Extent of Site manager (SM) Commitment - Upper Management issues

[selena15]

Hi Folks
missing you so much but.................
I h've heard this morning one really joke that i wanna to share with you.

Someone during one meeting said that The Site manager (SM) don't have to read or to know who is doing what within his organization.
About claims treatments process, The SM thought that it was some responsibles whom doing the part of these treatments that normally it is than by the operators.
I've told him that the SM as others concerned have received the procedure concerning this topic so he have just to check the procedure and to know. this gentelman replied to me, with kind of haughtiness that the SM don't have time for this kind of small tasks and he got partners and employees to do this instead of him!!!!!!!!!

This topics issue to me one query:
what is the extent of the SM commitment as requiered by the Standard ?

Waiting your feedback

[selena15]

Cove
where are you
hope you are fine?

[CarolX]

Originally Posted by selena15

what is the extent of the SM commitment as requiered by the Standard ?

Here is my take - none - the standard (and I assume you mean ISO9001) does not define who has to do what except that the organization shall provide the needed resources to complete the task. Sounds like he has other people responsible for those activities. Depending on his level in the organization - he doesn't need to "know" the detailed procedures.

Hope this helps a bit.

[selena15]

Hi CarolX
Thanks for reply.

I'm not saying that he will know in details of precedure. but i assume that the claims process is one which is request his interest.
If one major claim come accross on his desk, doesn't it will help to know who is doing what. I'm not saying that an upper manager has to know all details but how do you know that a SM are commited to implementation of QMS within his organization? just if he provid enough ressources and put the appropriate persons in the appropriate position!
waiting feedback

[BradM]

Selena, I still believe that organizations are very interesting, but complex, parts of our society. Being made up of individuals, each bring their own set of expectations, skills, abilities, and such to the table.

Imagine you are the site manager. What would you do? I would guess whatever it takes to get by. Is that inaccurate?

My point is this: The expectations we have for those in an organization, the goals we have for our self, and the expectations a supervisor has for their employee are sometimes quite at odds. The job of the site manager is molded by those that him/her report to. If there are changes in job performance that is expected of the site manager, it must come from their supervisor.

I am not sure what standard you are referring to; but I hate to say this... but it doesn't matter to a large extent. The site manager has to have their goals aligned with the requirements of the standard. Otherwise, they will seek to fulfill their own personal goals.

It plays to the old worn out phrase; if you want the site manager to take ownership of the standard, it has to be part of their job performance and their appraisal/merit evaluation.

Consider this.... does any elected official care about anything between elections? They have no motivation to be concerned about your wants/needs while they are safely in office. It's only at the time that they may lose their job that they become sensitive to what you want/need.

[arios]

Hello Selena

I want to understand better the issue. Please help me a little bit more to get this straight up. It sounds to me like you were trying to train (or make aware) a manager on the content of an specific work instruction, but I am not sure.

Please correct me if I am wrong. It looks like you perceived the manager's answer as a lack of interest, which may be true because in your eyes he refused to learn about a task that is done by another individual, however if you see this manager's opinion (regardless of his or her personality) he is also making sense. Then consider reviewing if in fact he needs to know that task.

Often times managers get trained or approve documents at higher levels, whereas work instructions (your level III documents for example) are more appropriate for review, and approval of line engineers and supervisors, and then the line workers and inspectors get trained to those. If there are work instructions that managers need to get trained on, then you have an opportunity for improvent: you could better direct the training to those who are intended to be users. Training matrices are then developed as an aid to determine who needs to get trained on what.

Having said this I will wait for further details so we can arrive into a better conclusion. In the meantime, its time for me to have a good dinner, so take your time my friend!

Alberto

[selena15]

Good evening Folks, Thanks for all replies
BradM, when I’ve used the term ‘Extent’ I was done to highlight the effect that kind of situation can have on long term. You know, the small gap can become crevice and so on…

The chapter 5.1 nor 5.2 doesn’t require this specifically. But I was quiet worry and I considered this as kind of lack of interest as Alberto said, because the Customers was the topic we talk about. Understand me, Once again, I’m not saying that he should know the details but even all responsibilities are clearly defined and communicated…bla bla,

The upper manager knows his staff and what they do. I’m not saying he should learn by heart the procedures, just to know and if the query come up to his mind about whom do what, at least to seek of an answer. Maybe I make it tough .

But sometimes, I see that several insignificant signs can conduct to defect. I’m not judging anyone, this query really come up to my mind:
What is the level of commitment to expect from the top management to ensure the right implementation of QMS?

Originally Posted by BradM

Consider this.... does any elected official care about anything between elections? They have no motivation to be concerned about your wants/needs while they are safely in office. It's only at the time that they may lose their job that they become sensitive to what you want/need.

Actually this one too has reached to my mind and brings my query
Thanks you in advance for your patience

[Stijloor]

Originally Posted by selena15

Good evening Folks, Thanks for all replies
BradM, when I’ve used the term ‘Extent’ I was done to highlight the effect that kind of situation can have on long term. You know, the small gap can become crevice and so on…

The chapter 5.1 nor 5.2 doesn’t require this specifically. But I was quiet worry and I considered this as kind of lack of interest as Alberto said, because the Customers was the topic we talk about. Understand me, Once again, I’m not saying that he should know the details but even all responsibilities are clearly defined and communicated…bla bla,

The upper manager knows his staff and what they do. I’m not saying he should learn by heart the procedures, just to know and if the query come up to his mind about whom do what, at least to seek of an answer. Maybe I make it tough .

But sometimes, I see that several insignificant signs can conduct to defect. I’m not judging anyone, this query really come up to my mind:
What is the level of commitment to expect from the top management to ensure the right implementation of QMS?


Actually this one too has reached to my mind and brings my query
Thanks you in advance for your patience

Hello Selena,

Is your issue/question been resolved? If not, please post again.

Stijloor, Forum Moderator.