The one big difference between W. Edwards Deming and Peter Drucker

Both were equally brilliant thinkers of management in the 20th century. But then why did Deming's work turn out to be much more far-reaching?

Apr 17, 2025

W. Edwards Deming (left) and Peter Drucker (right): Two icons of management in the 20th century

The other day, during warm-up for a podcast session with management icon Peter Block, something remarkable happened. Peter held up two books of mine he had just received by mail. They were the books of quotations I edited in 2023: What would Deming do? and What would Drucker do? Peter said: “I scrolled through both of them” – much to my delight. Then he added: “It is so clear from the quotes that Deming was the far more progressive thinker, compared to Drucker.”

Which got me thinking.

I couldn’t agree more with Peter Block’s observation. That difference between Deming and Drucker exists. But when somebody else mentions something that you have taken for granted, your perception of the fact can change. In that moment, that’s what happened to me. I wondered: Where does that difference between two of the greatest minds of management thinking of the last century come from?

W. Edwards Deming (1900 - 1993) and Peter F. Drucker (1909 - 2005) have much in common: Both belong to the same generation, both were of extraordinary intelligence, academically educated, extremely hard-working. Both were insightful, witty and clever, both had powerful language at their disposal. Both authored hundreds of publications, and in diverse fields The two ended up having careers that spanned a whopping seven decades. Put differently: Neither Deming nor Drucker considered retirement an option! Both felt at ease looking beyond the obvious – beyond prevailing patterns of work or organizations, and societies at large.

It is no secret I greatly admire both men for what they stand for and for what they accomplished. Together with Mary P. Follett, Kurt Lewin and Douglas McGregor, Deming and Drucker are among my all-time heroes in the field of organizational leadership. My admiration for the two men is what got me to edit two books of their quotes, in the first place.

What would Deming do? and What would Drucker do? - edited by Niels Pflaeging. Published by BetaCodex Press

Another profession, a different approach

So how comes that, despite all the similarities between the two men, Deming’s work appears so much more daring and progressive today than Drucker’s? In order to understand the difference, it is worth taking a closer look at what professions the two thought they were in.

Early in his career, Peter Drucker considered himself a writer and journalist. Blending insights from history, sociology, psychology, philosophy, and economics, Drucker produced a large array of articles and books. He also understood his profession as being a teacher and, at least later in his career, a social ecologist who would observe social dynamics much like an ecologist observes the biological world. The title of Drucker’s lauded auto-biography Adventures of a Bystander reflects that personal stance: While Drucker was widely perceived as a part-time management consultant, he preferred to position himself as an acute observer, rather than a direct participant. His consulting style was decidedly detached and facilitative: Drucker focused on asking questions to provoke thinking, seeing his role as producing insightful, sometimes challenging inquiries, rather than providing direct answers or solutions. Until his later days, he probably felt most at ease in his study, behind his typewriter, churning out insightful publications.

W. Edwards Deming, on the other hand, cultivated a much more immersive style of working. Early in his life, Deming strongly identified himself as a consultant to governments, then later as a consultant to corporations like Ford and GM. I think Deming likely might have accepted the label “action researcher”. He cared deeply not just about understanding, but also about putting things into practice. Deming’s TV interviews in the 1980s are especially impressive with regards to outspokenness (here is one example, or here). During one such interview, Deming underlined that any CEO he would work with as a consultant would “report to me [Deming], and directly to me.” During his assignments, Deming would be rigorous about the method of change and organizational development. This was something Drucker was utterly un-interested in. And this leads us to grasp why Deming is more progressive today. Here comes my hypothesis.

A true consultant must talk differently, if s/he wants to win the client’s mandate for change.

The aims of Deming and Drucker were completely different. Through his eloquence in writing and speaking, Drucker wanted to reach a large audience for his message, in order to educate and make people think better. Deming, instead, aimed at re-educating his audiences, so that he would obtain mandates for transformation from the executives in organizations he would work with as a consultant. Deming had first understood this logic in 1950 in Japan, when he was first put in front of an audience of industrialists and business owners, which then transformed Japanese industry. This experience from the 1950s and 1960s transformed Deming’s understanding of what was possible, and impacted his formats of working, his methodology, his language.

Deming sought mandates for change that Drucker never looked for

This experience would shape Deming’s words, his style, and his way of delivering his message. Deming became rather blunt, laser-focused on his work’s value proposition and turning his concepts into models or distinct philosophies - which led him straight to articulating his 14 points for management. The formats in which Deming worked were always far more immersive than Drucker’s. Just think of the extended courses he taught, like the 4-day seminars Deming delivered between 1980 and 1993. These seminars, which included the famous Red Bead Experiment were not mere “speaking engagements” or entertainment: They were supposed to deliver a mental transformation that could then lead to organizational transformation. In fact, Deming refused to accept invitations by senior executives that weren’t serious about their own learning, and treated him as . Which explains why Deming was far more interested in the didactics, or methods of learning that could transform the abilities of business owners, managers and employees – over the course of years, if needed.

A way of thinking about this difference between Deming and Drucker is that Drucker saw the business media and his readers as his first audiences, while Deming saw executives and companies as his ultimate audience, doing what he did to impact the realities of companies.

It makes sense that people like Drucker who earn their living by writing and speaking tend to be less progressive (and less blunt), in order to connect with larger audiences, compared to people like Deming who earn their living mainly from "impacting work reality" through consulting. The former will focus on deploying their wit, crafting narratives and stories (and books, eventually). The latter will hone their skill of forging relationships with clients and partners they work with.

Eventually, witty narratives and books may result from that activity. For example, Deming's crusade to transform American industry produced two major books: “Out of the Crisis” (1982) and “The New Economics” (1993).

For Peter Drucker, the message he communicated had to be attractive, intelligent, compelling and understandable for the largest possible audience. For W. Edwards Deming, the message had to be consistent, it had to reach executives, and application of the message had to hold up in practice, even under the most difficult circumstances.

It’s a world of a difference.