The central problem in management and in leadership is failure to understand the information in variation. He that possesses even a fuzzy understanding of it would understand the futility of the annual rating of performance of people as a basis for raises or for promotion. He would understand that the type of action required to reduce special causes of variation is totally different from the action required to reduce variation and faults from the system itself; would understand the capability of a process and of a system of measurement; would appreciate the necessity for statistical control of use of instruments and gauges; would understand that adjustment of an instrument to a standard should be carried out only on statistical evidence of stability of both instruments; would understand that leadership that takes aim at people that are below average in production, or above average in mistakes, is wrong, ineffective, costly to the company; that the same holds for a leader that supposes that everyone could be an achiever. He would understand why it is that costs decrease as quality improves. It is essential, however, in industry and in science to understand the distinction between a stable system and an unstable system, and how to plot points and conclude by rational methods whether they indicate a stable system. The points might show (e.g.,) weekly figures on sales, quality incoming and outgoing, complaints of customers, inventory, absenteeism, accidents, fires, accounts receivable, beneficial days.