Ben, there are many 'gurus' of quality and leadership, or productivity process. Of course General Powell is among the most successful and respected leaders for a reason. He has a sort of framework, and in his case 18 bullet points of basic philosophy on leadership that works very well in the context of his military-industrial life's experience. As it seems here, context is everything. Golf course design, or maintenance has its own unique and proven traditional processes, that seem more proven and time tested, and adherence to those traditional principles doesn't exactly mark complacency, IMHO.
Deming's 14 principles also have 'some' relationship to the process of producing a great golf course, maintaining one, and applicability to the management of said design, construction or maintenance process. Yet, some of them just aren't in context to our subject matter either.
The important point, I think, is we seek to apply what is applicable to constantly improve, and not fear those who try and experiment with new innovation, with a sober evaluation of if we are experiencing progress or just change for change's sake.
In the more philosophical sense, even Bertrand Russell separated the idea of progress from mere change. I think he said, change is the product of application of technology and seeking something different to alter the status quo, but progress requires the additional application of ethics. Is it sometimes not ethical to alter something that is not broken and functions to everyone's satisfaction?