Change Starts at the Top - Who can Initiate or Develop a Paradigm Change

tony wardle

Registered Visitor
#1
In another thread the issue of change came up in relation to ISO implementation.
A small discussion within a discussion started - but died - on the issue of whether change starts at the top - ie top management or if a lower ranked employee could initiate or develop a paradigm change.
The one arguement stands that as top management are the gaurdians (sic)? of the companies direction and cash flow, change starts with them. But in many cases they see the ISO QMS as a necessary evil.
The flip side of the coin is that a QA manager - for example - interacts with all departments and staff and so he is able to influence change the perception, adoption and acceptance of the QMS.
What thoughts??
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
P

Peter West

#2
Re: Change starts at the top

In my opinion (which is limited to the 1.5 years of quality work I have done), it may be easier to answer if you phrase where change ends.

I think that anyone can start change. Ultimately those who have started it will need final approval of management for the provision of resources and finances (as you mentioned).

In an ideal world it would start with management showing committment was there, but as I have experienced so far - there is potential for it to start at grass roots and grow up, then when accomplishing something and demonstrating the benefits of QMS more higher level managers accept the concepts, and so as the QMS grows it inspires more of top management to become involved. That at least is the story for me at the moment here in the UAE. (There is a lot more scope to introduce change away from the UK (where I was originally) so I hope I stay abroad for a while to come.)

Unfortunately its a cycle - and after a while of being involved some management seem to forget those initial benefits and attribute them to standard operating procedure (which the QMS has guided). Its the usual story for support services - "no one knows what they do, until they aren't there any more and the place falls apart".
 
C

Cornwap

#3
Re: Change starts at the top

Hi Tony,

I think that it depends on what you regard as paradigm change. If it relates to changing the strategy or direction of the business then it would defenitely be senior management.

However, the senior management will then deploy objectives and targets into the organisation. Whilst middle managers will meet some of these through incremental changes, others will lead to breakthroughs. The other managers and personnel are likely to regard the latter as a paradigm change.

The Kaizen Flag developed by Maasaki Imai is worth searching for on this.

Best regards
Phil
 

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Staff member
Super Moderator
#4
Re: Change starts at the top

I think the way you've phrased the question represents the heart of the issue.

George Carlin had a great saying: "some people see the glass as half full and others as half empty; I think the glass is the wrong size"

To me it's not a question of change originating with senior management or with lower levels; it's that both are necessarry for initiating, achieving and sustaining change.
 

bobdoering

Stop X-bar/R Madness!!
Trusted Information Resource
#5
Re: Change starts at the top

Much like addicts, if top management does not want to change, they are not going to. They have the resources to prevent or subvert change. Middle management or below can only propagate change within their area of control (maybe a bit further if they find like-minded allies) - sometimes keeping it under the radar of upper management. Otherwise, their efforts will be considered a waste of resources, and that 'waste' will be punished.
 
S

sulkinsf

#6
Change should be happening at different levels of the organization simultaneously.

Change at the Top
Managers set direction and cascade policy and system changes down.

Changes at the Bottom
Team members submitt suggestions or change requests

At the Middle
Middle management propose new products and programs up, negotiate with colleagues laterally and cascade policy and system changes down.

If your question is more specific to how to cause change, then let us know what you need changed. Management support of ISO is not specific enough. If you need help, look at your process audits. They should be an indicator of what needs to change the most. Once you know, come back to the group and we will help.

Steve


Steve
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tony wardle

Registered Visitor
#7
Thanks Steve - I have effected the change in my particular organisation. (But there is always room for improvement!!)
When I first took on the Quality role - the perception of Qa was different depending on the level as you say. For example - the boss wanted the ISO logo because it looked good. That was that!! The departmental managers believed that QA was responsible for ISO, not them. The operators had the idea that quality was inspected in - I often got - "well thats how it looks - send it to the customer and if he rejects it - well tough". One manager in finance believed I had a personal vendetta against him, because I was rejecting things and this was costing us money. The sales Director simply wanted to have that "ISO thingy" because it "makes us look good". Our CEO didnt care what it entailed - it "bought us credibility" - and he told me this often. Our Ops Director at the time always thought it was a waste of time and money - and NEVER wanted to get envolved. After a few audits - he left us - partly because he never changed with the times and partly because he just didnt enjoy the job anymore.
As the discussion is going - indeed the change process was multi faceted and educating people - from top to bottom was essential.
The reason I pose the question is because the old cliche - change starts at the top is very general, and I am of the opinion, that sometimes - circumstance dependant, it can start in the middle or at the bottom or - in some cases it must start at the top - and I was hoping to spark the debate.
I have seen on these fora alot of guys asking for help - and the answers often given is the old cliche - but change starts at the top....... Does it always?? Theres another slogan - "change starts with you" - this implies change can start anywehere?
 
S

sulkinsf

#8
I see two questions here. First, was the original question. Does change have to start at the top? I firmly believe no and there is plenty of evidence to support this.

Anyone have some good examples of changes that started at the middle?

Here are some to get us started...

Engineer submitts patent that transforms the business. This has happened in my previous employement. More than once.

I initiated change at the middle, by creating pressure from the outside. Collecting evidence of customer complaints and market information to create a sense of urgency. I, and others on the board, have used outside audits to do the same. Quality professionals do it all the time, when they promote and execute new programs (e.g. lean, six sigma).

Upper management needs to support the change in order to access resources, but the change can still start elsewhere.

The second question I see is how to get management support. Thats a big question. To be successful you need to focus on the most business critical problem. I recommend starting with your process audits. Determine what Management cares about most and make the connection between the problem and ISO.

What is the biggest problem you see from your process audits? If its not clear to you, we need to fix the audits. If the findings from your audits are all compliance issues, they may be causing more harm than good.

Steve
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#9
In another thread the issue of change came up in relation to ISO implementation.
A small discussion within a discussion started - but died - on the issue of whether change starts at the top - ie top management or if a lower ranked employee could initiate or develop a paradigm change.
The one arguement stands that as top management are the gaurdians (sic)? of the companies direction and cash flow, change starts with them. But in many cases they see the ISO QMS as a necessary evil.
The flip side of the coin is that a QA manager - for example - interacts with all departments and staff and so he is able to influence change the perception, adoption and acceptance of the QMS.
What thoughts??
The first thing to understand is what a "paradigm" is. My American Heritage Dictionary gives this definition, in the sense of the word we're concerned with:
A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.
My emphasis.
In business, there is no set of ideas and concepts that forms a universal paradigm. This is because the people who own or manage the business define the paradigm, either either deliberately or by default. Most of us have a fairly consistent idea of the way things should be, but unfortunately our view is frequently at odds with the ones who are responsible for developing the paradigm. There's vivid evidence of this right now in the "ISO is a Joke..." thread. The OP in that thread suffers from the cognitive dissonance that results from the violent collision of opposing paradigms. We have to be aware of the fact that in business, reality isn't necessarily transferable. The top manager in any business gets to define reality, and if your view is substantively different and inflexible, nothing good will come of it.

The thing we need to understand about all of this is that below the top echelon, people are powerless to change the paradigm on their own. The change must come from the top, and there are no exceptions. What we can do, if it seems worthwhile, is provide impetus towards change--we can lead the proverbial horse to water. In my own experience, before the horse will actually drink it needs to understand both the nature of its dilemma and the dilemma of its nature. To get both of those things acting in consonance is no easy task for some people at the top. While a given CEO might realize that something needs to change, she might be loathe to accept someone else's ideas on how to go about it. These people often harbor deep-seated delusions of their own powers and greatness, which I think is part of the package sometimes for people who are very ambitious and the types who are likely to become entrepreneurs and CEOs.

If this type of narcissistic view of oneself is emphatic and unshakable, as it is in some extreme cases, the horse can die of thirst while standing knee-deep in fresh water. This is not to say that those types will never change, but they will never change so long as what needs to be done isn't their own idea. This means that the strategy of the change-seeker needs to be in the direction of showing the way, but making the manager think that it's all his idea.

For example, if you go to one of these people with charts and graphs and say "Here are the year-to-date scrap numbers and it's clear that we need to change [something specific] in order to get a handle on it," the manager will listen and forget. On the other hand, if you can engage him in conversation and say, "I've noticed that we're producing a lot of costly scrap and I'd like to pick your brain--what do you think we should do?" you're much more likely to get the answer(s) you're hoping for. Asking Socratic questions is a time-honored method of getting a person to solve his own problems and works much better than trying to get a person out of a deep state of denial by making a big deal of his refusal to listen to reason.
 
J
#10
In another thread the issue of change came up in relation to ISO implementation.
A small discussion within a discussion started - but died - on the issue of whether change starts at the top - ie top management or if a lower ranked employee could initiate or develop a paradigm change.
The one arguement stands that as top management are the gaurdians (sic)? of the companies direction and cash flow, change starts with them. But in many cases they see the ISO QMS as a necessary evil.
The flip side of the coin is that a QA manager - for example - interacts with all departments and staff and so he is able to influence change the perception, adoption and acceptance of the QMS.
What thoughts??
Haven't read the other posts but here is my 2c.

The first thing I see would be the necessity of defining what constitutes "initiating" or "developing" or "infuencing" a paradigm change in an organization.
Certainly Top management can "Institute" a paradigm Change, but that is usually only after they have been suitably influenced by some outside source, i.e. customer demands, reading, networking with other businesses.
As to who can instigate, influence and/or develop such change there are many from shop floor supervisors, to middle managers etc.
It is often the Q.A. Manager who acts as the "agent for change", since he is the one who can aticulate the changes needed, speak with others about their ideas that might work to improve things get things written up, track measures etc. - All of which can illustrate for still others the benefits of the possitive changes, while also helping to weed out those changes that are negative.

Many years ago I developed an Idea that might allow for a paradigm shift "from the middle" and extends the old idea of "Internal Customers" to the next step - "Internal Companies"

In this case, rather than try to change the entire company, the QM, working with a likeminded supervisor, develops that department as an,"Internal company", on a TQM quality basis. The department determines their suppliers, their customers, their inputs and outputs. They determine how best to improve, monitor and measure their performance. As a result this department becomes the most efficient in the company. So much so that other department head(s) want to know how they did it. They explain how and other depatments begin to adopt the strategies. Soon Top management takes notice and the paradigm shift is well underway.

Naturally such an approach is not "over-night" plus there are many limitations on "Internal companies" that stand alone companies don't have. However, such a program, studiously applied and carefully cultivated, can bring about a paradigm shift before Top management even knows it has happened.

I even considered writing a paper on this idea, but never developed enough. If anyone has comment on it, positive or negative, I'd be glad to hear it.

Peace
James
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Ed Panek Notified Body Substantial Change MDD EU Medical Device Regulations 1
A Purchasing Controls on Change Management of Literature/Labeling ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
A For software change - New Channel of interoperability CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 4
JoCam IEC 60601-1 and 60601-1-2 retest after PCBA change IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 3
N ISO 13485 7.3.9 Change control in medical device software ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
A ISO 13485 procedure change and reflect to legacy manufacture items ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
R AS9102 FAI Change in Material / Process Supplier AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 4
D Reports under change management | ISO 13485:2016 & ISO 9001:2015 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
Q Time change via change of Time Zone Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 3
T IEC 60601-1-8:2020 Is it necessary to change the alarm melody? IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 1
M Change in Constitution / Ownership of firm -------ISO 13485 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
U Power supply - Change From 160 to 300 Watts - Significant change? EU Medical Device Regulations 2
N Sterilization Protocol Change in Validation Process and further impacts ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
M Label change - 510(k) Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 5
M EMS change management ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 2
E Document Change Request forms (or no forms)? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 9
J Significant change related to design and intended use EU Medical Device Regulations 3
J Need Change Control Yes/No Decision Tree Template ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
S Cleaning process center change ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
U NOC - What is considered a "design change" EU Medical Device Regulations 5
qualprod What do CB´s change when doing a partial moving ? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
Y Algo change significancy Medical Information Technology, Medical Software and Health Informatics 3
Revision36 Engineering Change Order Industry Standards Other Medical Device and Orthopedic Related Topics 4
Z Iterative development and FDA change requests IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 12
D ECO (Engineering Change Order) process questions ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 7
R Medical Device - Change manufacturing plant Design and Development of Products and Processes 6
Tagin Template or Checklist for Process Change Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 5
R Do we need issue ECN (Engineering Change Notice) towards updated Material Specification? Design and Development of Products and Processes 2
A What does this line from MDCG 2020-3 (MDR art. 120 substantial change) mean to you? EU Medical Device Regulations 4
M Change management procedure when 7.3 is not applicable ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
D Change Approval Requirements - Does every change need formal customer approval? Design and Development of Products and Processes 17
Q Change the shape of the raw material FAI AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 5
D Engineering Change Order (ECO) metrics to track ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
P Notified Body Approval of Change EU Medical Device Regulations 2
F Change to Formulation due to Reach (China Medical Device Regulations) China Medical Device Regulations 0
E Change in control plan - Do I have to do sampling? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
S Forced ServiceNow validation - No change in our current user and functional requirements IT (Information Technology) Service Management 4
M Address change for a company with CE/ISO13485 EU Medical Device Regulations 2
G Need to change KPI we called NC parts (maximum 3%.) to FTQ (first time quality) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
J FDA notification of address change US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2
D Class 3 Device - Change of supplier of material Canada Medical Device Regulations 6
D List A IVD - Change to material supplier EU Medical Device Regulations 3
R Change Management vs Opportunity for Improvement ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 3
M Is There a Revision History or Change Log for Canadian Regulations? Canada Medical Device Regulations 3
C Brazil - Product Code (and brand) Change Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 1
S Requirement to Conduct New Shelf-life Testing? (re-do testing for design change) EU Medical Device Regulations 3
dgrainger Informational EU medical device website change from 'Growth' to 'Health and Food Safety' (6/2020) Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
J Sub-supplier change from manual to automated process - same specs - Report to FDA? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
S Special 510(K) - Labeling change from Rx to OTC Other US Medical Device Regulations 11
A Document Change Notice vs complete System re-write Manufacturing and Related Processes 4

Similar threads

Top Bottom