Why is the \"mortality rate\" high among quality directors?

Thread Content

Some joke that those who work in quality control earn money equivalent to what is spent on buying cabbages, but approach their work with the same dedication as someone dealing in heroin. To some extent, this reflects the current living conditions of quality professionals in our country. Recently, Certified Jun came across an article about quality directors; take a look and see if the analysis in it makes sense. In 2010, it was my 10th year working at Company X. At the beginning of that year, I thought about quitting my job, so I called a colleague who had already left to ask him to recommend some companies for me. This colleague ran a headhunting firm; upon learning that I intended to quit, he asked me, “I remember you used to be a factory manager – which department are you in now?” ”I replied that I was now the Quality Director for the supply chain, and upon hearing this he said, “No wonder – the turnover rate for people in the position of Quality Director is quite high in the company.” ” Indeed, in China’s manufacturing sector, any company of a somewhat substantial size has a quality department. In the companies I’ve worked with, the turnover rate among the managers of these departments is quite high compared to that of managers in other departments. I believe there are two reasons for this. 1 In almost all companies, issues such as customer complaints, defects in incoming materials, or production rework are classified as quality problems (or quality issues). And once a quality issue is identified, most people, including the company’s owner, believe that the quality department should be held responsible for it; or they verbally agree that everyone is responsible for quality, but in reality their attitude changes. 2. The performance of the Quality Department is difficult to measure, as it is not like departments such as Marketing and R&D, whose achievements are easy to demonstrate. Although some companies have carried out work on quality cost statistics, most do not do so, which results in the performance of quality managers not being properly reflected. When a company does well in its quality management efforts, managers attribute the success to departments such as R&D, production, and engineering; whereas when they are dissatisfied with the quality level, they blame the poor performance of the quality department. How to break through this dilemma? The author believes that we first need to answer some questions clearly: Question 1: What is quality? According to the master of zero defects, Dr. Crosby, quality means meeting requirements; once this definition is clear, many problems are easily resolved. In many Chinese companies, once a problem is classified as a “quality issue,” the only person who suffers as a result is the quality manager. In fact, the essence of quality lies in management, and quality issues are merely manifestations of management problems. I once said out loud at the company’s quality review meeting to the boss and general manager, \"In our company, there are only management problems; there are no quality problems. The only issue in our company is poor management and chaos.\" Who is responsible for the quality? The greater the power, the greater the responsibility! ” Question 2: What methods can be used to achieve quality? We often say, “Quality is built, not inspected.” ”But in reality, it’s not like that; when quality issues arise, it’s still the quality department that gets criticized, because “they didn’t keep a proper eye on things!” ”Therefore, the only way to achieve quality is to identify the requirements of each business process and manage each one properly, which in turn enables prevention. Question 3: What work attitude can bring about quality? I strongly agree with Crosby’s view: approach work with a zero-defect standard, and keep improving as long as there is even the slightest defect. Question 4: How can we scientifically measure the quality of a company? Measure it by the cost of making a mistake, that is, money! The above four questions represent the four basic principles of zero-defect management, which can be summarized as: clear requirements, prevention first, getting it right the first time, and scientific measurement. However, at the current stage, most Chinese companies that attempt to implement zero-defect management fail. There are generally only three reasons for failure: 1. The company’s top leaders do not endorse these concepts; or they appear to agree to them on the surface but not in reality. The concept of zero defects is not put into practice, and they also fail to communicate this concept repeatedly to their subordinates or to take personal action to promote it. 2. The company’s culture is relatively backward; to successfully implement zero-defect management, it is necessary to transform the company’s culture. Currently, in many companies, the phrases “It’s not my concern” and “It’s not my fault” are common phenomena. Without a culture of responsibility, cooperation, and customer focus, it’s like trying to grow crops in a desert. 3. There are problems with the mechanism; without a proper assessment system, fairness mechanism, distribution mechanism, and talent management system, it is impossible to achieve zero defects. Therefore, I say that the problem with quality lies outside of quality itself; the tragedy of the quality director is mainly that he is unable to change the management mindset of the company’s top leadership, the company’s management systems, and its culture. - End -