Mirza Yawar Baig – Confusion about kindness

Mirza Yawar Baig
Share Page

AI: Summary ©

The speaker discusses the confusion around the concept of kindness and how it is often seen as a negative attitude. They emphasize the need for quality demands and measuring it through metrics. The speakers also share stories about the negative impact of quality issues on team members and employees, highlighting the importance of fixing quality issues and avoiding mistakes.

AI: Summary ©

00:00:03 --> 00:00:03
			My brothers
		
00:00:04 --> 00:00:05
			and sisters, friends,
		
00:00:06 --> 00:00:07
			the Romans countrymen.
		
00:00:10 --> 00:00:12
			We were having this discussion this morning.
		
00:00:13 --> 00:00:13
			My
		
00:00:14 --> 00:00:16
			long suffering friend and
		
00:00:16 --> 00:00:18
			trusted right hand,
		
00:00:18 --> 00:00:19
			my mother and
		
00:00:21 --> 00:00:21
			myself,
		
00:00:24 --> 00:00:26
			about the importance of qualities.
		
00:00:28 --> 00:00:28
			And,
		
00:00:30 --> 00:00:31
			as he knows and I
		
00:00:32 --> 00:00:33
			as I am quite
		
00:00:34 --> 00:00:35
			unashamedly
		
00:00:36 --> 00:00:37
			happy to admit,
		
00:00:39 --> 00:00:40
			I believe that quality
		
00:00:40 --> 00:00:41
			is
		
00:00:44 --> 00:00:45
			a competitive advantage,
		
00:00:46 --> 00:00:49
			and quality can be achieved only
		
00:00:50 --> 00:00:52
			by having a totally
		
00:00:52 --> 00:00:53
			non compromising
		
00:00:54 --> 00:00:54
			attitude
		
00:00:55 --> 00:00:56
			about the lack of it.
		
00:00:58 --> 00:00:59
			The moment you compromise
		
00:01:00 --> 00:01:01
			on lack of quality,
		
00:01:02 --> 00:01:04
			and usually it is done in the name
		
00:01:04 --> 00:01:06
			of so called kindness,
		
00:01:07 --> 00:01:09
			the whole house of cards
		
00:01:10 --> 00:01:10
			collapses.
		
00:01:11 --> 00:01:13
			I have a quote. I say metrics
		
00:01:14 --> 00:01:15
			convert intentions
		
00:01:16 --> 00:01:17
			into goals,
		
00:01:17 --> 00:01:18
			desires
		
00:01:18 --> 00:01:19
			into results.
		
00:01:20 --> 00:01:21
			Metrics,
		
00:01:21 --> 00:01:22
			which is measurement,
		
00:01:23 --> 00:01:24
			convert
		
00:01:24 --> 00:01:24
			intentions
		
00:01:25 --> 00:01:26
			into goals
		
00:01:28 --> 00:01:29
			desires into results.
		
00:01:30 --> 00:01:32
			So I thought let me talk to you
		
00:01:32 --> 00:01:34
			about this whole issue of
		
00:01:34 --> 00:01:36
			this confusion really about kindness.
		
00:01:40 --> 00:01:41
			Obviously,
		
00:01:41 --> 00:01:44
			I my in my defense, I must put
		
00:01:44 --> 00:01:45
			a disclaimer to say that I have nothing
		
00:01:45 --> 00:01:47
			against kindness. I think kindness is
		
00:01:47 --> 00:01:48
			one of
		
00:01:50 --> 00:01:52
			the values that seems to be disappearing from
		
00:01:52 --> 00:01:54
			this from our society
		
00:01:54 --> 00:01:57
			at great cost to us. So kindness is
		
00:01:57 --> 00:01:58
			extremely important.
		
00:01:58 --> 00:02:00
			The important thing is to understand what is
		
00:02:00 --> 00:02:01
			kindness.
		
00:02:02 --> 00:02:03
			Now what is kindness?
		
00:02:04 --> 00:02:06
			Is it accepting substandard
		
00:02:06 --> 00:02:07
			work
		
00:02:07 --> 00:02:10
			or is it insisting that only the best
		
00:02:10 --> 00:02:12
			quality is acceptable?
		
00:02:13 --> 00:02:14
			What is kindness?
		
00:02:15 --> 00:02:17
			There's often a lot of confusion about this.
		
00:02:17 --> 00:02:17
			People think
		
00:02:18 --> 00:02:19
			that they are being kind
		
00:02:20 --> 00:02:22
			when they say nothing to their group members
		
00:02:22 --> 00:02:24
			or their family or friends who routinely
		
00:02:25 --> 00:02:26
			over promise and under deliver.
		
00:02:28 --> 00:02:29
			I want to distinguish here between
		
00:02:30 --> 00:02:30
			inability
		
00:02:31 --> 00:02:32
			and unwillingness.
		
00:02:33 --> 00:02:33
			Inability,
		
00:02:34 --> 00:02:35
			not capable,
		
00:02:36 --> 00:02:37
			and unwillingness,
		
00:02:38 --> 00:02:39
			or don't care.
		
00:02:40 --> 00:02:42
			If someone is learning English, for example, I
		
00:02:42 --> 00:02:43
			wouldn't discard
		
00:02:44 --> 00:02:47
			something he had written because it had spelling
		
00:02:47 --> 00:02:48
			or grammatical
		
00:02:48 --> 00:02:49
			errors.
		
00:02:50 --> 00:02:51
			But if the same work
		
00:02:52 --> 00:02:54
			comes from someone who knows English well,
		
00:02:55 --> 00:02:56
			then that indicates
		
00:02:56 --> 00:02:58
			an attitude of carelessness
		
00:02:59 --> 00:03:00
			and inattention
		
00:03:01 --> 00:03:03
			to quality which is a reflection
		
00:03:03 --> 00:03:05
			not of their language ability
		
00:03:05 --> 00:03:08
			but of a much more dangerous malaise
		
00:03:09 --> 00:03:10
			of an attitude
		
00:03:10 --> 00:03:12
			of lack of attention to retail
		
00:03:13 --> 00:03:14
			and a lack of concern
		
00:03:14 --> 00:03:15
			for quality.
		
00:03:16 --> 00:03:17
			When I see this,
		
00:03:17 --> 00:03:19
			I know I'm looking at a person
		
00:03:20 --> 00:03:21
			without self respect.
		
00:03:22 --> 00:03:23
			Because in my book,
		
00:03:23 --> 00:03:25
			my work is by signature.
		
00:03:25 --> 00:03:28
			So if I'm not concerned about putting out
		
00:03:28 --> 00:03:32
			sloppy work, then it means I'm not concerned
		
00:03:32 --> 00:03:34
			about my own image.
		
00:03:34 --> 00:03:36
			It's not about projecting an image, but about
		
00:03:36 --> 00:03:37
			becoming
		
00:03:37 --> 00:03:38
			complacent
		
00:03:38 --> 00:03:39
			and comfortable
		
00:03:40 --> 00:03:42
			with poor quality. Such a person, in my
		
00:03:42 --> 00:03:44
			opinion, is not someone
		
00:03:44 --> 00:03:46
			who I would want on my team
		
00:03:46 --> 00:03:49
			what no matter what their qualifications are.
		
00:03:50 --> 00:03:53
			And so usually, if I'm hiring
		
00:03:53 --> 00:03:54
			and I find
		
00:03:55 --> 00:03:57
			a CV or a covering letter, which is
		
00:03:57 --> 00:03:58
			full of mistakes,
		
00:03:59 --> 00:04:02
			grammatical mistakes, and spelling mistakes, I usually don't
		
00:04:02 --> 00:04:03
			take it further.
		
00:04:03 --> 00:04:04
			I very respectfully
		
00:04:05 --> 00:04:08
			place that into my waste bin.
		
00:04:09 --> 00:04:11
			In my book called Hiring Winners, which is
		
00:04:11 --> 00:04:13
			on Amazon, by all means, please read it.
		
00:04:13 --> 00:04:15
			I have argued and shown
		
00:04:15 --> 00:04:19
			that technical competence can be hired or trained,
		
00:04:19 --> 00:04:20
			but attitude
		
00:04:20 --> 00:04:23
			must be selected and hired.
		
00:04:23 --> 00:04:27
			Technical competence can be hired for trained, but
		
00:04:27 --> 00:04:27
			attitude
		
00:04:28 --> 00:04:29
			must be selected and hired.
		
00:04:30 --> 00:04:31
			It's almost impossible
		
00:04:32 --> 00:04:34
			to change the attitude of people
		
00:04:34 --> 00:04:36
			once they are hired.
		
00:04:36 --> 00:04:38
			I say almost impossible
		
00:04:38 --> 00:04:40
			because it is possible
		
00:04:40 --> 00:04:42
			in exceptional cases,
		
00:04:42 --> 00:04:44
			with exceptional leaders
		
00:04:44 --> 00:04:46
			and in exceptional circumstances.
		
00:04:47 --> 00:04:49
			It's not something that I would recommend to
		
00:04:49 --> 00:04:49
			anyone
		
00:04:50 --> 00:04:51
			and it's not something that I
		
00:04:52 --> 00:04:54
			have seen happen that many times in my
		
00:04:54 --> 00:04:54
			life.
		
00:04:55 --> 00:04:58
			Much simpler and easier to hire people with
		
00:04:58 --> 00:04:59
			the right attitude
		
00:04:59 --> 00:05:01
			and train them in the skills that you
		
00:05:01 --> 00:05:03
			want. Just to give you an idea why
		
00:05:03 --> 00:05:05
			I call this dangerous,
		
00:05:06 --> 00:05:07
			let me share some statistical
		
00:05:08 --> 00:05:09
			data with you.
		
00:05:10 --> 00:05:10
			According to a 2006
		
00:05:11 --> 00:05:13
			study looking at the frequency
		
00:05:14 --> 00:05:17
			of surgical errors in the United States,
		
00:05:17 --> 00:05:18
			each year
		
00:05:18 --> 00:05:21
			there could be as many as 2,700
		
00:05:22 --> 00:05:23
			mistakes
		
00:05:23 --> 00:05:26
			where a surgery is performed on the wrong
		
00:05:26 --> 00:05:28
			body part or the wrong
		
00:05:28 --> 00:05:31
			patient. That's about 7 per day.
		
00:05:33 --> 00:05:35
			In the text that will come with this,
		
00:05:35 --> 00:05:37
			art with the with the article and text
		
00:05:37 --> 00:05:38
			will come with this,
		
00:05:39 --> 00:05:41
			video. I've given the link
		
00:05:41 --> 00:05:41
			of the,
		
00:05:42 --> 00:05:44
			of this of the study. Please read it.
		
00:05:45 --> 00:05:48
			To understand this properly, imagine having your good
		
00:05:48 --> 00:05:51
			kidney or your good eye removed.
		
00:05:52 --> 00:05:53
			Both have happened.
		
00:05:54 --> 00:05:56
			The federal aviation
		
00:05:57 --> 00:05:58
			administration lists
		
00:05:58 --> 00:06:00
			pilot error
		
00:06:00 --> 00:06:03
			as the leading cause of plane accidents.
		
00:06:04 --> 00:06:05
			But pilot error
		
00:06:05 --> 00:06:08
			is almost always part of a chain of
		
00:06:08 --> 00:06:09
			events
		
00:06:09 --> 00:06:11
			that starts with something like an ice topped
		
00:06:11 --> 00:06:14
			wing, a piece of equipment that fails and
		
00:06:14 --> 00:06:15
			wasn't reported,
		
00:06:15 --> 00:06:17
			or a close encounter
		
00:06:17 --> 00:06:18
			on a runway.
		
00:06:19 --> 00:06:20
			Again, there is a link,
		
00:06:21 --> 00:06:23
			in the article. Please read it.
		
00:06:24 --> 00:06:26
			These details are only to give you an
		
00:06:26 --> 00:06:29
			idea of the seriousness of being careless.
		
00:06:29 --> 00:06:30
			It can
		
00:06:30 --> 00:06:33
			and does result in loss of life and
		
00:06:33 --> 00:06:34
			limb.
		
00:06:35 --> 00:06:36
			I'm sure that the more we dig, the
		
00:06:36 --> 00:06:40
			more we find incidents where significant loss could
		
00:06:40 --> 00:06:41
			have been avoided,
		
00:06:42 --> 00:06:44
			if only someone had checked.
		
00:06:44 --> 00:06:45
			That is where
		
00:06:46 --> 00:06:48
			this is related to spelling and grammar.
		
00:06:48 --> 00:06:51
			They are indicators of attitude. Someone will send
		
00:06:51 --> 00:06:54
			out a letter full of spelling and grammatical
		
00:06:54 --> 00:06:56
			mistakes, and today it is so easy to
		
00:06:56 --> 00:06:59
			check that. You have programs to check that.
		
00:06:59 --> 00:07:02
			You have it as you type, the computer
		
00:07:02 --> 00:07:03
			does the job for you.
		
00:07:03 --> 00:07:05
			Somebody doesn't even bother with that,
		
00:07:08 --> 00:07:10
			then it's more than likely a person. That's
		
00:07:10 --> 00:07:12
			the kind of person who will not do
		
00:07:12 --> 00:07:14
			an instruments check if they were flying a
		
00:07:14 --> 00:07:17
			plane or read the patient's data sheet or
		
00:07:17 --> 00:07:18
			count the number of sponges
		
00:07:19 --> 00:07:21
			they took out of the incision
		
00:07:21 --> 00:07:23
			in a in a surgical procedure.
		
00:07:23 --> 00:07:24
			I, for 1,
		
00:07:25 --> 00:07:26
			wouldn't want to be on that plane
		
00:07:27 --> 00:07:28
			or that operating
		
00:07:28 --> 00:07:29
			table.
		
00:07:30 --> 00:07:33
			This attitude of carelessness is not restricted to
		
00:07:33 --> 00:07:35
			English writers or or pilots or surgeons. We
		
00:07:35 --> 00:07:37
			have careless teachers
		
00:07:37 --> 00:07:40
			who ruin children's enthusiasm to study. We have
		
00:07:40 --> 00:07:42
			careless parents who bring up little animals
		
00:07:43 --> 00:07:46
			instead of responsible human beings. We have careless
		
00:07:46 --> 00:07:48
			scholars who leave the remnants of their mistakes
		
00:07:48 --> 00:07:49
			to confront people
		
00:07:50 --> 00:07:52
			long after they are dead and gone.
		
00:07:53 --> 00:07:55
			And that is where the issue of demanding
		
00:07:55 --> 00:07:57
			quality comes in.
		
00:07:57 --> 00:07:58
			Sloppiness
		
00:07:58 --> 00:08:00
			is not a sign of passion
		
00:08:01 --> 00:08:02
			but the lack of it.
		
00:08:02 --> 00:08:04
			By and large, we seem to have quality
		
00:08:04 --> 00:08:07
			problems in 3rd world countries because we accept
		
00:08:07 --> 00:08:08
			poor quality.
		
00:08:08 --> 00:08:10
			People can do better, but they need to
		
00:08:10 --> 00:08:11
			be convinced
		
00:08:11 --> 00:08:13
			that it is worth their while to do
		
00:08:13 --> 00:08:17
			so. We must demand quality without apology
		
00:08:17 --> 00:08:19
			and without confusing it for a lack of
		
00:08:19 --> 00:08:22
			kindness. In my opinion, the willingness to take
		
00:08:22 --> 00:08:23
			tough calls
		
00:08:24 --> 00:08:27
			is the key to quality. Ask yourself, is
		
00:08:27 --> 00:08:29
			it kindness to allow cancer to develop because
		
00:08:29 --> 00:08:32
			you don't want to hurt the patient by
		
00:08:32 --> 00:08:34
			cutting him or is it kindness to be
		
00:08:34 --> 00:08:37
			concerned enough about the life of the patient
		
00:08:37 --> 00:08:39
			to cut out the cancer, which is which
		
00:08:39 --> 00:08:41
			is more kind? That is what you are
		
00:08:41 --> 00:08:43
			doing when you allow sloppiness
		
00:08:44 --> 00:08:46
			in the name of being kind.
		
00:08:46 --> 00:08:47
			You cut out cancer
		
00:08:48 --> 00:08:50
			because you know that it will kill you
		
00:08:50 --> 00:08:52
			though it is your own cell.
		
00:08:53 --> 00:08:57
			That's precisely why your internal defense mechanism
		
00:08:57 --> 00:08:59
			cannot deal with it, and you have to
		
00:08:59 --> 00:09:01
			lose external intervention.
		
00:09:01 --> 00:09:02
			That is why
		
00:09:03 --> 00:09:04
			Jack Welch of GE
		
00:09:05 --> 00:09:07
			used to say that the ultimate test of
		
00:09:07 --> 00:09:10
			the leader is if he had edge, which
		
00:09:10 --> 00:09:12
			he defined as the ability
		
00:09:12 --> 00:09:14
			to take tough decisions.
		
00:09:14 --> 00:09:17
			Among the 4 e's of GE, and those
		
00:09:17 --> 00:09:19
			are my GE friends who work for GE
		
00:09:19 --> 00:09:22
			or what consultants with GE. I've been,
		
00:09:22 --> 00:09:24
			consulting with GE from,
		
00:09:25 --> 00:09:25
			1994.
		
00:09:27 --> 00:09:29
			We we know this 4 e's very well.
		
00:09:30 --> 00:09:33
			Energy, energize, edge, and execute.
		
00:09:34 --> 00:09:36
			Welch would say that a person may have
		
00:09:36 --> 00:09:38
			3 of the 4, but if he did
		
00:09:38 --> 00:09:40
			not have edge, then he would fail even
		
00:09:40 --> 00:09:41
			though he had the others.
		
00:09:42 --> 00:09:45
			There's an excellent article. I've given you the
		
00:09:46 --> 00:09:48
			link for that as well. Now quality is
		
00:09:48 --> 00:09:50
			all about being tough
		
00:09:50 --> 00:09:53
			for the right reasons. Firstly, with oneself
		
00:09:53 --> 00:09:55
			and then with one's team.
		
00:09:55 --> 00:09:57
			Without that edge,
		
00:09:57 --> 00:10:00
			there can never be any quality. Of this,
		
00:10:00 --> 00:10:01
			I'm absolutely
		
00:10:02 --> 00:10:04
			convinced, and I hope I can convince you.
		
00:10:04 --> 00:10:07
			Michael Harry of Motorola was the man who
		
00:10:07 --> 00:10:07
			conceptualized
		
00:10:08 --> 00:10:09
			6 sigma quality.
		
00:10:09 --> 00:10:12
			And it's it's famous statement. He said, if
		
00:10:12 --> 00:10:16
			you want to see what somebody values, see
		
00:10:16 --> 00:10:16
			what they measure.
		
00:10:17 --> 00:10:18
			He said if you want to see what
		
00:10:18 --> 00:10:22
			somebody values, see what they measure. And that's
		
00:10:22 --> 00:10:24
			the reason why we say time is money,
		
00:10:24 --> 00:10:27
			but we have we don't really mean that
		
00:10:27 --> 00:10:29
			because we measure money.
		
00:10:29 --> 00:10:31
			And so when we lose it, even if
		
00:10:31 --> 00:10:32
			it's a small amount,
		
00:10:33 --> 00:10:35
			it pricks in the heart of the mind.
		
00:10:35 --> 00:10:38
			But time, we just waste it.
		
00:10:39 --> 00:10:41
			On an average, a person today
		
00:10:42 --> 00:10:42
			spends
		
00:10:43 --> 00:10:44
			6 hours a day
		
00:10:45 --> 00:10:48
			on the screen of their phone in social
		
00:10:48 --> 00:10:50
			media. 6 hours a day. That's almost 1
		
00:10:50 --> 00:10:51
			third of your life.
		
00:10:53 --> 00:10:55
			If time was money, believe me, we would
		
00:10:55 --> 00:10:57
			not do that. And that's because we don't
		
00:10:57 --> 00:11:00
			measure time. Although money is replaceable,
		
00:11:01 --> 00:11:02
			and time is irreplaceable.
		
00:11:03 --> 00:11:06
			Still, this is how we treat it. So
		
00:11:06 --> 00:11:08
			to go back to Michael Harry of Motorola,
		
00:11:08 --> 00:11:09
			he's the man who conceptualized
		
00:11:10 --> 00:11:11
			6 sigma quality.
		
00:11:12 --> 00:11:13
			This quality standard, which is based on the
		
00:11:13 --> 00:11:16
			principle that one can only measure mistakes.
		
00:11:17 --> 00:11:20
			You can't see how efficient someone is except
		
00:11:20 --> 00:11:22
			to count the number of mistakes they make.
		
00:11:22 --> 00:11:24
			The fewer the mistakes,
		
00:11:24 --> 00:11:27
			the better the product or service. So let's
		
00:11:27 --> 00:11:30
			say someone has a service delivery of 99%
		
00:11:30 --> 00:11:31
			correct.
		
00:11:31 --> 00:11:33
			Now that is perfectly acceptable
		
00:11:33 --> 00:11:35
			and we may say to ourselves that, you
		
00:11:35 --> 00:11:37
			know, we must be compassionate and not give
		
00:11:37 --> 00:11:39
			that person a hard time because they made
		
00:11:39 --> 00:11:42
			that one mistake in 100 until, of course,
		
00:11:42 --> 00:11:45
			you translate that into 6 Sigma terms. How
		
00:11:45 --> 00:11:46
			many per million?
		
00:11:47 --> 00:11:47
			1%
		
00:11:48 --> 00:11:49
			is 10,000
		
00:11:50 --> 00:11:50
			mistakes
		
00:11:51 --> 00:11:52
			per million.
		
00:11:52 --> 00:11:53
			10,000
		
00:11:53 --> 00:11:55
			per million. 6 sigma
		
00:11:55 --> 00:11:56
			is 3.4
		
00:11:57 --> 00:11:57
			mistakes
		
00:11:58 --> 00:11:58
			per million.
		
00:12:00 --> 00:12:01
			99% correct
		
00:12:01 --> 00:12:03
			is 10,000 mistakes per million.
		
00:12:04 --> 00:12:05
			6 sigma quality
		
00:12:05 --> 00:12:06
			is 3.4
		
00:12:06 --> 00:12:09
			mistakes per million. Let me ask you, how
		
00:12:09 --> 00:12:11
			would you like to fly in a plane
		
00:12:11 --> 00:12:12
			at 39,000
		
00:12:13 --> 00:12:13
			feet
		
00:12:14 --> 00:12:17
			where the engines were manufactured by a company
		
00:12:17 --> 00:12:18
			operating at 99%
		
00:12:19 --> 00:12:19
			efficiency?
		
00:12:22 --> 00:12:25
			Or where the pilot is operating at 99%
		
00:12:25 --> 00:12:25
			efficiency,
		
00:12:26 --> 00:12:28
			or we operated for heart surgery by a
		
00:12:28 --> 00:12:31
			surgeon who is 99 percent particular
		
00:12:31 --> 00:12:32
			about hygiene.
		
00:12:33 --> 00:12:35
			Do I need to give you more examples?
		
00:12:36 --> 00:12:38
			This is where the importance of measurement, the
		
00:12:38 --> 00:12:41
			importance of metrics comes in. It is only
		
00:12:41 --> 00:12:44
			when you have metrics to define what is
		
00:12:44 --> 00:12:47
			meant by acceptable quality in your context
		
00:12:47 --> 00:12:50
			can you be sure that everyone understands
		
00:12:50 --> 00:12:51
			the standard
		
00:12:52 --> 00:12:55
			can be measured and will know clearly if
		
00:12:55 --> 00:12:56
			he or she
		
00:12:56 --> 00:12:57
			met the standard
		
00:12:58 --> 00:12:59
			or didn't.
		
00:13:00 --> 00:13:04
			What you don't measure, you don't know. What
		
00:13:04 --> 00:13:05
			you don't know,
		
00:13:05 --> 00:13:06
			you can't control
		
00:13:07 --> 00:13:09
			and what you cannot control you cannot
		
00:13:10 --> 00:13:10
			guarantee.
		
00:13:11 --> 00:13:12
			Let me repeat that
		
00:13:13 --> 00:13:14
			What you don't measure,
		
00:13:14 --> 00:13:17
			you don't know. What you don't know, you
		
00:13:17 --> 00:13:20
			cannot control. And what you cannot control, you
		
00:13:20 --> 00:13:21
			cannot guarantee.
		
00:13:22 --> 00:13:23
			Subjective assessments
		
00:13:24 --> 00:13:25
			cannot substitute
		
00:13:25 --> 00:13:26
			for metrics.
		
00:13:26 --> 00:13:29
			So do take the time and trouble to
		
00:13:29 --> 00:13:33
			measure the quality of whatever it is that
		
00:13:33 --> 00:13:34
			you are doing in life.
		
00:13:35 --> 00:13:38
			This is what, incidentally, Toyota did with the
		
00:13:38 --> 00:13:41
			development of their luxury car. When I was
		
00:13:42 --> 00:13:43
			in business school, this is one of the
		
00:13:43 --> 00:13:45
			case studies that we
		
00:13:45 --> 00:13:47
			that we did there. Toyota went to the
		
00:13:47 --> 00:13:48
			owners
		
00:13:48 --> 00:13:51
			of Rolls Royce, Mercedes, and BMW,
		
00:13:52 --> 00:13:54
			and other luxury cars like this, and ask
		
00:13:54 --> 00:13:55
			them questions
		
00:13:55 --> 00:13:56
			about what they felt
		
00:13:57 --> 00:14:00
			felt, not thought, what they felt when they
		
00:14:00 --> 00:14:02
			used their cars. They asked, for
		
00:14:02 --> 00:14:03
			example, the,
		
00:14:04 --> 00:14:06
			the owner of Rolls Royce, what he or
		
00:14:06 --> 00:14:08
			she feels when they get into the car
		
00:14:08 --> 00:14:10
			and shut the door, and it shuts with
		
00:14:10 --> 00:14:11
			a very
		
00:14:12 --> 00:14:12
			satisfying
		
00:14:13 --> 00:14:13
			pump,
		
00:14:13 --> 00:14:15
			not a teeny clang
		
00:14:15 --> 00:14:17
			like the door of a small cheap car.
		
00:14:17 --> 00:14:20
			They asked them what they felt when they
		
00:14:20 --> 00:14:20
			sank
		
00:14:21 --> 00:14:24
			into the luxury of rear leather seats, which
		
00:14:24 --> 00:14:26
			hug them and give them back support.
		
00:14:27 --> 00:14:29
			They asked the owners of BMW
		
00:14:29 --> 00:14:32
			what they felt when they were behind the
		
00:14:32 --> 00:14:34
			wheel on an open stretch of road, and
		
00:14:34 --> 00:14:36
			they floored the accelerator.
		
00:14:37 --> 00:14:38
			Those of you who have who have driven
		
00:14:38 --> 00:14:41
			BMWs and I have driven BMWs will know
		
00:14:41 --> 00:14:44
			what I mean. The cat, the car acts
		
00:14:44 --> 00:14:45
			like a leopard
		
00:14:45 --> 00:14:48
			gathering itself to pounce, and then, choom, it
		
00:14:48 --> 00:14:50
			goes. You can feel it in your belly
		
00:14:51 --> 00:14:54
			before it leaps forward, and the thrust drives
		
00:14:54 --> 00:14:57
			you back in your seat. Toyota engineers
		
00:14:57 --> 00:14:59
			took these highly touchy feely answers
		
00:14:59 --> 00:15:01
			and converted them into engineering
		
00:15:02 --> 00:15:02
			drawings,
		
00:15:03 --> 00:15:06
			the most specific of data. The result was
		
00:15:06 --> 00:15:07
			the successful
		
00:15:08 --> 00:15:10
			and fastest selling luxury car on the market,
		
00:15:11 --> 00:15:11
			the Lexus.
		
00:15:12 --> 00:15:14
			This is the magic of numbers,
		
00:15:14 --> 00:15:16
			the power of metrics that
		
00:15:17 --> 00:15:17
			They convert
		
00:15:18 --> 00:15:18
			wishes
		
00:15:18 --> 00:15:19
			into reality,
		
00:15:20 --> 00:15:21
			vision
		
00:15:21 --> 00:15:22
			into action,
		
00:15:22 --> 00:15:23
			effort
		
00:15:23 --> 00:15:24
			into results.
		
00:15:25 --> 00:15:26
			Quality is serious.
		
00:15:27 --> 00:15:28
			Lack of quality
		
00:15:28 --> 00:15:29
			is deadly.
		
00:15:29 --> 00:15:33
			Lack of quality happens simply because we permit
		
00:15:33 --> 00:15:35
			it, because we allow it. It happens because
		
00:15:35 --> 00:15:38
			we don't insist on quality. It happens because
		
00:15:38 --> 00:15:41
			we accept poor quality most in the day,
		
00:15:41 --> 00:15:44
			most often in the name of being kind
		
00:15:44 --> 00:15:44
			and compassionate.
		
00:15:45 --> 00:15:47
			We are very foggy in our heads about
		
00:15:47 --> 00:15:48
			this. I suggest
		
00:15:48 --> 00:15:50
			get rid of this fault. Not reality, of
		
00:15:50 --> 00:15:53
			course, that there's nothing more unkind
		
00:15:53 --> 00:15:54
			and unjust
		
00:15:54 --> 00:15:55
			than accepting
		
00:15:56 --> 00:15:57
			poor quality.
		
00:15:58 --> 00:16:00
			It fools the provider into believing that his
		
00:16:00 --> 00:16:03
			or her product or service is good enough.
		
00:16:04 --> 00:16:07
			It takes away their incentive to improve and
		
00:16:07 --> 00:16:08
			makes them vulnerable
		
00:16:08 --> 00:16:11
			to collapse. This is not kindness, but a
		
00:16:11 --> 00:16:12
			lack of understanding
		
00:16:12 --> 00:16:14
			of the whole issue of quality which has
		
00:16:14 --> 00:16:18
			very long term and very destructive effects. This
		
00:16:18 --> 00:16:20
			also has a huge negative impact
		
00:16:21 --> 00:16:23
			on those team members, on those people in
		
00:16:23 --> 00:16:24
			your organization
		
00:16:25 --> 00:16:26
			who are quality conscious.
		
00:16:27 --> 00:16:28
			You you take away
		
00:16:29 --> 00:16:29
			their incentive
		
00:16:30 --> 00:16:33
			of being quality conscious by accepting poor quality
		
00:16:33 --> 00:16:36
			from their colleagues. This is injustice to them,
		
00:16:36 --> 00:16:40
			and it is injustice and suicide to yourself.
		
00:16:40 --> 00:16:42
			Unfortunately, our society
		
00:16:42 --> 00:16:44
			is full of examples of people who don't
		
00:16:44 --> 00:16:47
			keep their word, who do not deliver on
		
00:16:47 --> 00:16:49
			promises, who do not work to high standards,
		
00:16:49 --> 00:16:51
			and give ridiculous
		
00:16:51 --> 00:16:51
			excuses
		
00:16:52 --> 00:16:55
			when challenged. People who confuse effort with result,
		
00:16:56 --> 00:16:57
			while it is only results
		
00:16:58 --> 00:16:59
			that count.
		
00:17:00 --> 00:17:01
			Let me tell you 2,
		
00:17:02 --> 00:17:02
			stories
		
00:17:03 --> 00:17:04
			before I,
		
00:17:04 --> 00:17:05
			end this,
		
00:17:05 --> 00:17:08
			this chat of mine. The first story goes
		
00:17:08 --> 00:17:09
			that Motorola,
		
00:17:09 --> 00:17:13
			and this story I heard in Motorola in
		
00:17:13 --> 00:17:13
			Chicago.
		
00:17:14 --> 00:17:16
			Motorola ordered a part of their,
		
00:17:17 --> 00:17:19
			they had a they had a Japanese ancillary,
		
00:17:20 --> 00:17:22
			which used to make their pagers,
		
00:17:22 --> 00:17:24
			for them. So they ordered,
		
00:17:25 --> 00:17:26
			a part
		
00:17:26 --> 00:17:27
			for their pages
		
00:17:28 --> 00:17:29
			from their Japanese ancillary
		
00:17:30 --> 00:17:32
			and impressed upon them that they were a
		
00:17:32 --> 00:17:35
			6 sigma company and would not accept anything
		
00:17:36 --> 00:17:37
			but the 6 sigma standard
		
00:17:38 --> 00:17:39
			of 3.4
		
00:17:39 --> 00:17:41
			mistakes per 1,000,000.
		
00:17:41 --> 00:17:44
			When the consignment was delivered, to Motorola's surprise,
		
00:17:44 --> 00:17:47
			they found 2 packages, a big one and
		
00:17:47 --> 00:17:49
			a small one. When they opened the big
		
00:17:49 --> 00:17:51
			box, they saw that it had the entire,
		
00:17:52 --> 00:17:53
			consignment,
		
00:17:53 --> 00:17:54
			of 1,000,000
		
00:17:54 --> 00:17:57
			parts that they had ordered. The small bar
		
00:17:57 --> 00:18:00
			the small box had 4 parts in it.
		
00:18:00 --> 00:18:02
			When they asked their Japanese partner, they were
		
00:18:02 --> 00:18:03
			told, we didn't understand
		
00:18:04 --> 00:18:05
			what you wanted,
		
00:18:06 --> 00:18:08
			why you wanted us to give you defective
		
00:18:08 --> 00:18:09
			parts
		
00:18:09 --> 00:18:11
			because you said you wanted 3.4
		
00:18:11 --> 00:18:13
			mistakes per million.
		
00:18:13 --> 00:18:15
			We didn't understand why we should give you
		
00:18:15 --> 00:18:17
			defective parts. But since you asked for them,
		
00:18:17 --> 00:18:21
			we gave you 4 defective parts. Otherwise, we
		
00:18:21 --> 00:18:22
			don't manufacture
		
00:18:22 --> 00:18:23
			anything with defects.
		
00:18:24 --> 00:18:26
			So the Japanese company was, you know, steps
		
00:18:26 --> 00:18:28
			ahead of that. The second story is about
		
00:18:28 --> 00:18:30
			Tata Motors, and this was told to me
		
00:18:31 --> 00:18:33
			by their general manager
		
00:18:33 --> 00:18:34
			in
		
00:18:34 --> 00:18:36
			the Tata Motors factory
		
00:18:37 --> 00:18:38
			in India.
		
00:18:40 --> 00:18:42
			He said that they had been plagued, they
		
00:18:42 --> 00:18:43
			were plagued with rework.
		
00:18:44 --> 00:18:45
			The cost of
		
00:18:46 --> 00:18:48
			and and of course, obviously cost of escalations
		
00:18:48 --> 00:18:50
			and so on. And so they hired a
		
00:18:50 --> 00:18:51
			a
		
00:18:51 --> 00:18:52
			consultant,
		
00:18:52 --> 00:18:55
			a Japanese consultant from Toyota to help them
		
00:18:55 --> 00:18:57
			to solve their quality problem. He said the
		
00:18:57 --> 00:19:00
			man entered the factory, walked straight to the
		
00:19:00 --> 00:19:02
			end of the manufacturing line, and there he
		
00:19:02 --> 00:19:04
			saw there was a huge area
		
00:19:04 --> 00:19:06
			marked rework.
		
00:19:06 --> 00:19:08
			He said to them, remove the sign,
		
00:19:08 --> 00:19:11
			eliminate this work area. That is all that
		
00:19:11 --> 00:19:13
			you need to do to fix your problem.
		
00:19:13 --> 00:19:15
			The man said you were shocked, he said
		
00:19:15 --> 00:19:15
			what have you been
		
00:19:16 --> 00:19:18
			just just remove all this? What will happen
		
00:19:18 --> 00:19:20
			to the 2 things which have to be
		
00:19:20 --> 00:19:22
			reworked? He said there will be no nothing
		
00:19:22 --> 00:19:24
			to rework. If you have no rework area,
		
00:19:24 --> 00:19:26
			you would have no rework. People will do
		
00:19:26 --> 00:19:28
			the right thing the first time.
		
00:19:29 --> 00:19:30
			Well, the Tata executives,
		
00:19:31 --> 00:19:34
			were not convinced, and they reduced the size
		
00:19:34 --> 00:19:36
			of the area, but were too frightened to
		
00:19:36 --> 00:19:38
			remove the rework area entirely.
		
00:19:39 --> 00:19:41
			The results were predictable.
		
00:19:41 --> 00:19:43
			My question to you is, if you had
		
00:19:43 --> 00:19:46
			a choice, which car would you buy? A
		
00:19:46 --> 00:19:46
			Toyota
		
00:19:47 --> 00:19:47
			or a Tata?
		
00:19:48 --> 00:19:50
			I rest my case. Thank you very much
		
00:19:50 --> 00:19:52
			for listening. I hope
		
00:19:53 --> 00:19:54
			you like this idea
		
00:19:54 --> 00:19:55
			of insisting on quality,
		
00:19:56 --> 00:19:57
			especially
		
00:19:57 --> 00:19:59
			when you want to be kind, especially for
		
00:19:59 --> 00:20:02
			those people who you love and you value.
		
00:20:02 --> 00:20:03
			Thank you very