The role of individual differences in employee adoption of TQM orientation

Abstract

While Total Quality Management (TQM) has emphasized organizational-level factors in achieving successful implementation, human capital theory and person-environmental fit models suggest individual difference factors may also be useful. Accordingly, the ability of organizational commitment, trust in colleagues, and higher order need strength to explain variation in TQM adoption, after inclusion of organizational level factors, is assessed using longitudinal data from a manufacturing setting. These three individual differences collectively explain 7% to19% of incremental variation in TQM adoption and are found to be relatively better predictors of TQM adoption than organizational level factors. The findings support increased consideration of individual differences in order to implement TQM and other forms of organizational change more effectively. Individual Differences and TQM Adoption 3The Role of Individual Differences in Employee Adoption of TQM OrientationIn spite of the phenomenal adoption of total quality management (TQM) in the last two decades among U.S and UK organizations (Mohrman, Tenkasi, Lawler & Ledford, 1995;Wilkinson, Snape & Allen, 1993), the evidence of its impact on organizational performance is mixed (Choi & Behling, 1997;Fisher, 1992;Gilbert, 1992;Mohrman et al., 1995;Powell, 1995;Westphal, Gulati, & Shortell, 1997). When TQM initiatives do not succeed, "missing" elements (e.g., the initiative failed to include employee empowerment) or implementation problems (e.g., there was a lack of technical training in TQM techniques, lack of top management support) are cited to explain the failure (Reger, Gustafson, DeMarie, & Mullane, 1994). Detert, Schroeder, and Mauriel (2000) assert that the inability to change organizational culture may account for the success or failure of innovations like TQM. Perhaps the most common explanation for TQM failure has been that changes in human resource practices have not accompanied changes in technical systems (Snell & Dean, 1992).A specific human resource factor that may account for the success or failure of TQM programs, seldom considered, is the nature of the individual employees who participate. Kerfoot and Knights (1995) state "the quality literature fails to consider the way that programmes and their content may be differentially defined or interpreted by employees" (p. 229). The implication, therefore, is that individual variability in terms of how TQM is interpreted or the willingness to adopt the principles of TQM is viewed as TQM has not emphasized individual differences because it has traditionally been defined as a system level intervention or management philosophy (Sitkin, Sutcliffe, & Schroeder, 1994). Deming's (1986) work, for example, emphasizes that most variation in work performance is due to common causes, which affect all workers. Consideration of individuals or individual performance has been seen as a distraction from the organization's effort to improve systematically (Lam & Schaubroeck, 1999). However, the neglect of individual diff...

Measuring organizational and individual factors thought to influence the success of quality improvement in primary care: a systematic review of instruments

“…We focussed on CQI specific measures ( e . g ., Hill 2001 [119]; Coyle Shapiro 2003 [120]; Geboers 2001b [121]) or measures for which there were few organisation level equivalents. The latter included measures of commitment to change ( e .…”

The Role of Person-Organization Fit in TQM: Influence of Values and Value Congruence on TQM Orientation

“…TQM orientation, on the other hand, can generally be defined as the employees' awareness of the importance of quality and felt moral responsibility for achieving it (Coyle-Shapiro & Morrow, 2003). It broadly shows to what extent employees support and adapt to the TQM initiatives.…”

“…It broadly shows to what extent employees support and adapt to the TQM initiatives. Most research in TQM literature identify mainly three core components for TQM orientation, which are customer satisfaction, continuous improvement and teamwork (e.g., Dean & Bowen, 1994;Coyle-Shapiro & Morrow, 2003). However in this study, since we specifically focus on employees' individual differences and congruence with the organization, we include teamwork and continuous improvement, which together constitute TQM orientation.…”

“…Teamwork has broadly been defined as employees' willingness to collaborate and cooperate in different levels from work group to interorganizational activities, as emphasizing the quality of group functioning within TQM framework (Dean & Bowen, 1994). Continuous improvement has been defined as the recognition of and felt responsibility for quality improvement and involvement in quality enhancing activities and TQM practices (Coyle-Shapiro & Morrow, 2003). Continuous improvement suggests that employees continuously change their thinking and the way of doing business, which they adapt in their work.…”

“…Even though TQM is considered as an organization-wide approach, TQM orientation as involvement and participation to the quality oriented practices is an individual level construct. Nevertheless, surprisingly little research on TQM has emphasized individual differences and variations (Coyle-Shapiro & Morrow, 2003). Coyle-Shapiro and Morrow (2003) also stated that the achievement of TQM goals would be limited without considering individual-level factors, such as values and attitudes.…”