The Continuous Improvement Delusion

“You Need To Read This” The Rise of Revenge Quitting in Tech:...

The Continuous Improvement Delusion

The Continuous Improvement DelusionPhilip Crosby’s Case Against Kaizen Culture

You may not like Phil Crosby’s perspective on continuous improvement. You may have even never heard of him. But this influential quality management expert who revolutionised manufacturing with his “Zero Defects” philosophy had something provocative to say about our modern obsession with Kaizen—the Japanese word for continuous improvement (Imai, 1986).

Whilst the business world embraced the delusion of incremental optimisation, Crosby saw something fundamentally broken in our approach to getting better.

Crosby criticized gradual improvement (like Kaizen) in favor of immediate, complete fixes. His position was that incremental improvement was insufficient.

His critique wasn’t just contrarian—it was mathematically and economically devastating to the entire continuous improvement industrial complex. And decades later, his warnings about optimisation theatre have proven prophetic.

Organisational Learned Helplessness Dressed Up as Diligence

Crosby’s primary objection to continuous improvement was practical: instead of incrementally improving flawed processes, focus on do things right the first time. Why accept that our processes are broken and then spend endless energy making them slightly less broken?

The continuous improvement model starts with a defeatist assumption—that defects are inevitable, that error is natural, and that our job is to gradually reduce the rate of failure. Crosby saw this as organisational learned helplessness dressed up as diligence.

Just as learned helplessness teaches individuals that they have no control over their circumstances, continuous improvement teaches organisations that they have no power to actually solve their problems—only to marginally reduce their severity over time. We’ve built elaborate approaches around the core belief that we’re powerless to fix things properly.

This isn’t common sense; it’s institutionalised resignation with metrics attached.

Crosby saw statistical quality control and e.g. the ISO 9001:2015 standard as contributing to this through acceptable quality levels—a concept that allows a certain number of acceptable defects and reinforces the attitude that mistakes are inevitable.

The Economics of Actually Fixing Things

Whilst continuous improvement focuses on elegant frameworks, cadres of quality workers, and extensive metrics, Crosby cut straight to what matters: money. He understood something that the continuous improvement culture has forgotten: every day you don’t fix a known problem, that problem costs you money. Real money. Calculable money.

His “Price of Nonconformance” wasn’t just theory—his programmes netted manufacturing cost-of-quality reductions from $30 million in 1968 to $530 million in 1976 at ITT Corporation. Something like 20% to 25% of revenues could be saved by simply doing things right the first time instead of continuously improving broken processes.

Caution: Cost of Quality: Financial Sophistication Can Fail Too

The continuous improvement model, by contrast, creates expensive improvement theatre. We measure defect rates, track improvement metrics, run kaizen events, and celebrate marginal gains whilst the actual problems—the ones everyone knows about—continue bleeding money every single day.

Zero Defects vs. The Improvement Treadmill

Crosby’s ZeeDee philosophy stood in stark contrast to the widespread mantra of “kaizen”—the relentless pursuit of small, incremental optimisations. His approach was brutally simple: identify what’s wrong, fix it completely (to meet requirements), and do it right from that point forward.

Not “reduce defects by 5% this quarter.” Not “implement a continuous improvement culture.” Simply: Zero. Defects.

This wasn’t perfectionism—it was pragmatism. Most quality problems aren’t complex engineering challenges requiring months of analysis. They’re obvious failures that everyone knows about but nobody fixes because we’re too busy optimising our approach to optimisation.

The Prevention vs. Detection Fallacy

Crosby distinguished between two fundamentally different approaches to quality:

Detection Approach (Continuous Improvement): Find defects as early as possible and continuously improve the detection and correction process. Build better inspection systems. Implement more sophisticated monitoring. Celebrate reducing defect rates.

Prevention Approach (Zero Defects): Build systems that eliminate problems at their source. Stop the defects from happening in the first place.Phil Crosby advocated celebrating Zero Defects achievements and error-free performance.

Continuous improvement puts all the energy into getting better at handling problems rather than eliminating them. We become incredibly sophisticated at damage control whilst the root causes keep generating new damage.

The Management Commitment Problem

“Quality starts to go to hell when you delegate it. So when I say commitment, I mean CEOs in there working and doing things, not just saying, ‘Yes, I bless this thing, and here’s some money to do it.'”

~ Phil Crosby

Continuous improvement programmes are perfect for delegation. They create committees, frameworks, and ongoing initiatives that make middle management look extremely busy whilst allowing executives to avoid the hard work of actually fixing fundamental problems.

Crosby’s zero defects approach, by contrast, requires executives to identify specific problems, commit resources to fix them completely, and take direct responsibility for results. “It doesn’t work that way. It’s like parenting. You can’t delegate the cuddle and the evening prayer; you have to do that yourself.”

Why We Choose Comfortable Failure

The continuous improvement delusion persists because it’s psychologically comfortable. It allows us to feel good about making progress without the scary commitment of actually solving problems. We can always point to our improvement trajectory, our kaizen events, our metrics.

Crosby’s approach is terrifying because it demands binary outcomes. Either the problem is fixed or it isn’t. Either you meet requirements or you don’t. Either you have zero defects or you’re failing.

This binary approach functions as a perfect litmus test for leadership commitment. There’s no middle ground where executives can sound supportive whilst hedging their bets. As Crosby observed: “All you need is for the CEO to say, ‘Quality is the most important thing we have around here, but don’t forget we still have to make a buck. Don’t get carried away with this thing [the zero defects initiative].’ Say that, and it’s all gone [the entire quality programme is destroyed].”

That single mixed message—quality matters, but not more than short-term profits—destroys any possibility of zero defects. Everyone immediately understands that when push comes to shove, defects are acceptable if fixing them costs money or takes time.

The Modern Vindication

Today’s optimisation theatre—our productivity apps, improvement frameworks, and continuous improvement cultures—perfectly validates Crosby’s critique. We’ve created an entire industry around the performance of getting better whilst actual performance often remains unchanged or gets worse.

We track habits without changing behaviour. We measure metrics without improving outcomes. We run improvement initiatives whilst the fundamental problems everyone knows about continue costing money, frustrating customers, and burning out employees.

A Different Path Forward

Crosby’s alternative isn’t to abandon improvement—it’s to abandon the delusion of gradual improvement and commit to actual solutions:

Identify Real Problems: Not opportunities for optimisation, but actual failures that cost money and frustrate people.

Fix Them Completely: Don’t improve them incrementally. Fix them immediately to zero defects—to the point where they meet requirements consistently.

Do It Right From Then On: Build prevention into the process so the problem doesn’t recur.

Measure Real Costs: Track the price of nonconformance in actual dollars, not abstract improvement metrics.

Demand Executive Commitment: Leadership that personally owns problem resolution, not just improvement initiatives.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Perhaps the most uncomfortable truth about Crosby’s critique is how obviously correct it is. Most of our “improvement opportunities” are actually known problems that we choose not to fix completely because fixing them would require difficult decisions, uncomfortable conversations, and significant resource commitments.

It’s easier to run a continuous improvement initiative than to fire the incompetent manager. It’s easier to optimise the customer service process than to fix the product defect that creates most customer service calls. It’s easier to improve the hiring process than to address why good people keep leaving.

Continuous improvement becomes organisational avoidance behaviour—a sophisticated way of doing everything except the hard work of actually solving problems.

Crosby’s legacy isn’t just about quality management—it’s about choosing the courage of decisive action over the comfort of perpetual improvement. In a world addicted to optimisation theatre, perhaps the most radical act is to simply fix what’s broken and do it right the first time.

Bob Marshall's Blog

Bob Marshall's profile
55 followers