By Dave Bushy, PCC
Have you ever wondered why some individual or team efforts or processes succeed spectacularly while others don’t? It’s an age-old dilemma for leaders to consider.
In my experience, it might well revolve around the idea of Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA).
There are a lot of definitions about both concepts. Personally, I like to think of QC as checking or inspecting the work we do to see if it is error free. If there are things that could have been done better or improved, we fix them on the spot. While more common in manufacturing, it can equally apply to any field – think of reviewing a financial statement for inconsistencies or even mathematical errors. Or even proofreading a shareholder’s report. And, in the field where I worked, it can be how well someone performs in a realistic emergency situation in an aircraft simulator.
QC comes naturally because it so often involves something tangible or visible.
Quality Assurance on the other hand is a bit more difficult to get your arms around because it involves a review of the processes that create the results or outcomes. It can look at things like root causes of mistakes or defects that could be avoided by process change or it can be an after-action about how something was achieved.
Using the airplane simulator example, think about how often pilots might have missed a step in an emergency procedure during training. Was it human error or was there a fault in the “process” of training? If it was the training, were there things that could be done better in educating instructors or even the way in which the training was designed and delivered?
It might be easier in some industries over others but evaluating processes is something that can serve any leader and , when you begin doing it, you might appreciate the nuanced possibilities in your industry.
The process of discovery in any Quality Assurance inquiry begins with curiosity and the questions we ask about process.
I was speaking with a client the other day, discussing a concern he had about the results one of his senior leaders had achieved.
“He just didn’t seem to know what he was supposed to technically know. It was a real surprise to learn that he had knowledge gaps and did not seem to understand some critical aspects of his job function.”
My favorite reply, “Tell me more,” provided an opening for my client to explore the issue in detail.
“Well, we placed him into the role because he is superb at dealing with people. He is empathetic and caring towards his team. People like him a lot and it shows in their appreciation of him and their responsiveness to the needs of the company. But when pressed for information from others, where I presumed he should be savvy, he can’t seem to find the right answers, or even know where to find them. He is incredibly bright, so I don’t think that’s the problem.”
“What do you do when that happens?”
“Well, we try to correct him on the spot and ensure that the correct information is disseminated.”
“Sounds a bit cumbersome, with you having to control the quality of his output,” I pointed out.
“So, you know he’s not achieving the results you desire in a leader. What comes to mind on how you can learn from that?”
“Well, I remind him often about doing better, for one. And I encourage him to learn more about his basic job functions.”
“What else do you think you could do that might go beyond just his performance?”
“Well, the training department might be a place to start. They educate our people on the technical aspects of the job. As I’m talking about this, it comes to mind that their processes, both in content and delivery style, might need improvement. As a matter of fact, how they do their work might well be a great place to start.”
The next few weeks we spoke at length about my client’s curiosity about the training process. He came to recognize that the deficiencies he noted in his senior leader were the results of a training process that had not been evaluated in years. The content was dated and the delivery style had become, in his words, “calcified.” From these discoveries, he began to lead changes in how his team learned.
And he began to do that in other areas of the company whenever he saw data points or experienced perceptions in Quality Control of outputs and delivery. He inevitably incorporated Quality Assurance to provide a “lessons learned” perspective to help process improvement throughout his business.
QC and QA became both sides of a very valuable coin for my client. I hope it does for you as well.
Dave Bushy of Boston Executive Coaches – bostonexecutivecoaches.com – is a an ICF-certified coach who was trained at the Gestalt International Study Center (GISC). Dave is a former U.S. Army officer and senior airline executive who works with leaders throughout the world.
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay