sandel hash out recent history and imagine a new direction — philosophical, social, economic and strategic — for the Democratic Party and the American people.

Listen to CapeTalk's John Maytham's weekly book reviews and share his passion for all things literary. From fiction to non-fiction, John reads and reviews a range of books that would sit well on your reading list. FICTION Cold, Cold Bones by Kathy Reichs Trust by Hernan Diaz NON FICTION The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? by Michael J. SandelSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

TOMORROW โดย เอม นภพัฒน์จักษ์ อัตตนนท์ พูดคุยกับ อ.ประจักษ์ ก้องกีรติ หนังสือ The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? ที่เขียนโดย Michael Sandel และ แปลโดย สฤณี อาชวานันทกุล หนังสือเล่มนี้ ผู้เขียนได้หยิบเอาความเชื่อที่คนในสังคมมองว่าเป็นเรื่องปกติ นั่นคือ Meritocracy หลักคิด ใครดี ใครได้ มาตั้งคำถามถึงปัญหาของมันว่าจริงๆ แล้วมันกำลังทำร้ายเด็กอยู่หรือไม่ #TOMORROW #ใครดีใครได้ #ประจักษ์ก้องกีรติ

TOMORROW โดย เอม นภพัฒน์จักษ์ อัตตนนท์ ชวนถอดบทเรียนจากหนังสือ The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? เขียนโดย Michael J.Sandel ที่สะท้อนปัญหาจากแนวคิด Meritocracy หรือ "ใครดี ใครได้" ที่หยั่งรากลึกในสังคมอเมริกัน จนกลายเป็นการตอกย้ำความเหลื่อมล้ำในสังคม  ล่าสุดหนังสือเล่มนี้ แปลไทยแล้ว โดย สฤณี อาชวานันทกุล ในชื่อ เผด็จการความคู่ควร The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? #Meritocracy #เหลื่อมล้ำ #TOMORROW

​World-renowned Harvard professor, philosopher, and author Michael Sandel joins host Scott Syphax for a discussion about his recent book “The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good?”

How do beliefs shape and determine our attitudes towards policies? In this episode, Thomas Douenne looks at carbon taxation in the context of the Yellow Vest Movement, and how French people rejected a tax & dividend policy which they assumed would negatively impact their purchasing power. Working Paper: “Yellow Vests, Pessimistic Beliefs and Carbon Tax Aversion”, with Adrien Fabre https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20200092&&from=f Recommendation: “The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good?” (2020) by Michael J. Sandel https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/50364458-the-tyranny-of-merit

Häromdagen skrev jag om klass på Svenska Dagbladets kultursida. I texten skriver jag om hur vi tillåtit en underklass att växa fram längst ned i samhället, och om hur denna tjänar en medelklass som värderar fel saker. I fredags diskuterade jag frågan i P1 morgon ihop med Patrik Lundberg, som hade skrivit att han ville lämna medelklassen. Om jag tolkar honom rätt handlar hans motvilja om ett hyckleri han märkt av. Inom medelklassen, menar han, vill man gärna känna sig finare och bättre, men man gör likt förbannat det man kritiserar att andra gör. Diskussionen med Patrik Lundberg var konstruktiv, men rumphuggen. Ironiskt nog är nästan alla inslag i public service för korta för riktiga samtal, och i regel är konfliktnivån maximalt uppskruvad. Aporna måste få apa sig, verkar en grundtanke vara. Och om man inte vill bråka kanske de plockar in någon annan i stället. Konflikten mellan “höger” och “vänster” måste värnas, och finns ingen tydlig konflikt får man uppfinna den med hjälp av en hetsande programledare. Nåväl, jag ville i alla fall fördjupa samtalet om klass, eftersom jag tycker att det är så intressant. En av de mest intressanta tänkarna på området i dag är Johan Wennström, som numera är en kollega på Svenska Dagbladets kultursida, där han skrivit i flera år. Han disputerade i statsvetenskap 2019 med avhandlingen Interpreting Policy Convergence Between the Left and the Right: Essays on Education and Immigration. Han är aktiv på IFN, där man också kan ta del av hans publikationer. Hans forskning är inriktad mot politiskt beslutsfattande och dess moraliska grunder. Han är särskilt intresserad av skol- och migrationspolitik. Tidigare har han bland annat arbetat som politiskt sakkunnig i Regeringskansliet och som ledarskribent i Svenska Dagbladet. Länkar till texter och böcker vi pratar om:Min text i SvD Kultur (19/1): Hade det inte varit för högskoleprovet hade mitt liv nog sett annorlunda ut. Medelklassen tror på meritokrati, och det är som om medkänslan också är något man gör sig förtjänt av.David Goodhart – Head, Hand, Heart: The Struggle for Dignity and Status in the 21st Century (Penguin 2020)Michael Lind – The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite (Portfolio 2020)Patrik Lundberg: “Jag vill lämna medelklassen” (DN 23/11 -21)Charles Murray – Coming apart: the state of white america, 1960-2010 (Crown forum 2012)Vesna Prekopic: “Det är inte alls så dumt i medelklassen, men mellanförskapet lämnar jag gärna” (DN 17/1)Michael Sandel - The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? (Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2020)Johan Wennström: “När ska högern överge Foodora-liberalismen?” (SvD 26/5 -21): Det viktiga, enligt dagens höger, är inte var man kan göra en verklig insats, utan ”vart man är på väg”. Högern har accepterat, ja till och med bejakat, framväxten av ett djupt ovärdigt arbetsliv.Johan Wennström: I väntan på ett konservativt idéprogram (Kvartal 14/12 -20)Johan Wennström: Brev till en lärarstudent (Kvartal 20/2 -19)Rak höger med Ivar Arpi förlitar sig helt på bidrag från läsare och lyssnare. Man kan bli gratisprenumerant eller betalande prenumerant. Genom att bli betalande prenumerant gör man det möjligt för mig att fortsätta vara en självständig röst.Utgivaren ansvarar inte för kommentarsfältet. (Myndigheten för press, radio och tv (MPRT) vill att jag skriver ovanstående för att visa att det inte är jag, utan den som kommenterar, som ansvarar för innehållet i det som skrivs i kommentarsfältet.) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit ivararpi.substack.com/subscribe

Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? by: Michael J. Sandel Quick Fix: Why Fad Psychology Can't Cure Our Social Ills by: Jesse Singal Kingsport: (The Weird of Hali #2) by: John Michael Greer The General vs. the President: MacArthur and Truman at the Brink of Nuclear War by: H. W. Brands Based on a True Story: Not a Memoir by: Norm Macdonald Silmarillion by: J. R. R. Tolkien The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity by: Carlo M. Cipolla The Last Place on Earth: Scott and Amundsen's Race to the South Pole by: Roland Huntford How God Works: The Science Behind the Benefits of Religion by: David DeSteno

These past few years, as our country has become more fragmented, and longstanding biases have come into plain sight, we've searched for ways to understand what we're experiencing more deeply and to benefit from perspectives that can help us envision a path forward. This week's episode of Our Dream Deferred: Fulfilling the Nation's Promise, we'll cover the importance of narrative change and how to do it in a positive way, what we can do as leaders and organizations to contribute to meaningful change, and what behavioral science can teach us about how to reach the people and communities we serve.   This episode's guest is Anthony Barrows, a Managing Director at idas42.   Be part of Our Dream Deferred. Use the hashtag #OurDreamDeferred or write to us at cbecker@aphsa.org.    This episode was produced by APHSA. Editing and sound design by Brandon Mitchell.   Links: http://ideas42.org/learn  https://anthonybarrows.com/home.html  https://www.mobilitypartnership.org/paper-categories/narrative    Book Recommendations: The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? by Michael J. Sandel The Conversation: How Seeking and Speaking the Truth About Racism Can Radically Transform Individuals and Organizations by Robert Livingston Scarcity: The New Science of Having Less and How It Defines Our Lives by Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir 

Show NotesRuben TimmermanSpringestBijbehorende blog: Worst ThingShots of Strategy in je inboxMijn boekenkastMail me (tijmen@studiogeorge.nl) over de aflevering. Vind ik leuk.LessenM'n ouders waren een mooie mix van artistiek en risico's nemen, en aan de andere kant het ondernemende en het regelende.Toen ik stopte met studeren ging het pas echt goed met m'n bedrijf runnen. Stoppen met de rest en focussen hielp.Geld trok me in het begin naar ondernemerschap. Achteraf denk ik dat het me meer ging om zelfstandigheid.Ik heb altijd de drive gehad veel te willen snappen. Ik kon daarmee heel goed de brug zijn tussen verschillende vakgebieden. Tussen de IT én het bedrijf én het menselijke.Het Google-algoritme wil graag een mix type sites laten zien. Na een keywordonderzoek van verschillende sectoren, zag ik dat er voor de onderwijsmarkt wel aanbieders waren maar nog geen vergelijker was.Ik startte en het ging bijna als vanzelf. Er was genoeg moeilijk, maar het van de grond krijgen ging goed. Maar ook omdat ik al zoveel voorkennis had.Ik kon de aanbieders overtuigen dat er een vergelijker aan zou komen en dat ze bij mij het 1e jaar voor een fixed bedrag gratis leads zouden krijgen. Dat was m'n startkapitaal. En daar hebben al die aanbieders winst op gemaakt.Ik heb na 3 jaar investeerders aangetrokken. Deels voor het geld, maar vooral om investeerders als sparringspartners te hebben. Daarvoor sparde ik wel, maar dat was niet hetzelfde als een maandelijks toegewijd klankbord.We'll do it live. We weten dat onze mensen goed zijn in wat ze doen. Dus ook als we iets live doen, kunnen we erop vertrouwen dat het startniveau al best goed is. Er gaat zo wel eens wat mis, maar het tempo is wel hoog.Ik ben wel goed in niet bang zijn. Ik heb ook veel privileges mee. Ik vind het zelf dus ook niet knap. En ook al zou het door m'n talenten komen, ook die heb ik meegekregen. Geluk is een enorm grote factor.Ik voelde me ook veilig om anders te zijn. Toen ik jonger was deed ik al bewust anders om mezelf een uitzondering te maken. Als ik me als uitzondering categoriseerde dan hoefde ik me niet te schamen.Ondernemers spelen gewoon een spel. En het is niet eens een heel mooi spel. Ik vind het wel eens moeilijk om het spel te willen veranderen maar tegelijkertijd als ik speel het ook te willen winnen.Ik trek het heel slecht als we weten dat iets beter is, maar het dan tóch niet doen.Ik zou, in plaats van dat we het winnen van het spelletje heel belangrijk maken, liever zien dat we kijken naar wat er echt leidt tot gelukkige wezens op aarde. En dat we dat voor elkaar krijgen en eerlijker verdelen.Ook met een jonge dochter heb ik nooit de angst gehad te weinig te verdienen met ondernemen. Ik snapte IT en elk bedrijf wil mensen hebben die IT snappen. What's the worst that could happen?Getting Things Done is een heel fijne methode om bewust keuzes te kunnen maken en dat met rust te kunnen doen.Holacracy:In het begin werkt het nog prima om met z'n allen keihard achter de bal aan te rennen. Snel. Wendbaar. Geen slack. Maar vanaf 10 medewerkers stagneert dat.Het aansturen, beslissen en denken voor anderen moet je wel afleren. Je doet het wel uit goede bedoelingen maar je ontneemt iemand z'n eigen keuze.De regel is: Communicatie is Expliciet, Transparant en Bewust.Holacracy helpt dat medewerkers dichter bij zichzelf blijven. Iedereen denkt vanuit zichzelf en deelt dat.Als oprichter met een luide stem kan ik ook in dit systeem wel een stem houden. Ik kan ook op een holacratische manier nog dingen gedaan krijgen.Als Strategische Napoleon moet ik me wel bewust zijn van m'n communicatiestijl. Ik wil dat medewerkers vrij hun mening en inzichten kunnen delen. Ik moet dus blijven vragen hoe ik overkom.Redenen en inzichten worden expliciet gemaakt. Bijvoorbeeld door bij elk project op te schrijven "Why now". Nieuwe inzichten kunnen ertoe leiden dat het niet meer "Now" moet zijn. Zo kun je dus makkelijk op je besluit terugkomen.Wanneer je Holacracy voor een deel doet, wordt het ingewikkelder. Het bevat wel dingen die ook los een goed idee zijn. Maar je moet het wel volledig uitvoeren. Je moet het echt gaan gebruiken en blijven doen en tunen.Het is een taal. Je kunt aanpassen naar hoe je het wilt en wat bij je past.Als "Lead link" had ik nog steeds de strategie van het bedrijf onder mij. Iedereen voegt zich daarnaar. Maar hoe ze dat doen in hun rol is absoluut aan hen.Structureel voor iemand een brandje blussen mag niet zonder de structuur aan te passen.Eigenlijk realiseerde ik me achteraf pas dat wat Springest doet heel erg past bij wat ik als mijn purpose beschreef (using my full potential).Ik realiseer me sterker dat ik een positieve impact wil maken. En ik weet daarbij dat ik het ook belangrijk vind dat ik daarom wordt gezien.Meer leren en lezen maakt mensen minder bang.Ik wil graag dat mensen minder vanuit angst gaan handelen zodat ze kunnen gaan doen waarvan ze eigenlijk weten dat beter is.LinksUsarchy weblog van RubenBill O'Reilly - We'll do it liveHolacracyRuben's talks over HolacracyAflevering Charlotte van Leeuwen van Bord&Stift over Horizontaal Organiseren.Podcast: Rudy & Freddie Show - Zijn alle criminelen pechvogels? (met filosoof Jurriën Hamer)Boek: Michael Sandel - The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good?Boek: Ha-Joon Chang - 23 things they don't tell you about capitalismBoek: Ben Horowitz - The Hard Thing about Hard ThingsBoek: Ryan Holiday - The Stillness is the KeyBoek: Jan Geurtz - De verslaving voorbijBoek: David Deida - The Way of the Superior Man

Harvard University Professor Michael Sandel, author of "The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good?" with Michael Smerconish. Original Air Date 24 September 2020. The book was published on 15 September 2020

In a world obsessed with success, plenty of us feel a compulsive need to achieve. ------ We tell ourselves - and our kids - to try hard and never give up, for this is the secret to success. But by the time young people finish school, many students find it hard not to link their efforts and abilities with their identity and their self-worth with their achievements.  CPXer Justine Toh's book Achievement Addiction calls out our fraught relationship with success. In this episode, we talk about tiger parenting and its fixation on academic accomplishment and how meritocratic ideas associating success with effort imply that our wins and failures are always deserved. We also discuss other social cues showing the value we place on achievement - like the way former Australian Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey once described Australia as a nation of “lifters, not leaners” which distinguishes between those who contribute to the public purse and those who take from it.  We also talk to Julia, a Sydney-based cardiologist, who wouldn't describe herself as an achievement addict but who found herself striving for significance. She lets us in on what might be found on the other side of achievement.  ------ Explore: Justine Toh's Achievement Addiction and other titles in the Re:CONSIDERING series. Amy Chua's Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother Michael J. Sandel's The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good

Does meritocracy create a better world for everyone, or does it create massive inequality? There's been a lot of debate in the last few years about meritocracy, and it's become even more pressing in light of the pandemic. If essential workers are "essential", are they really less meritorious than a banker or accountant? So, we decided to discuss both sides of this debate in our next two episodes. On this episode, we'll be joined by Michael Sandel who teaches political philosophy at Harvard University and is author of the new book "The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good". He'll be making a nuanced case against meritocracy. Also, be sure to stick around for a new surprise after the episode.

This episode we speak with Josh Akapo, co-founder of creative agency Archtype, who facilitate impactful moments of culture for the likes of Lovebox Festival, Stormzy and DLT. Josh also delivers creative research and insights at Hype Collective, a student marketing agency and is part of a youth mentoring non-profit, Joined Up Thinking, helping curate projects particularly for young people of colour to stand out and reach their potential.  About Josh https://joshakapo.com/  @archtypeUK  https://archtype.co.uk/  Josh shares his views on improving ethnic diversity in PR https://www.prmoment.com/blog/how-you-can-help-to-increase-ethnic-diversity-in-pr  Josh's work with Hype Collective on attractive LGBTQ+ Talent  https://hypecollective.co.uk/news/research/were-over-the-rainbows-how-employers-can-actually-support-lgbtq-students/  https://hypecollective.co.uk/news/research/pulse-check-recap-attracting-lgbtq-talent/    Josh's recommendations Spotify https://newsroom.spotify.com/2021-06-02/celebrate-your-unique-listening-style-with-spotifys-only-you-in-app-experience/  Big Zuu on Dave https://dave.uktv.co.uk/shows/big-zuus-big-eats/  Who We Be Talks Podcast https://open.spotify.com/show/2YissX4xRk9cU2r10620ol  The Receipts Podcast https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-receipts-podcast/id1177040764  Three Shots of Tequila Podcast https://thisis3shots.com/  Over the Bridge Podcast https://soundcloud.com/overthebridgeuk  All About Love by Bell Hooks The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good by Michael Sandel A Short History of African Philosophy by Barry Hallen  

It's Nick and Goldy's summer reading list!  We want to know what you're reading, too. Let us know on Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics.  Remember to shop local and small when you can, or order from IndieBound or Bookshop.org—both of which support independent bookstores! All of these books are also likely available at your library.  Every book mentioned in this episode:  The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous by Joseph Henrich  Escape from Rome: The Failure of Empire and the Road to Prosperity by Walter Scheidel The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? by Michael J. Sandel Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Merit by Robert H. Frank The Black Swan and Fooled by Randomness by Nassim Nicholas Taleb Democracy, Race, and Justice: The Speeches and Writings of Sadie T. M. Alexander by Nina Banks  Why Buddhism is True by Robert Wright Caste by Isabel Wilkerson His Truth Is Marching On: John Lewis and the Power of Hope by Jon Meacham   The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together by Heather McGhee 1491 by Charles C. Mann Nature's God: The Heretical Origins of the American Republic by Matthew Stewart The Second World War by Winston Churchill  Lafayette in the Somewhat United States by Sarah Vowell  Debt by David Graeber  Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com/ Twitter: @PitchforkEcon Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Nick's twitter: @NickHanauer

I denne episoden snakker Lars med Simon Malkenes om skole og historien til endel av de ideene og retningene som preger dagens skoletenking. Simon Malkenes er som kjent lærer, han jobbet 20 år i osloskolen, hvor han deltok aktivt i skoledebatten med bøkene Bak fasaden i osloskolen (2014) og Det store skoleeksperimentet (2018), og nå er han doktorgradstipendiat ved NTNU og skriver om privatisering og skole.  I denne episoden drøfter vi hvordan ideer om humankapital og utdanningsøkonomi har fått prege vårt syn på skole og utdanning stadig mer siden andre verdenskrig, OECDs rolle i denne utviklingen, og hvordan dette kommer til uttrykk i dagens fokus på internasjonale tester, fremfor alt PISA.  Vi snakker også om den offentlige debatten om den norske skolen, om skoleforskernes rolle, om at det egentlig ikke bør være skolens rolle å utligne forskjeller, livsmestring og endel annet.  Nevnte bøker og artikler: Hanushek, Eric; Wössmann, Ludger, (2015), The Knowledge Capital of Nations: Education and the Economics of Growth, The MIT Press Madsen, Ole Jacob, (2018), Generasjon Prestasjon - Hva er det som feiler oss? Universitetsforlaget Madsen, Ole Jacob (2020), Livsmestring på timeplanen. Rett medisin for elevene? Spartacus Forlag Malkenes, Simon, (2014), Bak fasaden i Osloskolen, Res Publica Malkenes, Simon, (2018), Det store skoleeksperimentet. makt, barn og forretningshemmeligheter i «verdens beste skole», Manifest Forlag Sandel, Michael, (2020), The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Kindle Edition Scott, James C., (1998), Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed, Yale University Press  Vogt, Kristoffer Chelsom (2017b), "The post-industrial society: from utopia to ideology",  Work, employment and society, 2016, Vol. 30(2) ss.366–376 Vogt, Kristoffer Chelsom; Lorentzen, Thomas; Hansen, Hans-Tore, (2020), "Are low-skilled young people increasingly useless, and are men the losers among them?" Journal of Education and Work Tre bokanbefalinger fra Simon: Les historiker Ola Innsets bok Markedsvendingen : nyliberalismens historie i Norge (Fagbokforlaget 2020), les minst en bok av Hannah Arendt, og lær livsmestring av den argentinske forfatteren Jorge Louis Borges' fantastiske bok Labyrinter.  ---------------------------- Logoen vår er laget av Sveinung Sudbø, se hans arbeider på originalkopi.com Musikken er av Arne Kjelsrud Mathisen, se facebooksiden Nygrenda Vev og Dur for mer info. Ekstra musikk er laget av Lars.  ----------------------------  Takk for at du hører på. Ta kontakt med oss på vår facebookside eller på larsogpaal@gmail.com Det finnes ingen bedre måte å få spredt podkasten vår til flere enn via dere lyttere, så takk om du deler eller forteller andre om oss.  Både Lars og Pål skriver nå på hver sin blogg, med litt varierende regelmessighet. Du finner dem på disse nettsidene: https://paljabekk.com/ https://larssandaker.blogspot.com/   Alt godt, hilsen Lars og Pål

What does it mean to have luck? Good luck, or bad? Is luck something that only happens selectively, or is our entire existence a kind of luck that we've had zero control over? And if that's true - what does it mean for our society? What does it say about our educational system, our criminal justice system, and how we treat and empathize with each other? What does it mean for our world if all of us are exactly where we are due only to pure chance? Aaron Rabinowitz, host of the Embrace the Void podcast, grapples with the philosophical and moral implications of that hypothesis.Moral Luck, by Thomas NagelStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Moral LuckEmbrace the Void - 186 Starmanning with Angel Eduardo Pt. 1Embrace the Void - 183 Moderate Conservatism with Stephen Dause21: Securing Rights, with Samuel Weiss - The New LiberalsThe Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? by Michael SandelEmbrace the Void - 044 Moral LuckEthical Realism in a Universe Without Free Will, featuring Aaron Rabinowitz - Skeptics in the Pub7: Canceling Categories, with Angel Eduardo - The New LiberalsEvery Rubin Report Ever - FreedomToons36 Arguments for the Existence of God, by Rebecca Newberger GoldsteinPhilosophers in Space@ETVPod----------Email: newliberalspodcast@gmail.comTwitter: @NewLiberalsPod

Sources: Sendel, M. J. (2020). The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Nisen, M. (2013, May 9). How Nike Solved Its Sweatshop Problem. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/how-nike-solved-its-sweatshop-problem-2013-5 Myerson, J. A. (2014, January 3). Politics News January 3, 2014, 3:00 PM ET Five Economic Reforms Millennials Should Be Fighting For . Retrieved from https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/five-economic-reforms-millennials-should-be-fighting-for-102489/ Corbett, S. (2014, January 21). How Zappos' CEO Turned Las Vegas Into a Startup Fantasyland. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2014/01/zappos-tony-hsieh-las-vegas/ Production by ToastyProducer Logo done by Singe Wyvern You can find the show on Twitter at @Yowhatthehellpd Email us at Yowhatthehellpod@gmail.com You can find Ichiro on Twitter at @WhiskeyisaDevil Find Sei on Twitter at @Notbravo_Delta --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/whatthehellpod/message

In the Tyranny of Merit, political philosopher Michael Sandel attacks what he calls “the rhetoric of rising” and ideas about meritocracy on both the political left and right in the United States. Michael Sandel teaches political philosophy at Harvard University. His writings—on justice, ethics, democracy, and markets--have been translated into 27 languages. His course “Justice” is the first Harvard course to be made freely available https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajlZMdPkKE (online) and on television.  It has been viewed by tens of millions of people around the world, including in China, where Sandel was named the “most influential foreign figure of the year.” (China Newsweek). Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/50364458-the-tyranny-of-merit (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/50364458-the-tyranny-of-merit) Audio production by Graham Stephenson Episode music: Caprese by https://www.sessions.blue/ (Blue Dot Sessions) Rate, review, and subscribe to this podcast on Apple, Anchor, Breaker, Google, Overcast, Pocket Casts, RadioPublic, and Spotify

Why does nothing seem to make sense, anymore? Why do all of our important words seem so slippery, and our definitions ever harder to define? What is a liberal? What really is a conservative? And what does 'liberalism' - the philosophy that undergirds the foundation of American society - actually mean today? Writer and filmmaker Jay Shapiro has spent much of his life trying to figure out society's most confounding dilemmas.Criticizing Freedom: Food First, Philosophy Later, by Jay ShapiroS02E17: Atheistic Search for God - Dilemma PodcastTalking $*** About Tech, Capitalism, Culture, & Philosophy - Talking $#!t Podcast"Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;" - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's CradleDogs' Eyes Evolve to Appeal to Humans - BBC NewsWalden, by Henry David Thoreau"God is dead." - Friedrich NietzscheWhy We Drive: Toward a Philosophy of the Open Road, by Matthew B. CrawfordAfter Riding With Spanish Speakers, White Commuters Favored Anti-Immigration Policies - Big ThinkChesterton's Fence: A Lesson in Second Order Thinking, by Shane ParrishEthics Explainer: DeontologyEthics Explainer: ConsequentialismAin't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society, by Peter McWilliamsThe Actual Abortion Debate, by Jay ShapiroFundamental Attribution Error - Ethics UnwrappedThe Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? by Michael SandelOn Directing Film, by David MametOriginal Position (Veil of Ignorance) - John Rawls"Abby Singer" - Filmmaking slang for 'Second to last shot of the day'Optimistic Nihilism - KurzgesagtThe Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World, by David DeutschHow to Build a Dyson Sphere - KurzgesagtThe Fermi Paradox - Wait But Whywhatjaythinks.com----------Email: newliberalspodcast@gmail.comTwitter: @NewLiberalsPod

Lewis H. Lapham speaks with Michael J. Sandel, author of “The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good.” Thanks to our generous donors. Lead support for this podcast has been provided by Elizabeth “Lisette” Prince. Additional support was provided by James J. “Jimmy” Coleman Jr.

On this episode of The Global Exchange, Colin Robertson speak to Frank Graves on Canadians attitudes towards their government and the rest of the world in the COVID-19 era. Participants Bio: Frank Graves is one of Canada's leading public opinion, social policy, and public policy experts, as well as one of its leading applied social researchers. In 1980, he founded EKOS Research Associates Inc., an applied social and economic research firm. Under his leadership, EKOS has earned a reputation for creative and rigorous research in the areas of public policy, social policy, and program evaluation and as a leader in innovative survey techniques and methodology. During his career, he has directed hundreds of large scale studies of Canadian attitudes to a vast array of issues. His analysis and advice has been sought by senior decision makers in both the private and public sectors. Mr. Graves is a Fellow of the Canadian Research Insights Council (CRIC) as well as an Honorary Fellow with the Calgary School of Public Policy and sits on the Advisory Board at the Sprott School of Business. Mr Graves has earned an Honours BA in Social Anthropology, a MA in sociology and an ABD (completed course work and comprehensive exams towards a PhD in sociology). What Mr. Graves is reading: Michael Sandel, The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374289980 Yuvah Noah Harari, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, https://www.ynharari.com/book/homo-deus/ The Global Exchange is part of the CGAI Podcast Network. Subscribe to the CGAI Podcast Network on SoundCloud, iTunes, or wherever else you can find Podcasts! If you like our content and would like to support our podcasts, please check out our donation page www.cgai.ca/support. Recording Date: 13 January 2021. Give 'The Global Exchange' a review on iTunes! Follow the Canadian Global Affairs Institute on Facebook, Twitter (@CAGlobalAffairs), or on Linkedin. Head over to our website www.cgai.ca for more commentary. Produced by Charlotte Duval-Lantoine. Music credits to Drew Phillips.

These are dangerous times for democracy. We live in an age of winners and losers, where the odds are stacked in favor of the already fortunate. Stalled social mobility and entrenched inequality give the lie to the American credo that you can make it if you try. The consequence is a brew of anger and frustration that has fueled populist protest and extreme polarization, and led to deep distrust of both government and our fellow citizens--leaving us morally unprepared to face the profound challenges of our time. World-renowned philosopher Michael J. Sandel argues that to overcome the crises that are upending our world, we must rethink the attitudes toward success and failure that have accompanied globalization and rising inequality. Sandel shows the hubris a meritocracy generates among the winners and the harsh judgement it imposes on those left behind, and traces the dire consequences across a wide swath of American life. He offers an alternative way of thinking about success--more attentive to the role of luck in human affairs, more conducive to an ethic of humility and solidarity, and more affirming of the dignity of work. The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? (FSG, 2020) points us toward a hopeful vision of a new politics of the common good. Renee Garfinkel, Ph.D. is a psychologist, writer, Middle East television commentator and host of The New Books Network's Van Leer Jerusalem Series on Ideas. Write her at VanLeerIdeas@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/van-leer-institute

These are dangerous times for democracy. We live in an age of winners and losers, where the odds are stacked in favor of the already fortunate. Stalled social mobility and entrenched inequality give the lie to the American credo that you can make it if you try. The consequence is a brew of anger and frustration that has fueled populist protest and extreme polarization, and led to deep distrust of both government and our fellow citizens--leaving us morally unprepared to face the profound challenges of our time. World-renowned philosopher Michael J. Sandel argues that to overcome the crises that are upending our world, we must rethink the attitudes toward success and failure that have accompanied globalization and rising inequality. Sandel shows the hubris a meritocracy generates among the winners and the harsh judgement it imposes on those left behind, and traces the dire consequences across a wide swath of American life. He offers an alternative way of thinking about success--more attentive to the role of luck in human affairs, more conducive to an ethic of humility and solidarity, and more affirming of the dignity of work. The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? (FSG, 2020) points us toward a hopeful vision of a new politics of the common good. Renee Garfinkel, Ph.D. is a psychologist, writer, Middle East television commentator and host of The New Books Network's Van Leer Jerusalem Series on Ideas. Write her at VanLeerIdeas@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

Is success the luck of the draw? Tune in as Hugo speaks with Michael Sandel, a professor of political philosophy at Harvard University. Michael has authored several books, including What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets, Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?, and most recently, The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? Hugo and Michael discuss the impact of meritocracy and credentialism on society, investing, and politics.

Amid the backdrop of rising inequality, the belief in merit has lead to condescension among the winners and a harsh sense of humiliation among those left behind. This is destroying the common good, according to Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel. He makes the case for a new way of thinking about success and failure in, "The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good?"See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Michael Sandel, one of the most influential political philosophers of our time, makes a provocative argument: Meritocracy allows successful people to feel good about themselves, and doesn't do anything to address the plight of those who are less fortunate. It is time to abandon the ideal. In this conversation about Sandel's new book, The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good?, I debate these themes with him. Should we really throw the pursuit of meritocracy on the trash heap of history? Or would it be better to ensure that our society actually lives up to the meritocratic ideal (while ensuring that everyone can have a decent life)? Please do take the time to listen to our conversation. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices