THE idea of setting quality standards has become an independent field of study known as Quality Management (QM), which was added over the last four decades to the system of social sciences. Today, there are academies offering Quality Management as their only course of study. Although there is a great deal of literature on QM – the most famous being the works of Dr. W. Edwards Deming, who is widely regarded as the father of this new discipline – I do not want to go too deeply into the details and definitions of QM and its subject headings, which are quality management and control at the planning stage, quality management and control at the stage of execution, then a careful check of quality at the final stage. The application of the science of Quality Management and the spread of a quality culture are no more than reflections of a more fundamental issue, namely the presence of an effective process of social mobility that allows the best elements in society to reach the top of the societal pyramid. It is these elements that can spread quality consciousness throughout society and eventually lead it to adopt a culture of quality. Asociety, which does not allow for a process of social mobility favouring its best human elements, and which propels them into prominence, will never be governed by a culture of quality. In the absence of such a process, a culture of randomness and slipshod performance takes over, and the fickle hand of chance is left to determine the course of events – usually with disastrous consequences far removed from any notion of quality control. As I mentioned in an earlier work entitled "Egyptian Transformation, untrammelled social mobility and the chain reactions it sets in motion, are what allow the most able elements in society to occupy the leading positions in all walks of life. This creates a solid social pyramid that is developed over time by what some social scientists call social Darwinism, and that others (particularly those of a socialist formation) attribute to social mobility and the opportunity it provides for the best elements to reach the upper layers of the societal pyramid, and to contribute effectively in shaping society's present and future. Whatever the mechanism by which such a dynamic social pyramid is built up, at the end of the day, it remains the only way to propagate a culture of quality in society. Conversely, a society whose composition does not allow for free social mobility leaves the door wide open for inept and mediocre elements to make their way to top positions in its organisations and institutions, thereby dealing a death blow to any prospect of a culture of quality, and creating a totally different cultural environment in which mediocrity holds sway; quality disappears, and virulent campaigns are unleashed against talented individuals by those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. They know that unless they work relentlessly to keep the rules of the game from changing, they are doomed to topple from the leading positions they occupy to positions more in keeping with their limited talents and abilities The question of the culture propagated by mediocre people in high places and the general climate they create, should be a matter of grave concern for intellectuals and scholars who, more than anyone, are capable of seeing the big picture and understanding the negative implications of this phenomenon on society at large. There is no question but that our social and political structures suffer from the ascendancy of mediocrity and the mechanisms set in place by its beneficiaries to keep themselves and others of their ilk in influential positions. The fallout from this phenomenon is reflected in the decline of values, ideals and ethics as well as in a shocking drop in our political, economic, cultural and educational standards. Apoint worth making in connection with the notion of quality is that it is not linked to technological development, but to an abstract notion that perfection is a goal one strives to attain using whatever resources are available. This was the theme of a lecture I delivered at the Juran Institute for Quality Management in the United States, in which I elaborated further on the idea that quality was a notion in the minds of certain outstanding individuals, and not the fruit of technology, which is itself the fruit of the intellectual prowess of outstanding individuals. To illustrate my point, I reminded my audience that quality control was a feature of the Ancient Egyptians which found its most salient expression in the Great Pyramid of the Pharaoh Khufu. The amazing precision and unequalled grace of this remarkable monument to human ingenuity graphically illustrate that quality and high standards of performance have nothing to do with the stage of a society's technological development. Commenting on my lecture, the head of the Juran Institute remarked that I had chosen the best possible example to prove my point, as the logo of the Institute depicts an Ancient Egyptian worker chiselling in stone! Thus the biggest quality management institute in the world did not link quality to high technology, but chose to depict the notion with the image of an Ancient Egyptian craftsman using the most primitive technology to create perfection that defies time itself. In fact, the history of Ancient Egypt is filled with evidence that quality is a notion rather than anything else. A comparison between the pyramid built by Khufu and the two built by his father, the Pharaoh Snefru, shows how an enormous leap in the level of quality can be achieved in just a few years; in the absence of any significant technological breakthrough, this can only be explained in terms of a human cadre that took the vigorous pursuit of quality to a higher level.
Heggy is the 2008 winner of Italy's top prize of literature “Grinzane Cavour”. http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Tarek_Heggy http://www.tarek-heggy.com
