Managing performance in quality management

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to address potential effects of the control element in quality management. First, behavioural theories on how elements of performance management can affect organisational performance are examined. Second, theoretical models on how perceptions of work conditions may impact well-being and performance are considered. Direct and indirect pathways from performance management to productivity/quality are inferred. Design/methodology/approach Matched employee-workplace data from an economy-wide survey in Britain and two-level structural equation models are used to test the hypothesised associations. Findings The use of practices in workplaces is inconsistent with a unified performance management approach. Distinct outcomes are expected from separate components in performance management and some may be contingent on workplace size. For example, within quality planning, strategy dissemination is positively associated with workplace productivity; targets are negatively associated with perceptions of job demands and positively correlated with job satisfaction, which in turn can increase workplace productivity. With respect to information and analysis: keeping and analysing records, or monitoring employee performance via appraisals that assess training needs, are positively associated with workplace productivity and quality. Originality/value This paper illustrates how control in quality management can be effective. Although the merits of performance management are subject to ongoing debate, arguments in the literature have tended to focus on performance appraisal. Analyses of economy-wide data linking performance management practices, within quality management, to employee perceptions of work conditions, well-being and aggregate performance are rare.

The utility of performance review systems: A total quality management perspective

“…The earlier review of extant literature highlighted the paucity of empirical research into the utility of performance review systems in use in contemporary work organizations with a quality orientation. The widespread uneasiness, open resistance (McGregor, 1957), and even rejection or reforming performance review have led both TQM gurus and their advocates (e.g., Bowman, 1994; Deming, 1986; Waldman, 1994a, 1994b) as well as HRM specialists (Cardy & Munjal, 2016; Grote & Grote, 2011; Murphy, 2020; Wilkinson et al, 1998) to call for research examining the compatibility of performance review activities with TQM (see De Menezes & Escrig, 2019; Durairatnam et al, 2021; Vihari et al, 2022). Based on the data from a sample TQM‐driven organizations operating in different branches of manufacturing industry in the UK, we found that the performance review systems of the case organizations functioned in two very different ways with very different implications.…”

“…While some empirical studies (e.g., Bayo‐Moriones & de la Torre, 2022; De Menezes & Escrig, 2019; Lam & Schaubroeck, 1999; Liao et al, 2023; Soltani & Wilkinson, 2020) have touched upon these issues, most work has not gone beyond armchair theorizing (e.g., Cardy & Munjal, 2016; Flamini et al, 2023; Haines et al, 2004) and we contend that we need in‐depth empirical research of performance review systems in use in organizations that espouse a culture of quality. Addressing these issues, this study aims to empirically explore the alignment of different performance review systems with TQM principles, identify potential reasons for any misalignment, and the resulting performance outcomes in a sample of progressive work organizations with a quality orientation.…”

Performance measurement systems in the health and care sector: Are targets and monitoring additional demands or resources for employees?

“…DeNisi and Smith, 2014; Beer and Micheli, 2018; Baird et al., 2022) for assessments of employee reactions to performance measurement systems and implications. Since outcomes from performance management may be contingent (de Menezes and Escrig, 2019), current knowledge about respective elements may not generalise. As previously argued (e.g.…”