Peter R. Scholtes on Oliver Wendell Holmes, Deming Philosophy

Peter R. Scholtes on Holmes(1998/10)

Dear Hanching:

I hope that my response is not so tardy that it will be no help to you.I'm sorry to be so late. Oliver Wendell Holmes was a great AmericanJurist. He was also, however, a philosopher and deep thinker.

By "thesimplicity on this side of complexity" I think he was referring to superficial and simplistic answers. "The simplicity on the other side of complexity"refers, I believe, to simple and profound truths that one arrives at by thinking deeply about things. Thoughtful answers to complex questions can yield many more questions than the first questions arrived at.

Einstien said "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler." And HL Mencken, an American writer, said, "to every complex problem there is a simple answer... and it is wrong!". They were expressing similar thoughts as those of Holmes. Thoughtful responses may take a lifetime of looking for the implications and contexts surrounding complex problems. But that effort usually results in simple truths rather than simplistic truths.

I also read your "Fire Sermon and Deming Philosophy". I think it is very good. You are a very good writer.

Respectfully,

Peter R. Scholtes

戴明與霍姆斯(1998/10)

由於Peter Scholtes在The Leader’s Handbook中引用了霍姆斯法官的一句重要的話，我做了一些簡單的比較和會通的工作，發現Holmes與戴明哲學有密切的關係。

下述為關於霍姆斯(Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., 1841-1935)的評價：

“他的觀念包含了深奧的知識和有價值的思想，並且已被人們描述成英語國家法院系統歷史上最有才智的人。他的觀點在透徹的思想和獨創的寫作方面，都是無以倫比的。”(《牛津法律大辭典》p.416)

主要著作為經典《普通法》(The Common Law，1881)和《法學論文集》(Collected Legal Papers，1920)。
名句極多，如：
法的生命不是邏輯而是經驗。

(“The life of the law has not been logic；it has been experience.”)

它可當詩歌來讀，韻律十足(參考“The Music of the laws”)。它也可作為其實用主義哲學的應用作之說明。他的現實主義法學表現在 “法的預測說”，即認為可以從壞人角度解釋什麼是法。壞人所關心的，是法院對他們將如何處理，因此，法就是 “對法院事實上將作什麼的預測”。(《中國大百科全書法學》p.298)

“法學的目的在於預測，即預測法院行使國家權力的可能性和現狀。…我所說的法，不外乎有關法院實際上將做什麼的預言。” (取材自《法的道路》)請比較戴明說「管理即預測。」P. Scholtes在The Leader’s Hand Book的開頭(P. 46)和結尾，都用霍姆斯的話，說他可能也是在提倡 “淵博知識系統”。

他轉引的一句傳言是“ I wouldn’t give a fig for the simplicity on this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity”.

我把Peter相關的一段話譯成如下，供大家參考。也許從這方面討論 “複雜”較正確(因為企業或組織是海耶克等人所談的有組織的複雜，而不是今日時尚的自然系統中的複雜現象。)

有關霍姆斯的一些軼聞(傳記請參考《天生英哲》,今日世界出版社)：
F. D. 羅斯福總統拜訪退休了的大法官Holmes(或譯福爾摩斯)，看他在讀柏拉圖。「法官先生，你為何讀柏拉圖?」「改善我的心智，總統先生。」92歲的老人這樣回答。

大法官曾說：「感謝上帝我是位低品味的人(按：他喜歡《巨人傳》，俗劇…)

「思想的最有力測試是能在市場競爭中為人所接受…我們的憲法正是此種不折不扣的理論。」Holmes大法官的話，可慶吾國法官釋憲五十周年，也可紀念戴明思想。

美國最高法院全體同事給Holmes的信，也許可用來紀念霍姆和戴明：

「您的淵博學識與愛智之展望，表現在已成經典著作之中，既豐富了法的實質也充實其文獻…」

他對法學教育的看法：
我在對諸多成功之士的了解基礎上確信這一點，即僅僅作為大公司的律師並擁有5萬美元(按：1920水平)的薪水，並不能贏得幸福。偉大到足以贏得讚譽的有識之士，除了成功以外尚需其他食糧。法律較為模糊，較為一般的方面，恰是人們所普遍關注的。正是通過這些方面，你不僅會成為你職業中的大師，而且能把你的主觀意識與大千世界聯繫起來，得到空間、時間上的共鳴、瞥見它那深不可測的變化過程、領會到普遍性規律。
另一有意義的說法為“最可能變為有創造力，如領導者一樣起作用的，那些帶著大量詳細信息進入生活的人，而是那些有足夠的理論知識，能作出批判性判斷與具有迅速適應新的形勢及解決在現代世界中不斷發生的問題的各種學科知識的人。”（取材自R. Dubois）
(二)人的可靠性
戴明生前曾慎重的考慮過，把可靠性做為他淵博知識系統中的一項，後來因故放棄。下面的詩歌為Holmes的打油詩，名為《教區長的傑作》，他用來比喻系統或人體的最弱環和不可靠性，極妙。〔美國著名生物學家，劉易斯．托馬斯在《水母與蝸牛》中有精彩的評述：What a way to go !〕
我且告許你打造馬車的訣竅，
永遠會有某個地方最不牢靠，
不是轂就是輪箍，輞，彈簧或轅，
或是車身，車前橫木，橋或底盤。
或是釘，銷，總底皮帶──更不保險…
無需懷疑，原因只此一樁，
馬車散了架，可沒有磨損淨光。
……所以，把它打造得散不了架，
……最弱的地方也能承受應力，
照我說的把各個部份裝起，
只需
讓那地方像別處一樣牢固。
……最結實橡木，
既不劈裂，也不折不彎。
派工匠尋來箭木作轅，
最直的蜡木作成橫杆，
作車身的白木奶酪一般，
可作成車子卻賽鐵堅。
釘兒銷兒踏板和頂杠，
車軸車轄輪箍和彈簧，
用的是錚明瓦籃的好鋼。
總底帶用野牛皮又厚又寬，
老硬皮作腳絆，車蓋和檔板。
就這樣他“把她裝配齊整”，
“行”，教區長說，“總算把你作成。”
全車都有些微的朽壞，
可哪部分也不更加厲害。
因為教區長手藝高強，
做得各部份都是一樣，
不會有首先破壞的地方。
……輪子和車轅一樣結實，
底盤和橋也毫無二致。
車身堅固得可比底盤，
後杆牢靠得恰似前杆。
可作為整體它有了疑問，
過一個鐘點它就要毀損。
五十五年霜月開頭一天，
這早上教區長趕車溜彎。
喂，小孩子們讓讓道兒，
頂好的單馬車開過來了。
拉車的是馬車開過來了。
拉車的是鼠尾羊頸的騮馬，
“駕”，教區長吆喝一聲上了路。　
車子來到出坡上的會議廳，
突然間轅馬站住不動，
先覺一震，接著打個激棱，

然後像著了魔法一樣篤定—

　

教區長蹲到一塊石頭上，
會議廳的鐘正把九點敲響──
教區長站起身四周環顧，
你道他看見了什麼景物？
舊馬車成了堆可憐的朽木。
就好像進過磨坊遭了輾壓！…
──它一下子全散了架…
沒有哪一個部件先壞──
恰像肥皂泡爆破開來。

（取材自《水母與蝸牛》，李紹明譯）

Deming Philosophy and Holmes (1998/10)(Notes on The Leader’s Handbook, part II. ) by Hanching Chung

It is interesting to see article in Quality Progress to apply Deming 14 Points to legal office. But I think it may be worthwhile to invite Deming community and legal professional to discuss about the Deming Philosophy and the great Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1841-1935). Many fruitful directions are potential.

One important reason to think about both sages is that in W. A. Shewhart legacy that the origins of quality standards come from laws and traditions. The operational meaning in many versions of contracts, including many quality requirements in the suppliers/subcontracting is also a very fruitful area to study. It is may be a contract without operational definitions or with it but not relevant.

Peter Scholtes in his The Leader Handbook using one attributed Holmes statement as a major theme of Deming Philosophy( p.46 and later Chapters.) He ponders on it: “ I wouldn’t give a fig for the simplicity on this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity”. Peter said “ Justice Holmes, perhaps, was articulating the need for profound knowledge. I found high frequent using “profound” in article introducing Holmes in Encyclopedia Britannica .

The approach adopted by Mr. Scholtes is double –edge knife since it provide some inspirations but unfortunately without operational definition like Deming on

Leadership in The New Economics.. But it may be interesting to do a study on both sages’ philosophy. I think the trouble of Peter’s quote is that the imagination of the readers may take advantage of the ambiguity of the word. But on the other hand, this quote reminds us that we are dealing with the so-called organized or purposeful complexity, not the fashionable mathematical complexity. Theory.( It is interesting to think about the logic-mathematical traditions Holmes and “we” might against with.)

I didn’t go to the origin works of Holmes but some interesting comparisons can be made based upon some of his famous phrases.

“ The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.” We can also talk about the Pragmatism between both sages.

Holmes addressed to law professionals that their responsibility is to understand the relationship between specific cases and the whole structure(this is I retranslate it from Chinese translation, I’ll check it later the original one.)

The other interesting view worth comparison is the central role of prediction in Law and Management. It is interesting to note Holmes’ word that “ But certainty generally is an illusion, and repose is not the destiny of man”(The music of the laws by Daniel Kornstein, p.124). .

Both sages’ view on the purpose and consistency (or learning) of social systems is another area we can think about.: “ The truth is, that the law is always approaching, and never reaching, consistency… It will become entirely consistent only when it ceases to grow.” (op. cit., p. 124). Both sages agree that the innovation and imagination is the stage zero of the system.

Dr. Deming once thought about to include reliability studies as one element of his system of profound knowledge. While Holmes wrote a subtle poem about human reliability called The Deacon’s Masterpiece which was used and commented gracefully in Lewis Thomas’s The Medusa and the Snail. Thomas’ comments was great : What a way to go!