A Tale of Two Quality Cultures: The Importance of Quality Integration

Let's paint a picture of two very different environments, whose root differences can be largely traced back to differences embedded deep in their quality culture.

Let's begin with what sadly is more likely to be the default state. "Quality isn't a department" is a phrase that feels largely over-used these days (and beloved by AI), but the situation I will begin with is one where quality is, indeed, more of a compartmentalized department, silo'd outside of production, design, and the rest of the organization. We will then contrast this with a culture where quality is integrated at all levels and across all functions.

The Cycle of Violence

As a quality leader, if all you do is react to situations with pushback, all you'll experience is negativity. Even worse, you'll get known for negativity. Instead of getting invited to initiatives where you can have a preventative impact in early stages, you'll get shunned until later when the rest of the team stumbles into the thing you could have helped prevent, and then they dump the mess in your lap.

As one of my early mentors would say, "the cycle of violence continues."

There are many compounding effects that arise from this scenario: When quality is not integrated into operations, planning, and development, quality becomes the final gatekeeper, being "inspected into" the process at the final stages. There is a reason this quality model was abandoned around WWII, as there is zero visibility to nonconformities (whether in product design or processes being developed) until investments have been made, schedules have been set, and expectations are about to be derailed with no time to react.

The impact on the floor is real as well. Operators are often quality's greatest allies. The best operators play the biggest role in product quality, and take pride in this as a factor that distinguishes them amongst their peers. They take pride in "making good parts."

There's a dark joke that is often said in some of the less-regulated industries: "safety third." The joke here is that "safety first" is a mantra that is said everywhere. That mantra becomes nothing more than a platitude when operators observe that safety takes a back seat to production output and cost. Regardless of what posters may hang on a wall, "safety third" is the message received in this culture. While I have never heard "quality fourth" said, that is where it tends to lie in these cultures.

Cultures who put "safety third" and "quality fourth" are not cultures where great operators thrive. They are faced with a culture where their desire to make good parts isn't in alignment with management priorities. In extreme cases, I've even seen malicious compliance, where an operator will do the wrong thing, to an extreme, simply because it was a management edict. While that may sound atrocious, consider that they likely would have been (or already have been) punished for doing the right thing.

More often, the most peaceful and efficient resolution in these scenarios is silent internal resignation and compliance. The operator will just do whatever they have to do to collect a paycheck with minimal conflict. This phenomenon is prevalent in all industries and is likely familiar, and this is also universally acknowledged as a great way to drive away, or at best neuter your best talent.

In this culture, quality suffers, and the general environment is defined by conflict between silos. So how do we break away from this? Let's begin with the common trend: In the "cycle of violence," quality is always the bad guy, reacting to situations they have been thrust into and have had no influence in. Operations, design, or production will make their plans, with no consideration to quality requirements until the end. Usually quality has to push back because other functions don't understand all the constraints related to quality.

At the same time, quality often doesn't understand the full meaning behind some of the things we get asked to do. When the issue is brought up when it is too late to adjust course, the demand is compliance, and the scenario becomes "there's no time to explain, we just have to." This justification gives no direction around the inevitable impasse, and the only remaining option is conflict.

An Integrated Quality Culture

The goal then is to have a quality influence early and often during planning, whether it be for a new product line, new process line, or any major new initiative. Silos can form naturally in even the best cultures, so this type of integration is something that must always be insisted on, and another thing organizational leadership must also ensure is happening at all levels.

Culture is defined collectively by habits, and habits are defined individually by behaviors. Behaviors are formed through precedent and experience. The habits and behaviors of leadership sets the tone for what is valued and what is tolerated within the entire organization.

Cross-functional projects are the best way I have found to generate the positive experiences that drive behaviors, habits, and eventually culture. The hard truth is that almost any project of any real significance is ultimately a cross-functional one; the difference between success and failure is whether this is decided at project initiation, or realized after it's too late.

Whether leading a continuous improvement initiative or just at the table for a project that could affect us later, we gain that understanding of why we're doing this thing. Additionally, by being at the table and communicating our constraints in this venue, the rest of the team understands our limits and we can work out any necessary alternatives. This communication lands a whole lot better when people aren't in firefighting mode.

Not only do you develop a better understanding of the constraints of the other functions in manufacturing, but the challenges they face, their strengths in overcoming these challenges, and more importantly, a name and face that can help. Building these relationships in a positive environment is key.

A secondary benefit of these positive relationships and mutual understanding of challenges and constraints is that you will also get thought of when others are kicking off projects. It is key in being involved with these initiatives; it happens on its own when you get thought of and brought in early in the conceptual phase.

It is imperative that quality is represented early in significant projects. They are going to be involved either way, but it's much less risky and expensive if they are involved from the start. There are also cultural benefits when quality is involved in these projects by helping to identify and address risks before they turn into issues. By focusing on managing risks, quality becomes perceived as an active issue preventer rather than a blocker. While there can often be less incentive (or heroics) to commit energy into addressing risks proactively, in the end it is much cheaper than firefighting.

Building an Integrated Quality Culture

Building an integrated quality culture happens by decision. It requires leadership that insists on cross-functional involvement, quality professionals who lead with proactive partnership instead of pushback, and an organization willing to examine the habits and behaviors that define its current reality.

Whether you're recognizing early signs of the cycle of violence or already deep in the firefighting loop, the path forward starts with an honest assessment of where quality sits in your organization; not on the poster, but in practice. At Big W Engineering Solutions, that's exactly where we start. We help small and mid-sized manufacturers and aerospace suppliers build quality systems and cultures that prevent problems instead of just reacting to them, from gap assessments to hands-on QMS development. If you're ready to break the cycle, reach out today and let's talk about what that looks like for your operation.