Quality Professionals as Executives

[Paul Simpson]

Maybe it's the visibility of quality is the problem. The three main routes to CEO I've seen in my experience have been Finance, Sales and Production. These are the guys being measured on a day to day basis. Poor old Quality, HR, Purchasing etc. are support functions with relatively little visibility. Quality Systems are still seen as bolt on and I've seen few Quality Costing models that have been seen to work well.
Just as an aside one of the best run companies I've seen was run by an ex Quality person ... but he had wide range of experience in a lot of fields.

The people that get to the top are those that can show a broad outlook on the business issues and have a track history in a critical function (that is one seen by the business as being critical).

 

[tarheel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Good advice. (Back to Jim)

I love the opinions here! This is good stuff. What I mean by being political is simple to me. At some time, you will be faced with the decision to follow your core beliefs, or do something that goes against your beliefs. If you stand your ground in quality against "Them" (sorry don't know what other word to use), somewhere this decision will likely come back to haunt you. Quite often you won't even know it, but it will. The reason we stay in companies that exhibit this behavior is twofold, number one, I believe most companies act this way, so where would we go? We can't all start our own business. And second, most quality people are stubborn, we don't give up easily. Keep the replies coming!

 

[Atul Khandekar]

Jim Wade said:
Question 2
If you work for an organization the management of which is not unethical and not 'political', what then is stopping you from progressing?

In my (limited) experience, such managements are to be found only in very small companies - typically companies owned and managed by technocrats. No management hierarchies. What is stopping you from progressing? Well, you can't replace the owner himself!

 

[Mike S.]

Question 1
If you work for an organisation with unethical or 'political' management that you don't want to be part of because YOU are ethical and so on, how can you tolerate remaining employed in those circumstances?

A: Left one company after 10 years there for those reasons. During the last 2 years management changed. I was making steady progress on all fronts -- including knocking out some unethical behavior -- but the new management team made further progress unlikely and morale all across the board went into the toilet for many reasons. As soon as I had the opportunity, I left.

I'd like to leave the company I'm with now for similar reasons but slowing me are the facts that I want to make sure I'm not going from the frying pan into the fire, and I also need to find similar pay in a depressed job market. The time will come eventually I'm sure -- but tomorrow ain't too soon for me! Meanwhile, I have a family to support so I do the best I can under the circumstances -- I can't cut off my nose to spite my face.


Question 2
If you work for an organization the management of which is not unethical and not 'political', what then is stopping you from progressing?

A: When in those positions I was usually moving up at a decent and fair pace, and was having fun at my job to boot. Not vacation days/beer and fishing kinda fun, but you know what I mean by having fun at work. And the company was growing in both sales and profits.

Just another perspective from the trenches...

 

[John Finn]

"Politics" is a fact of all parts of our life. If my wife asks "Does this dress make me look fat?", I might be inclined to give a "political" answer. If we were all absolutely honest and nonpolitical in our dealings with each other, civilized society would not be possible. As Thomas Jefferson said, "In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current". I do hold a title of Vice President of Quality and have worked directly for the CEO in three diferent companies (sales in the $40 to $150 million dollar range). I have been in Quality Engineering and Quality Management for over thirty years. I learned very early on that how one presents an argument or position is very important. I don't consider the "Leather Chairs" the enemy. They are being held accountable for many more parts of the organization than the Quality people are and are trying to balance all those pressures and responsibilities. If you want them to be inclined to see your side, you have to make them see you as part of the team, not as the enemy. That means that you probably have to be "political"; it doesn't mean that you have to be dishonest.

 

[tarheel]

[/QUOTE]

Politics is a fact of all parts of our life

Well if your a Red Sox fan, you have the patience of Job, so you must be able to handle the politics. You make a good point, but it has been difficult in my experience to walk that line. Do you use dollars to try to make your boss see your side, or psychology? Maybe you could give me some tips. :thedeal:

 

[John Finn]

Hi tarheel,

You are right about the Red Sox, they do teach one patience! The wallpaper on my computer is a picture of the 1918 team, the last Red Sox team to win the World Series!

I hope that my posting didn't seem pompous or to imply that I have all the answers. I didn't mean to do that. Success to any degree in life always involves a fair amount of luck.

I think that if you take any large group of people, you will always find that the vast majority are honest, some are indifferent, and a small few will be crooked. This is true for priests, politicians, athletes, and businessmen. So if I disagree with anyone, I find it best to start under the assumption that the other person has an honest difference of opinion, either about the facts or about the consequences. That assumption allows meaningful dialogue to take place without a lot of emotion. It also allows me to consider the possibility that I may be wrong myself.

Also I think that it is important to choose one's battles, when it makes sense to put everything on the line. There are some things that are truly not important enough to go to the mat on. You may win the battle, but destroy a valuable working relationship. It is also usually wise to consider beforehand some possible solutions to the problem that will help the other party achieve his goals while accomplishing what you want.

Moreover, if your ambition is to be part of management, then you have to think and act like a manager. For instance, suppose that you have just gone through an extended debate about what to do about a particular nonconformance, and the final decision went against you. Do you accept the decision and present a unified face to the world, explaining the reasons for the decision, or do you let everyone know that you are not in agreement? It's a fact of life that as a manager of any kind, there will occassionally, if not frequently, be decisions made that you don't agree with. It is expected that management will present a united face to the rest of the company.

As far as choosing between dollars and psychology, I like to think that I use whatever facts are appropriate to the situation.

I realize that this is an oversimplification and I could keep going for some time. Just as a final thought, realize that as a manager, you can no longer be one of the guys (or girls). You have to represent "the company" and the decisions that it makes, even if you disagree (assuming no real ethical, legal, or moral issues). This can be the hardest part.

 

[M Greenaway]

I think quality professionals will make superb executives when they, and others, realise that their function goes beyond mere product compliance to specification, or bending overbackwards for every individual customer at the expense of other stakeholders.

This will come about when quality professionals understand quality in its broadest context, and are then seen as business management professionals.

 

[John Finn]

Hi Carl,

I certainly can understand your feelings, particularly with all the terrible things that we read and hear every day. And I appreciate that you might not believe me, since you really don't know me. But what to I have to gain by lieing in this forum?

I look around at my friends and neighbors, my acquaintances, the people I meet in professional organizations, my doctors, the tv repairman, etc, and I see that they are basically a good bunch of people, with some exceptions. The people who end up in high level corporate positions or as priests or athletes come from that same group of basically good people. If the population were not essentially good and honest, society would fall apart.

However, even the best of people can be tempted to act against their intrinsic nature. The larger the opportunity for personal gain, or the more that you have to lose, the more difficult it is to be totally moral and honest. That is why the gospel says it is more difficult for a rich man to get to heaven than for a camel to get through the eye of a needle. Wealth is not the problem, but the temptations that go with it.

I think that the quality professional can play a strong role here. If you have established yourself as an honest professional and demonstrated your commitment to the organization and its success, you can have a tempering influence on how people react to the temptations that confront them. The quality professional can be a conscience, if you will, to the organization, but consistently bringing the facts to the table, in a professional and perhaps you might say "political" manner and not letting them be rationalized. When the facts are not allowed to be swept away, people usually makethe right decisions.

Much depends on what kind of a personal reputation and relationship that you develop within the organization; this is more important than ISO or Six Sigma or zero defects.

 

[John Finn]

Hi Carl,

Thank you, I did not take any offense.

I don't know that I've been sheltered, perhaps I am naive. My personal philosophy is that of William James: "If you believe well of your fellow men, you may well help create the good you believe in". I admit that it is often difficult to do this.