You are highlighting the freedom aspects of a quality system and everything you say is correct. But you will also know that it all still needs to exist within a rigid system. The system is routinely updated based on feedback and the expertise of employees. On a daily basis it's still a framework with strict rules and procedures. The culture must exist inside that framework with the power and authority to make improvements.

Toyota is a good example. They pioneered a lot of quality principles. Yes, a worker can shut down production - if shutting down is part of the process. Not if they suddenly feel like it. Can the employee ask for the process to change because they have a better practice? Of course. The system restricts the individual in certain tasks, so they have time and power to do other things. Besides, all Toyota production is done by robots. Why? To avoid variation and increase performance. In other words, humans are slow and erratic. Automation is now replacing many retail jobs for the same reason.

This may seem gloomy and tedious, but it's the main way companies stay competitive. I also believe philosophy should spend more time on these principles. They are the only solution to urgent problems in larger society.

And the only way a work culture can resist errors is through a rigid system of processes, error identification, feedback and tedious repetition.