What happened to the quality manager? Why did your predecessor resign?

Thread Content

What happened to the quality manager? Why did your predecessor resign? In some companies, it’s not easy working in quality control. The quality manager is the position with the highest turnover rate – either they leave on their own because they’re not happy, or they are forced to leave by others, or they are sacrificed when problems arise; their fate is full of hardships. As for why, it comes down to resources. First, take a look at what resources other functions within a company have: the sales team has access to customer resources. Project management controls the product’s information resources. The operations department controls physical resources such as equipment, employees, and facilities. Although the Human Resources Department does not have many specific resources, it is directly involved in making decisions regarding recruitment, promotions, disciplinary actions, and salary adjustments. The role of finance professionals can range from business director to cashier; they generally do not participate in day-to-day operations, but since they are aware of many confidential details, people still show them respect. Other various functions that exist depending on the company will not be listed in detail. Let’s take a look at the resources available to the quality manager: if he is brought in from outside, the people left behind by his predecessor are either incompetent or hold traditional ways of thinking; yet he can still manage to plan and take control of things with determination ； But if the company’s upper management does not grant him relatively reasonable powers, responsibilities, and benefits, then he basically has nothing. If anything, the few areas in which the quality manager can exercise authority are: rejecting incoming materials or products that show defects during inspection, issuing CARs after finding issues during internal audits, analyzing the reasons when quality targets are not met and identifying the responsible departments, questioning or challenging others depending on the situation, and handling various coordination, follow-up, and response tasks related to audits by certification bodies and customers; the details of these tasks will not be discussed here. Let’s take a look at how he exercises his authority: 1. Rejecting materials or products due to defects found during inspection: For incoming materials, asking suppliers to make improvements is as difficult as asking an illiterate family member to write – especially when the Sourcing and Buyer departments fail to cooperate, insisting that they are not responsible for quality issues. Products: Everyone around the world wants the production lines to deliver goods as soon as possible; it would be good if re-inspection is possible. As for implementing corrective and preventive measures, at best one only gets paperwork, and that’s only after a week has passed since delivery. As long as it’s not a problem discovered by the customer, no one pays attention to it; but once the customer notices the issue, then it’s the quality department that bears direct responsibility: Why didn’t you detect it? Writing CARs for clients, and dealing with meetings in the middle of the night with clients who are in North America, is enough to drive you crazy. 2. When internal audits identify issues, CAR forms are created; often, in order to meet ISO or customer audit requirements, improvements are carried out even if the relevant departments do not submit effective improvement reports, resulting in no actual pressure for improvement. Once, issues identified during an internal audit by the Quality Department were reported to the manager of the relevant product line with a request for improvements. The response from that product line manager was: So many problems? The quality control in our company is terrible! 3. When quality targets are not met, analyze the reasons and identify the responsible departments: a) All quality targets become the responsibility of the quality manager, such as the acceptance rate of incoming materials (LAR), production yield (TY), scrap rate, customer satisfaction, and so on. b) Moreover, it cannot be broken down to the relevant departments, as they already have their own goals: production efficiency, labor costs, and so on. Nevertheless, the quality manager is still busy with various coordination tasks, organizing everyone to solve problems, and constantly facing setbacks: whenever a problem arises, people turn to the quality manager for reprimands, which obviously means the general manager is involved ； Accusing the quality manager of \"not caring who is being punished\" and of \"adding insult to injury\" – such accusations from operation managers are mainly driven by political motives ； Making the quality manager bear the consequences of quality issues, while at the same time asking them to focus only on their own responsibilities and not get involved in other matters, is essentially a sign of a lack of understanding regarding quality ； Those who claim to be of “old quality” or to have maintained that quality for over a decade are actually those who have switched to other industries and now speak out in criticism. Of course, if some quality managers know how to assess the situation properly, blaming others when necessary, avoiding trouble when needed, and raising their voices to ask questions and pose challenges at the right time, they may still be able to survive ； As long as he has any ideals or a commitment to quality, whether radical or traditional, he can only lead a very exhausting life. When business is good: 1. The project team says the client has announced mass production, so action must be taken promptly. 2. The quality department claims that problems will arise if the quality plan isn’t implemented properly. 3. There are continuous errors on the operations side, and these errors are covered up; customers then file complaints with sales. 4. Sales forwards these issues to even higher levels in the hierarchy. 5. Those at the highest levels order the general managers at lower levels to carry out an 8D analysis. 6. The project team says, “I’m the one who brought you business – why don’t you do your job properly?” 7. Operations says: If a proper FMEA isn’t done for quality, our employees will make mistakes. 8. In management meetings, the general manager reprimands the quality manager; as a result, the quality manager becomes even less capable of carrying out even the most basic quality control tasks. When business is poor: 1. All staff working on small projects are laid off, and operations department asks for projects from those working on larger projects. 2. The project team says that sales is responsible for finding customers. 3. The sales staff has not been to the company for a long time. 4. The sales staff claims that it’s because of poor quality that clients refuse to place orders. 5. The people at the highest levels order the general manager to implement 8D improvements to improve quality and secure orders. 6. If quality cannot be improved, the general manager is fired. It turns out that it’s not just a quality issue; even the company’s inability to secure orders is caused by the quality manager... One of the people at the highest levels wisely said that for a company to improve its quality, it needs a good general manager and a good quality manager. Although such empty statements do not resolve the situation for now and may even hide deeper problems, it’s still worth discussing them. First, let’s talk about the general manager: it must be the actual general manager, not an operating manager acting as one, nor an operating manager who reports directly to a quality manager. Suppose there are three types of general managers: wise and quality-conscious, nice but lacking in quality awareness, and strong but ignorant of quality issues. Similarly, there are three types of quality managers: strong and knowledgeable about quality tools, strong but unaware of such tools, and gentle yet proficient with quality tools. By combining these different combinations of general managers and quality managers, we can identify 9 possible scenarios for quality management:

1. Wise and quality-conscious general manager, combined with a strong quality manager who knows how to use quality tools: Everyone’s awareness of quality improves, quality goals and responsibilities are clearly defined. Quality tools are used properly from the trial production stage to mass production, as well as from the time materials arrive until goods are shipped. In times of crisis, the quality manager takes charge; everyone is busy, but preventive measures are also put in place.

2. Wise and quality-conscious general manager, combined with a strong quality manager who doesn’t know how to use quality tools: Everyone’s awareness of quality improves, and quality goals and responsibilities are clear. In times of crisis, the quality manager steps in to handle the situation; everyone is busy.

3. Wise and quality-conscious general manager, combined with a gentle quality manager who knows how to use quality tools: Everyone’s awareness of quality improves, and quality goals and responsibilities are clear. Quality tools are used properly throughout the entire process, from trial production to mass production, and from the arrival of materials to shipment. In times of crisis, someone else steps in to handle the situation, while the quality manager focuses on implementing preventive measures.

4. Nice but quality-conscious general manager, combined with a strong quality manager who knows how to use quality tools: The general manager respects the quality manager’s plans, so quality goals and responsibilities are clear. Quality tools are used properly throughout the process. In times of crisis, everything may get disrupted, but the quality manager steps in to handle the situation.

5. Nice but quality-conscious general manager, combined with a strong quality manager who doesn’t know how to use quality tools: The general manager respects the quality manager’s plans, so quality goals and responsibilities are clear. In times of crisis, everything may get disrupted, and the quality manager has to step in to handle things.

6. Nice but quality-conscious general manager, combined with a gentle quality manager who knows how to use quality tools: The general manager respects the quality manager’s plans, so quality goals and responsibilities are clear. Quality tools are used properly throughout the process. In times of crisis, everything may get disrupted, and the quality manager is forced to take charge.

7. Strong but quality-ignorant general manager, combined with a strong quality manager who knows how to use quality tools: The general manager doesn’t respect the quality manager’s plans; he opposes whatever the quality manager suggests. The quality manager is responsible for setting quality goals, but no one oversees how the quality tools are used. As long as higher-ups and customers aren’t complaining, it’s fine. If QA rejects products and it affects shipments, the general manager blames the quality manager. The quality manager is constantly dealing with crises, and ends up leaving the job.

8. Strong but quality-ignorant general manager, combined with a strong quality manager who doesn’t know how to use quality tools: The general manager doesn’t respect the quality manager’s plans; he opposes everything the quality manager suggests. The quality manager is responsible for setting quality goals. If QA rejects products and it affects shipments, the general manager blames the quality manager. The quality manager is constantly dealing with crises, and ends up leaving the job.

9. Strong but quality-ignorant general manager, combined with a gentle quality manager who knows how to use quality tools: The general manager doesn’t respect the quality manager’s plans; he opposes everything the quality manager suggests and claims that the quality manager isn’t powerful enough. The quality manager is responsible for setting quality goals, but using quality tools is considered the quality manager’s personal goal. The quality manager is constantly dealing with crises, and eventually becomes the scapegoat.

This is a simple enumeration of the possible fates of quality managers. These scenarios are extreme or one-sided, and often reflect long-standing contempt towards such managers. Of course, it is by no means applicable to those fake quality managers who just muddle along, shirk responsibilities, fail to take ownership, neither step in to coordinate nor speak up, are unaware of quality tools, and lack enthusiasm for the industry. When assessing a company, I often start by looking at the role and status of the quality manager, using this as an indicator to gauge the company’s past and future, as well as its culture and development. Hunters often come to ask about my whereabouts. Even if they don’t delve into the details, I always ask: Why did the previous one leave?