Quality Circles Organizational Behavior: Are Quality Circles

Quality Circles ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR: ARE QUALITY CIRCLES EFFECTIVE Quality Circles became popular during the mid 1980s, when buzzwords such as Total Quality Management and efficiency teams became popularized in U.S. companies seeking to gain a competitive advantage over international production giants including Japanese manufacturers. A great deal of controversy exists however, as to whether or not quality circles truly accomplish what they are set out to do: improve organizational efficiency, worker productivity and performance.

While many companies have argued that quality circles have resulted in dramatic cost savings, a large body of research suggests that quality circles have generally failed in a majority of companies that have implemented them. The aim of this study is to examine the nature of quality circles, and to ascertain whether or not they are effective mechanisms for organizational improvement.

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR: ARE QUALITY CIRCLES EFFECTIVE INTRODUCTION According to research, more than 50% of the population at large believes that American people are not as productive as they can be; a view supported by the labor force and organizations across the nation, where three quarters of workers admit they are not realizing their full potential at work (Yankelovich and Associates, 1983: 6-7; Bowman, 1989). As a result of this, organizations have set out to improve the quality of work life and production.

One mechanism that companies are investing in to improve the quality of work and services is quality circle programs. Great controversy exists however, as to whether or not quality circles are truly effective. Quality circles have been along for a long time; having survived economic recessions and cutback management, many corporate leaders still believe that quality circles are the key to solving any and all quality management issues (Business Week, 1982; Pascarella, 1984; Bowman, 1989).

Among the issues that quality circles address include increased demands for services in the face of fiscal uncertainty (Bowman, 1989; Jarrett, 1985). This paper aspires to examine the following question: are quality circles effective mechanisms in organizations? Proponents of quality circles have long hailed their reported benefits; often defined as team oriented work performance groups, quality circles were envisioned as a tool that organizations could utilize to enhance worker productivity, motivation and performance.

Detractors of such circles have argued however, that quality circles are more "quick fix schemes" adopted by hurried managers seeking out a quick fix solution to long standing corporate dilemmas. There are many organizations that have claimed great success using quality circles; studies suggest however, that in a large majority of companies that have implemented quality circles, the failure rate is greater than 50%. This paper intends to ascertain whether or not quality circles are truly beneficial or wasteful in organizations.

LITERATURE REVIEW To understand quality circles one must first define the concept. Quality circles may be described as "small, voluntary, homogenous, problem-solving employee groups" (Bowman, 1989). Quality circles generally appealing as the premier strategy for "mobilizing human talent to enhance competitive performance" (Bowman, 1989). Government agencies are but one example of organizations currently utilizing quality circles as a strategic mechanism. There are currently more than 2,500 Quality Circles operating within federal agencies and in state projects including those in the following: Missouri, California and Florida (Bowman, 1989; International Association of Quality Circles, 1984; Dawson, 1983).

There are those that oppose implementation of quality circles, believing that they are ineffective. This is true of many companies operating in Japan, where firms who have used quality circles have found them ineffective (Bowman, 1989; Cole, 1980:3). There are reported instances of both successes and failures of such programs in the United States (Bowman, 1989; Business Week, 1982; Smeltzer and Kedia, 1985:31). Thus a more comprehensive examination of them is necessary to assess whether or not they should be continued from an organizational perspective.

Quality circles entail a small group of people performing similar functions, meeting on a regular basis in order to analyze problems and develop solutions and recommendations on continuous improvement. Based on the concept of group dynamics and "worker participation" quality circles have been advocated as an effective way to not only boost productivity and quality, but also enhance a corporate culture with a team oriented outlook (Bowman, 1989).

Three objectives of quality circles may be defined, including the following: (1) task improvement leading to a better work process, (2) employee development "based on training," and (3) team building, which occurs through "Participative problem solving" (Bowman, 1989; Blair and Whitehead, 1984:20). For the idea of quality circles to work, one must first realize that organizations must be trained to integrate them into the organization, so that they can evolve over extended periods of time.

More organizations than not implement programs of "crisis control," attempting to find short-term solutions to answers rather than developing strategic programs oriented toward future excellence and problem alleviation (Bowman, 1989; Hayes and Abernathy, 1981). Quality circles are sometimes associated with these "quick fixes" where organizational leaders seek out quick answers and "promising new techniques" in an effort to alleviate corporate problems (Bowman, 1989).

Certainly in this type of environment quality circles might provide short-term fixes to organizational dilemmas, however they will provide disappointing long-term outcomes if they are not constantly attended to, developed and incorporated into the overall organizational structure. Implementing quality circles requires successfully often also requires a "change in organizational philosophy" (Bowman, 1989). Work conditions at the outset may not be compatible to implementation of quality circles; management must take an active role to restructure the conditions in order for implementation to successfully occur.

For quality circles to work they must over time develop values and idealisms that are also consistent with those of management in order to ensure compatibility with the organization (Bowman, 1989). Blue Cross of Washington and Alaska is an organization that reported more efficient employee procedures resulting in part from implementation of quality circles (Marks, 1986). Among the benefits reported included a savings of $430,000 over a three-year period; Hertz Rent a Car in Oklahoma City also reported increasing car availability as a result of innovations developed from such circles (Marks, 1986).

Management experts however, are still disputing such savings claiming from organizations, claiming that "QC's more often fail than they work" (Marks, 1986). These detractors argue that in most situations the technique is short-term beneficial only, and does not truly address problems of poor productivity and employee morale (Marks, 1986). Typically discussions within quality circles are limited to the quantity and quality of work; for example, paperwork and material waste, machine maintenance and cooperation between departments are among the topics that might be discussed (Marks, 1986).

Proponents still support the notion that quality circles can work on an extended basis. Robert Cole, a noted sociologist at the University of Michigan noted that "By increasing employee participation in workplace decisions, increasing job variety and making more effective use of worker potential" quality of work life and organizational efficiency would be capitalized on (Marks, 1986; Cole, 1980). Proponents have suggested that one of the reasons quality circles fail is that managers to often utilize easy to implement packages to get them started, but then fail to nurture them adequately (Marks, 1986).

Quality Circles hit their "hey day" during the mid 1980s, where studies suggested that more than 90% of Fortune '500' companies had implemented QC circles into their organizational structures (Li-Ping Tang, et. al, 1993). During the 1990s a survey conducted of Fortune 1,000 showed a smaller increase in utilization of such circles, but nonetheless a still noteworthy increase (Li-Ping Tang, et. al, 1993). Despite these statistics, within the U.S. QC programs overall have failed in greater than 60% of the companies that have implemented them (Li-Ping Tang, et. al, 1993).

This suggests that a more thorough analysis need be conducted of implementation strategy and longevity to assess what specifically regarding quality circles is failing. Lawler and Mohram (1985) identified many phases and potential variables that could lead to failure among QC circles. These included low participation rates in volunteer circles, "resistance by staff groups and middle management," costs that were prohibited and benefits and savings not actually realized (Lawler & Mohrman, 1992; Li-Ping Tang, 1993).

In fact, one study noted that a frequently given reason by employees for lack of participation was a perception that "QC's do not accomplish much" (Li-Ping, Tang, 1993; Dean, 1985). Quality Circles also go hand in hand with the idea of Total Quality Management, also popularized in the mid-1980's (Giroux & Landry, 1998). TQM also has many proponents and detractors. Quality Circles can help firmly implant a successful TQM program within an organization, if and when utilized correctly.

However, in contemporary organizational management, a great deal of "confusion" still exists related to the exact definitions and perspectives on quality management, inclusive of quality circles (Wilkinson and Wilmott, 1995; Giroux & Landry, 1998). According to Dean and Bowen, the definition of quality still "remains a hazy and ambiguous concept" (Giroux & Sylvain, 1998). Those evaluating quality circles and programs traditionally emphasize qualitative and human aspects of programs rather than proposed technical improvements (Hill, 1995; Giroux & Landry, 1998).

The term quality circles are often utilized interchangeably with the idea of continuous improvement teams and similar expressions (Giroux & Landry, 1998). Failure among such circles is often regarded as due to lack of appropriate management commitment, as well as lack of "rigor during implementation" which can result in the failure of corporate cultural integration of such programs (Ahire, 1996; Giroux & Landry, 1998). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS/ANALYSIS The literature presented suggests that a majority of companies within the U.S.

have implemented quality circles or some similar type of "work team efficiency group" in an effort to improve organizational performance and increase worker participation and motivation. There are a large number of companies within the United States that have reported significant savings as a result of implementation of such groups. Statistics seem to suggest that an equal number of organizations have experienced failure as a result of QC implementation.

Quality Circles are based on the idea of work performance groups, where a small group of generally like-minded employees gather to analyze problems, develop recommendations and implement solutions to those problems. Evidence suggests that a large majority of employees actually frown upon quality circles, believing that they are not truly effective. From this standpoint quality circles may be viewed as a mechanism through which employees can perhaps meet and share ideals, but not necessarily accomplish long-term change.

Many opponents of quality circles feel that managers jump on such circles as a quick fix to long standing problems, rather than conducting an adequate amount of research to ascertain true solutions to corporate dilemmas. CONCLUSIONS Despite the preponderance of negative information related to quality circles, this research suggests that quality circles can indeed be effective mechanisms for initiating and maintaining much needed change in organizations. Quality circles serve many purposes, including bringing like-minded employees together to share innovative ideas and recommendations.

Any company would benefit tremendously from increased worker participation and involvement. Detractors of quality circles often point to statistics showing the frequency with which quality circles fail. However, research suggests that an equal number of companies have realized successful savings as a result of quality circle initiatives. The research also seems to suggest that quality circles fail not because the methodology behind them is unsound, but rather because management does not sufficiently support long-term initiatives. For quality circles to truly work, they must first be embraced and adopted by management.

The implementation of quality circles necessitates a change in corporate philosophy, strategy and often culture. Management needs to view quality circles as a potential long-term solution to corporate dilemmas, rather than a quick fix for spur of the moment problems. Employees also need to understand that greater involvement and follow through is necessary for quality circles to work. A lack of management commitment is but one of the findings cited that leads to failure of such circles.

Employees must also aspire to ensure that recommendations and proposed solutions are enacted upon. It is not enough however, for work groups to simply identify problems and propose solutions. Once solutions are implemented, quality circles need to embrace a program of continuous reform. Solutions should be evaluated over extended periods to assess whether or note they are succeeding or failing. If they are failing, quality circles should meet together to propose new strategies to "tweak" proposed solutions to realize a higher success ratio.

Management need also not underestimate the potential for continuous improvement. If management embraces a program with the idea that it will provide only a short-term solution, then anything arising from the circle is doomed to fail. Management must embrace quality programs with the mindset that they might provide long-term.