social impact q

8/7/2019 Social Impact Q

1/21

SOCIAL IMPACT OF IMPLEMENTING A QUALITY POLICY 343EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1997, 6(3), 343362

Social Impact of Implementing a Quality Policy

in European Organizations

Roland Pepermans, Rosette SJegers,Rudy Moenaert, and Anne Buelens

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium

This paper presents results from an extensive European study about the perceivedsocial impact of the implementation of a quality policy in various organizations. Inthe first two qualitative research phases the extent of a social impact was delimitedwhereas the companies quality policies were specified through the objectives

pursued. In a final research phase a questionnaire was sent to 765 companies in the15 countries of the European Union. The data showed the social impact wasviewed as mainly related to the employees commitment, to upwardcommunication, job security, career attention, quality of union/managementdialogue and trainingall showing a positive relationship with the

implementation of the quality policy. Furthermore, it was shown that thecompanys objectives when implementing a quality policy related in a significantway to the reported social impact. The most pervasive relationship linked a

positive social impact to a quality policy aiming at efficiency, effectiveness andorganization quality. The taking of ISO-9000 as a main objective was shown torelate to a more formal, bureaucratic and structured organization, while a basicexternally-oriented competitiveness orientation showed no significant relationshipwith the potential social variables as included in the study.

In a publication by the Total Quality Forum (Voehl, 1992, p. 17), total quality hasbeen defined as:

a people focused management system that aims at continual increase in customer

satisfaction at continually lower cost. Total quality is a total system approach (not

a separate area or program), and an integral part of high-level strategy. It works

horizontally across functions and departments, involving all employees, top to

bottom, and extends backwards and forwards to include the supply chain and the

customer chain.


2/21

344 PEPERMANS ET AL.

This statement advocates that people, i.e. all employees, are an essential part o

supplement of the successful total quality policy. It is assumed that the

principles and practices associated with total quality impact all the traditiona

HRM (Human Resource Management) approaches (Petrick & Furr, 1995, p

16). Voehl (1992) advocates respect for people as one of the four pillars for hi

House of total quality. On these pillars, its roof or superstructure, consisting o

four sub-systemssocial, technical, educational and managerialcan be built

An integrative and successful quality approach can therefore only be achieved i

a number of social practices in managing the human resources are installed

Introducing a quality policy on itself seems insufficient in order to arrive at a tota

quality company if it is not combined with some in-depth changes in the socia

texture of the organization. This lines up with Hackman and Wageman (1995)When implemented well, TQM (Total Quality Management) can help an

organization improve itself and, in the process, better serve its community and it

own members (p. 339). This paper will therefore explore what social effects ar

reported in those companies that say they are in some way on the quality track

and whether the House of total quality is close to being reached in European

organizations.

Summarizing a major line of agreement in the quality literature related to it

social impact, it can be hypothesized that for the majority of organizations, totaquality management is creating more opportunities for success (Marchington &

Parker, 1988), given the higher quality of people employed and their stronge

orientation toward employee involvement (Harrison, 1993). As a result, a

favourable social impact of the implementation of a quality policy is to be

assumed (Hill, 1995).

However, when starting an investigation of the social effects of a quality

policy implementation (QPI) in a European context, it becomes crucial to definethe nature of the quality policy that is understandable and acceptable to a numbe

of organizations and in a number of countries. On the meaning of quality one

notices a broad variety of definitions that exist, each with some personal, o

author-specific emphasis (e.g. Crosby, 1995; Deming, 1986, 1990; Feigenbaum

1983; Hackman & Wageman, 1995; Johns, 1996; Juran, 1979; Legge, 1995

Nicholson, Schuler, & Van De Ven, 1995). On the one hand, deducing a single

definition from these, although possible, would never incorporate all the fine

tuning that individual authors include. Furthermore, it would be a definitiongiven by academics, which could be met with hostility from organizations


3/21

SOCIAL IMPACT OF IMPLEMENTING A QUALITY POLICY 345

A major source of information is again the literature related to the subject

Quality-related research has so far focused on a broad range of single socia

effects. An exhaustive list of these variables, and how they are affected by QPI

would certainly require a separate volume. However, without listing all the

possible social variables that have so far been related to quality management

some recent examples in random order will suffice here to delineate the potentia

span of social constructs involved: motivation (e.g. Judge, Hanisch, &

Drankoski, 1995; Wilkinson & Wilmott, 1995); satisfaction (e.g. Judge et al.

1995; McArdle, Rowlinson, Proctor, Hassard, & Forrester, 1995); training (e.g

Miner & Crane, 1995; Wilkinson Marchington, & Goodman, 1992); morale (e.g

Crosby, 1995); control (e.g. Hill, 1995; Van der Loo & Giljam, 1995); empower

ment (e.g. Liden & Tewksbury, 1995; McArdle et al., 1995); teamwork (e.gLanden, Bluestone, & Lawler III, 1995); culture (e.g. Hill, 1995; Tosi, Rizzo

R. Carroll, 1994); organizational commitment (e.g. Van der Loo & Giljam 1995

Wilkinson et al., 1992); communication (e.g. Hill, 1995; Wilkinson et al., 1992)

employee involvement (e.g. Landen et al., 1995; Wilkinson et al., 1992); socia

relations (e.g. Hill, 1995); industrial relations (e.g. Liden & Tewksbury, 1995

Wilkinson, Allen, & Snape, 1991); creativity (e.g. Bernardin, Kane, Ross, Spina

& Johnson, 1995; Wilkinson et al., 1992); appraising performance (e.g

Bernardin et al., 1995; Ghorpade & Chen, 1995); hierarchy/bureaucracy (e.gKaufman, Lewin, & Adams, 1995; Van der Loo & Giljam, 1995); job security

(e.g. Hill, 1995; Nicholson et al., 1995); work schedules (e.g. Johns, 1996

Kaufman et al., 1995); part-time work (e.g. Miner & Crane, 1995).

The elements in this broad selection of social variables have so far been

researched in a number of ways, although never combined into one single

research project: there are so many books that champion the cause of quality

management ... yet so few studies that address its actual meaning, or reflect uponits practical implementation or social significance (Wilkinson & Wilmott, 1995

p.1). Therefore, this paper will primarily deal with an investigation in which the

majority of these potentialsocial effects will be integrated in an attempt to find

out which of them make up the specific social variables that relate to quality

management, and how they are related to the basic, company-specific philosophy

behind the quality policy that was introduced.

As a second objective, this paper will deal with some more specific

hypotheses that arose from the literature review. First of all, some sourcesindicate that for many organizations, external pressures (i.e. competition), urg


4/21


influenced. This can lead, for example, to a negative impact on union

management relationships, as feared by Wilkinson et al. (1991), or to a new

control-enhancing management device being installed (Tuckman, 1995).

On the other hand, it may be deduced from the previous argument that in

companies driven by more internalpressures when starting to work on quality

a more pervasive quality culture may become apparent characterized by more

empowerment of the employees and a positive impact on issues such as employee

commitment and communication (McArdle et al., 1995; Robbins, 1997). This

assumes that the quality approach is not limited to a rather formal proces

orientation, as exemplified by an ISO-9000 approach (Clement, 1996) where

human resource activities may be set up with the sole goal of obtaining the

quality certificate.

METHOD

The project1 comprised three research phases:

Exploratory phase

This first phase aimed at providing the basic foundation for the project. Its

objective was to acquire an understanding of the meaning of quality (as givenby organizations), of the social variables that were seen to be affected, and of the

relationship that would have to be included in the study.

Focus groups had been organized at the national level in nine countries (UK

Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands and

Belgium) with representatives of social partners, quality organizations

government bodies and companies implementing quality policies. Each focu

group consisted of four to ten participants. Additionally, a supra-national focugroup was organized in Brussels with representatives from European

organizations.

A total of 76 organizations participated in the focus groups. They represented

the four intended groups as follows: quality organizations (46%); companies

implementing a quality policy (28%); social partners (18%); and governmen

bodies (8%). Two major observations were made from this phase:

1. As could be expected from the literature, a wide range of social areas waobserved to be affected by the introduction of a quality policy: organizationa


5/21


training and development (pervasiveness, individualization, appraisa

procedures, social surveys); and communication (team work, communication

flows, union/management dialogue).

2. Several differentiating elements were perceived to moderate the socia

impact of QPI: the nature of the quality policy (objectives); the country of origin

and the type of company (scale, industrial activity, market, affiliation and

ownership).

Descriptive phase

The second phase concerned an in-depth elaboration of the findings of the

exploratory phase, including a preliminary investigation of the potential socia

impact of QPI as well as collecting descriptive indicators for the effects of QPI ona firms social structure. Structured interviews were undertaken with key

respondents in six to eight companies in the nine countries that were involved in

the first phase. A heterogeneous sample of companies had been selected, based

on three factors: industrial activity (services vs. manufacturing); production

process (technology intensive vs. labour intensive); and company size (small vs

large).

Fifty-nine semi-structured interviews were conducted, covering the specificissues that came up in the previous phase. Since this research phase built on the

results from the first phase while at the same time preparing for the third phase

two major outcomes could be identified:

1. The different social areas impacted by QPI (as found in the previous phase

could be further operationalized through a total number of 35 descriptive

indicators (items) to be used in the next research phase (see results section).

2. In order to investigate a companys specific definition of quality, ibecame clear that the major objectives that organizations said they were trying to

reach through their implementation of a quality policy could be used as a fruitfu

way around the various definitions of quality. Hence, a set of 15 possible

objectives were collected to be used in the third research phase (see results

section).

Conclusive phase

In this phase, potential effects emanating from the previous qualitative phases


6/21


set of 15 possible objectives resulting from the previous phases, were identified

Respondents were asked to mark on a five-point scale (from 1 = notat all a

stake, to 5 = absolutely at stake), how much each objective was at stake at the

time when the organization decided to implement a quality policy.

Another part of the questionnaire was intended to measure a series of 35

variables (potential effects) that could be observed as a result of QPI. It included

items about: commitment (e.g. employees satisfaction); organization (e.g

number of layers in the organization); communication (e.g. upward communica

tion); training (e.g. management development activities); personnel performanc

(e.g. frequency of performance appraisals); work schedule (e.g. part-time

contracts); and workforce data (e.g. rate of absenteeism). Each of the items had to

be rated on a nine-point scale (from 4 = highly decreased, to +4 = highlyincreased),answering the question Assuming the situation before QPI could be

quantified as zero (0), how would you assess todays organizational situation on

the following issues?. Furthermore, a general measure was included to tap the

perceived general assessment of the social impact (GASI) of QPI (7-point scale

from 3 = major negative impact, to +3 major positive impact).

As can be observed, a variety of different response type formats were used

with the intention of reducing potential response format biases. The order of the

15 quality objectives as well as of the 35 social effects was also altered usingthree different presentations of the items, thus reducing order effects which can

be especially prevalent in this type of extended questioning.

Finally, a set of potentially related business issues were introduced

Respondents were asked to rate the perceived impact of seven business trend

(internationalization, production automation, introduction of information

technology, decreasing monopolies and protection, product shifts, change in

important markets, environmental awareness) on the companies operations (5point scale, from 1 = no influence, to 5 = major influence). This set of items was

introduced in order to look for covariates that might trouble the unique effect o

the implementation of a quality policy.

The questionnaire was conceived in English and translated into the other 10

languages of the European Union, in order to increase response rates. It wa

addressed to the human resource manager (or to be further forwarded to the

quality manager) of each company in the sample. Since the nature of the

questioning points to the company being the underlying reference, theperceptions by these key respondents were assumed to represent the company


7/21


was not possible to construct a sample of 250 organizations since the census o

companies was smaller than the targeted sample size. In these countries the

sampling frame equalled the census list: Luxembourg (n = 11); Greece (n = 80)

Ireland (n = 130); and Austria (n = 242). Thus, a total of 3213 questionnaires

were administered during September and October 1995. Of these, 765 were

returned (total response rate: 23.8%), and this was considered a high number

given the complex nature of the questioning and the absence of any incentives to

the respondents scattered around Europe. Specific response rates in the countrie

where 250 organizations were addressed varied from 32% for Sweden to 18% fo

Germany and France. In the four remaining countries response rates went from

18.6% for Austria to 72.7% for Luxembourg.

Although the actual representativeness of this European sample could not betested, it will become clear from the following sample specifics that a broad

diversity of companies participated in the study. The size of the responding

organizations went from 2 to 220,000 employees (mean = 1866; sd = 13,694

median = 155). 30.5% of the companies were a subsidiary of a foreign company

22.1% of a national company and 47.4%were not a subsidiary. The majority o

the companies (52.0%) constituted privately-owned businesses, 42.2% were

publicly owned and the remainder were a mixed form (due to this low percentage

of 5.8%, the latter category was deleted from further analyses related to thisvariable). Of all companies, 49.7% served business markets, and 14.6% end

customers, with the remainder being a mixed form. The number of customers

adhering to company was established using a four-point ordinal scale, indicating

73.4% of the companies had more than 100 customers. The responding

organizations covered a wide variety of activities, of which 78.6% were treated

as manufacturing companies (e.g. electrotechnical industry, chemical industry

and 21.4% as belonging to the service industry (e.g. transport andcommunication, services to companies).

The average number of years a company reported being involved in the

implementation of a (general) quality policy was five the modus being four year

(i.e. started in 1991). The average number of years since starting the quality

certification process was three, the modus being two years (i.e. started in 1993)

Analysis of response distributions suggested that certification had reached its

maximum diffusion rate. Yet it should be noted that some of the companies tha

obtained their certification only recently may not have gained an entry in thequality directories of their country at that time. This mayat least partly


8/21


RESULTS

Quality objectives

The set of 15 possible objectives that came out of the second research phase were

included in the questionnaire and were submitted to principal components

analyses and subsequent Cronbach alpha tests. After having deleted two items in

order to get a more robust structure, three factors emerged after varimax rotation

presented here with all variables having a factor loading of more than .4

(explained variance: 52.8%):

Factor 1, product and service excellence (a = .718) including the objectives

trying to deliver the best possible products; satisfying customers; going fothe permanent improvement of processes; improving the service standards o

the company; having world-class products; and heading for excellence. Factor 2, efficiency improvement (a = .721) covering the objectives

operating in the most cost-effective way; defining and solving

malfunctioning; improving financial results; and bringing the personnel cos

down. Factor, organization quality (a = .612) including: aiming at the bes

quality of working life; achieving the team organization; and focusing on thecore competencies of the firm.

In addition to these basic factors representing overall objectives for starting QPI

the two objectives that were omitted from the second principal components

analysis were treated as separate objectives with a unique variance. These were

beating the competitors and ISO-certification, i.e. following the ISO-9000

standards as specified in a quality handbook.For further analyses, average summative scores were computed for each

factor, while the separate objectives were included using their raw scores. Using

the score averages for the total of five objectives, these were rank-ordered

according to indicated importance when starting QPI. This showed that produc

and service excellence was the most dominant objective in the European

organizations surveyed (mean = 4.17), closely followed by the ISO-9000

certification (mean = 4.10), and further followed by Beating the competitors

(mean = 3.67), efficiency improvement (mean = 3.44) and finallyorganization quality (mean = 3.32).2


9/21


unsuccessful) to 5 (very successful). In the total sample the average was 3.64

(significantly higher than the midpoint 3, p < .01), indicating a general positive

experience with QPI. Correlating this perceived success rating with each of the

five remaining objectives indicated that beating the competitors and ISO

certification did not lead to a significant relationship (p > .01), while the three

others showed a highly significant correlation coefficient. For these three

objectives, (mentioned as factors above: product and service excellence

efficiency improvement, organizational quality) the correlations were

respectively: .14 (p < .001); .19 (p < .001); and .11 (p < .01). This can be seen as

an indication of the fact that when aiming for the latter three objectives, perceived

success in implementing QPI is more obvious.

Social impact of quality policy implementation

Principal components analyses were also used to determine a factor structure

underlying the 35 items covering the perceived social impact that was

experienced. Again, Cronbach alphas helped to determine reliable factors. Afte

nine items were deleted in order to arrive at a robust factor structure, the analysis

with varimax rotation resulted in six factors with an eigenvalue > 1.00 and

explaining 59.2%of the variance (all the items attributed to each of the six factorsare presented in the following list):

Factor 1, commitment (a = .894): employees satisfaction, work motiva

tion, job involvement, organization involvement, individual creativity. Factor 2, training (a = .745): management development activities, white

collar training activities, blue-collar training activities, behavioura

training, technical training. Factor 3, career attention (a = .745): frequency of performance appraisals

quality of performance appraisals, educational prerequisites, promotion

opportunities, social surveys. Factor 4, work problems (a = .680): rate of absenteeism, occupationa

accidents, social conflicts. Factor 5, variable work schedules (a = .631): part-time contracts, number

of temporary employees, fixed-term contracts, flexible work schedules

overtime. Factor 6, teamwork (a = .705): cross-functional linkages, frequency o

team work measurement of processes


10/21


communication; downward communication; verbal communication; written

communication; and quality of union/management dialogue.3

For further analyses, respondents were represented by their average scores fo

the six social impact factors, whereas the nine separately-treated items were

included using the raw scores. Inspecting the average score frequencies for this

set of 15 new variables (see Table 1), one notices written communication ha

the highest perceived increase reported after QPI, followed by upward

communication. At the bottom end, two decreases were reported, being the

number of layers in the organization and work problems. Given the

perceptual nature of the data, without any absolute anchors, one should not focus

on the absolute numbers that were reported. More relevant are the relative

differences in reported changes in the variables, which indicate a less or moreimportant perceived impact after QPI.

Using the GASI-measure, the average perceived overall assessment of the

social impact of QPI was significantly positive; 1.25 (sd = 0.88) on a scale from

3 (major negative impact) to +3 (major positive impact). In order to investigate

TABLE 1

Average Response Frequencies Representing thePerceived Social Impact as a Result of a Quality Policy

Implementation (scale range 4/+4)

Social variables Mean Stand Dev.

Written communication +1.78 1.34

Upward communication +1.54 1.14

Training +1.46 0.90

Downward communication +1.45 1.35Teamwork +1.44 0.99

Commitment +1.39 0.98

Career attention +1.00 0.82

Verbal communication +0.77 1.55

Job security +0.65 1.36

Quality of union/management dialogue +0.60 1.13

Bureaucracy +0.50 1.62

Variable work schedules +0.36 0.75

Personnel turnover +0.12 1.30Number of layers in the organization 0.38 1.33


11/21


in more detail which specific social effects were seen to be related to this positive

social impact, a stepwise regression analysis was carried out using GASI as the

dependent variable (see Table 2). The highly significant result with R2adj = 0.368

(F = 65,810, p < 0.001), showed that European companies view the positive

social impact of QPI as related to a perceived improvement in commitment

communication, personnel development and job security.

Differences in social impact according to companycharacteristics

First of all, the effects of three company features on the overall social impac

measure (GASI) were tested: company size (number of employees in the

organization); activity profile (manufacturing vs. service industry); andownership profile (privately vs. publicly owned). This produced only one

significant relationship, for ownership profile (t(659) = 3,84, p < 0.001).4 Thi

shows that publicly owned companies report a significantly more positive overal

social impact than privately owned companies.

The detailed 15 specific social effects were also tested for difference

according to the same company variables, with the following results.

Company size

Pearson correlations were calculated for the relationships between the scores

on each of the variables and company size. Also, partial correlations were

calculated, allowing to control for the business processes that were earlie

TABLE 2Significant Social Variables Explaining the

Overall Perceived Social Impact of

Quality Policy Implementation, after Regression Analysis

Social variables b* t-value p

Commitment .3367 8.667 .000

Upward communication .1301 3.655 .001

Job security .1059 3.278 .001Career attention .1050 2.798 .005

Quality of union/management dialogue 0840 2 501 013


12/21


specified. Only one significant relationship was found, with written

communication (r = 13, p < 0.001), with the partial correlation showing exactly

the same result. This showed that, independent of other business influences tha

are perceived, the larger the company, the less written communication is seen to

increase after the implementation of a quality policy. This may be due to the fac

that large companies already made extensive use of written communication.

Activity profile

Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was applied to test for differences in

social effects according to whether an organisation was active in the

manufacturing or the service industry. The seven business trends (see method

section) were included as covariates. However, none of the effects showedsignificant differences, at the 0.01 level, between manufacturing and service

companies. Still, the covariates environmental awareness. production

automation, introduction of information technology and change in importan

markets explained significant portions of the residual variances in the

differences in social effects, on top of the activity profile.

Ownership profileUsing ANCOVA, differences in social effects were computed according to

the company being privately or publicly owned, with the same seven business

trends as covariates. Significant differences were found for four of the effects, a

represented in Table 3. This shows that, in general, only four significan

differences were found between the two types of company ownership

Furthermore, environmental awareness was found to be the most importan

covarate overall, while production automation came second in this respectThis shows that business trends influence social effects at the same time as QPI

Nevertheless, if the influence of business trends is removed, significan

differences on a number of social effects according to the ownership profile can

still be observed and have to be attributed to the implementation of a quality

policy.

Social effects related to the original quality implementation

objectives

A canonical analysis was performed in order to investigate the relationship


13/21


multicollinearity (Kuylen & Verhallen, 1981). For the first three variates theloadings are presented in Table 5.

L ki t th lt th fi t i t h th t i f i ti

TABLE 3

Ownership Profile and Social of Quality Policy

Implementation, after Analysis of Covariance

Social variables Privately Publiclyowned owned

Written communication 1.86 1.76

Upward communication 1.51 1.66

Training 1.36 1.62

Downward communication* 1.28 1.69

Teamwork 1.36 1.60

Commitment 1.32 1.53

Career attention .92 1.09

Verbal communication .69 .82

Job security .69 .62

Quality of union/management dialogue* .45 .84

Bureaucracy .63 .47

Variable work schedules .36 .37

Personnel turnover .12 .06

Number of layers in the organization* .16 .54

Work problems* .39 .66

*p < 0.01

TABLE 4

Results of the Canonical Correlation Analysis between

Social Variables and Quality Objectives

Canonical Eigen- Canonical R Chi2 df Significance

variates values

1 .2031 .4507 207.17 75 .000

2 .0402 .2006 74.58 56 .048

3 .0358 .1892 50.72 39 099

4 .0341 .1848 29.44 24 .204

5 .0156 .1249 9.17 11 .606


14/21


second variate, going for ISQ-9000 certification, links to an increase in

bureaucracy and written communication, but also in job security. The latte

may partially be explained by the fact that this variate points to an emphasis

not only on ISO-9000, but also on engaging for quality in view of a better

organization. Since this variate also indicates a reduction in teamwork and verba

communication, it seems that this approach to quality emphasizes a more forma

quality culture (in addition, reducing the variability of work schedules is in line

with this)

TABLE 5

Canonical Variates relating Social Variables and

Quality Objectives*

Var iate 1 Var iate 2 Var iate 3

Social variables

Written communication .001 .324 .624

Upward communication .581 .243 .103

Training .741 .124 .460

Downward communication .489 .194 .152

Teamwork .526 .303 .234

Commitment .667 .131 .078

Career attention .654 .240 .130Verbal communication .427 .389 .029

Job security .344 .426 .121

Quality of union/management dialogue .254 .004 .263

Bureaucracy .310 .353 .044

Variable work schedules .154 .224 .121

Personnel turnover .027 .139 .031

Number of layers in the organization .489 .089 .533

Work problems .495 .117 .007

Quality objectives

Product and service excellence .697 .173 .330

Efficiency improvement .672 .285 .480

Organization quality .919 .364 .059

Beating the competitors .166 .290 .320

ISO-certification .022 .594 .639

*Loadings shown in bold type ( .300) were used for interpretation.


15/21


variables in this study; while on the other hand, some social variables are

relatively unrelated to the quality objectives, i.e. quality of union/managemen

dialogue, variable work schedules and personnel turnover.

DISCUSSION

As might be expected (Hill, 1995, Wilkinson et al. 199l), the companies in thi

study claim an overall favourable perceived social balance of QPI in their

organizations represented by our significantly positive GASI. The more detailed

social variables that have been tapped in this project can also be seen as providing

us with a positive picture of the social impact of QPI. In relative terms, major

effects are reported in the communication area, training, teamwork and attitudes

to work. Lesser effects are those perceivedin the organizational and employmenareas. But, as could be expected, the social impact of QPI is considerable, since

all reported effects are significantly different from a zero effect (although the

latter may somewhat be influenced by the large sample size). As has been

reported elsewhere (Hill, 1995), increased employee involvement, increased

teamwork and more open and effective communication channels sustained by

improved training are not just results of the implementation of a quality policy

but also a necessary condition to build up quality in an organization (Voehl1992).

However, the previously discussed overall findings build on the effects tha

were included in the survey based on the results of the qualitative research

phases. When looking at the organizations point of view related to social impact

it was shown through our regression analysis that companies mainly associate a

positive social impact with a substantive improvement in employee commitment

upward communication, job security, career attention, quality of the union

management dialogue, and training. In other words, organizations report theirquality policy to induce the basis of empowerment which is a requirement for the

successful total-quality organization, (McArdle et al., 1995, Robbins, 1997)

Indeed, such organizations observe higher employee commitment, an increase in

training opportunities, and an increase in upward communication, thus preparing

employees for the self-sustained actions required to move towards continuous

improvement. The hypothesis suggesting TQM as a control-enhancing manage

ment device (Tuckman, 1995) can therefore not be supported. The greate

attention on peoples careers, originally defined as being related to more frequen

performance appraisals and more social surveys originally also related to


16/21


marginalization of unions (Wilkinson et al., 1991) were not confirmed by ou

data. Moreover, our initial qualitative study pointed to the required involvemen

of unions in the quality process. This conclusion is further supported by a

perceived reduction in work problems (absenteeism, accidents, and socia

conflicts), which may be seen as emphasizing the beneficial effect of good

industrial relations in implementing a quality policy.

However, a note of caution seems appropriate here. The positive outcomes

that were found could in some way be related to our methodological approach

Since we asked people in the organizations (as previously stated it was mainly

human resource managers or quality managers who filled in the questionnaires

to report on their perceptions of the social impact, it may well be true that they

reported positively in order to avoid cognitive dissonance. Members oorganizations that have invested time and effort in the implementation of a

quality policy may well be less likely to report negatively on the effects of thei

investments. On the other hand, had that seriously biased our results than we

would have expected a less differentiated picture of the social impact. Indeed, i

the intention was to present a positive picture, then the different factors tha

constitute our social impact would show more similar positive patterns

Furthermore, one should not forget that perceived effects commonly regarded a

being more negative (e.g. increased bureaucracy and increased personnturnover) have indeed been reported as being negatively impacted, which one

would not expect had the avoidance of cognitive dissonance distorted our data

collection.

The investigated differentiating variables between organizations were no

found to produce important differences in the observed social variables. Thi

points to the rather universal nature of the reported quality policy influences

Only the ownership profile (privately/publicly owned) resulted in somesignificant differences, even after having accounted for other business trends tha

may affect the companys mode of organization. All in all, it seems that there is a

tendency for the implementation of a quality policy to produce a somewhat more

communicative culture in publicly owned companies than in privately owned

organisations. But the fact that publicly owned organisations perceive more

downward communication and a better quality of union/management dialogue

may at least partially be explained by the fact that on average, public

organizations are bigger and therefore have a less communicative culture whichmakes a perceivable increase in these variables more plausible. It may further be


17/21


where even a causal relationship between them had been suggested. However

our research cannot be conclusive in this matter, because our measurements o

these business trends were not sophisticated enough. On the other hand, this

finding stresses the relatedness of various managerial policies which ought to be

differentiated more clearly from the impact of a quality policy in further research

Parts of the previous discussion, although in line with the overall findings

need some substantial refinement when taking account of the researched

relationship with the various objectives that were pursued when implementing

the quality policy.

First of all, and contrary to what Ackers et al. (1992) proclaim, our results do

not indicate that organizations exclusively start on the quality track because o

competitive reasons. Although the most dominant objectiveproduct andservice excellencecertainly links to external pressures, the most significan

canonical variate points to an internal trigger as well as to an external one

Furthermore, it is observed in this study that the quality objective does not really

exist, since companies pursue more than just one objective at the same time

Related to social impact it became clear that a quality orientation towards

excellence, at the same time as towards efficiency improvement and going for a

higher organization quality is the most effective combination of initial objective

in view of the perceived positive social impact. From the dominant variables thaorganizations consider to be at the basis of their view of social impact, five out o

six are positively related to this kind of quality approach in our canonica

analysis. Moreover, teamwork, downward, and verbal communication are

perceived as outcomes of this kind of quality policy, which is further seen to

reduce bureaucracy and work problems, and to promote a flatter organization

All in all, our previous conclusion on the empowerment-stimulating role of a

quality policy needs to be reformulated and appears to be mainly linked to qualityobjectives concentrating on efficiency, effectiveness, and organization quality

Although, strictly speaking, a canonical analysis does not allow for causa

interpretation, we suggest that under these circumstances, where external as wel

as internal forces stimulate the implementation of a quality policy, a quality

culture will become apparent, including more open communication, greate

commitment, and greater involvement (Hill, 1995).

Moreover, if an organization is oriented towards an ISO-9000 certification

approach as the basis for their quality policy, formalization through writtencommunication becomes more clear. Compared to the relationship between


18/21


combined with efficiency and excellence objectives, producing a more

structured organization. Especially for this third relationship, the lack o

focusing on the quality of the organization may indicate that the implementation

of a quality policy ignores required changes in the organization process, which

may result in a looser quality approach, though organization layers are created in

a formal way in order to make sure that procedures can be followed. Under this

assumption, training becomes merely a tool used to pass on skills and knowledge

in order to attain the certification, without having the more fundamental goal o

standardisation and cooperation of skills, nor widening and deepening skills

which may explain the resulting lack of increase in employee commitmen

(Bessant, 1993).

On the other hand, our data does not allow us to significantly link the objectivebeating the competitors to any of the social variables studied. It seems tha

mainly going for an external objective when implementing a quality policy is no

beneficial in social terms. This comes close to the argument made by Wilkinson

et al. (1992) who stated that under a predominantly competitive quality

orientation, involvement of the employees is often considered largely

unproblematic. In fact it is assumed there that organizations do not worry abou

the employees. Our data underline that under a dominant belief in a purely

competition-oriented purpose of the quality policy, significant changes in thesocial texture of the organization are not observed. This may be because, in these

instances, if consideration is given to the human side of TQM it is simply

assumed that changes in the management of the labour process are determined by

changes in the production processes and management systems (McArdle et al.

1995 p. 158) and is probably not because social changes are accepted as a

necessary condition for a quality organization. As a result, the likelihood of the

required social support being provided for a successful quality implementationmay become very doubtful.

All in all, this study causes us to suggest that a combined emphasis on

organization quality as well as on quality objectives not just related to the fina

beating of competitors, but on the intermediate objectives, i.e. the utilized means

that allow organizations to respond to the external competition (excellence and

efficiency), produce a more pervasive social impact than any other initial quality

related objective. Hence, a firmer basis for building the house of total quality i

laid, and at the same time a more competitive result may be arrived at. Ifhowever, one is trying too hard to get the ISO-9000 certificate with insufficien


19/21


organizations highly involved in the implementation of a quality policy. It may

well be that the actual employees in these companies may have a differen

opinion: the scale of the study did not allow for more in-depth investigations o

the views of employees in the various organizations. However, it goes withou

saying that such researchperhaps via case studies on a smaller scaleis

certainly required in order to supplement the results reported here, and to get a

full picture of the social impact of quality investments.

REFERENCES

Ackers, P., Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A., & Goodman, J. (1992). The use of cycles

Explaining employee involvement in the 1990s.Industrial Relations Journal, 23, 268283.Bernardin, H.J., Kane, J.S., Ross, S., Spina, J.D., & Johnson, D.L. (1995). Performance appraisa

design, development and implementation. In G.R. Ferris, S.D. Rosen, & D.T. Barnum (Eds.)

Handbook of human resource management(pp. 462493). Cambridge (MA): Blackwell.

Bessant, J. (1993). Towards factory 2000: Designing organizations for computer-integrated

technologies. In J. Clark (Ed.), Human resource management and technical change (pp

192211). London: Sage.

Clement, K. (1996). Empirische studie van de toepassing en de resultaten van ISO 9000 i

Vlaanderen. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit, Dept. Economische en Toegepaste Economisch

Wetenschappen. Unpublished thesis.Crosby, P.B. (1995). Quality management in the real world. In H. Risher & C. Frey (Eds.), The

performance imperative: Strategies for enhancing workforce effectiveness. (pp. 219232).San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Deming, W.E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT, Cambridge University Press.

Deming, W.E. (1990). A system of profound knowledge. Washington, DC: Author.

Feigenbaum, A. (1983). Total quality control(3rd Edn). New York: MacGraw-Hill.

Ghorpade, J., & Chen, M.M. (1995). Creating quality-driven performance appraisals.Academy o

Management Executive, 9, 3241.

Hackman, J.R., & Wageman, R. (1995). Total quality management: Empirical, conceptual andpractical issues.Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 , 309342.

Harrison, R. (1993). Human resource management: issues and strategies. Wokingham: Addison

Wesley.

Hill,S. (1995). From quality circles to total quality management. In A. Wilkinson & H. Willmot

(Eds.), Making quality critical: new perspectives on organizational change (pp. 3353)

London: Routledge.

Johns, G. (1996). Organizational behavior(4th Edn). New York: Harper Collins.

Judge, T.A. Hanisch, K.A., & Drankoski, R.D. (1995). Human resource management and

employee attitudes. In G.R. Ferris, S.D. Rosen, & D.T. Barnum (Eds.), In G.R. Ferris, S.DRosen, & D.T. Barnum (Eds.), Handbook of human, resource management(pp. 574596

Cambridge MA: Blackwell


20/21


Legge, K. (1995). Human resource management: Rhetorics and reality. London: Macmillan.

Liden, R.C. & Tewksbury, T.W. (1995). Empowerment and workteams. In G.R. Ferris, S.D

Rosen, & D.T. Barnum (Eds.), Handbook of human resource management(pp. 386403)

Cambridge MA: Blackwell.

Marchington, M., & Parker, P. (1988). Japanization: A lack of chemical reaction. IndustriaRelations Journal, 9, 272285.

McArdle, L., Rowlinson, M., Proctor, S., Hassard, J., & Forrester, P. (1995). Total quality

management and participation: Employee empowerment, or the enhancement of exploitation?

In A. Wilkinson & H. Willmott (Eds.), Market quality critical: New perspectives o

organizational change (pp. 156172). London: Routledge.

Miner, J.B., & Crane, D.P. (1995). Human resource management: The strategic perspective. New

York: Harper Collins.

Nicholson, N., Schuler, R., & Van De Ven, A.H. (Eds..) (1995). Encyclopedic dictionary o

organization behavior. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Pepermans, R., & Mertens, K. (1995). Continueren van kwaliteitszorg via procesmatig

groepsinterventie: Lessen uit een veldexperiment in de dienstensector. Bedriifskunde 67

4252.

Petrick, J.A., & Furr, D.S. (1995). Total quality in managing human resources. Delray Beach, Fl

St. Lucie Press.

Robbins, S.P. (1997). Managing today. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Tosi, H.L., Rizzo, J.R., & Carroll, S.J. (1994). Managing organizational behavior (3rd Edn)

Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Tuckman, A. (1995). Ideology, quality and TQM. In A. Wilkinson & H. Willmott (Eds.), Making

quality critical: new perspectives on organizational change (pp. 5481). London: Routledge.

Van der Loo, H.R., & Giljam, M.J. (1995). De blinde vlekken van total quality management

M&O,Tijdshreift voor organisatiekunde en sociaal beleid, 49, 202217.

Voehl, F. (1992). The house of total quality. Coral Springs, Fl: Strategy Associates.

Wilkinson, A., Allen, P., & Snape, E. (1991). TQM and the management of labour. Employe

Relations , 13. 2431.

Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M., & Goodman, J. (1992). Total quality management an

employee involvement.Human Resource Management Journal, 2, 120.

Wilkinson, A., & Wilmott, H. (1995). Introduction. In A. Wilkinson & H., Wilmott (Eds.)

Making quality critical: New perspectives on organizational change (pp. 132). LondonRoutledge.


21/21

social impact q

Documents