Bob slammed the door as he entered Joe’s office. “I can’t stand that guy! Mike is the ultimate hoser; he unleashes his cynical super-soaker on everything we bring to the table!”
Joe wasn’t surprised at this outburst. Bob was the head of research and development (R&D), and Mike was the director of quality assurance (QA). Bob’s team of seven energetic, creative, young engineers was responsible for new product development. Mike’s function consisted of only three other people, each of which were tasked with identifying and solving product design, packaging and delivery issues before they were launched into production. QA effectively had “veto power” over new products — and Mike exercised it liberally.
By design, there was supposed to be tension between R&D and QA. However, as the year progressed, Bob increasingly felt the pressure of expectations for new product releases, exacerbated by the consistent rejections of QA. Now, he squared off with his CEO, Joe. “You have to take the shackles off of my team; if you don’t, we’re going to lose some of the best engineering talent in our industry!”
This wasn’t the first time the issue had come to Joe’s attention, but to Bob, the problem wasn’t being addressed. Joe knew that he needed to do something more than empathize with Bob. And, sending him back to talk through things with Mike wasn’t going to work.
That’s when Joe invited me to visit with him. He explained the situation and after several questions, I observed that he was facing a systemic tension between innovation and control, accelerated by strategic pressure and poor communication. Mike must understand that creative freedom has to coexist with quality control. And Bob must recognize that quality control is not meant to be a constraint, but rather a facilitator of complete product design.
I advised Joe not to just mediate between Bob and Mike, but to facilitate a dialogue that would move each executive beyond venting to aligning their respective roles. That dialogue should include examining the KPIs (key performance indicator) for each of their functions.
R&D was evaluated on speed and creativity, while QA was measured on precision and risk elimination. Joe came to recognize that they needed a joint KPI, an R&D/QA metric like “Launch four new products this year with a QA rejection rate below 10 percent and customer satisfaction above 90 percent.” Meeting these expectations would be a shared success, and both would own failure.
Beyond this, Joe appropriately suggested that QA be embedded earlier in the R&D process, rather than waiting to be “judge and jury” near the end of product development. Their role would become co-creation, not adversarial gatekeeping.
With these ideas in mind, Joe called a meeting with Mike and Bob. As Joe’s coach, I was invited to sit in and observe the process. All three men were visibly uneasy as the meeting began, and part of my assignment from Joe was to help keep the temperature down.
Joe led the discussion regarding continuously delivering substantial value to their customers, the importance of meeting their new product development goals, and ensuring that each new product would be launched with minimal quality issues.
He then acknowledged that those goals had created tensions between R&D and QA, and that while some of that was by design, the current situation required changes. He then suggested “joint KPIs,” as well as QA’s involvement earlier in the product creation process.
Not surprisingly, neither Bob nor Mike immediately endorsed those ideas. A change in KPIs would necessarily impact performance bonuses for both executives and their teams. Joe concurred that those issues would need to be addressed immediately.
Then there was the issue of how the QA team would participate earlier in the process, and because the relationship had been adversarial, would this new approach fail in its efforts at reconciliation?
Joe responded that he had faith in both executives to hammer out revised processes to meet shared goals. When they enthusiastically supported the change, their people were likely to adopt the new approach.
My only input was to suggest that, after defining the revised processes, they launch with just one product on a trial basis, capturing both the pros and cons of the new approach. I asked them to decide on that product, as well as one or two key representatives from each function, to undertake the experiment. Somewhat reluctantly, they agreed, and the test was launched.
Joe addressed the bonus concerns, and Bob and Mike agreed to work together in evaluating the shared process of product development. It was not without challenges, but over the remainder of the year, it became a workable solution to the tensions between R&D and QA.
Key takeaways here: bringing Mike and Bob into alignment regarding the best solutions for the company, and that Joe came to better understand his role as a facilitator in addressing the unrest among his troops.
Almost every leader will face this type of challenge. It is incumbent upon each of us to align expectations and facilitate solutions to such problems.
Richard Tyson is the founder, principal owner and president of CEObuilder, which provides forums for consulting and coaching to executives in small businesses.