Five-minute Deming: Profit cover art

Five-minute Deming: Profit

Five-minute Deming: Profit

Listen for free

View show details

About this listen

 Most leaders would never say profit does not matter. The problem is almost the opposite. They talk about profit constantly. Budgets tighten. Targets multiply. Departments are pressed to improve their own numbers. On the surface, that can look like discipline.But the deeper question is harder. If profit really matters, why do so many management habits reduce trust, increase waste, and make the organization less capable over time? That is the Deming challenge. Profit is real. It is necessary. But it is not managed well by chasing it directly.Why chasing the number breaks the systemDeming’s view of profit is more demanding than the usual financial conversation. He did not treat profit as optional, but he did reject the idea that leaders can secure it by applying more pressure to visible figures. He saw profit as the result of better management of the whole system over time.He put it bluntly: “Emphasis on short-term profit defeats constancy of purpose and long-term growth.”Emphasis on short-term profit defeats constancy of purpose and long-term growth.— W. Edwards DemingThat sentence is uncomfortable because it names a pattern many organizations normalize. Under pressure, leaders narrow their time horizon. They defer maintenance. They cut learning. They treat quality work as a cost center. They ask each department to maximize its own result and assume the whole organization will somehow benefit.It usually does not. And that is where the real trouble begins.To see why, it helps to look at a story.When every department wins and the organization losesRiverview Health Network was under familiar pressure. Margins were tight. Labor costs were rising. Denied claims were getting more attention from the board. Senior leaders responded in a way many organizations would recognize: they asked each vice president to improve the financial performance of his or her own area.Andrea, the chief operating officer, took the assignment seriously. She tightened staffing controls, pushed harder on throughput, and made departmental targets more visible. Radiology watched utilization. Registration watched speed. Billing watched collections. Clinic managers were told to monitor overtime closely.When Marcus raised concerns early, Andrea answered the way many executives would.“I understand that. But we cannot ignore the numbers. If every department improves its margin, the organization improves.”For a short while, the reports looked better. Overtime dipped. A few local targets moved in the right direction. The monthly review felt calmer.Then the strain showed up elsewhere. Patient complaints increased. Claims were denied because registration was incomplete. Nurses were calling managers about delays in imaging and discharge paperwork. Billing teams were spending more time on rework. Staff tension rose because every department was defending its own scorecard and pushing problems downstream.Marcus, who led patient access, finally said what the system was already revealing.“We are improving each piece on paper, but the whole thing feels harder to run.”Later, standing at a whiteboard with the patient journey mapped from scheduling to billing, he made the problem even plainer.“We are managing this like separate profit centers.”That was the turning point. Andrea could see that no single department looked wildly broken on its own. Yet the system as a whole was producing delay, hidden cost, frustration, and lost trust.At the next leadership meeting, she changed the conversation.“We keep saying profit is the priority. But if that were really true, we would stop making decisions that increase total waste. We are protecting monthly appearances and creating bigger losses underneath them.”The room went quiet. Then she took the next step.“We need to manage patient flow, information quality, and cooperation across the system. We cannot ask each area to win separately and expect the whole network to win.”Profit still mattered. But now she could see that the organization had been protecting appearances while creating bigger losses underneath them.So Riverview stopped treating departmental targets as the main story. Leaders studied handoffs, duplicate work, and points where one team’s local savings created losses somewhere else. They reduced repeated data entry. They gave front-line teams time to improve coordination. They stopped rewarding savings that only looked good because another department absorbed the pain later.Not every local measure improved immediately. Some looked worse before the whole system stabilized. But within a few months, denied claims fell, patient complaints eased, and financial performance became steadier because the organization was wasting less effort.That is not soft thinking. It is better management.Why we keep falling into this patternMost of us have worked inside systems that teach us to manage from the numbers backward. If the margin is down, squeeze harder. If costs rise, freeze spending. If...
No reviews yet