Jason Smith raised questions about an organization appointing a CLO or
CKO, and he wrote:
"Many organizations have had successful quality programs with or without a
CQO. It doesn't seem that the position is the lever. The lever to me is an
exploration of the systemic causes of the issues and the application of
sustainable, leveraged solutions to address them. Someone with a new,
senior title, isn't necessarily a requisite for this to happen."
And several others have recently written in support. I partly agree with
what Jason and others have written. If appointing a person with a fancy
title lets the rest of the organization off the hook, then it is a
mistake. And if the CEO and other top officers do not support a culture
and climate of learning, of seeking, of taking reasonable limited risks,
of learning from failures instead of condemning them, of quality, and of
innovation -- then these things won't happen, regardless of whether or not
someone is given a title of Chief Quality Officer or CLO or CKO or
whatever.
However, please consider this: The CEO is concerned with Sales. Everyone
in the organization should be concerned with Sales. But it is usually
still useful to have a VP of Sales or a Sales Manager and a Sales
Department. The CEO must be concerned with Quality and so should everyone
else. But many organizations have found it helpful to have a VP of
Quality or a Quality Manager, and a Quality Department. Of course, if any
senior executive thinks they can hold the Quality Manager responsible for
Quality, instead of themselves, you do get a problem.
I once argued a VP of Operations to the floor on this issue, as he wanted
to hold a young HQ Staff Quality Manager accountable for quality problems
in one of his factories where the plant manager reported to that VP, and
between them they made budget and capital investment and personnel and
training and procurement decisions which in fact determined the quality of
what they built and shipped -- despite anything the young Quality Manager
could do!.
In the opening Introductions of a Workshop of mainly production people, I
once started by asking how many were in Sales. A couple of hands went up,
and then I pushed the point with the room until one by one most or all the
hands went up. I then went on to ask the same question about Quality.
Again at first only a couple of hands went up and then after some
discussion they were all willing to agree that they were "in Quality" and
to raise their hands.
I would make by extension the same argument about Learning. Yes, it should
be led by the CEO. Yes, it should be part of the culture. Yes, it should
be a prime responsibility of all Executives, all Managers, and indeed of
all employees. And in addition, to move a traditional organization in
this direction, to strive to remove barriers to learning, and to advocate
for creating special events, rituals, norms, incentives, rewards, and also
timely key questions in meetings to support the creation of a learning
culture, isn't it plausible that sometimes it might be wise to appoint a
VP of Learning or a CLO?
Michael Brower
Executive Director, Center for Learning Cities
mbrower32@aol.com
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>