By Shaun Sayers
Frankly I am sick and tired of seeing articles and discussions on forums from so-called quality professionals whining that “senior managers” just don’t understand quality. They don’t understand the benefits, it would appear, of ISO 9001. They don’t appreciate the value of the Quality Department and only pay “lip service” to the QMS … and so it goes on.
Well, whose fault is that?
These simpering laments do nothing other than infuriate. My question is not “when are senior managers going to appreciate quality?” I’m more interested in finding out when are so-called quality professionals going to make anything more than a half-hearted attempt to understand the dynamics and realities of business, and to truly appreciate the world that the senior team inhabits.
“Quality” is a support service whose purpose is to support the organisation – sometimes you’d think it was the other way around!
I’ve met hundreds of these “senior managers” and, in my experience, there are very few imbeciles. They are generally very capable individuals who are trying to maximise the performance of their organisation and, again in my experience, are generally willing to listen to anyone who has some sound ideas for doing just that. More to the point, they have often learned a thing or two about running a business. So why don’t they “get” quality? … Why indeed?
Its not just me who thinks this way, I might add. Philip Crosby famously suggested that Quality Professionals needed to be able to speak the language of the boardroom (dollars) in order to be effective in their job, but thirty-odd years on it would seem that this particular penny is still yet to drop. Fair enough, you do get the occasional MD who takes an interest and learns the lingo, but frankly, why should they be the ones that have to to learn the new language?
Here’s another inconvenient truth while we’re on the subject. Believe it or not, ISO 9001 DOES NOT have the answer to every single business challenge. Often we find the Quality Department thinks every problem has a “quality solution” – I’ve also found that to be true of other departments, incidentally, HR especially. In truth, of course, myopia is seldom part of the solution, but if the only tool you have is a hammer don’t be surprised if every problem looks like a nail …
I suspect this may well prove an unpopular post with many, but sometimes there’s a need for tough love, and right now I’m in the mood to dish it out. It’s not the first time I’ve been down this road either, but my plea is the same. Come on quality guys, make the effort, and if it doesn’t work, try something else. If you always do what you always did, you’ll always get what you always got. There’s a bit of Juran chucked in for good measure.
This post appears today on Shaun Sayers’ Capable People blog. It makes several important points which illuminate the discussion as to why some quality professionals don’t command the attention which their role merits.
5 Comments
The lack of reply comments’ speaks volumes…
It may do Kittow. Not sure what particular volume. It could be one of two
I was actually quite surprised when (out of all of my back catalogue of articles) that the CQI elected to re-post this one, which is provocative by any stretch
Are my observations valid? Obviously not in all cases, but the central message is that we should perhaps start seeing this “buy-in” issue in a similar way that we’d see any other, and apply a similar “root cause approach” to tackling it, as complaining from within our own sympathetic ranks is not going to change things. This we do know
Thanks for the comment, from whatever direction it was intended
In response to Shaun Sayers article I too am surprised that the CQI picked an article from the past – how old exactly? I haven’t seen any recent “articles and discussions on forums from so-called quality professionals whining that “senior managers” just don’t understand quality” so could it be that quality professional have now learnt to speak the language of management?
Quite often quality departments have a role recognition problem. They were established by the MD or CEO on a false premise; for a purpose that was not thought through.
In organizations were certification to ISO 9001 or similar standards is required by customers and quality departments established to develop quality management systems and audit them, there will be a continuing battle between them and senior management who will often believe the quality department are policemen, document warriors and the like with no business benefit other than to keep a badge on the wall. But the members of the quality department will naturally see their role as being far wider than this (because they have read and understood the family of standards) and hence why there is resistance and role conflict.
Where quality departments are established in organizations not having to meet ISO 9001 and the like, the relationships will be vastly different. Top management might have decided that ‘the pursuit of quality’ is a corporate value and established a unit of organization to provide a leadership and conscience function that assesses performance in the pursuit of quality and scans the environment for the best principles, practices and techniques and helps the organization acquire new capabilities.
So instead of blaming the quality professionals, blame the people who employed them for not knowing why they wanted them and giving these folks false expectations. You could also blame the quality professionals for not interrogating the person who interviewed them for the job and establishing just what they expect from the the role, its boundaries, its responsibilities and authority.
Why seek ISO 9001 certification if the organization is not prepared to change its culture and be committed to continual improvement, embrace best practice and employ only competent people?
Shouldn’t the quality professional expect senior management to be serious about the pursuit of quality?
Organisations generally seek ISO 9001 certification because it is a requirement of a customer or an important prospect, David, that’s by far and away the main reason and motivation
I’ve not seen a desire for culture change being a motivator, mainly because there are more specific, sophisticated and effective culture change models than ISO 9001. Most companies would see that as an OD rather than a “quality” thing. The standard has its applications but I think we’re stretching it if we are going to start calling it a model for culture change
For very recent appeals of this nature (the type of thing that prompted my initial post) from the quality community you’ll find numerous 2009/2010 examples on LinkedIn discussion forums and Q&A boards. There was another just the day before yesterday in fact, its still there
Don’t get me wrong David, I am no Jon Seddon, but I do often get frustrated by myopia and a failure to take an overall and balanced view, as you may detect
I think maybe our differences (which I have no problem with, by the way) may be encapsulated by your last statement. My own clear and personal view is that the pursuit of quality is a means to an end, not a higher goal in itself. And until quality professionals start to understand that a plane exists “above” quality, and the reason we “do quality” is in order to achieve further ends, then alignment with the strategic and/or commercial function will be difficult
I try not to blame anyone for anything, by the way, even when they are to blame, simply as it never gets anyone anywhere. So switching the blame from one side to another is something I would not wish to be accused of. Impassioned pleas, on the other hand, and the use of language to provoke a reaction, well, I do do that
Thanks for sharing your views. I’m sure there are many things on which we may agree, and I have no problem that we appear diametrically opposed on this topic
The CQI posted this submitted post precisely because ‘the quality professional SHOULD expect senior management to be serious about the pursuit of quality’ but it is patently obvious that latterly the quality role has failed to capture the attention of top management. For example, the overwhelming majority of our Top 500 companies do not have a quality professional at board level, and an alarming number no longer have a designated Director of Quality. This is a serious problem which we need to address.
Your suggestion, David, that top management is to ‘blame’ for ‘electing’ to certify organisations to ISO 9000 and then not recognise its ‘continuous improvement’ potential is interesting, but not, I suspect, an argument which will advance the cause. Blaming the CEO is not a good career move.
For whatever reason – and perception is certainly one – few objective observers see ISO 9001/2 as a strategic management tool. CQI is conducting extensive research amongst top managers to probe attitudes towards quality, including certification, which will be published in May this year, precisely to raise the level of debate beyond introversion, to restate the case for quality as a strategic management imperative and to differentiate an holistic and systematic continuous improvement culture from an audit-based discipline.
In any event, I would not recommend attaching ‘blame’ to anyone, much less the organisation and its top management. Apart from being completely contrary to the basic principles of quality management, casting blame invariably puts management on the defensive, slams the brakes on any improvement culture and stifles research into solutions. We posted Shaun’s article to stimulate debate, but as a previous post observes, the lack of response so far from the ‘quality community’ speaks volumes. John