Everyone wants quality; however, quality means different things to different people. Some people view it from a consumer’s point of view, while others view it from a supplier’s. In essence, the perception of quality is one that meets the needs of the person seeking it. Once quality has been defined, management needs to take three steps to ensure the successful implementation and maintenance of their quality process. Committing to, investing in, and maintaining a quality process directly involving the employees within an organization will assist in leading to a successful implementation. This paper establishes employee empowerment, training personnel on quality processes, and instilling core values as solid foundations for successful quality within an organization. By comparing cultural practices and methodologies of Americans and Japanese, emphasizing the importance of training management and employees, and creating responsibility and trust as core values, the authors explore steps that create a successful organization. In essence, everything falls back on strong leadership in order to attain quality within an organization.
Many people believe that in order to achieve quality, one needs to invest a lot of time, money, and effort. Although initially this theory holds some truth, in the long run, leadership within the organization plays a more important role in achieving and maintaining quality. Quality does not evolve overnight. People need to dedicate themselves and their companies to having quality practices and policies in order to gain a reputation of delivering quality. The three main keys to attaining sustainable quality within the organization include: (1) motivating employees through empowerment to dedicate themselves to their work; (2) investing time and money in training and developing employees into leaders; and (3) reinforcing core values in employees to maintain quality practices. Quality can be achieved if management and workers believe in achieving successful leadership within the organization.
Objective
Numerous articles have been written on processes and procedures that affect quality. Currently, many organizations, especially those in the federal government, have placed heavy emphasis on improving quality. Unfortunately, some people generally believe that introducing an established quality process in an organization will miraculously work without any resistance and difficulty. In reality, management experiences resistance from their employees if they perceive that quality improvement processes have been forced upon them. Many of these changes involve quality processes successfully implemented by the Japanese. However, due to the differences of Japanese and American cultures, implementation of established Japanese quality processes may not have the same effects on American organizations. This paper explores several issues that need to be addressed before implementing quality processes in an organization:
1.
Defining quality and what it means to different people;
2.
Comparing American and Japanese philosophies on quality;
3.
Determining what is important for an organization to enhance quality; and
4.
Determining how an organization can maintain quality.
By addressing these main issues, it is expected that management can better institute quality changes within the organization. Without fully understanding how to achieve quality, it stands to reason that management cannot successfully implement changes within an organization to attain quality.
Definition of Quality
First off, people need to understand the meaning of quality in order to implement it. Many definitions of quality exist based on the public’s perception of products and services. In the U.S. market, many consumers want the most for their money, and producers want to produce goods and services at the most profit for their company, resulting in each individual having their own definition of quality. One person may believe that buying the most expensive product or service means they purchased something with the best quality. Another person may think that purchasing something from a well-known brand or hiring a prominent service provider means they purchased quality. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary has several definitions for quality, including: “a degree of excellence;” “a special or distinguishing attribute;” and “something that serves to identify a subject of perception or thought in the respect of which it is considered.” Ultimately, when people purchase “quality” items, they buy something that fulfills their perception or need for the good or service.
Producers possess different views of quality in comparison to consumers. To producers, everything revolves around making a product or providing a service consumers view as “quality” while keeping costs low. Ball (2006, p. 39) discusses how producers can reach equilibrium between customer satisfaction and company costs using a theory called cost of quality (COQ):
COQ has the potential to be a useful tool in optimizing both quality and financial returns, yet it frequently turns into a high-level estimate of the costs associated with poor quality without providing the operational-level decision-making tools truly needed. Costs are often analyzed and controlled within each division, while quality problems, underlying root causes, corrective actions, related costs, and long-term preventive activities will span multiple divisions. That’s why it becomes important to recognize when decisions impacting quality are made in one division but generate costs in another division, typically downstream. . . . Quality can certainly impact customer loyalty and customer acquisition costs.
Although improvements to the process in one division may enhance quality in that division, it may cause another division’s costs to increase. Managers need to look at the company’s situation as a whole to improve processes for maintaining customer satisfaction while still keeping costs low, thus upholding the producers’ definition of quality.
Unlike producers, consumers do not consider manufacturing costs, but rather the purchase price and what they receive for their money. Some consumers use a different criterion for evaluating quality when deciding which product or service to purchase versus quality experienced after purchase. Essentially, producers can heavily market and advertise an otherwise poor-quality product that then may initially sell well, but lose market share later. Day and Castleberry (1986, p. 95) break up a consumer’s decision-making process when purchasing something into a “prepurchase” and “postpurchase” evaluation. They believe a “prepurchase evaluation of ‘quality’ is a means by which consumers make judgments about the likelihood of a product or service fulfilling some perceived need, and postpurchase evaluation of quality is the means by which consumers assess whether their expectations have been met or exceeded.” When producers make a product or offer a service, they need to consider two things: (1) what will make the consumer purchase the product; and (2) what will make the consumer continue to purchase the product (if the product is disposable) or other products from the same company. Using Day and Castleberry’s (1986) theory of the consumer’s quality evaluation, producers of goods and services can market their companies to cater toward the needs of consumers within the industry. In order for a company to gain a reputation for quality, management needs to gain a commitment to producing quality goods and services from their employees.
Finally, the definition of quality depends on who evaluates it. Although dictionaries have a definition for quality, they provide only a general description. A more specific definition of quality differs for each person and party since so many components can affect a person’s perception of quality. As the two previous examples show, the criteria for quality changes based on who is doing the evaluating. Therefore, no discrete definition of quality exists. However, through appropriate leadership, quality can be achieved regardless of a specific definition. Management needs to commit to creating a quality process within the organization and lead employees in attaining it.
Approach
Quality has been a highlight in numerous publications due to its enticing effect on organizational management. However, in some circumstances the appeal of implementing a quality process sometimes clouds the decision making of management. The sound of a new quality process may intrigue management to force implementation within an organization without properly planning out a way to ease everyone into the transition. Instead of leaping into an unfamiliar process, small steps to ease everyone into a new way of operating with quality would be a better and more rational management decision. Figure 1 explains the approach of this study in outlining the needs of leadership for smoother implementation of a quality process. It is also suggested that organizations adopt the approach outlined in Figure 1 to introduce quality management in their workplace. In this regard, it is important that organizations understand Japanese quality to the best extent they can.
Fig. 1. Flow chart for implementing quality through leadership
Although this process may seem more time consuming, and introducing change is no doubt a taxing process (Singh and Shoura 2006a), management should see less resistance once employees understand their role in the organization. Upfront costs (time and financial) should pay off in the long run through improved quality and a more involved workforce.
Committing to Quality through Empowerment
The first step management is recommended to take when committing themselves to quality lies in empowering their employees. When employees feel empowered, they take more pride in their work, which positively affects the level of quality at which they perform their work. Empowering employees does not eliminate the role of management. On the contrary, management’s role becomes a more important one in that they transform a mindset of monitoring statistics of workforce productivity to one of encouraging and implementing new ideas on how to be more productive as suggested by the workforce.
Successful implementation of workforce empowerment requires some flattening of the organization. Organizational flattening means reducing levels of supervision in order to improve efficiency between management and workers. Supervisory duties condense in order to improve communication between levels within the organization. Management may relinquish some responsibility to workers in order to gain buy-in from the remainder of the workforce. Through this act, workers become empowered by participating more in what were previously considered management-only decisions. Juran (1989, p. 294) believes management needs to ensure several key factors to achieve workforce empowerment:
1.
Upper management must undergo the training needed to understand and support the objectives of the participation concept: to develop people by using their education, experience, and creativity to improve company operations.
2.
Other members of the management team (managers, supervisors, and staff specialists) must accept the concept of participation, realizing that in doing so they will be delegating to the workforce some activities that have in the past been regarded as “management prerogatives.”
3.
These same members must undergo sufficient training in quality matters to be able to understand what is being offered to the workforce. In addition, the first line of supervision must undergo minimally the same training program as will be offered to the workforce.
4.
Management must face up to the workforce’s apprehension.
If workers feel that management hears their voices, employees will feel that they matter and end up taking more pride in their work. Feedback from people with first-hand experience will help the organization discover areas of improvement. Management’s commitment to empowerment of the workforce brings the organization one step closer to improving quality.
When management encourages the empowerment of their employees, self-actualization of employees will influence an improvement within the organization. Employees are an organization’s greatest asset. The knowledge, dedication, and pride of each employee will help improve the quality within an organization. Shoura and Singh (1999, p. 46) believe:
The pursuit toward self-actualization is also a drive to exploit the human potential for expanding the mind’s capabilities. Usually, human achievements are made and felt in those great moments that [Abraham] Maslow called “peak experiences,” where one feels joy, happiness, bliss, wholeness, beauty, aliveness, perfection, completeness, justice, order, simplicity, richness, effortlessness, playfulness, and self-sufficiency. Beyond peak experiences, and in organizational settings, immediate advantages are gained by widening one’s own horizon outside the necessary knowledge listed on one’s organizational job description. Organizations can reap great benefits by encouraging employees and by capitalizing on these unutilized frontiers. Maslow’s motivation principles are based on acquiring higher knowledge to seek the ultimate potential in awareness.
Through empowerment, organizations will motivate their employees to improve areas within the organization, including quality. Employees work first-hand with the processes and procedures set forth by management. They understand which areas can be improved. If employees feel encouraged by management to speak up, many areas within an organization will improve. Overall, quality will be one of the most obvious areas of improvement since people desire praise and recognition for a job well done. When quality improves, people have done a good job.
American and Japanese Quality Philosophies
American Philosophy
Americans adopted the Taylor system of “scientific management” in the early twentieth century. This system separated planning from execution, causing an increase in production; but conversely, it also caused a decline in craftsmanship and quality since the human side was ignored. Work tasks for individuals became clearly defined and specialized, which ended up causing negative effects within the organization. One consequence of Taylor’s scientific approach was that workers lost touch with the essence of their jobs. This prompted Juran and Gryna (1993, p. 169) to observe:
•
Workers do not understand how their job contributes to the mission of the organization. Also, they often do not know their internal suppliers, their internal customers, and the associated needs.
•
The work itself is often monotonous and meaningless and lacks a sense of accomplishment.
•
Feedback to workers of the information they need to regulate the process is often inadequate or missing.
•
Little opportunity is provided for workers to participate in quality improvement projects.
Unfortunately, management’s eyes focused on the productivity of the organization instead of the product and employee quality. Specialized workers could potentially benefit an organization, but only if integrated within the organization to improve processes and product output.
Too often in American work culture, management takes credit for all positive productivity in the company and blames workers for the negativity. Deming (1982, p. 147–148) states:
No concept has been more misunderstood by American managers, academics, and workers than productivity. For workers in America a call for increased productivity carries with it the threat of layoffs. Managers understand productivity to be an economic trade-off between efficiency and product quality. Business-school courses on management are often watered down to numerical games of inventory control and production flow in which financial budgeting and tight control are oversold as effective management tools. On production floors and in corporate offices, sociological verbiage has replaced a basic understanding of human behavior…. As long as management is quick to take credit for a firm’s successes but equally swift to blame its workers for its failures, no surefire remedy for low productivity can be expected in American manufacturing and service industries.
If management resorts to blaming workers for inefficiencies in production or cost, the workers will not want to put their best foot forward in producing a quality product or service. Sometimes, workers may not cause the inefficiencies. If external effects delay production or delivery of a service, management needs to understand that some things cannot be helped and will occur no matter how one prepares.
Deming believes that when a work environment lives in statistical control—meaning workers know their job and have developed a way of detecting defects within the system—management should not blame workers for delays unless the delays or defects within the system could be foreseen. Deming (1982, p. 251) wrote
[D]o not show to a production worker a defective item and not tell him about it, unless his chart detected the existence of a special cause, in which case he should have already noted it from his control chart and sought the cause and removed it. A basic principle presumed here is that no one should be blamed or penalized for performance that he cannot govern. Violation of this principle can only lead to frustration and dissatisfaction with the job, and lower production.
Management needs to decipher when a worker commits malpractice and when external factors cause delays or defects. Deming (1982) believes “good management and supervision require knowledge of the calculations that will separate the two kinds of causes.” When management takes the easy way out and blames the worker for all delays and defects, morale decreases, causing productivity and quality to decline.
There is no doubt that the human relations’ approach has sought to change the status quo in America to good ends. Likert (1961) established some decades ago that participative organizations were more productive than autocratic organizations. The Saturn automobile manufacturing plant in Georgia is one testimony to the extreme use of empowering workers, with notable success.
General Motor’s Saturn plant in Tennessee created a unique atmosphere where empowered workers and management work together in harmony. Specifically, workers possess the power to make decisions, initiate quality improvements, and assign resources—functions previously understood as traditional managerial prerogatives. The philosophy of this great experiment, which sent waves of excitement through the modern industrial world, exemplifies a principle where workers on the job have important and relevant knowledge that managers sitting in their offices do not. Workers operate this plant—everyone can see their success. Workers share rewards and financial gains as a result of involvement in participatory systems.
Saturn exhibited conscious decision making, high inflow of information to workers, high level of socialization, and rare dismissals. The Saturn plant embodied the full implementation of modern participatory management theories (Levine 1999). Regrettably unfortunate as it may sound, this experiment is slated to terminate in 2008-2009, owing to financial constraints affecting GM and other U.S. automakers (“Innovative” 2004), thus allowing for layoffs. The change does not reflect on the success of Saturn’s employee empowerment system, but rather results from a more endemic design problem affecting U.S. automobiles that makes them less competitive to Toyota or Honda, which once again brings into focus the clash between Japanese and American quality philosophies.
Japanese Philosophy
Management constantly compares American industry with the Japanese in their aim to work productively and efficiently. Unfortunately, Americans may not be able to achieve the same success as the Japanese due to cultural differences. Kindlarski (1996, p. 110–112) comments:
Drs. Deming and Juran on their missions to Japan in the early 1950s soon realized that the Japanese culture, tradition, [honor], ambition, loyalty, kindness, friendliness and group spirit constitute an excellent base for inducing a creative pro-quality movement to proceed from the ranks of low-level employees and to be competently and systematically motivated by the top management of the Japanese industry. . . .
The U.S. approach is based on MIL-STD-9858 quality [program] requirements and puts great stress on management duties while releasing lower-level employees from thinking about quality. Quality circles are generally considered to be the determining factor of the Japanese approach to quality, but quality circles failed in the United States (and in Europe), probably owing to the short-term commercial attitude of society, as opposed to the long-term patience and loyalty of Japanese employees.
Comparing American workforce performance to the Japanese can be like comparing apples to oranges. The mentality and culture of the Japanese contributes to their efficiency. In Japanese society, honor plays a large role in everyday life. Dishonoring oneself by producing defective products, delivering inadequate services, or delaying the company’s schedule is highly unacceptable in Japanese culture.
Japanese workers can spend whole lives working for one company because the company treats them like family and supports the worker’s needs. Garvin (1983, p. 72–73) notes:
The Japanese system of permanent employment also helped to improve quality. Before they are fully trained, new workers commit intentional errors. Several American companies observed that their workers’ inexperience and lack of familiarity with the product line contributed to their high defect rates. The Japanese, with low absenteeism and turnover, faced fewer problems of this sort.
In addition, because several of the U.S. plants were part of larger manufacturing complexes linked by a single union, they suffered greatly from “bumping.” A layoff in one part of the complex would result in multiple job changes as workers shifted among plants to protect seniority rights. Employees whose previous experience was with another product would suddenly find themselves assembling room air conditioners. Sharp increases in defects were the inevitable result.
Japanese companies take care of their employees so their employees will take care of the company, and this motivation keeps Japanese workers loyal to their employer. Unfortunately, the competitiveness of American society cannot mirror the operating style of Japanese companies. In order to motivate American workers to work productively and efficiently, management needs to come up with other means of gaining loyalty from their workers.
Blending American Philosophy with Japanese Philosophy
Americans place heavy emphasis on productivity while the Japanese focus on loyalty. When American managers concentrate on productivity, the human needs of their workers may be compromised. Abraham Maslow divides human needs into five categories: physiological, safety, belongingness and love, esteem, and self-actualization needs. If management satisfies these needs, workers will possess a motivation to work productively. When a company fulfills Maslow’s needs, they show their loyalty to the workers. The Japanese philosophy of focusing on loyalty will eventually lead the organization to work productively.
In order for American organizations to work with increased quality, they need to focus on the whole picture instead of just the output. Japanese philosophy focuses on the input to the organization (the workers), and output (producing a quality product or service). A motivated worker will produce for the organization. An unmotivated worker will be a detriment to the organization through ineffective work and selfish choices. American management needs to find a way to motivate workers to prevent hurting the organization.
For example, American management needs to constantly encourage efficient workers with rewards, praise, or empowerment, and take responsibility for inefficiencies in the workplace. Kanji et al. (1995, p. 427) believe:
Abstract people are the key to quality. If their actions and reactions become quality related, then expensive failures and the accumulation of hidden costs may be reduced to an acceptable minimum or even prevented altogether. Total quality is a holistic concept, which requires quality motivation of all people in the organization toward a common quality goal. Whatever the structure and management process of the organization, the necessary links must be built up between people. We must learn to accept not only that employees are our greatest and most expensive asset, but that they alone are the creators of quality.
When management starts thinking in this manner, workers will feel appreciated by their employer and work with more pride and attentiveness to quality.
If a company can achieve quality by instilling pride in their workers, productivity will follow. To instill pride in their workers, management needs to listen to the concerns of the workforce and empower employees who want to make a difference. Dahlgaard et al. (1998, S53) write:
[W]e can see that people must have the ability to differentiate between right and wrong. Such differentiation must extend beyond recognition of the distinctions between the two to the will and wisdom to choose to do what is right. To accomplish this throughout an organization, the core value subsystem must be thoroughly developed and practiced. This is not yet empowerment, however. For empowerment to be reality, people must also be clearly cognizant of the opportunity to exercise freedom of choice. We believe that this can only happen in a fully practiced leadership system. But even that is not enough: preparation, competency to do right, must be provided as well. This is a system of profound leadership.
Dahlgaard et al. (1998) go on to state that empowerment gives people power to correctly judge the right thing, know what must be done, prepare to do what must be done, and wisdom and courage to do the right thing.
However, in order for people to possess these powers, they need training to understand core values and improve their competency so they can be empowered. Although people will be trained to possess these powers, it does not mean they will know everything. Mistakes will be made and learned from. “Empowerment is building power into people, building power into people is leadership, building leadership is building a ship of leaders, building a ship of leaders is creating many leaders, who work together on a common aim” (Dahlgaard et al. 1998).
This newly instilled pride and creation of leaders will help the evolution of a process for quality since actively contributing workers will want to put forth their best effort in manufacturing a product or delivering a service. With management nurturing this quality process, they will eventually reach their goal of improving productivity. However, attaining a successful quality process may trouble a group of managers if their focus lies solely in cost efficiency. By investing in quality through training, the organization will see that long-term savings overcome short-term costs.
Investing in Quality
Educating employees on how to work efficiently to produce a quality product or service does not come without a cost. Significant gains do not come without taking some losses. When management invests in training, employees work more knowledgeably and efficiently since they understand their job and can find ways to improve. Management also needs to receive training, especially when it comes to quality. As long as everyone expands their knowledge, new discoveries for improvement will help enhance quality. This investing in training is the means of investing in quality.
Training Employees
Initially, training employees on quality processes and procedures will delay production until workers feel comfortable with the new way of working. Whenever employees learn a new process or method, they experience a learning curve effect. Phillips et al. (1983, p. 27) discuss learning curves in the following:
[Fine’s] . . . idea of a quality-based learning curve . . . [where] . . . costs decline more rapidly with the experience of producing high-quality products than with the experience of producing low-quality products. This results because production workers must take more time and care with their work to produce high-quality items. Added care leads to the discovery and correction of “bugs” in the production system that might otherwise be overlooked. Anecdotal evidence concerning Japanese and American manufacturing operations supports the idea that high quality and low costs are not incompatible.
The learning curve depends on how the employees respond to the changes, how well management implements the new processes, and how effective the new procedures fit overall within the company. After employees adjust to the new processes, they may find ways to improve the current process. The learning curve cycle begins again and will continue challenging employees to improve the current process. If management willingly sacrifices initial losses when implementing quality, they will end up reaping the long-term benefits after successful implementation, but this may be hard to do for some managers. Being able to do so requires a different personality, some penchants for risk-taking, and the strength to tolerate the losses. Through coaching, however, managers can begin to learn such essential tools.
It is costly for a company when workers need to rework products or reperform services because something went wrong the first time. When companies rush to get a product out into the market, workers may overlook the appropriate attention to detail required in creating a quality product just to meet a deadline. Sometimes sacrificing a small delay in schedule will prevent rework, cause a longer delay in schedule, and an increase in cost. The following situation, quoted in the article “Demystifying What Quality Means” (1992, p. 284), relates a situation where quantity preceded quality, and thus cost escalated due to rework:
“We were busy making quantity, not quality. . . . We did what our customers wanted. We got the product to them quickly, even if that meant the car had to be assembled at the dealership and taken back three times.” Moreover, management had been misled to believe that implementing quality cost more. But in fact, the Japanese were selling better cars and producing better stereo systems for less money then American counterparts. These days the common denominator demands that quality mean the best product at the lowest possible price. In fact, quality products cost less to produce. A large percentage of a company’s gross sales goes to poor quality—as measured by repairs, rework and scrap costs, returned goods, warranty costs, inspection costs, and lost sales.
Management needs to ensure they equip their workers with the appropriate tools, skills, and knowledge to eliminate as much rework and waste as possible. Investing in educating workers at the beginning of their employment or project will help alleviate hindrances to quality. The more knowledge an employee receives, the more empowered he or she will feel to speak up in their quality/improvement-based organization. In addition, employees will have access to a wider range of ideas that they can bring to bear creatively on their work. Training supervisors and management on organizational quality will educate the people who need to pass on, improve, and maintain these processes to the workers.
Training Supervisors and Management
In order for workers to understand their role in organizational quality, management and supervisors need training on what changes will occur within the organization. Commenting on Juran, Arditi and Gunaydin (1998, p. 198) state:
Training is an essential ingredient and not only requires a break with tradition but also involves a change in the culture of the organization. Traditionally, training for quality has been concentrated in the quality department but Juran maintains that the real need is to all functions and all levels of management. Moreover, Juran argues strongly that senior managers should be the first to undergo the training for quality.
Everyone within the organization needs training on organizational changes. However, by training managers first, training begins with people in leadership positions. Their reactions and influence will directly affect their workers. In order to positively implement changes, management needs to agree with the changes and instill an abiding attitude in the employees they train. Just as with manufacturing goods or delivering services, the person involved needs adequate training and knowledge to produce a quality product.
In addition to training on the new quality practices, management and supervisors also need to learn how to implement these quality practices through leadership. When a company undergoes a change, managers usually learn about it first and their job would be to convey the new process to their employees (refer to Singh and Shoura 2006a for a discussion on the change process cycle).
Wright (1997) recounts a situation where a manager needed to exert leadership when implementing a company-wide quality change. This manager previously thought her role entailed only managing individuals. Now, she sees her role as managing the interaction between the functions that impact on her service and managing the formal and informal interrelationship of work teams. She understood that leading by example would hopefully inspire a change in her staff since she had no control over altering the mentality of her staff, but did have control in helping to facilitate changes and development. In the end, she differentiated the factors she could control and those she could not. For the factors she could not control, she changed her reaction to them to limit or enhance their effect on her, the employees, and the organization. Ultimately, she believed, “All staff, but particularly management, should have two obligations: one is to do their job; the second is to improve it” (Wright 1997, p. 317).
When supervisors and management react positively to change, their employees feel more encouraged to adapt to the situation. If supervisors and management react negatively, employees will also resist the change making implementation harder on the organization. This is a profound statement, because employees often tend to follow their leaders. As managers, one of the key skills to their job lies in leadership. Workers look to their managers in times of uncertainty, such as during a transitional period of quality changes within an organization. Leadership of management comes into play when supervisors and managers take employees under their knowledgeable wing and teach them about quality through on-the-job training.
Importance of On-the-Job Training
Employees can receive many different types of training to enhance their knowledge of producing quality, but the most important type is in on-the-job training, largely because jobs are different from place to place and company to company. On-the-job training allows employees to utilize their learned skills and apply them to real life situations. Maloney (2002) lists several competence skills required for construction work, the most important being interaction. Construction project customers always want their project completed on schedule, within budget, and with quality. In order to attain these goals, management and construction workers need training and skills pertinent to their trade. Also, interaction between the personnel performing the work plays an important factor. Maloney (2002, p. 525) notes that “[c]ompetencies required for contractor supervisory personnel to manage the construction work and supervise craft personnel effectively are the same for construction workers,” and include “knowledge, skills, abilities, and interpersonal skills.” Maloney (2002, p. 525) also notes that contractor contact personnel must be trained on customer interaction, anticipating customer needs, answering customer questions, and the like, as these interactions “significantly [influence] the customer’s perceptions of the quality of service.”
In order to achieve the competencies for these skills, it is reasonable to expect that workers need to practice performing them. One cannot learn how to interact with another person without actually interacting. Therefore, quality lies in the eyes of the beholder. Customers will evaluate quality for a service based on the interaction with the provider and their reaction of the service they received. On-the-job training, especially for organizations that provide services, plays one of the most important parts in the education of employees. Once employees receive proper training, they need to understand what quality means to the organization.
Core Values for Quality
After managers commit to empowering and educating their workforce, the next decision lies in choosing core values necessary for the organization to achieve and sustain quality. Organizations need to establish what they value most within the quality process after committing themselves. Some people may argue that determining organizational core values comes before process implementation. Either way, core values should be established after everyone, not only management, believes in the quality processes. With employee input on how to sustain the organizational quality process, employees will doubly believe management has committed to quality.
The foundation upon which quality is built does not depend on what the organizational values are, but rather in staying true to them. Two core values of an organization are responsibility and trust. Leadership within the organization needs to build and maintain this foundation in order for quality to be successful.
Responsibility
Some people possess a personal drive to be responsible for their work and may not maintain the same work ethic if the organization sets boundaries for them. These people who naturally work responsibly will only help the organization improve quality, so the organization needs to identify and praise them for their admirable work ethic. However, others require a reason to work responsibly. If leadership demonstrates responsibility for their actions, eventually the workforce will emulate this. Deming (1982, p. 248) states that:
The aim of leadership should be to improve the performance of man and machine, to improve quality, to increase output, and simultaneously to bring pride of workmanship to people. Put it in a negative way, the aim of leadership is not merely to find and record failures of men, but to remove the causes of failure: to help people to do a better job with less effort.
If failures occur within the organization, management should be held accountable since they “own” the quality change initiative and should be held responsible for improvements within the organization. When leadership within the organization becomes accountable for failures, workers will also likely take responsibility for personal failures on the work floor. There must be some honor in this regard among managers and other employees, and so it follows that responsibility and honor are inextricably tied. Any time the workers feel like management pinpoints certain individuals for failures, morale decreases and the support for change diminishes. Workers end up feeling like management is against them, and everything previously established for quality changes in the organization goes to waste.
Once management takes responsibility for their actions and implements ways for workers to be responsible for theirs, quality will tend to increase. Pride of workmanship will settle into the workers’ mindset since they do not want to be associated with defective work. Juran (1989, p. 313) states:
In all species of error, a prime need is to know who the worker is. If we don’t know who did which work, we are handicapped both in diagnosing for causes and in securing remedial action. To illustrate:
In one company the final product was packaged in bulky bales that were transported by conventional forklift trucks. Periodically a prong of a fork would pierce a bale and do a lot of damage. But there was no way of knowing which trucker moved which bale. When the company introduced a simple means of identifying which trucker moved which bale, the amount of damage dropped dramatically.
By building accountability into the work process, management tries to eliminate loopholes where employees can hide defects. By ensuring the workforce maintains responsibility for their actions, the organization assures compliance to quality practices.
A quality organization holds a certain reputation in their industry for producing goods and/or services at the level that meets and exceeds the needs and expectations of the customer. To attain this status requires ensuring the company understands their customer. When an organization establishes itself in their industry by catering to the needs of the customer, the company builds credibility and eventually quality if they constantly improve their product and/or service based on the response of the consumer. Gourlay (1990) states: “Quality is not just confined to the product; it is also the package, the advertising, the excellence of service, the distribution and more. Quality is the perception of the consumer; it is a matter of credibility.”
In the beginning, a company will need to work hard to gain the public trust and dependability. However, as the company starts to improve their product or service based on their customers’ response, the company becomes credible in the public eye. Cosmetic appearance of a product or service will only carry an organization so far. However, attention to functional details that appeal to customers will help improve an organization’s reputation for quality. If an organization commits to quality by constantly improving their product or service, they will find success. This success spawns from one of the core values within the organization being responsibility. It means taking ownership for one’s actions.
Trust
Whether considering a personal relationship between two people or a professional relationship between two companies, if one party does not trust the other, the relationship will not work out. Once two parties build a firm bond of trust, skepticism decreases and pride of workmanship increases, resulting in the production or delivery of quality goods and services. If producers can set aside their desire for finding the most economical means of producing goods and services and choose to build a trusting relationship with each other, competition will move from picking vendors to selecting goods for purchase, thus driving up the standard for quality (Singh and Shoura 2006b).
In the United States, companies invariably concern themselves with producing a quality product at the most economical price, and this is the commonly held belief, as well. However, when companies constantly change their supplier, competition lies within the manufacturing of the product versus the purchasing of the product. Consumers end up losing out due to the lack of quality products available. If the attitude of manufacturers changed from a short-term to a long-term standpoint, more companies would trust their suppliers allowing for investments of new technology and equipment to produce a higher quality product. Kelly et al. (1992, p. 53) reinforce this theory:
Many large manufacturers still treat suppliers like disposable diapers, changing them frequently to get the best price. And playing suppliers off against each other—which even Ford still does—keeps them short of capital to modernize. That’s one reason U.S. factories have more outmoded equipment than the plant of other industrialized countries: The average age of the U.S. equipment is around fourteen years, which experts believe doubles the figures for Japan and Europe. Contentious tactics also spawn distrust, which may help explain the lackluster record, so far, of the 250-odd R & D consortiums formed in the United States since 1982.
Research and development (R&D) has a finite role in improvement, but could actually negate its influence if constants, such as suppliers, act as variables. By sticking to a select group of suppliers, R & D can work more effectively and other variables, like technology, can be changed.
Ironically, companies may end up saving money when trusting a supplier. Products experience a rigorous inspection process, especially if the company hires a new supplier. As the suppliers continue to produce products for the company and trust grows, the company may opt to decrease the amount of inspections if the suppliers’ results prove satisfactory. Garvin (1983, p. 73) states:
In this environment, inspection was less an end in itself than a means to an end. Receiving inspectors acted less as policemen than as quality consultants to the vendor. Site visits, for example, were mandatory when managers were assessing potential suppliers and continued for as long as the companies did business together. Even more revealing, the selection of vendors depended as much on management philosophy, manufacturing capability, and depth of commitment to quality as on price and delivery performance.
Decreasing inspections saves money and creates a sense of trust in the suppliers’ eyes. But in the worker’s eyes, this may create distrust if inspections are not made part of a routine. Companies need to be aware of American culture since trust can be taken advantage of easily.
If the supplier does not feel threatened that they will lose their contract, they should ensure quality work. This mentality spawns from Japanese culture. America’s capitalistic society creates competition; however, too much competition may end up causing people to get greedy. Every means to cutting back on costs hurts technological improvements because suppliers will not generate enough income to implement changes. On the other hand, if suppliers do not feel threatened by their producer, they may take advantage of this trust and cut back on their manufacturing process producing lower quality goods. Kindlarski (1996, p. 110) states:
Drs. Deming and Juran, on their missions to Japan in the early 1950s, soon realized that the Japanese culture, tradition, honor, ambition, loyalty, kindness, friendliness, and group spirit constitute an excellent base for inducing a creative pro-quality movement to proceed from the ranks of low-level employees and to be competently and systematically motivated by the top management of the Japanese industry.
Thus, culture also plays a huge role in how companies operate, and trust tends to be a subset of culture. As we have seen, trust should be a core value to ensure quality in American industry; however, the mentality that exists and is visible on the surface focuses on competition and greed. American companies want to eliminate the competition whereas Japanese companies thrive on improving more than their competitor. In essence, the consumer benefits from both cultures; however, recent news, such as the huge layoffs in Detroit for American automobile manufacturing companies, show that the Japanese style of competition for improvement shines brighter in the consumer’s eye. In the end, trust plays a very important factor in all relationships.
Leadership for Quality in the Construction Industry
Adoptions from Manufacturing
Throughout this paper, references to implementing a quality process reflect established processes from the manufacturing industry. Processes such as lean construction, flexible construction, computer-integrated construction, and quality control are examples of manufacturing processes modified to fit the needs of the construction industry. The construction industry preserved the main concepts of these processes so when dissected, the construction version of quality processes mimic those of manufacturing.
Previously, the construction industry did not pay particular attention to similar manufacturing models and change, two elements that actively contribute to efficiency and quality on the constructed project. For instance, change requires a strong initial force to overcome the inertia in an organization (Singh and Shoura 2006a); this initial force is akin to providing leadership. However, recent studies have shown a change in this mentality to one of adopting established processes to enhance change, and therefore quality. Price et al. (2004, p. 29) reinforce this notion:
Although the construction industry is often reluctant to adopt external models, significant changes have also occurred in the management of construction processes. Greater emphasis is now being given to teamwork, and new structures are emerging both within construction organizations and throughout construction supply chains. This process of change has been accelerated by several government-supported initiatives.
Similarities between the construction and manufacturing industries allow for adaptation of processes between the two industries. For example, the manufacturing industry uses scheduling, a concept established by the construction industry. By applying established manufacturing quality processes, modifications adjust processes to conform to the needs of the construction industry.
Teamwork
Immense emphasis has been placed on teamwork as a means to achieve good quality work on the constructed project: “The members of the project team and the way they are organized to work together have a significant impact on project quality” (ASCE 2000).
Much has been written in ASCE Manual No. 73 “Quality of the Constructed Project” (ASCE 2000), arguably the premier quality manual of ASCE, on the importance of appropriate roles for project manager, design professional, constructor, owner, and designer-constructor. In essence, the adoption of sound project management planning and administration has been emphasized. Interestingly, however, there is no mention of leadership skills for attaining good teamwork, as if teamwork was expected to somehow “fall into place” or “happen automatically.” Though the “design team leader” is acknowledged, it is only with the purpose of having that person fulfill a list of tasks, without addressing the emotional or creative impulses of team members. The prerequisites of trust are not mentioned, presumably taken for granted. A lot is spoken of planning, policies and procedures, reporting functions, management guidance, communication, coordination, and financial and fiduciary requirements—the general project management approaches to getting a task done. A very task-oriented approach is adopted. But these are not enough, since unmotivated employees can make a good team fail. It follows that leadership is required to initiate and spur teamwork onward. A higher type of leadership personality is required to ensure that teamwork remains well oiled and lubricated.
The construction industry apparently borrowed the concept of teamwork from public administration as a way to improve quality. As Spatz (1999, p. 66) states, this concept helps in complex situations.
Construction can be a complex and sophisticated enterprise that demands cooperation and high-performance collaboration among specialists who bring complementary skills to bear on common problems and common goals. Team-building skills are essential for effective management today. And teams depend on strong leadership, especially during their formative stages and times of internal conflict. Teams that function with the full support of management and operate within a framework of shared values are united, highly charged teams that will increase efficiency and productivity for the company.
In the construction industry, each project combines the skills of various trades in order to create the final product. The project manager needs to demonstrate leadership in order to make everyone cohesive so they can successfully complete the project. The construction industry selects established processes and concepts from other industries and modifies them for their own industrial use. By doing this, industry leaders help enhance an eclectic industry that incorporates people of various trades and skills coming together to create something amazing.
Conclusion
Leadership for quality can be achieved by taking three essential steps: (1) committing to quality; (2) investing in quality; and (3) establishing core values to quality. Attaining quality does not occur overnight. It takes time and a lot of effort to implement quality in the company and in employees. Leadership plays a huge role when encouraging employees to work with quality.
The hardest step for management to make is empowering employees, because it means divesting themselves from control. Management’s stereotypical role has always been to direct employees. However, the new wave of thinking lies in employee empowerment so they feel some ownership in their work. This pride will eventually lead to an improvement in quality, since people want praise.
The next step lies in training employees and managers in how the company wants to implement their quality processes. Ideally, when everyone understands their role in the company’s quality process, transition will face less opposition. People leading this initiative need an open mind to successfully implement quality. If they do not listen to the concerns of others, they create opposition to the process and transition will be difficult. However, there comes a point where leaders cannot comply with all concerns, and problem solving through conflict management needs implementation. Leaders need to work with employees and managers so that they understand the importance of quality to the survival of the company. Leaders also need to ensure that employees understand their role in quality.
Lastly, quality needs to be maintained by establishing core values that employees and managers can follow. Creating and maintaining the foundation for the company’s quality process will determine the longevity of its success. Consumers place such high emphasis on quality these days that companies need to respond to these requests in order to survive. If a company does not make quality improvements, they will go out of business.
Leadership in construction is not different in principle to leadership in manufacturing. Indeed, many terms and principles in construction are adopted from manufacturing. In any event, leadership is a prerequisite for introducing teamwork and change to the quality process.
Leadership always plays a major role in any organization. But, in order to implement a successful quality process in an organization, leadership needs to be strong and committed. Following the three key principles above will help organizations attain quality. As Aristotle said, “quality is not an act, it’s a habit.” Organizations and people need to make a habit of producing quality work. The road to quality lies in leadership.
References
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (2000). “Quality in the constructed project: A guide for owners, designers, and contractors.” Manual and Report No.73, ASCE, Reston, Va.
Arditi, D., and Gunaydin, H. M. (1998). “Factors that affect process quality in the life cycle of building projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 124(3), 194–203.
Phillips, L. W., Chang, D. R., and Buzzell, R. D. (1983). “Product quality, cost position, and business performance: A test of some key hypotheses.” J. Marketing, 47(2), 26–43.
Price, A. D. F., Bryman, A., and Dainty, A. R. J. (2004). “Empowerment as a strategy for improving construction performance.” Leadership Manage. Eng., 4(1), 27–37.
Singh, A., and Shoura, M. M. (2006a). “A life cycle evaluation of change in an engineering organization: A case study.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 24(4), 337–348.
Singh, A., and Shoura, M. M. (2006b). “Assessment of trust and dependence in a construction organization.” Proc., Built Environment Education and Research (BEAR 2006), CIB W89, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.
Sharilyn Shiramizu is a naval architect at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Amarjit Singh is an associate professor in the department of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, in Honolulu, Hawaii.
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
1532-6748(2007)7:4(129)/asset/4062d38e-c48e-4dd4-87c9-69baa86b9338/assets/images/large/1.jpg)
