This piece is with Henry J. Lindborg, Ph. D.
Dr. Lindborg has degrees from Fordham University and the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He has extensive experience in all areas of higher education. Positions include senior vice president, academic vice president, dean of faculty and Executive Director of the Internal Values Institute. He has consulted for Fortune Five Hundred corporations, an Indian Nation, utilities, publishers, manufacturers, and health care providers. He is a founder of ASQ’s Education Division and past member of its Education and Training Board.
He was instrumental in having Education added to Baldrige Framework. He writes a regular column for ASQ’s Quality Progress magazine.
Question 1. You were the chair of ASQ’s Education Division. You also encouraged having education added to the Baldrige Framework. How well were your expectations for quality in education met?
We founded the Education Division for educators committed to improvement to learn from one another, from the Society’s Body of Knowledge, publications, and certifications, and from quality professionals across industries. I encouraged application of Baldrige in education for its systems perspective on outcomes, continual improvement of its own framework, real-world organizational diagnosis, and assessment with opportunities for educators to participate as examiners, and national public recognition of excellence.
When I later played a role in developing a quality-based framework for higher education accreditation, the example of Baldrige was important. The Division also actively participated in the evolution of ASQ/ANSI Z1.11: Quality management system standards – Requirements for education organizations.
My expectations were high. We had a diverse ASQ team with deep knowledge of quality and extensive networks in training, K-12, and higher education. The environment was supportive. In preparing a report on employers’ needs for the Total Quality Forum, a collaboration of universities and industry, I had seen firsthand the significant commitment of CEOs such as the late David Kearns of Xerox and of executives at other Fortune 500 and smaller companies. At the same time, state governors sponsored a series of conferences on quality in education, drawing national attention. ASQ’s Koalaty Kid demonstrated use of quality tools in the classroom. In addition, VICA (now SkillsUSA), with whom we partnered, had a well-developed curriculum and team practicum in TQM for students in vocational programs.
I hoped that ASQ’s leadership in ongoing alliances for continual improvement of schools would lead to wide adoption of quality principles/ standards to benefit students and stakeholders.
I am an idealist. My expectations were bound to be too high. ASQ’s Education Division and general membership have always been committed, but quality is no longer “hot.” ASQ and other associations have diminished influence. However, quality is still critically important—especially now for promoting awareness of enterprise risk. In my view, over thirty years, greater consciousness of quality in education has certainly developed.
We have plenty of case studies. In many instances, the vocabulary, including for job titles, has seeped in. Dashboards are also common. But there is not as much passion. Good examples of results achieved are often seen as experiments. Unfortunately, the results are not translated to standard practice (PDSA short circuited). Anecdotes and test scores sometimes substitute for research on teaching and learning that encompasses brain science. In many arenas, employers give less attention to the quality values and orientations of new hires. That said, however, we cannot give up.
Education is always here and now. A pandemic has exposed both grave weaknesses in risk-based decision-making and the importance of our schools for students’ intellectual, social, and physical development, including safety and nutrition. It has created gaps in learning that some students may never close and cast light on gross inequalities in access to technology that have a long foreground. (In the age of dial-up, I assisted in a state study that found a significant percentage of students were excluded from the internet because their homes lacked phones.)
At the same time, it is accelerated burnout in already stressed administrators, teachers, and staff. Parents, often mentioned in school mission statements as essential, are confronted with new responsibilities in educating their children, sometimes under heavy burdens.
Question 2: What have been the stumbling blocks to the implementation of quality in education and how can they be overcome?
Barriers are principally related to complexity. These include the structures of United States education with the varying responsibilities, funding and regulatory authority at federal, state and local levels; profound inequality in society—unfortunately, a good predictor of student success is still parental income—and in school resources; a highly diverse higher education landscape with an increasing number of institutions facing extinction; political/ideological division; and fragmented initiatives for school “reform”. These in different forms have challenged improvement in US education since the founding of the Republic. We still need coalitions of stakeholders, common frameworks and vocabulary, and constancy of purpose. There is no easy fix. Once the virus has cleared, quality in education should be high on our agenda for renewal.
Question 3: Recently you have written a series of articles for Quality Progress on change management and employee development. The quality profession is going through significant changes. Some of the changes are a result of COVID – 19. Others are a result of the general disruption of quality, exemplified by the decrease in ISO 9001 certifications. How can quality professionals successfully navigate through this period of disruption?
Quality professionals are challenged across all industries. As you point out, some standards have lost ground, as has public interest in quality as competitive advantage—the foundation of the Baldrige Award. Rather, attention is focused on adapting to the disruptive technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. These, according to Klaus Schwab, Chairman of the World Economic Forum, raise questions not only about displacement of human beings in the future of work but even the course of humanity itself with bio and neuro-technologies
Many aspects of technologies such as blockchain and the internet of things, artificial intelligence, robotics, earth and space sciences are speculative. However, applications are here. Just a few examples: blockchain ledgers may soon replace school transcripts to record lifelong learning as well as formal academic achievement. Biology is producing new “living” building materials. We take for granted advanced technologies as digital assistants with voices and “personalities” keep us entertained and informed and help organize our lives. And on September 8th this year, the Guardian published an essay composed by artificial intelligence (AI), provocatively titled, “A robot wrote this entire article. Are you scared yet, human?” A lot of humans are.
How should quality professionals respond? Begin with caution. In one recent Quality Progress column, I quoted from a 1934 article by William F Ogburn, who coined the term “cultural lag” in describing the social effects of technology: “Predictors agree with each other more than with reality,” he stated, and “hope tends to distort reality favorably.” We should explore trends but take a clear-eyed look at our own reality, which ought not to be distorted by fear of uncertainty, or by the mystique of innovation that enabled Theranos, the infamous startup blood testing company, to violate every quality principle as it hoodwinked its board and investors. Whatever the technology, quality is about integrity.
In every industrial revolution, organizations have adapted, formulated goals, integrated technology, and aligned their cultures. From inspection to competitive strategy, quality disciplines have aided those processes. We are indeed experiencing rapid “digital transformation,” and as Dr. Deming advised, transformation “requires a whole new structure, from foundation upward” and it “must take place with directed effort.” Quality professionals should be in the forefront directing that effort. They will need instrumental, interpersonal, imaginal, and systems skills to do so.
Quality professionals, as always, need instrumental skills, the tools, and techniques of quality. Enhanced by technology, they are necessary to get the job done. Additionally, interpersonal and leadership skills are highly important. Studies already tells us that cross-functional teams are critical to digital transformation, and that understanding of the human and technological interface is central. Further, skills of imagination are required. We cannot vision without imagining how things might be different so we can help interpret the consequences of innovation for our organizations. Systems skills enabling us to see connections in the big picture, assess the results of change, and assure conformance to standards may be the quality profession’s most significant contribution.
The roots of quality remain. In addition to skills, professionals require a supportive community. Since 1946, this has been ASQ. Like other membership organizations, it has faced challenges. Recently, however, in delivering webinars to members and interacting on work-related platforms, I’ve sensed that post-pandemic we may see a renaissance of interest in quality’s role in transformed workplaces along with need for personal connections and professional development, online and face to face. It is a time for renewal.
BIO:
Henry J. (Hank) Lindborg is a founder of the American Society for Quality’s (ASQ) Education Division and past member of its Education and Training Board. Dr. Lindborg has been a pioneer in applying quality principles to education. He has consulted on quality improvement for large school districts and played important roles in creating and fostering AQIP (Academic Quality Improvement Program) of the Higher Learning Commission (North Central Association), which was an alternative path to accreditation for colleges and universities based on continual improvement.
As a consultant, he has worked in strategic development with organizations ranging from Fortune Five Hundred corporations to an Indian Nation, utilities, publishing, manufacturing, health care, universities and K-12 education systems. A career coach and author, he writes a regular career column for ASQ’s Quality Progress. He has been a board member of for-profit and not-for-profit organizations.
Dr. Lindborg has also served IEEE-USA (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,) as Chair of the Career Workforce Policy Committee and as a member of its Government Relations Council.
His career in higher education has included roles as senior vice president, academic vice president, dean of faculty, and Executive Director of the International Values Institute.
He holds degrees from Fordham University and the University of Wisconsin at Madison.