I had a conversation the
other day with a colleague of mine in the standards development arena talking
about Authority and Responsibility. The
essence of the discussion (argument?) was my propensity to use the phrase “the
quality manager has the authority and responsibility…” and her position that
the phrase sounds nice but is both pedantic and redundant. Her view was that Authority and
Responsibility are two parts of the same thing.
I disagree.
Having authority is
something that is granted by another. In
the Quality sense an organization can be authorized to provide certain services
such as doing accreditation audits or certification audits. On a
corporate level an employer or supervisor can include within a job description
the authority to make certain decisions about hazards and risk management or
decisions about hiring or firing people at a certain level. On a
professional level, authority to perform is usually based on have been granted
to licence to practice. On a personal
level a person who goes out and gets a drivers licence has the authority to
drive a car.
On the other hand being
given a responsibility is the same as being charged with a duty or task. There is an expectation that when an if there
is a task to be done, the person given
responsibility is the person who is expected to make sure it is done, either by
themselves or somebody else.
You can ask a direct
question, “Who was responsible to get that done?” and you should be able to get
a finger point at “him”.
Having authority is about
being given the licence to perform. Having responsibility is about being charged with
the duty to perform.
And to complete the
argument, being given both the authority and the responsibility says that the
person has both the permission to perform in general but also is charged with
the duty to perform certain specific tasks or duties.
Think about James Bond who
was authorized as a MI-6 agent with “licence to kill”. In the different situations he had the
responsibility of stopping or killing Dr. No, Goldfinger, Blofeld, and on and
on and on. And as M pointed out in
Casino Royale, if he killed someone that was not on his responsibility list, while
he might have a licence to kill, he could lose his licence and be charged with
a crime. Having a licence to kill doesn't mean he could kill willy-nilly.
Now to be fair to my
colleague, in many situations, the basis of granting authority can be pretty
tenuous. In the best of circumstances it
is based upon competency and achievement, like being accredited to 17011, or receiving
a licence to practice a profession.
Other times it is an appointed authority by government or an
employer. Sometimes it is really unclear
upon what criteria someone was given authority. And unfortunately, there are lots of employers
who are really ambiguous about what responsibilities are being granted and under
what conditions.
In my mind, one of the key
differences between a Quality based organization and another based on “gut and
intuition”, is that in the former people know who has authority and who does
not and more importantly what each person is responsible for, while the latter,
those roles are often left ambiguous or unstated. In the long run, one has an increased
likelihood for success, while the other, not so much.
So to my friend, let me say I
may be pedantic, but I am not redundant.
Being granted Authority and being
given Responsibility are different.
PS: Not to belabor the point, but if an
organization offers to perform cut-rate certification or accreditation, be very
suspicious. Anybody can do an
assessment, but not necessarily well.
And more to the point, they probably do not have the authority to
provide a valid ISO certificate that would be recognized by anyone as an achievement. Unfortunately, even in Quality we still have
to follow “buyer beware”.
PPS:
Registrations for our October Quality Conference in Vancouver are starting to pour in. This week we have lined up three new topics:
- Sources of Error in Pathology
- Assessing Competency in the Medical Laboratory
- Workplace stress and its impact on Quality.
Register at:
I can understand your colleague's confusion. Responsibility and authority should go hand in hand. However, anyone who has been in a position that has responsibility with little or no authority quickly sees the difference.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't it seem that most people want more authority and less responsibility?
When someone has authority and little or no responsibility the results can be disastrous.
I agree totally.
ReplyDeleteResponsibility without Authority makes you vulnerable.
Authority without Responsibility makes you impotent.
Neither is a very good place.
M
I've joined your Making Medical Lab Quality Relevant and look forward to seeking more of your wonderful post please click here lace wigs canada
ReplyDelete