THESlS This is to certify that the dissertation entitled AN OVERVIEW OF QUALITY OF WORK LIFE- QUALITY CIRCLES IN UNITED STATES INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION presented by Michael Henry Beechem has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in Education Major professor Date June 20 I ] 985 Eidon Nonnamacher MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution Ov 12771 MSU LIBRARIES ._c_. RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. .AN OVERVIEW OF QUALITY OF WORK LIFE-QUALITY CIRCLES IN UNITED STATES INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION BY Michael Henry Beechem A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of College and University Administration 1985 Copyright by MICHAEL HENRY BEECHEM 1985 ABSTRACT An Overview of Quality of Work Life—Quality Circles in United States Institutions of Higher Education By Michael Henry Beechem Statement of the Problem The application of QWL-quality circles in higher educational institutions is recent. Further knowledge is needed. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to examine the development of QWL-quality circles in higher educational institutions, and to identify those principles and practices which are essential to the success of QWL-quality circles ventures. Procedurally, this study sought to identify higher education institutions with QWL—quality circles applications, and to determine the extent to which established principles and practices are utilized. A model was devised to determine the extent to which the ten participating institutions adhered to established QWL-quality circles principles and practices. A survey questionnaire, based on the criteria established in the model, was then designed and submitted to identified institutions. QEganization of the Study This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 is an introduction to the study. Chapter 2 identifies managerial theories and practices which influenced the development of the Quality of Wbrk Life movement in the United States (e.g. scientific, humanistic and Japanese managerial practices). Chapter 2 contains a QWL definitional section, followed with a model to determine the extent to which higher educational institutions embrace QWL-quality circles principles and practices. Chapters 3, 4 and 5 describe and identify the methodology utilized, the data analysis, and the conclusion. Major Findings Overall, the reporting institutions demonstrated a weak adherence to the following QWL-quality circles principles and practices: trust, egalitarianism, continuous training, consensus-decision making, commitment to QWL-quality circles from administration, and employee recognition. The institutions indicated a relatively strong adherence to the following principles and practices: voluntary QWL-quality circle membership, use of management consultants, and task groups (quality circles) utilizing problem-solving techniques. This study concludes that the success of QWL-quality circles ventures in higher educational institutions is contingent upon a close adherence to established principles and practices of the Quality of Work Life movement. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my appreciation to the following persons for the needed support they provided in completing this dissertation. First, I thank my family, Ruth, Eric and Amy, for their many sacrifices so that I would have the independence with which to pursue this research. There have been many times when my children, Eric and Amy, have chosen to be unreasonably quiet so that I could research without the normal antics of youth. Ruth, my wife, is responsible for editing, word processing and formating this research. Of equal importance, Ruth proved to be an active listener. Her support was unmatched. I wish to thank my mother and father, Mr. and Mrs. Henry and Mable Beechem, both Michigan State University alumni, who provided the encouragement to complete a Ph.D. I am especially grateful to my parents for placing a high value on education; without their influence and support I would not be a Ph.D. candidate. Next, I should like to express my appreciation to my Ph.D. committee for their necessary advice and direction in the quest of writing a high quality research dissertation. Dr. Nonnamaker, my major professor, providing me with the needed direction in organizing the study logically; but equally important he taught me that "worrying" is an unproductive pursuit. His most helpful suggestion was "One thought per sentence." To him, I am also indebted for the countless number of hours he unselfishly provided to me. To Dr. Max Raines, I will always be indebted for instilling a sense of humanism in my general perspective of life. Moreover, Dr. Raines facilitated for me a determination to look beyond the superficial. Dr. John Herrick, my social work. mentor, was instrumental in helping me to bridge the often times wide gap between social work and managementladministration. Because of his influences, I am better able to understand the interrelationships between social work and management/ administration. Dr. Lee Meadows helped. me immensely to diffuse the confusion of degree criteria, to therefore place the Ph.D. requirements on a more realistic perspective. In addition, I ii am grateful for Dr. Meadow's introduction to leadership styles which were not only humanistic, but effective. I wish to thank Bill Parsons, Director of the Lansing Local Area Labor Management Committee, with whom I engaged in numerous philosophical discussions related to the Quality of work Life. Through Bill, I was able to conceptualize many of the theoretic aspects of OWL within an experiential context. I regard. my friend, Bill, as an astute practitioner of OWL—quality circles. His ideas and suggestions were invaluable throughout the study. Dr. James Bonner, an active proponent of OWL-quality circles in the Muskegon school system, gave very generously of his time to answer my many OWL-related questions. My thanks to Jim for helping me better appreciate the applicability of quality circles in education. Dr. Ben Munger, the Executive Director of the American Board of Medicine, shared with me some of his experiences which enabled. me to understand differences in QWL implementation between community colleges and four year universities and colleges. I extend my appreciation and thanks to Ben. iii Dr. Lou Hekhuis, an unofficial committee member gave generously of his time. I wish to thank Dr. Hekhuis for his active listening skills, as he was willing to listen to many of my ideas concerning the study. Dr. Lou Stamatakos, another unofficial committee member, was always available for conversation. His scholarly mind, coupled with his excitement for learning, provided the needed incentive to pursue my education. I wish to ShOW’ my appreciation and respect to Dr. Stanley Stark whose course in Japanese management embellished this study. Mrs. Virginia Wiseman and Kimberly Newman of the Graduate Student Affairs Office were always helpful and responsive to my many questions concerning policy and requirements. Their assistance spared. me of considerable bureaucratic frustration. I should also like to thank friends Frank Lipsett and Brian Bromley, both doctoral candidates, for editing portions of this dissertation and providing constructive criticism. In one way or another each committee member contributed toward instilling in me self-confidence and a personal belief iv that I would successfully fulfill the Ph.D. requirements; for that alone, I am most indebted. In spite of the frustrations inherent in being subjected to criticism from my Ph.D. committee, I consider each committee member a personal friend. I especially wish to thank the responding institutions for their willingness to partake in this study. OWL—quality circles is a new adventure in higher educational institutions, and each of the respondents exemplified courage in responding in an honest, straight forward fashion. Each institution was vulnerable by virtue of the scrutiny to which they"were subjected in this study. I 'wish each of the contributing institutions congratulations in their QWL endeavors and continued success. This Ph.D. pursuit has been a collective effort involving my family. With love, I dedicate this dissertation to Ruth, Eric and Amy. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . 7 Importance of the Problem . . . . . . . . 9 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 14 The Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Organization of the Study . . . . . . . . 15 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Chapter 1: Citations . . . . . . . . . . 19 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . 20 Introduction to Review of the Literature . 20 Antecedents of Quality of Work Life . . . 20 Scientific Management . . . . . . . . 20 Human Relations School of Management. 24 Quality Control Circles and Statistical Process Control . . . . 39 Differences in Management and Worker Attitudes Between Japan and the U. S. 41 Amae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 vi Socialization of the Japanese Infant 0 O O O O O O O O O O O The "Merchant House" . . . . . . From Feudalism to Industrialism: The Transformation of the ”Merchant House” to the Modern Company . . . . . . . . 'ie” C O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O The Influence of "Amae" in Relation to the Perception of the Worker . . . . . . . . . . Consensus Decision-Making . . . Suggestion Box System . . . . . Summary of Early Antecedents . . . . QWL in Industrial Organizations . . . . . QWL in Government . . . . . . . . . . . . QWL in City Government . . . . . . . Dallas, Texas . . . . . . . . . Southfield, Michigan . . . . . . Lansing, Michigan . . . . . . . QWL in Federal Government . . . . . . Defense Depot, Ogden, Utah . . . Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Norfolk, Virginia . . . . . . . QWL in Business and Other . . . . . . . . Health Industry . . . . . . . . . . . QWL in Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . QWL in K-12 Secondary Schools . . . . QWL in Higher Education . . . . . . . vii 43 44 45 46 47 52 53 56 57 66 66 66 67 69 70 71 72 73 73 77 77 86 Definition of Quality of Work Life Analysis of Literature Summary of Literature Definitions QWL-Quality Circles Model Chapter 2: METHODOLOGY . . Purpose . . . . Citations . Selection of Population Selection of Questionnaire Respondents Development of Questionnaire Limitations . . DATA ANALYSIS . Introduction . . Demographics . . QWL Principles . Explanation of QWL— Higher Education Model Trust . . . Question 3 Questions 4 and 4a Question 7a . Question 8 Trust Summary viii 89 89 98 99 102 115 115 116 117 117 128 130 130 130 139 139 141 142 143 146 147 150 Egalitarianism . . . . . . . . . . Questions 4 and 4a . . . . . . Question 12 . . . . . . . . . Egalitarianism Summary . . . . Continuous Training . . . . . . . . Questions 7b and 7c . . . . . Continuous Training Summary . Consensus Decision Making . . . . . Consensus Decision Making Summary . . . . . . . . . . . Voluntary QWLdQuality Circles member Ship 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 Voluntary Circles Membership Summary . . . . . . . . . . . Commitment to QWL-Quality Circles from Administration . . . . . . . Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . Questions 4 and 4a . . . . . . Question 7d . . . . . . . . . Question 7e . . . . . . . . . Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . Question 12 . . . . . . . . . Commitment Summary . . . . . . The Use of Management Consultants . Question 13 . . . . . . . . . Question 13a . . . . . . . . . Management Consultants Summary ix 151 151 152 153 154 154 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 164 167 168 168 169 170 170 171 172 Task Groups/Circles Utilizing Problem-Solving Techniques . . . . . 173 Task Groups Summary . . . . . . 174 Employee Recognition . . . . . . . . 175 Employee Recognition Summary . . 177 Responses to Open—ended Questions . . . . 178 5. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 QWL Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Egalitarianism . . . . . . . . . . . 184 'Continuous Training . . . . . . . . . 185 Consensus Decision Making . . . . . . 186 Voluntary QWL Quality Circles Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Commitment to QWL-Quality Circles from Administration . . . . . . . . 187 Use of Management Consultants . . . . 188 Task Groups (Circles) Utilizing Problem-Solving Techniques . . . . . 188 Employee Recognition . . . . . . . . 189 Responses to Open—ended Questions . . . . 189 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Recommendations for Further Research . . . 191 APPENDICES Appendix A. Glossary of Terms . . . 193 Appendix B. Bibliography . . . . . . 199 Appendix C. Survey Questionnaire and Cover Letter . . . . 210 Appendix D. Summary Tables . . . . . 216 xi FIGURE 1. TABLES 15. 16. 17. LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs . . Immaturity-Maturity Continuum Hygiene Factors/Motivators . . QWL/H.E. Model . . . . . . . . Characteristics of Respondents QWL Departments . . . . . . . . Start-Up Dates 0 o o o o o o 0 Frequency of Quality Circles Meetings Number of Quality Circles . . . Members per Circle . . . . . . Quality Circles Participants . Mission Statement . . . . . . . QWL Steering Committee . . . . Training Evaluations . . . . . Proposals/Recommendations from Quality Circles . . . . . . . Trust QWL/H.E. Model . . . . . Egalitarianism Practices . . . Egalitarianism QWL/H.E. Model . xii PAGE 27 31 32 100 132 134 136 137 137 138 138 143 145 147 149 150 153 154 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. Continuous Training . . . . . . . . . Continuous Training QWL/H.E. Model . Consensus Decision Making . . . . . . Consensus Decision Making QWL/H.E. Model Voluntary Circle Membership . . . . . Voluntary QWL—Quality Circles Membership QWL/H.E. Model . . . . . Continuous Training Participants . Organizational Involvement in Continuous Training . . . . . . . Commitment QWL/H.E. Model . . . . . . Management Consultants . . . . . . Management Consultants: When used . Management Consultant QWL/H.E. Model Problem-Solving Techniques . . . . . Task Groups QWL/H.E. Model . . . . QWL Success Recognition . . . . . . . Employee Recognition QWL/H.E. Model . Least Desirable Features . . . . . . Changes you would make . . . . . . . QWL/H.E. Model (Shown in Numbers) . QWL/H.E. Model (Shown in Percentages) QWL/H.E. Model Summary (Shown in Numbers) QWL/H.E. Model Summary (Shown in Percentages) . . . . . . . means 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O xiii 156 157 159 160 161 162 166 167 169_ 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 179 180 216 217 218 219 220 CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION Economic competition from Japan, lower product quality, reduced productivity1 and problems of employer-employee relations, have caused an increasingly large number of United States organizations to seek alternatives to traditional managerial practices. In seeking solutions to these problems, U. S. organizations, especially the auto industry, are studying successful facets of Japanese management that might be implemented in the U. S. In looking ”East” for ideas, a modified Japanese management model called the Quality of Work Life (QWL), or Employee Involvement (EI) has evolved. In this study, QWL/BI will be referred to as QWL. In spite of a keen interest by numerous U. S. organizations to implement QWL, there remain skeptics who feel that formal programs are not the answer. The White House Conference on Productivity (1984) concluded that the relations between management and workers need to be improved to enhance product quality and productivity. It was alSo stated in the report that, "Improving productivity need not be encumbered with the trappings of formal programs” and that high productivity and quality can be achieved "simply by defining and rewarding good performance and emphasizing quality." The findings suggest, in effect, that formalized programs such. as QWL. are unneeded. On the other' hand, proponents of QWL contend that problems related to productivity and product quality are complex and, therefore, require a more structured vehicle, such as QWL, to bring about the desired results. The purported goals of QWL ventures, as generally perceived by management, are to reduce turnover rates, absenteeism, grievances, and to increase productivity and improve product quality. Management's chief interest in QWL ventures is to enhance overall efficiency and realize higher margins of profit; on the other hand, workers and unions perceive QWL as a "process" to improve their work environments (e.g. safer work conditions, a greater voice in decision-making, higher morale, etc.). Many QWL theorists maintain that a successful QWL venture requires "groupism", or working interdependently within small problem-solving groups. Historically, independence and individualism have been highly esteemed values in a task-oriented U. 8. work force, while ”groupism' and interdependence are valued in the QWL ”process". Developing workers' attitudes to be congruent with the principles of QWL represents an important organizational undertaking. Such importance cannot be minimized by organizations which intend to facilitate a successful transition from traditional managerial practices to participative forms of management. Traditionallyy workers have .been distrustful of management, perceiving management's interests in QWL as a gimmick for self-serving gains (e.g. increased productivity, higher product quality, lower grievances, and turnover rates). It has been argued that since higher educational organizations are not businesses, participative management practices, such as QWL, have no place in organizations of higher education. Conversely, higher educational organizations may be considered businesses with goals that are strikingly similar to those expounded upon in business organizations (e.g. _ product quality, efficiency, effectiveness, etc.). That is, the product in higher education is the student and, the quality of the product is dependent upon the quality of the education. David. A. Nichols maintains that "quality control in academe" should not rest solely with those professors responsible with the teaching; rather, a cooperative effort involving the administration is required for higher educational organizations to realize optimal success in producing a high quality product.2 Administrators in higher education frequently equate quick, decisive decision-making with strength and sound managerial practice. Nichols feels that the strength in management is derived, rather, from a deliberate decision-making process that involves the participation of many. Frequently, universities pride themselves on practicing participative management, or consensus decision making; e.g. their proof is in the numerous active committees. Nichols asserts that, "although American higher education management appears to be highly participatory, it is not.’I Nichols argues that although there are many active committees on virtually every university campus, committee actions tend to result in ”quick decisions when pursuing their own vested interests.” Nichols further adds: We need to face up to the possibility that we are no longer producing a quality product. We have to admit that our institutions are often characterized by individualistic chaos and factionalism rather than the coherent teamwork that produces quality education for students. American business has had to put aside its pride and go to work on quality. We in higher education can do it too. Nichols contends that when there is a truly cooperative effort between many representative elements within a higher educational organization, there is greater promise of removing the term participative management from a rhetorical status. R. W. Pollay, R. N. Taylor and M. Thompson argue that the following benefits can be gained from faculty/staff participation in the decision- making process: 1. Increased supervisor effectiveness 2. Faculty satisfaction 3. Decreased student alienation 4. Improved student achievement 5. Ability to reduce organization complexity by synthesizing the contributions of individuals with various organizational perspectives. 6. Acceptance of decisions by all parties to the decision. 7. Democratizing a rapidly hierarchial organi- zation and providing all levels of employees with some elements of control over their own fates, especially when participation is used to establish goals. 8. Rebuilding of academip committees within the university structure. Casimir J. Kowalski, the President of Alliance College, and J. Richard Bryson, President of Marion Technical College, write that, "The principal responsibility of the college administration is to bring about institutional unity among individuals with clashing intellectual ideas."5 Kowalski and Bryson maintain that this ideal has not been realized because, too frequently, universities are pre-occupied with extensive research of such extraneous topics as ”Persian. mirrors", etc. rather than. examining "their own administrative practices."6 The authors continue by arguing that administrators need to develop not only their leadership skills but also their managerial skills. W. Bennis asserts that, "There is an important difference between the two. Managers tend to organize and control and direct an organization's efforts. Leaders, on the other hand, 'become less involved in these kinds of activities and become more concerned with the direction in which the organization is heading'."7 Kowalski and Bryson, both presidents of colleges, are convinced that participative management is the key to an effective management style in the 1980's and 1990's. They maintain that the following benefits were gained at one college employing participatory management: Objective Results -- College accreditation by North Central Association -- Re-accreditation of various programs -- Steady growth in enrollment support -- Cooperative and positive efforts in response to state mandated budget cut backs -- Voluntary participation (95%) in the college-wide HOU survey Subjective Results -- Employee stability and very low turnover -- No efforts by faculty to become unionized -- Greater eagerness by individuals to parti- cipate on college committees -- Comments by visitors and accreditation team that people seem to enjoy coming to work -- Visitors describe an existence of a positive and healthy atmosphere -- Positive feedback expressed by part-time faculty about working at the college -- Enhanced departmental cohesion -- Increased faculty pride and identification with the institution Kowalski and Bryson further defend their position by adding: In conclusion, the experiences reported in several institutions of higher education through the utilization of humanistic management suggest that many more such institutions would be able to harness the enormous power contained within them if they adopteg a participative, humanistic management philosophy. The authors of this article highly recommend humanistic management in institutions of higher education as a viable management study for the 1980's and 1990's. They feel it will result in a wholesome, positive, growth-oriented work environment. In addition, they feel it will likewise lead to union avoidance. Statement of the Problem The main thrust of QWL application in the U. S. has been in industrial organizations, namely General Motors and the Ford Motor Company. To a lesser degree, QWL has been implemented in governmental and health organizations. To a limited extent, educational institutions are now implementing QWL, as is evident. by the applications of quality circles. Some educational organizations have already applied numerous QWL features, especially quality circles, or problem-solving groups. Most QWL ventures have been experienced in K-12, followed to a lesser degree by two-year community colleges, and to an even lesser extent by four-year colleges and universities. Educational organizations, unlike industrial organizations, are lacking documented, published case studies to provide needed guidelines for implementation. It will be necessary to draw upon literature which documents QWL implementation in industrial organizations. It should be noted that the organizational concerns and problems in industry do not necessarily parallel with those in higher education. Dr. Rosabeth Moss Kanter stresses the importance of customizing the QWL structure to meet organizational needs. Kanter's dictum, it seems, would apply to higher educational institutions where their structure differs markedly from other organizations, especially industrial organizations; therefore, some traditional facets of QWL may not prove applicable to higher education, namely job rotation, and enhancing the work place environment of professors. Then, again, there are others involved in higher education, such as blue-collar workers and students, who might benefit from QWL endeavors. (There is a general consensus among some QWL theorists that university and college professors have already attained a high quality of work life.) In industrial organizations, the impact of QWL ventures can be measured with reasonable accuracy, i.e. there is reliable, objective data to measure product quality, productivity, etc. At this juncture, educational institutions have not devised reliable instrumentation to measure the impact of QWL ventures. QWL literature suggests that one of the principal determinants of a successful QWL venture is commitment from top management. It appears that QWL efforts would be challenged without a firm commitment from top administrators who will no doubt insist upon reliable data to judge the success of a QWL venture in relation to its role in improving product quality. Limited literature documenting QWL applications in higher education, imprecise measurement tools to evaluate QWL applications, and the need to customize the QWL structure to meet organizational needs, will present challenges for QWL applications in ' higher education institutions. Simply because QWL has had apparent success in industrial organizations offers no certainty that it will experience comparable success in educational organizations. Importance of the Problem Because of the competitive edge seemingly lost to foreign competition, especially from. Japanese automotive 10 manufacturers, it is important that. U. S. organizations develop managerial practices which will yield optimal product quality and productivity. Moreover, as a prerequisite to attaining high product quality and productivity, it is important to create a work environment which facilitates high morale among its workers; ideally, workers will then feel positive about themselves and their employers, henoe a higher product quality. The importance in attaining optimal product quality need not be limited to industrial and service organizations. Institutions of higher education also have wrestled with the issue of a high quality product. A review of the literature seems to indicate that there is a need for changes in college and university managerial practices to bring about a higher quality product, namely the student's educational preparedness. ‘Some educational theorists advocate participative managerial practices which involve students, faculty, and administrators in decisions involving the students' education. There are also some who advocate the implementation of the Quality of Work Life concept, a specific type of participative managerial practice, in higher educational organizations. In spite of the particular preference, there appears to be a widespread movement that advocates greater involvement in the planning and decision-making' processes to improve the quality of higher education. 11 Background Facets of QWL, notably "Circles", or small problem- solving groups, were first introduced to the U. S. automotive industry by Dr. Edward Deming in the 1950's. Deming, a management consultant, proposed the establishment of quality "circles" to enhance general organizational efficiency and effectiveness. "Circles” were to operate in conjunction with Statistical Process Control (SPC), a computerized system to more readily detect defective manufacturing than traditional quality control approaches. Deming's proposals to improve quality were rejected during an era of immense prosperity in the U. S. automotive industry.10 In 1960 Deming, undaunted by the outright rejection of his proposals, presented his 'circles"/Statistical Process Control concepts to the Japanese Institute of Quality Engineers and Architects (JUSE). In 1961, with the support of the Japanese Government and JUSE, Deming's proposals were fully implemented in Japan's automotive industry.11 Post-war industrial Japan had evolved from a country whose "Made in Japan” label evoked ridicule to become one of the leading industrialized nations in the world. By 1980, Japan was considered a world leader in quality. 12 The first significant U. S.-based QWL venture occurred at General Motors in 1973. The United Auto Workers (UAW) and General Motors Corporation (GM) agreed to the principles of QWL in the form of a signed "mission statement." QWL, then, was implemented throughout most GM plants. In 1978, Ford Motor Company began implementing EI throughout its many plants. The term Employee Involvement (BI) is used interchangeably with QWL, and was coined by the Ford Motor Corporation. In spite of the rapid growth of QWL ventures, there are those who have raised questions about QWL's likelihood for longevity. Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman argue that like T-Groups, job yenrichment programs, conflict resolution, Management By Objectives (MBO), the Scanlon Plan and the managerial grids, QWL ventures will fail because they are simply short-lived gimmicks which do not have a firm commitment from management. Peters and Waterman assert that, ”no one system is going to change a company; you need "12 Peters and Waterman maintain a combination of things. that QWL will not work unless it receives management's firm commitment. Donald L. Dewar insists that QWL is a viable managerial tool, mainly because the process encourages workers to participate, and this process is "a way of capturing the creative and innovative power that lies within the work 13 force.”13 As an affront to critics who insist that "circles" activities are operable only in Japan, Dewar maintains that cultural differences can be overcome in the United States. Some critics of QWL maintain that QWL will fail because of the individualistic nature of the U. S. ‘worker; to support these claims, critical literary accounts exist which contrast U. S. and Japanese workers culturally. Critics insist, for example, that group participation, considered an essential component of the QWL process, would prove inoperable in a work force whose culture values individualism. The Japanese, their argument continues, are adept at working effectively within a group structure because their geographical isolation and high population density dictate group cohesiveness.- (Japan's 125 to 130 million population crowds into a series of islands comparable in size to the State of California.) William. G. Ouchi takes a middle-ground position.14 Ouchi is sensitive to the vast cultural differences between U. S. and Japanese workers; therefore, he takes the position that a modified Japanese managerial system, one sensitive to the many cultural characteristics of U. S. workers, wou1d_be applicable to U. S. organizations. Ouchi points out that, "most Japanese firms have been very successful in the U. 8. These U. S.-based firms," continues Ouchi, ”employ an 14 approach to management distinctively different from the typical American firm. Rather than replicate the form developed in their native Japan, the firms modified their management to suit U. S. needs. Nonetheless, they retain a good deal of Japanese style and remain very different than most American firms."15 Rosabeth Moss Kanter maintains that for a QWL venture to be effective the design must reflect the particular needs of the organization. Kanter notes that, too often, third-party consultants are brought into organizations to establish QWL, ”with no thought to the appropriateness of the structure for the place where it is being used, and with the elimination of one of the values of participation to employees; the chance to exert more control over work 16 Kanter criticizes those consultants offering situations." ”packaged QWL programs" under the presumption that if it worked in other organizations, it will work anywhere. These consultants presume that all you have to do to make a QWL program work is to ”plug it in, and hope that it runs by itself.”17 Purpose of the Study First, this study will trace the development of Quality of Work Life ventures in the United States. The study will 15 then focus on the development of participative managerial practices, especially the Quality of Work Life ventures in higher educational organizations. This study will attempt to demonstrate the influences, receptivity, and most importantly, the applicability, of Quality of Work Life ventures within higher educational settings. The Need A need to improve product quality, increase productivity, and reduce absenteeism and turnover rates is widely’ recognized. by IL. S. organizational leaders. Moreover, there is a need to improve employer-employee relations. In increasing numbers, IL. 5. organizations are now making the transition from traditional managerial practices to QWL. The implementation of QWL is now prevalent in organizational settings; moreover, QWL practice in recent years has been implemented in higher educational settings. There is clearly a need to investigate the development of QWL ventures in higher educational institutions. Organization of the Study The following outline represents the general organization of the study: 16 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Introduction Statement of Problem Significance (Importance) of Problem Background Purpose of the Study The Need Organization Summary CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction to Review of the Literature Antecedents of Quality of Work Life Scientific Management Human Relations School of Management Quality Control Circles and Statistical Process Control Differences in Management and Worker Attitudes Between Japan and the U.S. Amae Socialization of the Japanese Infant The ”Merchant House" From lFeudalism to Industrialism: The Transformation of the "Merchant House" to the Modern Company Riel! The Influence of ”Amae" in Relation to the Perception of the Worker Consensus Decision-Making Ringi Suggestion Box System Summary of Early Antecedents QWL in Industrial Organizations QWL in Government QWL in City Government Dallas, Texas Southfield, Michigan Lansing, Michigan QWL in Federal Government Defense Depot, Ogden, Utah Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Norfolk, Virginia QWL in Business and Other Health Industry QWL in K-12 Secondary Schools QWL in Higher Education Definition of Quality of Work Life Analysis of Literature Summary of Literature on QWL Definitions Principles of QWL for Success in General and Higher Education 17 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY Purpose Selection of Population Selection of questionnaire respondents Development of Questionnaire Limitations CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS Introduction Demographics QWL Principles Explanation of QWL-Higher Education Model Trust Egalitarianism Continuous Training Consensus Decision Making Voluntary QWL-Quality Circles Membership Commitment to QWL-Quality Circles from Administration The Use of Management Consultants Task Groups/Circles Utilizing Problem—Solving Techniques Employee Recognition Responses to Open-Ended Questions CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION QWL Principles Trust Egalitarianism Continuous Training Consensus Decision Making Voluntary QWL Quality Circles Membership Commitment to QWL-Quality Circles from Administration Use of Management Consultants Task Groups (Circles) Utilizing Problem-Solving Techniques Employee Recognition Responses to Open-Ended Questions Conclusions Recommendations for Further Research APPENDICES Glossary of Terms Survey Questionnaire Letter to Respondents Summary Tables 18 Summary The following discussion will examine managerial theories and practices which have influenced QWL ventures in the United States. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 19 CHAPTER 1: CITATIONS Of the major developed countries, the U. S. has the second, slowest productivity growth rate since 1973 (only Canada ranks lower than the U. 5.). Nichols, David A. (May 1, 1982). "Can 'Theory 2' Be Applied to Academic Management?" The Chronicle of Higher Education. 35. 72-73. p. 72. Ibid. p. 2. Kowalski, Casimir J. & Bryson, J. Richard. (1982). "Participative Management in Organizations of Higher Education: Leadership Mandate for the 80's." Ps cholo : A Quarterly Journal of Human Behavior. 125273). 22-27. p. 23. Ibid. p. 22. Ibid. p. 22. Ibid. p. 22. Ibid. p. 24. Ibid. p. 24. Ingle, Sud & Ingle, Nima. (1983). Quality Circles in Service Industries. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, Inc. p. 7. Dewar, Donald L. (1980). The_guality Circle Guide to Participation Management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. p. 11. Ibid. p. 242. Ibid. p. 2. Ouchi, William G. (1981). Theory 2: How' American Business Can Meet_the Japanese Challenge. New York: NY: Avon Books. p. 56. Ibid. p. 72. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. (1983). The Change Masters: Innovation for Productiyity in the American Corporation. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. p. 249. Ibid. p. 249. CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction to Review of the Literature The quality of work Life concept and practice is a culmination of many of the managerial theories which emerged from the human relations school of management in the latter 1920's. Antecedents of Quality of Work Life But before a discussion of the human relations era in management begins, this study will examine the scientific management era; the emergence of the humanistic school was mostly a reaction to the structured, stringent controls inherent in the practice of scientific management. Scientific Management Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the United States (about 1900), Scientific Management has been the dominant management practice in organizations. The basic characteristics of scientific management embody speciali- zation, repetition, excessive management controls, and 20 21 limited training "so that workers can be moved from one job to another with minimum disruption of productive processes"1 Frederick Taylor was the puinciple architect of scientific management during an industrial era where the main thrust was in manufacturing goods with maximum efficiency and effectiveness, and to make them readily accessible to the consumer . 2 Ralph Barra stresses that scientific management was applicable to an industrial system greatly dependent upon high production. Barra insists there was a period of time in the U. S. when "the Taylor system worked".3 Barra argues that "the sacrifices associated with this kind of production system were a small price to pay for the tremendous increases 4 in material welfare". The sacrifices which Barra notes were the loss of individuality and worker regimentation. The essential tool of scientific management practice is 5 Jeremy Main describes a time the "time and motion study". and motion study in a factory setting: A ”consultant studies a. unit such. as ‘the supply' department for several. weeks, determines how often each job is performed, and how long it should take, and then estimates how many workers the unit needs -- usually fewer than it has".6 22 In spite of scientific management's apparent applicability during an industrial era dependent upon productivity, there is now general disenchantment with this system. The feeling among many management theorists is that scientific management has outlived its usefulness. William Parsons argues that scientific management practices are "counterproductive"7 in a modern, better educated work force that demands, and should expect, greater input in the planning and decision-making processes. Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. Blanchard criticize the practice of scientific management, because, by its very nature of excessive controls, it ”restricts the initiative and creativity of workers".8 As examples of scientific management's use of controls, the authors cite "time and motion studies,"9 budgets, incentive systems and standard operating procedures. Hersey and Blanchard also suggest that scientific management practices stiffle creativity and demean the dignity of the worker. The authors quote a passage from N. Breman's novel which dramatically illustrates how efficiently jobs could be designed at a low level during the early 1900's by utilizing scientific management practices. The girls proved to be exceptionally well-behaved, particularly obedient, and strictly honest and trustworthy. They carried out work required of them to such a degree of efficiency that we were surprised they were classed as subnormals for their ag . Their attendance was good, and their behaVior 23 was, if anything, certainly betiar than that of any other employee of the same age. Amitai Etzioni notes that scientific management (sometimes used interchangeably with the Classical Theory of Administration) indicates that the worker is primarily motivated by "material rewards," while organizations are characterized "by a clearly defined division of labor with a highly-specialized personnel and a distinct hierarchy of authority."11 In theory, it ‘was felt that organizations would be productive if their controls over the workers remained intact. Conversely, the reasoning continued, workers would fulfill their material needs if the organiza- tion maintained optimal effectiveness and efficiency; hence, 12 This organizational and workers' goals were seemingly met. theory continued unquestioned until the emergence of the Human Relations School which stressed "that the workers have many needs other than purely economic ones."13 The beginning of the Human Relations era of management was perceived by most of management theorists as an abrupt departure from Scientific Management. Instead of an emphasis on productivity, as was characterized by the Scientific Management era, the Human Relations movement focused on the workers' psycho-social needs. 24 Human Relations School of Management It would be premature for a discussion of the Quality of Work Life to begin with the 1973 historic signing of the Mission Statement between GM and the UAW. The notion of improving the work life environment, or its quality, was not suddenly conceived in 1973. There were efforts to improve the work place years before QWL was conceived. In fact, it could be justifiably argued that the philosophical precepts of QWL began with the human relations school of management. Elton Mayo, whom Amitai Etzioni regards as the "father 14 conducted. a series of of the Human Relations School,” studies at Western Electric Company between 1927 and 1932 to determine the extent to which workers' outputs were influenced by physical factors. The first of these studies (the Hawthorne Studies), indicated that improved illumination (physical factor) did not necessarily show evidence of increased productivity (output). Etzioni writes that "the theories of scientific management predicted that better illumination would result in increased productivity”.15 However, Roethlisberger and Dickerson pointed out that no correlation existed between 16 improved illumination and higher productivity. Etzioni writes: 24 Human Relations School of Management It would be premature for a discussion of the Quality of Work Life to begin with the 1973 historic signing of the Mission Statement between GM and the UAW. The notion of improving the work life environment, or its quality, was not suddenly conceived in 1973. There were efforts to improve the working life underway years before QWL was conceived. In fact, it could be justifiably argued that the phiIOSOphical precepts of QWL began with the human relations school of management. Elton Mayo, whom Amitai Etzioni regards as the "father of the Human Relations School,"14 conducted a series of studies at Western Electric Company between 1927 and 1932 to determine the extent to which workers' outputs were influenced by physical factors. The first of these studies (the Hawthorne Studies), indicated that improved illumination (physical factor) did not necessarily show evidence of increased productivity (output). Etzioni writes that "the theories of scientific management predicted that better illumination would result in increased productivity".15 However, Roethlisberger and Dickerson pointed out that no correlation existed between 16 improved illumination and higher productivity. Etzioni writes: 24 Human Relations School of Management It would be premature for a discussion of the Quality of Work Life to begin with the 1973 historic signing of the Mission Statement between GM and the UAW. The notion of improving the work life environment, or its quality, was not suddenly conceived in 1973. There were efforts to improve the working life underway years before QWL was conceived. In fact, it could be justifiably argued that the philosophical precepts of QWL began with the human relations school of management. Elton Mayo, whom Amitai Etzioni regards as the "father 14 conducted a series of of the Human Relations School," studies at Western Electric Company between 1927 and 1932 to determine the extent to which workers' outputs were influenced by physical factors. The first of these studies (the Hawthorne Studies), indicated that improved illumination (physical factor) did not necessarily show evidence of increased productivity (output). Etzioni writes that "the theories of scientific management predicted that better illumination would result in increased productivity".15 However, Roethlisberger and Dickerson pointed out that no correlation existed between 16 improved illumination and higher productivity. Etzioni writes: 25 ...in one of the later studies where workers were placed in a control room, the results indicated that productivity continued to increase even when illumination was decreased! It only dropped off after the light became so dim that workers could not see properly. In the first of the Hawthorne studies, two groups of workers, one a control group and the other an experimental group, were involved in a study to determine the influence of illumination on output (productivity). Hersey and Blanchard write: As lighting power was increased, the output of the test group went up as anticipated. Unexpectedly, however, the output of the control group fifipt up, also -- without any increase in light. (It should be noted that Mayo was not involved in the initial Hawthorne Studies experiment.) At this juncture of the studies the researchers concurred that psychological factors should also be considered; consequently, Mayo and his Harvard research team were brought into) the experiments. Hersey and Blanchard write: . Mayo and his team started their experiments with a group of girls who assembled the phone relays and, like the efficiency experts, the Harvard men uncovered astonishing results. For over a year and a half during this experiment, Mayo's researchers improved the working conditions of the girls by implementing such innovations as scheduled rest periods, company lunches and shorter work weeks. Baffled by the results, the researchers suddenly decided to take everything away from the girls, returning the working conditions to the exact way they had been at the beginning of the experiment. This radical change was .expected to have a tremendous negative psychological impact on the girls and reduce their output. Instead!9 their output jumped to a new all-time high. Why? 26 Mayo and his Harvard research team concluded that the attention the subjects received, and not the plant's physical conditions, had a profound psychological effect on the girls. No longer did they feel isolated and apart from the company, but they had become, as Hersey and Blanchard write, "participating members of a congenial, cohesive work group".20 Quality of Work Life philosophy is a culmination of numerous theories, especially those theories associated with the Human Relations School of Management. The Human Relations School contributed significantly to the formulation of QWL principles and practices, as is evidenced in studies by Abraham Maslow, Douglas McGregor, Chris Argyris, Frederick Herzberg, and Eric Fromm. Maslow formulated his hierarchy of needs model with the premise that people have both psychological and physiological needs which need. to be satisfied. Figure 1 illustrates Maslow's model in descending order of importance, i.e. ”The physiological needs are shown at the top of the hierchy because they tend to have the highest strength until they are satisfied."21 27 Physiological Safety (Security) Social (Affiliation) Esteem (Recognition) Self-Actualization FIGURE 1 - Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs The physiological needs represent basic needs such as food, shelter and clothing. Hersey and Blanchard write that "once physiological and safety are fairly well satisfied, social or affiliation (needs) will emerge as dominant in the need structure."22 The physiological needs relate to physical danger and self-preservation. Theoretically, a person is preoccupied with safety and security, and oblivious to succeeding needs, as long’ as the immediate needs are unmet. Upon satisfying the physiological and safety needs, the person seeks to satisfy his social affiliation needs. That is, the person seeks group affiliation to satisfy his need of belonging. Once the person is accepted into a group, he seeks "self-confidence, prestige, power and control".23 Maslow classifies these needs as esteem needs. Upon satisfying the aforementioned needs, the person strives ultimately to attain a sense of self-actualization. Hersey and Blanchard describe self-actualization "as the need to 24 maximize one's potential, whatever it may be". Maslow 22 In spite of scientific management's apparent applicability during an industrial era dependent upon productivity, there is now general disenchantment with this system. The feeling among many management theorists is that scientific management has outlived its usefulness. William Parsons argues that scientific management practices are "counterproductive"7 in a modern, better educated work force that demands, and should expect, greater input in the planning and decision-making processes. Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. Blanchard criticize the practice of scientific management, because, by its very nature of excessive controls, it ”restricts the initiative and creativity of workers".8 As examples of scientific management's use of controls, the authors cite "time and motion studies,"9 budgets, incentive systems and standard operating procedures. Hersey and Blanchard also suggest that scientific management practices stiffle creativity and demean the dignity of the worker. The authors quote a passage from N. Breman's novel which dramatically illustrates how efficiently jobs could be designed at a low level during the early 1900's by utilizing scientific management practices. The girls proved to be exceptionally well-behaved, particularly obedient, and strictly honest and trustworthy. They carried out work required of them to such a degree of efficiency that we were surprised they were classed as subnormals for their ag . Their attendance was good, and their behavior 23 was, if anything, certainly betESr than that of any other employee of the same age. Amitai Etzioni notes that scientific management (sometimes used interchangeably with the Classical Theory of Administration) indicates that the worker is primarily motivated by "material rewards," while organizations are characterized ”by a clearly defined division of labor with a highly-specialized personnel and a distinct hierarchy of 11 In theory, it. was felt that. organizations authority." would be productive if their controls over the workers remained intact. Conversely, the reasoning continued, workers would fulfill their material needs if the organiza- tion maintained optimal effectiveness and efficiency; hence, organizational and workers' goals were seemingly met.12 This theory continued unquestioned until the emergence of the Human Relations School which stressed "that the workers have many needs other than purely economic ones."13 The beginning of the Human Relations era of management was perceived by most of management theorists as an abrupt departure from Scientific Management. Instead of an emphasis on productivity, as was characterized by the Scientific Management era, the Human Relations movement focused on the workers' psycho-social needs. 24 Human Relations School of Management It would be premature for a discussion of the Quality of Work Life to begin with the 1973 historic signing of the Mission Statement between GM and the UAW. The notion of improving the work life environment, or its quality, was not suddenly conceived in 1973. There were efforts to improve the working life underway years before QWL was conceived. In fact, it could be justifiably argued that the philoSOphical precepts of QWL began with the human relations school of management. Elton Mayo, whom Amitai Etzioni regards as the "father 14 conducted a series of of the Human Relations School," studies at Western Electric Company between 1927 and 1932 to determine the extent to which workers' outputs were influenced by physical factors. The first of these studies (the Hawthorne Studies), indicated that improved illumination (physical factor) did not necessarily show evidence of increased productivity (output). Etzioni writes that "the theories of scientific management predicted that better illumination would result in increased productivity”.15 However, Roethlisberger and Dickerson pointed out that no correlation existed between 16 improved illumination and higher productivity. Etzioni writes: 25 ...in one of the later studies where workers were placed in a control room, the results indicated that productivity continued to increase even when illumination was decreased! It only dropped off after the light pecame so dim that workers could not see preperly. In the first of the Hawthorne studies, two groups of workers, one a control group and the other an experimental group, were involved in a study to determine the influence of illumination on output (productivity). Hersey and Blanchard write: As lighting power was increased, the output of the test group went up as anticipated. Unexpectedly, however, the output of the control group qfipt up, also -- without any increase in light. (It should be noted that Mayo was not involved in the initial Hawthorne Studies experiment.) At this juncture of the studies the researchers concurred that psychological factors should also be considered; consequently, Mayo and his Harvard research team were brought into the experiments. Hersey and Blanchard write: . Mayo and his team started their experiments with a group of girls who assembled the phone relays and, like the efficiency experts, the Harvard men uncovered astonishing results. For over a year and a half during this experiment, Mayo's researchers improved the working conditions of the girls by implementing such innovations as scheduled rest periods, company lunches and shorter work weeks. Baffled by the results, the researchers suddenly decided to take everything away from the girls, returning the working conditions to the exact way . they had been at the beginning of the experiment. This radical change was .expected to have a tremendous negative psychological impact on the girls and reduce their output. Instead!9 their output jumped to a new all-time high. Why? 26 Mayo and his Harvard research team concluded that the attention the subjects received, and not the plant's physical conditions, had a profound psychological effect on the girls. No longer did they feel isolated and apart from the company, but they had become, as Hersey and Blanchard write, "participating members of a congenial, cohesive work group".20 Quality of Work Life philosophy is a culmination of numerous theories, especially those theories associated with the Human Relations School of Management. The Human Relations School contributed significantly to the formulation of QWL principles and practices, as is evidenced in studies by Abraham Maslow, Douglas McGregor, Chris Argyris, Frederick Herzberg, and Eric Fromm. Maslow formulated his hierarchy of needs model with the premise that people have both psychological and physiological needs which need to be satisfied. Figure 1 illustrates Maslow's model in descending order of importance, i.e. “The physiological needs are shown. at the top» of the hierchy because they tend to have the highest strength until they are satisfied."21 27 Physiological | ‘ Safety (Security) Social (Affiliation) Esteem (Recognition) Self-Actualization FIGURE 1 - Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs The physiological needs represent basic needs such as food, shelter and clothing. Hersey and Blanchard write that ”once physiological and safety are fairly well satisfied, social or affiliation (needs) will emerge as dominant in the need structure."22 The physiological needs relate to physical danger and self-preservation. Theoretically, a person is preoccupied with safety and security, and oblivious to succeeding needs, as long' as the immediate needs are unmet. Upon satisfying the physiological and safety needs, the person seeks to satisfy his social affiliation needs. That is, the person seeks group affiliation to satisfy his need of belonging. Once the person is accepted into a group, he seeks "self-confidence, prestige, power and control".23 Maslow classifies these needs as esteem needs. Upon satisfying the aforementioned needs, the person strives ultimately to attain a sense of self-actualization. Hersey and Blanchard describe self-actualization "as the need to 24 maximize one's potential, ‘whatever' it. may be". Maslow 28 exclaims that "What a man can be, he must be."25 Ralph Barra writes that: The continual satisfaction of these needs as they emerge is the key to motivating workers to perform to their fullest potential. It is the key to attaining a productive organization. Thus, it is important that this hierarchy of human needs be understood and that the physical and social conditions of work provide the opportunity for employees to satisfy their phyfidological and psychological needs as they emerge. Hersey and Blanchard insist that the work of Mayo "may have paved the way for the development of the now classic 'Theory X - Theory Y' theories of Douglas McGregor".27 Lin Rothwell argues that McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y model (or theory) is a nmnagement concept. For example, Theory X is an assumption that the worker is ”lazy", "not very bright" and is ”irresponsible".28 Moreover, the worker is in need of a harsh manager to set stringent controls to assure optimal performance. Conversely, the Theory Y assumption operates on the premise that the worker is self-motivated, creative and responsible. It should be noted that McGregor was not referring to what workers are like; instead, he was describing management's perceptions of workers' behavior. The following are Theory X and Theory Y assumptions presented: Theory "X" Assumptions 1. Most peOple don't like to work; 2. Due to dislike for work, most people must be coerced, controlled, directed, and threatened with punishment to make them work; 29 3. The average human being works a bare minimum, lacks ambition, refused to take responsi- bility, and would rather be told what to do than think for himself or herself. Theory "Y" Assumptions 1. People do not like or dislike work inherently, but rather develop an attitude toward it based on their experience with it. 2. Although authoritarian methods can get things done, they are not the only ways of motivating people to work for their organization. 3. People do not by nature resist the goals of the organization, are not by nature against assuming responsibility. It is the obligation of management to make it possible for people to recognize and deve10p these character- istics. 4. Under the right circumstances, peOple do not shun responsibility; they seek it. 5. People possess enough imagination, ingenuity, and creativity to solve organizational prob- lems. 6. Under proper organizational circumstances and management, human beings will exercise self-motivation in achieving persoggl goals as well as those of the organization. Chris Argyris maintains that there are basically two types of workers, the immature and the mature workers. Argyris claims that, "For the sake of order and efficiency"30 organizations practice what he terms, "structure directive leadership,"31 which is characterized by stringent managerial controls. Argyris contends that these controls cause immature workers to remain immature, and mature workers to become frustrated. Argyris describes immature ‘workers as ”passive, dependent, have erratic shallow interests, short- time perspectives, subordinate positions, and lack self- 30 32 The mature worker is described as having awareness." "increased activity, independence, deeper and stronger interests, long-time perspectives, equal or superordinate positions, and awareness and control of self"33 Argyris argues that the above-stated problems are not the result of "individual laziness"34; instead, these problems relate to organizations' insistence on ‘utilizing scientific management practices, e.g. "task specialization, chain of command, unity of direction, and span of control".35 The following model distinguishes between Argygis' mature and immature workers. 31 TABLE 1.36 Immaturity-Maturity Continuum Immaturity Maturity Passive Active Dependence Independence Behave in few ways Capable of behaving in many ways Erratic shallow interests Deeper and stronger interests Short-time Perspective Long-time perspective (past and future) Subordinate position Equal or superordinate position Lack of awareness of self Awareness and control over self Frederick Herzberg, referred to as the father of "Job Enrichment", is credited. with. developing' the "motivation- hygiene theory". Herzberg' postulated that the ‘worker is influenced by two categories of needs. The first category of needs, "hygiene factors,” relates to the work environment (e.g. supervision, policies, money, security, etc.). The second category of needs, "motivators", relates to the job itself (e.g. achievement, recognition, growth and develop- ment, etc.). Moreover, the ”hygiene factors” serve to prevent job dissatisfaction, while the "motivators" serve to motivate workers to attain high performance levels.37 32 The following model illustrates Herzberg's "Motivation- hygiene" theory: TABLE 2 38 Hygiene Factors Motivators Environment The Job Itself Policies and administration Achievement Supervision . Recognition for accomplishment Working conditions Challenging work Interpersonal relations Increased responsibility Money, status, security Growth and development 33 Herzberg, in formulating the "Motivation-Hygiene Theory", conducted interviews with some 200 engineers and accountants associated with 11 industrial organizations in the vicinity of Pittsburgh. Hersey and Blanchard report that, "In the interviews, they were asked about what kinds of things on their jobs made them unhappy or dissatisfied and what things made them happy or satisfied."39 It may be noteworthy that Herzberg's inclusion of only accountants and engineers as interviewees, at the exclusion of line workers, etc. may provide but limited, useful data. Herzberg maintains that as a reaction to job special- ization, an essential characteristic of scientific manage- ment, there developed an interest in ”job enlargement". (Please refer to the Glossary of Terms for definition.) Essentially, the main thrust in "job enrichment" is to engage the worker in many facets of the organization, rather than merely’ one sample task. But. Herzberg felt that the job enrichment approach did not go far enough and that it did not ensure motivation. Herzberg, subsequently, developed his own approach to motivation, which he termed “job enrichment". Hersey and Blanchard describe "job enrichment” as ”the deliberate upgrading of responsibility, scepe, and challenge in work”.40 As an example of "job enrichment" in practice, Hersey 41 and Blanchard relate a story of a superintendent who was 34 transferred to a new department, and to his surprise 15 janitorswere under his direct supervision. The superin- tendent observed the janitors' work habits as subpar. Hersey and Blanchard write that, "They were walking examples of Theory X assumptions about human nature. The janitors seemed to be lazy, unreliable, and generally unmotivated." The superintendent decided to call them into his office to ask their suggestions for improving their jobs. After twenty minutes of silence the janitors enthusiastically presented numerous, constructive suggestions for improving their jobs, especially "housekeeping" tasks. Impressed, the superin- tendent provided the janitors with an office where they could conduct planning meetings. The superintendent then delegated to the janitors the responsibility of interviewing salesmen in their office. Hersey and Blanchard write that, All of this had a tremendous influence on the behavior of these men. They developed a cohesive productive team that took pride in its work. Even their appearance changed. Once a grubby lot, now they appeared at work in clean, pressed work clothes. The superintendent was continually stopped. by supervisors in the plant and asked, ”What have you done to those lazy2 good for nothing janitors, given them pep pills?“ The above account suggests that. workers, if allowed responsibility and some control over their lives, will Strive toward mature, responsible behavior. Job enrichment, and other participative types of programs, seems to indicate that 35 workers have a better chance of attaining "self-actualization and self—esteem” 'when they are directly involved in the decision-making and planning processes. The various managerial philosophies and practices thus far discussed had a profound influence upon the quality of work life movement in the United States during the 1970's and early 1980's. The influence of certain leadership models and styles, however, should not be ignored. The following is a discussion of some contributions from leadership style theorists. Other scholars further developed McGregor's theories. Argyris, in particular, developed McGregor's Theory X and Y model in his book, Management and Organizational Development: 43 The Path From XA to YB. Argyris coined the terms, Patterns A and B to designate two leadership styles, or patterns. Argyris refers to Pattern A leadership style as an authoritarian leadership style and Pattern B as a participative leadership style. Further enlarging upon McGregor's Model, Argyris combines his Pattern A and B leadership styles with the Theory X and Y model; hence, XA and YB. Ideally, according to Argyris, the appropriate leadership style needs to evolve from XA to YB, i.e. from an authoritarian style to one of participative leadership.44 Argyris refers to the XA leadership style as Model I, and the YB style as Model II. Argyris maintains that because Model I 36 practices are so prevalent in U. S. organizations, it is very difficult to successfully make the transition to Model II. Herzberg asserts that workers are in desperate need of a leadership style that concerns itself more with developing the individual character of its workers than such traditional activities as marketing and finance. Herzberg feels workers, 45 disillusioned, are "looking inward" to gain a sense of who they are. Herzberg cautions that this "looking inward"46 causes depression, resulting in workers becoming "psychotic 47 depressives" who act out in frustration because of limited choices. Less critical, continues Herzberg, is the condition 48 of the "normal depressive" who still can make choices in the work place. Herzberg suggests that the "psychotic depressive"49 is a hopeless case, but there is still hope for the "normal depressive"; that is, if leadership changes from a production oriented style, to one of concern for the "individual. character."50 Herzberg further theorizes that organizational leadership's main goal, that. of high productivity, will be better realized by concerning itself with "character“. The ”normal depressive”, Herzberg further theorizes, will pose serious problems for organizations which depend principally upon the worker's productivity. Again, the leadership style will need to become participative to incorporate the skills of the worker, thus freeing him from a a depressed state to one of active participation. Herzberg asserts that if this transition does not materialize, then, 37 "We are going to have to work with a depressive work force, "51 and their depression will be contagious. Herzberg warns that the only ‘way' to :maintain control of the "psychotic 52 53 depressive” is to provide "armed guards". Larry E. Greiner defines leadership style as a "pattern 54 The author maintains of interaction with subordinates". that proponents of participative styles involve their sub- ordinates in planning and decision-making processes. The participative style of management adheres to the notion that "two heads are better than one"55 at arriving at the best decision, i.e. subordinates are encouraged to express their feelings, concerns, suggestions, etc. Moreovery when decisions are made, they will be based also on workers' perceptions, rather than on just management's. In addition, proponents of a participative style of management argue that directives, policies, etc. will be enthusiastically implemented if the workers are involved in its formulation. Greiner describes the authoritarian style of leadership as individualistic and fiercely independent. Proponents of the authoritarian style have a strong inclination to make decisions independently of their subordinates with the attitude that subordinates do not have the mental capacity to take a participative role. The authors also point out that there is a strong tendency among authoritarian leaders to 38 56 perceive themselves as "born leaders", which they attribute to "internal personality characteristics".57 These managers are reluctant to offer training to their subordinates with the argument that subordinates are incapable of grasping the training. Michael Maccoby refers to a "humanistic conscience"58 and an "authoritarian conscience"59 which Fromm. had discussed. The "authoritarian conscience",6o asserts Fromm, "acts out of fear of authority", a reaction to an ”inner 61 voice“ dictating what he "ought" to do, not on what is right. Conversely, the "humanistic conscience"62 acts out 63 what is right, or he reacts ”from his heart”. Based on Fromm's theory, Maccoby relates this notion to authoritarian and democratic leadership styles. For example, if a manager makes a decision, he/she will consider the feelings of others if that manager is acting out of the "humanistic cons- 64 cience”, while the manager, acting out of the "authori- . . 6 tarian consc1ence", S will act independently of his subordinates. Maccoby maintains that a nmnager, in hope of developing a participative style of management, must go through a "maturing process"66 to remain independent of the 67 ”inner voice" dictating his actions. After several years of varying degrees of success to institutionalize Human Relations management concepts in U.S. 39 organizations, the practice of quality circles returned to the U.S.; but this time the reception was more enthusiastic. Quality Control Circles and Statistical Process Control As was stated earlier, the Quality Circles practice was proposed by Deming, a U. S. management consultant, to the Ford Motor Company and General Motors Corporation in the early 1950's. Following outright rejection of his proposal to implement problem-solving groups, or circles, to facili- tate increased production efficiency, Deming introduced his circles concept to the Japanese government in 1960. Circles were first implemented in Japanese organizations in 1961. Coupled with the circles concept, Deming introduced a quality' control systeni called Statistical Process Control (SPC). The basic philosophy of SPC is contained within "What Top Management Must Do to Improve Productivity: The 14 Points” which follows: WHAT TOP MANAGEMENT MUST DO TO IMPROVE PRODUCTIVITY THE 14 POINTS 1. Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service, with a plan to become competitive and to stay in business. Decide whom top management is responsible to. 2. Adopt the new philosophy. We are in a new economic age. We can no longer live with the commonly accepted levels of delays, mistakes, defective material, and defective workmanship. 10. 11. 12. 40 Cease dependence on mass inspection. Require, instead, statistical evidence that quality is built in, to eliminate need for inspection on a mass basis. Purchasing managers have a new job, and must learn it. End the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag. Instead, depend on meaningful measures of quality, along with price. Eliminate suppliers that cannot qualify for statistical evidence of quality. Find problems. It is management's job to work continually on the system (design, incoming materials, composition of material, maintenance, improvement of machine, training, supervision, and retraining). Institute modern methods of training on the job. Institute modern methods of supervision of production workers. The responsibility of foremen must be changed from sheer numbers to quality. Improvement of quality will automatically improve productivity. Management must prepare to take immediate action on reports from foremen concerning barriers such as inherited defects, machines not maintained, poor tools, fuzzy operational definitions. Drive out fear, so that everyone may’ work effectively for the company. Break down barriers between departments. People: in research, design, sales, and production must work as a team, to foresee problems of production that may be encountered with various materials and specifications. Eliminate numerical goals, posters, and slogans for the work force, asking for new levels of productivity without providing methods. Eliminate work standards that prescribe numerical quotas. Remove barriers that stand between the hourly worker and his right to pride of workmanship. 41 13. Institute a vigorous program of education and retraining. 14. Create a structure in top management that will push every day on the above 13 p01nts. The influence of Japanese managerial practices on formulating QWL theory is striking. Puzzled by Japan's relatively' recent. economic successes, (L. S. organizations have searched for explanations. There is near unanimity in agreement among management theorists that Japan's successes relate to participative worker-management practices, but such an explanation appears superficial. The following is a discussion on the unique cultural background of the Japanese people which contributed toward the development. of their managerial practices. (It should be noted that Japanese management practices had probably a more profound influence on the formulation of QWL concepts and quality circles practices in the U.S. than any other management theory.) Differences in Management and Worker Attitudes Between Japan and the U. S. In 1945 Japan was faced with the awesome challenge of recovering from the military destruction of World War II, especially from the ugly scars of the hydrogen bomb. The prognosis for even modest economic recovery was at best bleak for a people whose economy was in utter disarray. To give life to an immobilized economy, Japan was soon to launch a massive economic recovery program. Faced with limited 42 natural resources, high-population density, and a war— devastated economy, Japan, in a mere 40 years, was to develop into one of the leading industrial nations of the world. From products whose "Made in Japan" label evoked disrespect, if not ridicule, Japan was to attain a leadership position in the world's economic community; this has caused the world to take note of Japan's economic successes, which are generally attributed to a ‘unique management system. that encourages active participation from its employees; such an assessment is superficial and offers at best a simplistic explanation for Japan's economic successes. Before one can begin to understand how Japan's management system operates, it is best to begin with an understanding of Japan's principle cultural features. Amag. Amae is not simply a Japanese word; it is a way of life upon which Japanese social relationships are based. Boye De Mente writes that, "Amae refers to what for lack of a better phrase in English is translated as 'indulgent love'; the category’ or quality of love an infant feels for an 73 Frank Gibney equates Amae with a dependency one feels for his/her "elder",74 or absolutely kind and loving mother." superior, i.e. a soldier’ may have Amae ‘with. a superior officer, or a worker may have Amae for his employer, etc. Amae is based not only upon dependency. De Mente writes that, I'Amae is a feeling of complete trust and confidence, not only that the other party will not take advantage of 43 them, but also that they —- businessmen or private individuals -— can presume upon the indulgence of the other."75 For the Amae system to be truly effective, however, it requires reciprocity; that is, the subordinate (e.g. child, soldier, worker, etc.) must fulfill certain obligations. The subordinate must exemplify unquestioned loyalty to his mother, military superior, or employer, and a breach of this unwritten contract may have repercussions. For' example, for an employee to leave his employ' before retirement is, typically, considered a serious aberration of his commitment to fulfill his obligation in the Amae system; such a 'treasonous act, predictably, causes difficulty in gaining future employment with another company. The origins of Amae can be traced to feudal Japan where one owes his allegiance to his lord. Should one's loyalty and/or allegiance be suspect in feudal Japan, the outcome was frequently beheading. Socialization of the Japanese Infant. Developing a sense of Amae begins in infancy as was demonstrated in the videotape, ”Children of the Tribe”.76 The videotape depicted the socialization that Japanese infants receive from their parents, especially the mother. The film's commentator reported that the Japanese mother and child are virtually inseparable through the child's developmental years, e.g. the mother and child sleep in the same bed ”one-half of their 77 childhood lifes". The parents are obligated to teach the 44 child family games and important rituals, e.g. the mother (in the videotape) demonstrated to the child the art of bowing properly. Throughout the film the mother was seen as patient and nurturing in meeting the child's every need. The commentator suggests that this indulgent socialization process facilitates for the offspring a relatively smooth transition ”from the womb to the outside world".78 A predictable outgrowth of this extensive socialization is the child's understanding of how to function effectively within a group. Dr. Pat D'Itri, who lived in Tokyo, remarked that, "American mothers are apt to use a lot of verbal commands, but Japanese mothers are apt to demonstrate correct ways of "79 D'Itri further commented on how performing something. children would often be congregated in groups outside of her Tokyo apartment. D'Itri added that from her window, "I would see children in groups; one group with the same color hats and another group with different colored hats."80 The "Merchant House". Rodney Clark describes the "Merchant House" during the Tokugawa Period (1615 - 1868) as 81 essentially a “political, economic, and legal unit”. The 'House"'s membership would consist, typically, of a "house- head”, his wife, his elder son and his wife, "and the younger 82 unmarried sons and daughters of the household". The economic success of the "house" was contingent upon its 45 collective membership to function as one, a group. Clark describes this household as a "corporation where the membership has a collective obligation and responsibility;"83 For example, "the liabilities of the business were the 84 The obligations of all the housemembers jointly”. ”corporate househead" was responsible for the welfare of the members in return for their loyalty and services. When "Merchant Houses" became economically successful, and there was a need to extend its membership, it was not uncommon to enlist the membership of "outsiders". Clark states that an "outsider" was recruited into the business house in return not for contractual rewards, but for the benefits of a long, possibly even lifelong association with the house in a relationship which was always analogous to, and sometimes identical with, that of a family member."85 Dr. Stanley Stark reiterated the “family member” role an outsider assumes when he asserts that, ”you don't have to be born into the 86 Stark household; being taken into the family is enough." further notes that, "What counts is that you are living life together and you need to stay together as part of the corporate household."87 From Feudalism to Industrialism: The Transformation of the ”Merchant House" to the Modern Company. In the latter 1800's, as Japan was rapidly approaching a new industrial era, there was increased governmental pressure to dismantle all remnants of feudalism. In 1868, the year officially 46 designated as the end of feudalism and the beginning of the 88 "reunification era", Japan was energetic in establishing institutions patterned after the West. Clark reports that "within a dozen years of the 'Restoration', a start had been made in the construction of modern systems."89 90 Japan's "looking' West” paved the ‘way for the development. of a modern Japan prepared to enter the industrial age. In spite of the demise of feudalistic Japan, there remained elaborate codes of behavior which the Japanese people felt obliged to follow. All of these behavioral traits were attributes conducive to the development of the modern company. "ie". The English equivalent of ”ie" is the term, "family system", but "ie" assumes a stronger connotation for it is ”a concept which penetrates every nook and cranny of 91 Japanese society,” insists. Chie ‘Nakane. Nakane: equates "ie" with a ”corporate residential group"92 (e.g. the ”Merchant House"), referred to earlier by Clark. Nakane disputes the theories that claim ”ie" disappeared with the death of feudalism and the birth of industrialization. Nakane insists that "is" "persists in. modern context”.93 Instead of the 'househead" providing for the welfare of its members, the modern company now assumes this responsibility. The ”is" has simply been transplanted from the "Merchant House” to the modern company; Nakane asserts that ”this demonstrates that the basic social structure continues in spite of great changes in social organization. As the 47 aforementioned discussion demonstrates, Japanese workers' emphasis on group cooperation and teamwork has its antecedents in feudal Japan. The Influence of "Amae" in Relation to the Perception of the Worker. Frank Gibney writes that, "For the Japanese worker, life and job are so closely interwoven that it cannot be said where one ends and the other begins."95 Gibney insists that this apparent interlocking of the social- spiritual with the work setting is a direct influence of the Amae system. When a prospective employee is considered for employment, he/she is screened thoroughly because the person is being admitted as a family member. Gibney reports that the "job applicant's school, background, family, health are all rigorously examined."96 Unlike the traditional percep- tion of U.S. workers as merely means of production, the Japanese worker tends to be perceived in a more holistic sense. Once the employee meets the stringent criteria for employment, he/she is thought of as a lifetime employee. At the very outset of employment, it is assumed that various reciprocal employee-employer obligations will be met. If the Japanese ‘worker' meets the terms of the employer—employee agreement, he/she can be virtually guaranteed lifetime employment and the organizations' concern for his/her general welfare. This employer-employee relationship appears quite diverse from the profit-motive emphasis generally found in the U.S. By contrast, Gibney asserts that ”if the American 48 feels his/her primary obligation is to save the company's money, it is a major concern of the Japanese to save the company's people."97 Richard Tanner Pascale and Anthony G. Athos note that there exist diametrically opposed perceptions of the ”rank and file” worker, "one in the West and the other in the East."98 As was mentioned in the "scientific management" section, the U. S. entered the Industrial Revolution at the turn of the 19th Century, with a perception of the worker primarily, if not solely, in the context of his productivity. Pascale writes that "this view of labor tended to divorce man as a social and spiritual being from his productive role as a worker”;99 that is to say, it was felt that the worker's spiritual and social roles should appropriately remain outside of the workplace. "Rather than as a more narrow transaction between labor and capital, (as Pascale contends is the dominant. practice in the U. S.) their (Japanese) organizations tend to regard the task of control in the 100 Pascale, suggests context of the whole of human needs.” that control in the U.S. is based on a contractual agreement between the worker and the organization (e.g. for this amount of money you are committed to produce so many units per day); whereas, in Japan, the whole person, including his/her social and spiritual needs, is considered in facilitating optimal productivity levels. 49 Gibney relates a story between an American Benchmark Manufacturing vice president and his Japanese general manager at Benchmark's Tokyo Branch. The American vice president was concerned with costs and profits, so he recommended to his general manager that layoffs were necessary to increase profits. "Profits,” said the visiting vice president, "are the name of the game." The vice president stressed that lay-offs were necessary to achieve the goal of increased profits. The Japanese general manager replied that "Japan is different. We have different ideas about business here. We like profits, too; but we build a business around our people. We just can't fire the way you fire in the states; we need all our people. They build our markets for us. I can assure you, we have to get that corner of the consumer market or we'll never grow."101 As noted. earlier, the Japanese are, generally, more adept than. Americans in. working effectively’ within group settings, a situation fostered by the practice of Amae. As beneficiaries of Amae, the Japanese workers tend to exemplify intense loyalty and respect toward their respective organi- zations. The worker, in fulfilling the unwritten terms of the Amae contract, exemplifies unquestioned loyalty. For the worker, the notion of loyalty is interpreted broadly in the workplace, e.g. hard work, promptness, compliance with safety standards, etc. Satoshi Kamata relates a story about a Toyota worker who committed suicide after having been forced 50 by his supervisor to apologize to his co-workers for tardiness. Kamata relates still another situation following an industrial accident when an employee was forced to apologize to his group for personal negligence that caused him the loss of three of his fingers.102 Forced apologies from American workers would most likely be met negatively. Hajime Sasaki, the Director and General Manager of Nissho- IWAI, highlights the differences he observed between Japanese and American workers sense of responsibility. [Sasaki worked for five years in San Francisco.] Sasaki notes that if an industrial accident occurred in the U.S. "even though his own carelessness was the cause, an American will refuse to admit his carelessness, putting forward even the most preposterous explanation. Japanese are likely to say 'I'm sorry' automatically." Sasaki relates the following account: My most unpleasant experiences while I was in the U. S. were in connection with differences in thinking about the proper relationship of a person to a group when something went wrong, where there was fear of blame being assigned. American employees always, almost like a reflex reaction, turned to self-defense. This has to do with a different sense of responsibility. Americans tend to take the defense in order to protect themselves. Japanese have a primary responsibility to their group or company and are thinking’ of the best interests olfo3the group or company rather than of themselves. This account seems to lend further support to the notion that while Japanese workers tend to feel a strong loyalty and responsibility to the group, American workers, on the other hand, tend to think of themselves foremost as individuals. 51 The notion of "groupism" vs. "individualism" will be developed further as this discussion continues. Dr. Subhash Durlabhti, an Indian expert on Japanese management, also addresses group vs. individual responsi- bility in contrasting Japanese and American executives. "During hard times the Japanese management is the first to make a sacrifice (e.g. voluntary, self-imposed salary reductions), "but in the U.S.", Durlabity continues, the lowest workers are the first ones to accept salary reductions and it's usually involuntary.'104 A strong sense of Amae is further demonstrated by the problems faced when Americans and Japanese engage in nego- tiations. Graham and Herberger report that before Japanese negotiators advance to the persuasion stage of negotiations, they invest considerable time toward developing interpersonal relationships with the opposing negotiating team, principally to establish a reciprocal sense of trust. By contrast, Americans tend to negate the importance of trust and prematurely progress into the persuasion stage of negotiations. Typically, American negotiators are eager to summon attorneys to present their “tightly written "105 contracts. To the Japanese negotiating team, such haste is perceived suspiciously, and. the "business relationship 106 will be short-lived". Gibney writes that "To the Japanese mind, there is something slightly sneaky about having a 52 107 In the U.S. there are lawyer pore over a contract." roughly 400,000 lawyers; in Japan, with a population of about 120 million (about one-half the pOpulation of the U.S.), there are "some 11,000 lawyers."108 Gibney writes that "farmers who sued other farmers, eschewing the time-honored methods of compromise and negotiations, have been ostracized 109 The fate of U.S. businessmen in from their villages." negotiating with the Japanese is predictable when they underestimate the significance of Amae. Consensus Decision-Making. In. the U. S. ‘there is a strong tendency for a strong-willed person to make decisions, often independently of others. Lee Iacocca, President of Chrysler, epitomized this individualistic spirit when, virtually single-handedly, he negotiated a loan agreement with the U.S. government to save his once struggling company from. bankruptcy. The Japanese, on the other hand, work within the group in arriving at decisions. George C. Homans writes that "a consensus approach yields more creative decisions and more effective implementation than does "110 For the Japanese, it is the individual decision making. responsibility of each group member to offer input in reaching a decision. Ouchi argues that the consensus approach is time-consuming, but the decision arrived-at by 111 Gibney writes the group is usually more “long lasting”. that consensus-decision making “to an outsider is consistently' exasperating,“ but. the ‘process allows for a 53 "true consensus that is an envy to us all".112 Consensus decision making has deep historical-cultural roots as is exemplified in The Constitution of Prince Shotaku (seventh-century Nara Period): Decisions on important matters should not be made by one person alone. They should be discussed with many. It is only in the discussion of weighty affairs, when there is suspicion that they' may miscarry, that one should arrange matters in concern wifh others, so as to arrive at the right decision. Ringi. (Please refer to Glossary of Terms for defini- tion.) Clark describes a procedure for circulating proposals within a Japanese organization. A ringi, or proposal, is initiated by lower management where it is studied and comments are made. It then passes onto the next highest level of management where, again, it is studied and additional comments are made. Ultimately, it reaches upper management where, according to Clark, "it has gained so much support and so many approving comments that the president and directors can scarcely reject it."114 Suggestion Box System. William G. Ouchi relates a story about an American corporation operating in Japan, where the company installed a suggestion box. The employees who submitted the best suggestions on ways to increase product- ivity were to be rewarded monetarily. After a period of six months, not one suggestion had been submitted. The company's management began asking the employees for reasons the 54 suggestion system had not been utilized. One worker remarked, "No one can come up with work improvement alone. We work together and any idea that one of us may have are actually developed by watching others and talking to others."115 The individual suggestion box system was eliminated and substituted with a group suggestion box system. Predictably, the latter system was successful. Ouchi writes that, "collectivism” for U. S. workers "implies a loss of individuality, a loss of the freedom to be different, to hold fundamentally different values from others."116 In an industrial organization where many workers function within a relatively small work place, the Japanese spirit of teamwork and cooperation has proved economically efficient. Ouchi states that, "Industrial life requires "117 The success of interdependence of one person on another. collectivism in Japan is well documented. Japanese workers' sense of group participation is applauded the world over, and esteemed as the prototypical approach to follow. U. S. companies, especially those in the automotive industry, have been searching for ideas to improve worker efficiency in order to regain the competitive edge seemingly relinquished to the Japanese. In Japan, a spirit of cooperation is not limited to the rank and file worker, but U. S. management personnel appear to resist working cooperatively with others. Pascale and 55 Athos compare Japanese and American corporate executives within the context of independence and interdependence. The authors argue that U. S. and Japanese executives, due to cultural differences, react to group situations differently. American executives have been conditioned into working ”independently of others",118 while Japanese executives "traditionally have been taught to become interdependent with others, integral parts of a larger unit, exchanging dependencies with others» 119 Pascale and Athos further note that American executives are fearful of being viewed as “too dependent";120 i.e., that by functioning interdependently their behavior will be disapproved and perceived as dependency. A sense of dependency, whether an outgrowth of the ”frontier society"121 (Please refer to Glossary of Terms for definition.) or not, is generally discouraged in American society and denounced as weakness. By contrast, Japanese executives have accepted their interdependent roles. The Japanese workers look to their leaders for assurance, direction, support, and even nurturance. Pascale, in reference to Japanese executives' responsibility to group :maintenance, notes that, "to the Japanese, the birth of a group entails many of the concerns and worries attending the birth of a child."122 Within a group situation, the authors cite examples from the early' American experience to support their‘ argument. 56 Pascale writes that, "In America, the frontier movement (much glorified) has exalted these values"123 (e.gu independence and self-sufficiency). During the frontier era of American history, the values of independence and self-sufficiency were understandably esteemed and applicable "in a frontier society that provided more than enough entrepreneurial opportunity to go around."124 While fierce independence was valued in America's "frontier society,” today's society has transformed from an agrarian to an industrial society, where interdependence is needed. No longer is there an abundance of space; instead, the majority of the population is living and working in high-populated industrial centers with relatively limited space. Summary of Early Antecedents Since the Industrial Revolution began at the turn of the 19th century to the present, U. S. organizations have been influenced by a wide range of managerial theory. During the Industrial Revolution, with the need for optimal productivity, organizations utilized almost extensively, scientific management techniques. Begun in the latter 1930's, especially with the findings of the Hawthorne studies, the human relations school of management prescribed to the notion that the worker can be motivated through concern for his/her psychological well being. In the 1960's, 57 U. S. organizations began experimenting’ 'with 'worker participative programs (e.g. job enrichment, job enlargement, organizational development, management by objectives, the Scanlon Plan, etc.). U. S. organizations, threatened with intense economic competition from an ambitious Japanese export business, sent teams of union and management representatives to visit Japanese industries to learn more about Japan's intriguing Quality Control Circles. The outgrowth of these studies has been the prolifera— tion of participative managerial practices patterned largely after those found in Japan. The following discussion will examine these managerial practices (namely Quality of Work Life or QWL) and their applications to U. S. organizations. QWL in Industrial Organizations Ouchi traces the origin of QWL in the U. S. to a series of informal meetings between university social scientists and automobile executives during the mid-1960's at the University of Michigan.125 In the course of this meeting, Dr. ‘Rensis Likert who "developed the idea that business organizations typically are of four different types“, influenced Edward N. 58 Cole, President of GM, to consider changing GM's authoritarian management practices. Ouchi reports that: Cole saw that a radical change was necessary, that the revitalization of the American automobile industry depended on a new understanding of people and of management as a process of organizing human beings. The automobile industry had sunk to such a low level of cooperation with its own employees that, in self-defense, the employees had created powerful labor unions which had adopted a hostile adversarial (sic, militant) position toward their own managers. It seemed highly unlikely that these unions would. be 'willing to *work at creating a cooperative relationship or that thesg managers would be ready to trust their workers. In brief, Likert managed to convince Cole that a change from authoritarian to participative management practices would be economically sound for GM. Cole directed Dr. Delmar "Dutch" Landen, Director of Organizational Research and Development at General Motors, to investigate the possibilities of GM adopting participative management practices. Landen enthusiastically embraced the QWL concept, and the UAW leadership was presented with the proposal. Ouchi writes that the "Union leaders, expressing doubts about participative management, feared that if the company won back the employee loyalty, the weakened union would be helpless to defend its members against future abuse‘s."12.7 The UAW leadership, realizing that workers' jobs were dependent upon GM's economic stability, agreed to discussions 59 with management concerning QWL's feasibility. In spite of the UAW's concern about the political implications of QWL (e.g. possible rank and file alienation), they agreed to be partners with GM in a major QWL undertaking. Ouchi reports that, "from these discussions came the GM-UAW National Committee to Improve the Quality of Work Life in 1973."128 Following extensive training, GM was set to launch their initial QWL pilot project. The Tarrytown Auto Assembly Plant in the State of New York was a major failure for General Motors. In 1971, upwards of 2,000 grievances had been filed, absenteeism had surpassed 770, and union-management relations had reached its lowest ebb. Dr. Rosabeth Moss Kanter writes: In 1971 Tarrytown was an embarrassment both to the union and management because of an internal political split (according to Bluestone, avowed communist leanings (of) second-shift dissidents) and to management because it was very ineffective and uppgoductive -- it had come very close to being shut. In April, 1974, as a joint venture between the UAW and GM, QWL was underway at Tarrytown. By 1978, approximately 3,500 union and management employees had completed QWL training. By 1979, in spite of the OPEC oil crisis, the Tarrytown plant had transformed into one of GM's most solvent plants. Kanter writes that, "It saw Tarrytown going from one of the poorest plants in quality to one of the best, with absenteeism dropping from more than 7 percent to less than 3 60 percent and, by the end of 1978, with a total of 32 grievances listed in comparison with 2,000 seven years earlier."130 General Motors' bold move at the Tarrytown plant was merely the beginning of its many QWL ventures. Encouraged by the success at Tarrytown, GM was determined to implement QWL throughout its organization; to facilitate the process, GM embarked upon an ambitious program to train its supervisors and hourly workers in QWL practices. During the winter of 1983 alone, 3,000 GM employees, both workers and managers, received training at the UAW's training facilities at Black Lake. James McDonald, the GM President, having completed a training session, remarked: "Whatever we have to do to keep this program (QWL) going we'll do (it)." McDonald's corporate priorities contrast sharply with Alfred Sloan, President of General Motors during the 1920's, who, boldly proclaimed that GM's "main purpose was to make money."131 That may very well remain GM's dictum, but they feel now they can better accomplish their monetary goals through QWL. Convinced of QWL's viability to revive a struggling company, GM ”has begun pushing QWL vigorously, telling managers that their career evaluations will include their performance in this area."132 In 1979, the Ford Motor Company, having shared many of the problems GM faced, began a participative management 61 venture coined Employee Involvement (EI). In 1981, Peter J. Pestillo, Ford's Vice President of Labor Relations, reported that, "about 55 of Ford's plants have EI programs, with about 4,000 workers participating on a voluntary basis".133 Fond Motor Company's participative practices spread at an even faster pace than GM's. Ford, which began implement— ing Employee Involvement (EI) six years after GM's first QWL venture, now (1984) has EI "under way at two-thirds of its "134 plants. As of 1984, QWL has been implemented in one-half of GM plants. Ironically, Charles G. Burck attributes Ford's rapid acceleration of participative practices to their autocratic leadership style. Burck suggests that while GM's style is not to "crack heads to make sure they're (orders) followed."135 Ford's management people were given explicit directives to implement EI and noncompliance would have been unacceptable. GM, Burck argues, is slower and more deliberate in effecting organizational change. GM and Ford were influenced by declining auto sales in their decision to implement participative managerial practices. The Japanese automotive industry was simply able to produce automobiles cheaper than their U. S. counterparts, and with a substantially higher margin of profit. It is generally acknowledged by U. 5. auto makers that there is a 62 "Japanese cost advantage, now estimated at $1,500 to $2,000 for a subcompact car,"136 and it relates directly to differences in managerial practices. Marcia Stepanek, Detroit Free Press automotive writer, reports that: “Most auto and advertising executives agree that (the) U. S. industry needs all the help it can get. Their Japanese and European rivals are generally perceived to make better cars for the money."137 Burck reports that: The difference lies not in automation, but in the basic organization and management of the factory. In Japanese plants 'the goods flow like water', as the Japanese put it, and low cost goes hand in hand with high quality. The just in-time inventory systems, (Please refer to Glossary of Terms for definition.) for example, minimizes inventory and materials-handling expenses, but also produces higher quality. Imperfect parts stand revealed as soon as they are made, instead of being hidden among others awaiting transit to the next stage of manufacturing. Workers, in turn, take respon- sibility for the quality of their own output. Larry Sullivan, Director' of Ford Supplier Institute, stresses that the cost advantage for the Japanese is not in large, luxury cars, but in. small compacts. Sullivan estimates the cost advantage to Japanese in producing compacts is $1,500-$2,200. Sullivan maintains that Japanese manufacturers realize a per unit cost savings of $500 in labor, $500 related to tax policy and the exchange rate of the yen, and $1,000 in manufacturing costs. Sullivan feels that U. S. manufacturers "can do little" about labor costs, tax policies, and the exchange rate of the yen; but, insists 63 Sullivan, "We can do something about manufacturing costs and that relates to management and worker relationships."139 Sullivan criticizes the emphasis university nanagement programs place on "upward mobility", rather than organiza- tional goals. "Harvard Business School," argues Sullivan, ”teaches them (students) to ‘work for themselves, but in Japanese companies the emphasis is on what is best for the company and not for their own careers. Sullivan insists that self-serving interests are perpetuated when ”companies pay big bonuses to management, and so they work on short-term goals. The Japanese companies have no bonuses. Why should managers change their management styles when for years they have been rewarded for doing things the same way." Sullivan also feels that the traditional quality control system is antequated because it does not involve the workers. "In Japan they don't have quality control departments because everyone is involved in quality. It's a team effort. Everyone is involved.” Sullivan argues that through teamwork U. S. auto manufacturers can cut the cost differential of $1,500-$2,200 in producing a small compact car. GM and Ford were not the initial pioneers in U. S. participative managerial practice. One of the earliest experiments in participative management occurred at Proctor and Gamble in the late 1960's. Ouchi writes that Proctor and Gamble established semi-autonomous work groups (Please refer 64 to Glossary of Terms for definition), "much like those found "140 in Japanese companies. Ouchi regards Proctor and Gamble's management practices to be very similar to those 141 Ouchi feels that Proctor and found in Japanese companies. Gamble's success in participatory management relates to ”the application of participative approaches at the office or shop floor level," rather than through the impersonal "suggestion 142 Burck refers to Proctor and Gamble's box system". participative management system as "shop floor participa- tion," (Please refer to Glossary of Terms for definition.) and they "have made the concept part of their management philosophy". Thomas Peters and Robert Waterman report that William Proctor and James Gamble paid particular attention toward creating a corporate culture that values worker input. Oscar Schisgall stated in his book, Eyes on Tomorrow, that Proctor and Gamble "realized that the interests of the organization and its employees were inseparable. That has never been forgotten."143 General Food's success with participative management is debatable. In 1981, Philip L. Smith, newly named President of General Foods Corporation, was described in the Wall Street Journal as "a tough operations cookie”; Louis Rukeyser reports that "on the job, however, he has proved unusually sensitive to the human task of motivating his workers to 144 perform better.” Under Smith's presidency, General Foods has undertaken an ambitious participative program to involve 65 the production workers directly in the quality control process. Before Smith assumed the presidency at General Foods, the typical worker was skilled at only one job; but now workers are trained in various skills to better detect imperfect products. Rukeyser writes that at the dog food plant in Topeka, Kansas, line workers use microprocessors "to read the moisture and weights of the products being prepared, whereas previously samples would have been pulled at the end of the line." Rukeyser quotes Smith as saying that, ”The motivation comes from giving them more responsibility in the business." Ouchi notes that General Food's commitment to participative practices has been limited when he states: "These (participative efforts) have not been corporate-wide 145 Burck notes that the General Foods plant developments,” received considerable attention when they implemented ”a highly participative system. in the early 1970's, but he further notes that "by most accounts the participative system remains uncapsulated (isolated). The company won't discuss 146 Kanter insists that General Food's excellent the matter.” reputation in participative management was tarnished "because the plant became culturally isolated deviant within the company." Kanter writes: In one of those familiar cycles, plant people viewed. corporate staff’ as 'hostile and. retreated into defensageness. Bridges ‘were burned rather than built. 66 Following modest gains of QWL in industry, QWL concepts and quality circle practices spread to non—industrial settings, namely governmental organizations. The following discussion highlights QWL experiments in county, state and federal government. QWL in Government QWL in City Government QWL is a relatively recent development in local government. This study has identified Garden City, Michigan; Lansing, Michigan; Southfield, Michigan; Troy, Michigan; and Dallas, Texas as cities which have implemented QWL. Dallas, Texas. Dallas, in 1981, became the first U. S. city to implement QWL practices, “as part of its performance 148 The City of Dallas identified four improvement program". objectives which the QWL effort would study: (1) Improve quality of city services; (2) Improve employee attitude and motivation; (3) Improve efficiency; (4) Stay' within budget.149 After two years QWL activities expanded to the following areas: convention center (maintenance), trade groups (carpenters), data processing services,‘ fire department, housing and urban development departments, parts department, police department, water department, city council and equipment services (auto mechanics). 67 Ingle and Ingle report that in 1982 Dallas' QWL effort identified some 200 problems, and eighty percent are productivity related. Some of the identified problems and resolutions are noted: 1. Problem: Inspectors have to rewrite notices of violations. Solution: Make machine-copied notice of violation on individual units and attach them on a cover letter. 2. Problem: Not knowing recent legal changes. Solution: Frequent supervisor meetings with legal liaison. Officers, knowing recent legal changes helped to make "good arrests". 3. Problem: Poor quality of ribbons for typewriters. Solution: Forward wind ribbon. If problem continues, change ribbon and save it. Refund can be attainfgoand vendor can be notified on poor quality. Because Dallas is a QWL pilot project in local govern- ment, its results will no doubt be scrutinized carefully by cities considering changes in their managerial structures. Southfield, Michigan. Jim Collins, a City Council member, was the primary influence in Southfield implementing QWL. Collins, a former executive with General Motors, was familiar with the QWL process and was convinced that it would work_in city government. Southfield's 300 employees are represented by four unions in a labor-management conglomeration that had caused strained relations in the past. Since quality circles were 68 implemented, relations between the union and management have improved. Joel Gershenfeld writes that, "Once a month the city meets with four different labor-management committees to address common non-contractual concerns." Two years after Southfield's QWL process began, "there has only been one grievance." Gershenfeld reports that, "three years ago in "151 Nick just one department there were 75 grievances. Grieshaber, the President of the Southfield Police Officer's Association and Co—Chair of the Labor-Management Committee insists that, "the key to the Committee's success will be both sides (union and management) getting out of a negotia— tions atmosphere. It ‘will take time to let old. wounds heal."152 Various labor-management committees have evolved from Southfield's QWL process. The police, safety and fire fighters committees' efforts have been mostly involved with housekeeping activities, e.g. the Police Committee "has addressed questions of vehicle use, parking facilities for motorcycles, responsibility for keeping facilities clean and 153 certain rules and regulations.” Gershenfeld reports that the safety committee's efforts have been to "make suggestions and recommendations that will help to prevent personal injury, reduce property damage losses and develop asafety 154 conscious work force." The Fire Fighters Committee "is evaluating how much training other fire fighters need and is looking into a stress management program."155 69 Through the QWL effort it appears that Southfield union employees have evolved from a state of strained relations with management to a situation where employees are actively engaged in proposing and implementing constructive activities. Lansing, Michigan. In early 1981, QWL was implemented in the Iansing Police Department. In 1980, 149 grievances were filed in the Police Department alone. In 1981, after nearly one year of QWL activities, 15 grievances were filed. Dave Sinclair, Deputy Chief of Field Services for the City of Lansing Police Department attributes the pre-QWL problems to an inability at identifying problems. Sinclair states: We didn't quite know what needed to be done but there was a lot of talk, both on the part of the union and management. But the catalytic force just wasn't there. Nothing surfaced, nothing came along. It was still everyone sitting back saying, 'Yeah, there is definitely something wrong, but what it is we dfiflft quite know, we haven't identified it yet.‘ Paul Wiegman, Assistant Executive Director of the Mid-Michigan Fraternal Order of Police, also addresses the problem of poor communications that occurred before QWL was implemented. Wiegman states that: With the quality of work life sessions, everyone's problems, including those who work nights and never see the chief or deputy chief can have their problems addresses without havipg7to hassle through the ins and outs of management. 70 In spite of contract negotiations designed to be apart from the QWL process, QWL has seemingly influenced negotiations. From 1970 to 1982 only one labor—management contract had been negotiated, with the remaining proposed contracts going to binding arbitration. Wiegman states that, ”We instituted quality of work life back in December of last year (1980) and this is the first year we have negotiated a contract since 1972."158 QWL in Federal Government Ingle and Ingle report that QWL ‘ventures have been implemented within two units of the U. S. Defense Department, the Air Force and the Navy. Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma established quality circle programs in 1980, one of the first to do so in the U. S. Tinker's first applied circles in maintenance, but it has been since applied to several other areas. Ingle and Ingle report that more than 60 circles are now in operation at Tinker. Some of the problems they have solved are: 1. Using new layering techniques, critical engine parts are plated with low rejects. 2. Tool breakage in machine shop reduced. 3. Keypunch units, with each other's help, reduced errors in punching. 4. Eggine part cleaning up with better methods. 71 Kelly Air Force Base (Texas), "one of the largest industrial complexes in the southwestern United States"160 implemented a quality circle program in December, 1980, in the Directorate of Maintenance. Initially, six pilot projects were installed and in 1983, the program was expanded to 16. Ingle and Ingle report that quality circles have been instrumental in implementing change at Kelly Air Force Base. For example, one of the Quality Circles at Kelly made a presentation to the International Association of Quality Circles (ISQC). Ingle and Ingle write that: The project involved problems with the J-79 engine components and problems with training material planning and other areas related to production. The circle proposed the training plan for new employees, document training, and new procedures for controlling and issuing parts. The recom- mendations resulted in an increase in 1pi‘oduction and less material problems in the stock. QWL practices at Kelly Air Force Base demonstrate, according to Ingle and Ingle, that "participative management will permit both members and management to openly share ideas and work toward a common goal."162 Defense Depot, Ogden, Utah. The Defense Depot has three quality circles in operation.'with. 20 personnel involved. Ingle and Ingle report that since the inception of circles, there has been an improved ”flow of material and material handling and development of information sheets for travelers on temporary duty status and permanent change of station, which aided the applicants and resulted in a marked increase 72 in the accuracy and completeness of the forms."163 In addition to the productivity and product quality improvements experienced, the officers and enlisted men report improve- ments in self esteem, confidence, communications, and job satisfaction. Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Norfolk, Virginia. Quality circles were implemented in 1979 at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard to improve morale, job satisfaction, increase productivity and dollar savings, and "improve communication between the work force and management."164 According to Ingle and Ingle, Norfolk realized a savings of $909,927 as of April 1981 through QWL—related solutions to 165 problems. Ingle and Ingle write that, "the shipyard is currently realizing $3.22 in savings for every dollar "166 The $909,927 invested in the (quality circles) program. savings realized by Norfolk did not account for such factors as improved morale, communications, etc. For example, one quality circle identified poor lighting to be a cause of severe eye strain for the workers. Their efforts resulted in management installing one floating arm magnifier flourescent light for several drafting tables. Ingle and Ingle write that, ”The result is not told by savings in dollars, but by the improvement in the morale of the draftspeople who were relieved from eye strain."167 73 QWL influences have not been limited to industry and government as the following discussion indicates. QWL in Business and Other Health Industry The National Health Planning and Resource Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-641) mandated that Health Systems Agencies (HSAs) be established to coordinate health care facilities to better meet consumer needs by providing improved services and ways to contain medical costs. In spite of the efforts of HSAs, only minimal progress has been achieved since 1974 in curtailing high costs for health services. Edgar F. Huse feels that in order to effectively address problems of cost containment and "responsiveness to consumer needs," "major strategic changes in the organization 168 and management of health systems” must take place. Ingle and Ingle write: The health care industry is one of the most important segments of the American economy. The nation spent approximately $250 billion on health care in 1981, which amounted to 9.5 percent of the gross national ‘product (GNP). The industry consumes the largest amount. of resources (food, clothes, medicine, etc.) of any single area. This expenditure has also been increasing faster than the overall inflation rate... This has put pressure on hospitals to reduce costs... Quiflgty Circles is a tool that can help in the effort. 74 Julie A. Wine and John E. Baird, Jr., hospital adminis- trators, feel that quality circles provide the needed structure to effect needed managerial changes in hospitals. According to the authors, quality circles (in their hospital) contributed to the following improvements: improved nurse retention, reduced absenteeism, increased recruitment, improved employee morale, improved the quality of patient care, reduced costs of patient care delivery, improved nurse-physician relations, improved communications, and alleviated staff shortages by increasing work efficiency.170 Wine and Baird argue that many health care organizations have "quisi quality circles in operation already but call "171 The authors insist them unit or departmental meetings. that only circles provide the needed structure to be effective. The authors maintain the principal structural feature of QWL is the steering committee which is composed of management personnel. Through the ‘Steering Committee, management is kept involved in the circle activities, e.g. the circle identifies problems and seeks problem resolutions; the proposals are then deferred to the steering committees for approval or disapproval, or sent back to the circle for further study. St. Agnes Hospital, Ford du Lac, Wisconsin, was one of the first health care facilities in the U. S. to implement Quality Circles. In early 1981, four quality circles were 75 172 The circles were established ”with a one-year trial run." to be involved in the following areas: 1. An improvement in patient care of services. 2. Improvement in communications between departments or within a department. 3. Improvement in employee ‘morale and job satisfaction. 4. Improvement in cost containment and/or efficiency efforts. The four circles were represented by personnel from the Intensive Care Unit, and the Clinical Laboratory. After one year of circles activities, some of the results were noted by Ingle and Ingle: 1. Circle members investigated a more time- efficient method of assembling admission parks. (Under the original system, admission parks were assembled by department unit clerks. An excessive amount of time was needed to tear off a sheet from a pad of forms which were held together with a rubber gum backing... The circles suggested that form packets be stripped wrapped, saving both staff time in assembling admission packets and time saved in not having to tear each single form sheet off on a rubber backed pad. 2. The Clinical Lab developed a training manual for new phlebotomists. In the past not all phlebotomists ‘who underwent on—the-job training experienced the same training. 3. Circle members studied job duties of the nursing assistants and recommended changes that would17 3 utilize their time more efficiently. After the one-year trial period, the St. Agnes Hospital Executive Staff recommended that three additional circles be 76 established, "and to incorporate circles into an ongoing system involving employees in decision making."174 Ingle and Ingle have provided extensive research with quality circles case studies in the service industry. In addition to those service industries examined in this study, Ingle and Ingle have noted recent quality circles/QWL applications to the following industries: finance, utilities, department stores, supermarkets, computer software, and insurance. Quality circles/QWL projects have recently been introduced into the service industries, but further expansion 175 is predictable. A report from U. S. and World Report notes: Since the end of World War II in the 1940s, dramatic shifts have occurred in the ways Americans earn their livings. From a time when more than 40 percent of nonfarm . workers were engaged in production, the economy of the United States has moved into a period heavily weighted toward services, trade, finance and government, for example. Today's workforce of some 92 million persons includes only 20.5 million workers in manufacturing, compared with 20.8 nullion just in wholesale and retain trades. By 1990, more peOple will be employed in miscellaneous service-type jobs, such as data processing, hotellfis, and restaurants, than in all of manufacturing. One of the most recent introductions of QWL concepts and quality circles practices, has been in education as the following discussion indicates. 77 QWL In Education QWL In K-12 Secondary Schools Industrial organizations were not alone when faced with economic crises in the 1970's. Educational organizations, dependent upon tax revenues derived from industry also felt the effects of a depressed economy. The National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) reports that between 1970 and 1979, "approximately 3,800 schools were closed or consolidated. School districts were forced to lay off thousands of teachers (23,800 in 1978-79 alonel."177 NASSP suggests that layoffs have resulted in a minimal turnover of teachers whose primary concern is in keeping their jobs. The NASSP Report is concerned that a limited turnover of instructional staff has resulted in teachers becoming isolated from fresh, innovative ideas; this isolation, in turn, has caused teacher' "burnout". NASSP reports that "the result could be a stale staff devoid of new 178 ideas, freely admitting to 'burnout'". (Please refer to Glossary of Terms for definition.) There are numerous theories concerning the causes of ”teacher burnout", but Kanter insists that "teacher burnout” is related to a sense of "powerlessness" in an educational system where school administrators and the community overly scrutinized 'teachers' activities. Kanter" writes that 78 teachers' ideas and suggestions are not sought, and are superceded with "an emphasis on forms, procedures, and paperwork."179 Archie Kleingartner reiterates Kanter's concern of teacher powerlessness in describing a teacher's frustration from an administrator's demand that he present a two-week outline plan of classroom activities: I concede the right of administrators to compel me to guard the footbridge on the day of football games, to patrol the boy's washroom, and to supervise night football games. However, irksome I might consider these demands, they do not trespose on that one area of education that is mine alone -- the classroom. I insist that the classroom meets with the approval of the community. As long as my competency 158i) accepted, I am the expert in the classroom.” Dr. Sigmund Nosow urges that school teachers be allowed to practice their profession free of unnecessary restraints. Production *workers, argues Nosow, are dependent. upon job redesign to gain intrinsic rewards and an improved quality of work life; on the other hand, ”QWL for professionals means allowing and encouraging them to practice their professional roles." Nosow further writes that: “Perhaps the most critical moderating variables impacting on QWL of teachers are those associated with restrictions on professional autonomy."181 R. Dreeben postulates that teachers are excluded from decision-making and planning roles that affect classroom 79 policies because there is limited upward communication from classroom teachers to the administrators. Classroom policies are formulated without needed input from teachers. Dreeben writes: The distinguishing characteristic of school systems is the vague connection between policy formation at both high and middle levels of the hierarchy and its implementation at the lférfl where instruction takes place -- the classoom. James O'Hanlon argues that in order to optimize quality in education teachers' suggestions must be sought by administrators.183 O'Hanlon advocates a Theory Z approach to educational management which encourages "the development of the worker-teacher through broader participation and work experiences and on the exercising of collective responsi- bility for decision making and implementation."184 Dr. James S. Bonner notes that traditionally "the only formally recognized system for upward communications is the "185 Bonner' urges that. Quality' Control grievance ‘process. Circles be utilized in education as a vehicle in providing "an effective means of mutual examination of attitudes and values between employees (teachers) and management (administrators)."186 Secondary educational institutions, like industrial organizations, have begun utilizing some facets of Japanese management practices. In spite of differences between 80 Industrial and Educational organizations, John Lorenz feels there are sufficient similarities so that application is feasible. Lorenz notes the organizational similarities between industry and education: ° extreme division of labor; ° minimum spread of occupational requirements; ° machine pacing; (Please refer to Glossary of Terms for definition.) ° short work cycles ° routinization ° sharp delineation of job jurisdictions; and ° high level of worker alienation.187 Lorenz stresses that one of the most prominent features of Japanese management is consensus decision-making, a process that entails extensive debate until there is consensus; when consensus prevails a decision is made with which all parties are satisfied. Lorenz writes that: "In the educational setting, we (administrators) often define the solutions to a problem first and then spend countless hours selling the idea to those most involved.” Truancy, Lorenz stresses, is a problem that effects many people, but typically, the problem is dealt with solely by the school administrators who formulate policy governing truancy. Lorenz describes the common procedure in arriving at a policy concerning truancy: Truancy is a typical problem in most American high schools today. High school administrators have devised several methods of dealing with the 81 problem, and they impose the procedures upon teachers with little input from those people most affected by the problem. We make decisions regarding how to deal with truancy, and spend a considerable amount of time selling the idea. The Japanese would approach this topic in a different manner. They would first define the question and not consider what the answer would be. All people who would deal with the problem of truancy would need to discuss the problem. This might involve administrators, counselors and teachers. The people who have to eventually carry out the agreemeniaaare involved in the decision-making process. Lorenz predicts that teachers who might be involved in formulating a truancy policy would be more receptive toward policy implementation if they were participants in policy formulation. For example, the teacher might phone the parent of a truant student. Bonner stresses the need to open up communication throughout the entire school system. Bonner, like Lorenz, insists that facets of Japanese Management practice would facilitate an environment for improved policy decisions. Bonner has implemented what he refers to as ”quality interaction circles" in the Muskegon (Michigan) School District. Quality interactive circles are designed to meet the emotional needs of "emotionally impaired students' (i.e. the interactional communication inherent within the circles process facilitates the affective, emotional needsof the students). Bonner stresses that these circles involve the participation of classroom teachers ”support and itinerant professionals, aides, and members of the clerical staff."189 82 Some educational theorists argue that the use of committees as an effective problem-solving tool is inadequate and should be replaced with quality circles. Estill I. Green cites numerous flaws to the committee approach toward problem solving. Green stresses that the committee approach "spells mediocrity" because each member has a vested interest. Green writes that "The members drawn from different parts of the organization will have conflicting interests... The net result is a wishy-washy compromise... Unanimity spells mediocrity."190 Green cites the following shortcomings of committees: 1. Inferiority of Decisions (a) Compromi se (b) Domination (c) Unqualified members (d) Lack of continuity (e) Inadequate motivation (f) Haste 2. Impotency of Decisions (a) Intermittency (b) ExecutiVe Instrumentalities lacking 3. Wastefulness 4. Depreciation of Line organization191 Dr. Cecil Reeves describes an innovative experiment in QWL involving the University of San Francisco (Administrative Program), Aragon High School, San Mateo Union High School District, Lakeshore Elementary, Bowditdh Middle Schools and Meridian High School (non public). Through a federal grant of $95,000 for the 1981-82 academic year, the San Mateo 83 County (California) Office of Education (or the Local Education Agency, LEA), as the coordinating agency, established an advisory committee ”comprised of eight teachers, four principals, and two representatives from each of the following: ACSA, University of San Francisco, and the County Office (San Mateo County Office of Education)."192 The overall function of the advisory committee was to coordinate quality circles activities in the above-named institutions. Reeves writes the Advisory Committees' principal roles are: (l) ”to disseminate information about quality circles, (2) to explain the concept to staff, (3) to assist in the development and implementation of circles at the site level, and (4) to facilitate the accomplishment of the general objectives of the consortium."193 The Federal Government grant mandated that the San Mateo County Office of Education develop a QWL model suitable for educational settings. After studying various industrial QWL models, the LEA devised an educational model patterned after, but adopted to, educational settings. For example, quality circles in industry are designed to delegate decision-making to the production workers. Quality circles in industry meet usually once a week to discuss problem areas. Similarly, the LEA established quality circles for the instructional staff 84 to meet on a regular basis usually once a week to study class-related problems. To adOpt Quality Circles to education the LEA incorporated the "Interaction Method" which was developed by Michael Doyle and Davis Straus.194 Dr. Frank J. Omowale Satterwhite writes: Doyle and Straus did extensive research on hundreds of organization meetings. They analyzed the behavior of successful leaders and participants; they examined relevant multi-disciplinary theory from the social sciences; and they designed a "simple system” for increasing the effectiveness of meetings... The Interaction Method is based upon two important factors: (1) the roles of the participants in a meeting and (2) effective planning and meeting management. These two factors are invaiggbly among the keys to the success of any meeting. In order to customize the circles to meet educational needs, it was decided to form three circles. One-half of the group formed Circle A, while the remainder formed Circle B. Circle C, composed of all Circle A and B members, met once a month for one hour to ”brain storm", or to identify pressing problems. The problems were then assigned to Circles A and B for analysis. Circles A and B would meet separately one hour weekly for three weeks. On the fourth week of the month Circles A and B would meet to form Circle C for the purpose of presenting recommendations for problem solving. Reeves writes that: 85 The Advisory Committee has indicated that it perceives both teachers and management benefitting from circles. Some of the benefits follow: Teachers: Gain training in problem solving techniques Opportunity to perform at a peer level with management Improvement in decision-making/communication skills Gain greater control over their destiny Non-adversary relationships with management Greater job satisfaction Management: Improvement in internal relations between staff members Better solutions to management problems Shared responsibilities Greater commitment to implement decisions Develop leadership qualities of staff Greater job satisfaction Dr. Frank J. Satterwhite, President of ISCED Community Development Institute, writes: There is ample evidence that Quality Circles work well in industry -- they increase productivity, improve efficiency, and build morale. There is every reason to believe that Qufgéty Circles can work just as well in our schools. The implementation of QWL-quality circles in education, K-12, is a recent development, but QWL efforts in higher education institutions is even more recent and it is less 86 developed. The following discussion raises the issue of participative management in higher education. QWL in Higher Education Dr. David Nichols, Chairman of the Management Department at Southwestern College (Kansas), argues that U. S. industrial organizations were able to survive stiff Japanese competition because it became concerned with product quality. Nichols contends that greater attention to quality can evolve only through a management approach ”based on trust and on worker involvement in decisions that effect them and the 197 Nichols notes that such. Japanese :managerial product." practices as consensus-decision making, lifetime job security and a commitment to the organizations goals, can be as successfully implemented in higher education institutions as in industrial organizations. Nichols insists that product quality in higher education is generally perceived by the public as inferior. (It should be noted that Nichols feels that there is confusion over what the product is, e.g. "Some identify it [the product] as major programs, others with disciplinary research, others with a particular kind of graduate, still others with a type of teaching process, a learning environment or something peculiar to a particular institution.")198 87 Therefore, efforts must be made to improve the quality control. Traditionally, the responsibility of maintaining product quality has rested with professors, but Nichols writes: Most faculty members prefer that the responsibility rest in the hands of the individual professor, linked to academic freedom, which is antithetical to the group centered processes of participatory management. Academic departments are not usually set up to be quality circles. They tend to represent vested interests of faculty disciplines rather than the educational product delivered to students. Therefore, they usually function as advocates for competiiiig9 interests rather than as advocates for quality. Dr. Richard Richardson, Jr., Departmental Chairman of Higher and Adult Education at Arizona State University, feels that prior to the 1960's the role of the "hard-nosed pragmatist" in higher education administration was appropriate. Richardson points out that until the 1960's decision making was relatively straight forward. But beginning in the 1970's issues in higher education had become complex. Richardson writes: "But times change. In the late seventies, faculty militancy, declining enrollments, inflation, and taxpayer revolts created a new agenda for the 200 eighties." Richardson lists some of the typical decisions that face community college administrators in the 1980's: 1. Should community colleges continue to play the numbers game if it leads to concerns about quality? 2. How can comunity colleges remain responsive to a changing external environment with stable and tenured faculty recruited to perform jobs that no longer exist? 88 3. How can community colleges work with employee groups to present a united front in negotiating their future with external funding sources? 4. If staff must be reduced, how can this be accomplished flhth minimum impact on programs and services? Richardson anticipates that increasing numbers of higher education administrators will embrace participative forms of management as an alternative to assuming full responsibility for unpopular decisions. Richardson predicts that ”presidents who achieve the best records for successful decision making in the eighties will be those who learn strategies for co-existing creatively with participative involvement, even if they do not become converts."202 Drs. A. D. Putt and J. F. Springer conducted research to determine the quality of work life of public administration professors at thirteen state-supported universities. Their findings were based on a job satisfaction perspective. The researchers concluded that the major factor influencing the professors' job satisfaction/quality of work life was the extent of their participation in policy formulation. Putt and Springer write that the major finding is the "salience of participation of policy formulation in explaining the degree of job satisfaction of public administration professors."203 Dr. Maurice P. Marchant, Director of the School of Library and Information Sciences at Brigham Young University, 89 reports findings that parallel closely to those of Putt and Springer. Marchant introduced participative nanagement practices in the reference department at the main library at Brigham Young University. Marchant noted that by involving the staff in the decision-making process, (1) improved informational data. was obtained, (2) employees reached a higher motivational level, and (3) the trust level among the staff was increased. In brief, staff job satisfaction was improved reports Marchant. Marchant further reports that higher job satisfaction resulted in a higher quality of services. To test the hypothesis, Marchant submitted questionnaires to faculty members to evaluate the quality of services. Marchant writes that, "the model I formulated from observing’ many American. University’ libraries linked staff satisfaction to performance."204 Definition of Quality of Work Life The term, the Quality of Work Life, or QWL, appears to be misunderstood. The following discussion provides various definitions of QWL by leading proponents of the QWL movement in the United States. Analysis of Literature In spite of the proliferation of QWL literature since the late 1960's the term, QWL, remains vague and 9O misunderstood. QWL was coined in the early 1970's, followed, in 1973, with a signed mission statement between the United Auto Workers and General Motors agreeing to its principles. Similarly, joint labor-management pacts have been formulated abroad, notably in European countries under the names of co-determination, socio-technical systems (STS), and workplace: democracy. Japan. 'had institutionalized the practice of ”quality circles", statistically-based problem-solving groups introduced by Deming and Juron, U. S.-based consultants. Reluctance by U. S. organizations to emulate European joint labor-management ventures relates to a general perception of European participative management experiences as socio-Marist in philosophical orientation. Generally, European trade union activities are characterized by extreme militancy. Conversely, Japanese unions are viewed as ”company unions", and not trade unions, as evidenced by a spirit of compromise in their relations ‘with. management. Therefore, UAW and GM decided to pattern their joint-labor management venture after the Japanese and coin it the Quality of Work Life, or by its acronym, QWL. Ironically, in the early 1950's, Deming, a nanagement consultant, had proposed to the automotive industry the ”Quality Circles concept“; this was rejected during an era of prosperity. In 1960, Deming successfully introduced "Quality Circles" to the 91 Japanese Government. "Quality Circles", or small problem- solving groups, are now an integral component of the overall Quality of Work Life process in numerous U. S. organizations. Deming's principal use of "circles“ was to facilitate a quality control procedure known as statistical process control (SPC). Ford Motor Company, not to be surpassed in this competitive struggle to combat the onslough of a surging Japanese export business, developed its own labor-management joint venture. It coined its participative venture, Employee Involvement, or E1. E1 is characterized by the basic participative nanagement principles of QWL, but Ford sought its own identity, hence EI. The following discussion will present several varied QWL definitions. As suggested earlier, there is confusion as to what QWL is. Ted Mills , reflecting on the difficulty of defining Quality of Work Life, writes: ”To begin with both the complete phrase and its shortened acronym, QWL, are a mouthful. Worse, exactly what the term seeks to identify is fuzzy, at best. It rings no quick bells of instant understanding."205 QWL encompasses aspects of psychology, sociology, communication theory, socio-technical systems, systems theory, participative management, and several other 92 disciplines and practices. To describe its complex process with a catch-all term. is a ‘virtual impossibility. Superficially, the term, QWL, suggests many of the faddish approaches of the past (T-groups, job enrichment, job enlargement, etc.). But, unlike those somewhat faddish approaches with principally psychological orientations, QWL's process and structure are more complex. Mills suggests that some critics perceive QWL as "a vision of happy workers 206 having a picnic". This perception of QWL appears as both narrow and erroneous. Carl P. Johnston, Mark Alexander and Jacquelin Robin state that QWL, as a term, "defies precise definition" because it is more than merely a concept, or "a means to an 207 end.” QWL is concerned with process and outcomes. Unlike the principles embodied within scientific management, "in which structures and functions are carefully delineated and 208 prescribed in clockwork fashion, "closed system", QWL is an ”open system". The author stresses that QWL as an open system is constantly responsive to its external and internal environments; that is: It is primarily concerned with the changing nature, structure and functioning of modern work organizations and the roles of individuals and groups in relation to one another and to the objectives of the organization. In many organizations, the employee is perceived simply as an economic entity whose role is to function as a single specialized element or 0389 in some complex production or service apparatus. 93 Paul S. Goodman argues that QWL differs from such programs as "job enrichment" or "supervisory training" in the sense that job enrichment and supervisory training programs focus on single-dimensional organizational changes, while QWL attempts to restructure multiple dimensions of the organiza- tion.210 Goodman writes that QWL provides "a mechanism of which introduces and sustains change over time." In essence, according to Goodman, QWL provides a mechanism to effect multidimensional organizational changes on a long-term basis. Goodman lists what he regards as the the general outcomes of QWL ventures in the 1970's: (1) "increased job satisfaction," (2) "reduced absenteeism, turnover, and tardiness rates," and (3) increased ”productivity." (Goodman observed that productivity increases have been observed in approximately one-half of QWL ventures, while for the remainder, productivity had maintained previous levels.) Goodman further observed that in "most projects," the workers were better skilled; the (4) "result is that the organiza- tions end up with more valuable human resources.” Goodman's observations were based on QWL results "in the first three or four years." He then examined follow-up studies "after that period.” It should be further noted that Goodman indicated neither the instrument nor the sampling size in arriving at his conclusions.211 94 Jerry J. Herman has formulated a QWL definition based on his involvement in the implementation of QWL in the West Bloomfield School District over a three-year time period. The author insists that QWL is a "philosophy" and a "process" which recognizes the ”worth and value of each employee"; QWL also makes optimal use of the "employees' skills".212 Herman maintains that QWL is a "process" to attain "the highest quality work environment for all school district employees." The author neither explains succinctly his notion of "the highest quality work environment", nor does he include students in the QWL process. Herman further notes that QWL's structure and process should be stressed in its implementation. Richard E. ‘Walton asserts that, until recent. years, industrial countries have neglected "certain environmental and humanistic values in favor of technological advancement, industrial productivity, and economic growth." But in recent years there has been an emphasis at improving employees' work environment. Walton's definition is essentially two fold. On the one hand, he views QWL as a process to improve ”productivity for the organization,” and, on the other hand, to improve "the quality of working life for its members."213 95 Guest offers a two-fold QWL definition that contains both intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics. To Guest, QWL is: ...a process by which an organization attempts to unlock the creative potential. of’ its peOple by involving them in decisions affecting their work lives. A distinguishing characteristic of the process is that its goals are not simply extrinsic, focusing on the improvement of productivity and efficiency per se; they are also intrinsic regarding what the workers see as self-éfulfilling and self-enhancing ends in themselves. Maurice Phillipe Boisvert conducted a research project at a large government office where he distributed question- naires to all white-collar workers. Based on the 155 completed questionnaires, the author concludes that, ”for workers the concept (QWL) seems limited to intrinsic work aspects while for researchers its scope extends to the 217 The organizational and career domains of action". researcher/author stressed concern that discrepancies between workers and researchers on how QWL is conceptualized will have implications "that will endanger analysis and remedial actions with respect to the quality of working life."218 Ted Mills, a QWL theorist, noted that the term, QWL, is "fuzzy". Mills asserts that ”one of the principal problems with the term is that quality of working life is not a single, specific notion. Rather, it subsumes a whole passel (many) of terms and notions all of which really belong under 96 the QWL umbrella."219 Mills argues that the following concepts and practices encompass QWL: Industrial effectiveness Human resource develOpment Organizational effectiveness Work Restructure Job Enrichment Organizational restructure Socio-technical systems Work humanization Group work concepts Labor-management cooperation Working together, worker involvement; worker participation 220 Cooperative work structures Joel Gershenfeld reports that the term, QWL was coined in the latter 1960's at a series of international conferences addressing' worker alienation at the General Motors' Lordstown, Ohio Plant. The conference's participants, which included Harvard's Michael Maccoby and UCLA's Louis Davis were searching for a label to identify participative management practices in the U. S. The European terms, "shopfloor democracy” and ”co-determination“ were ruled out with the feeling they were too narrowly defined. Too, these terms have a socio-Marxist orientation that would be unac- ceptable in the U. S. Gershenfeld writes that the "confer- ence participants, at the suggestion of Davis agreed on the term ”quality of work life (QWL)" as an umbrella description for organizational change aimed at fostering employee involvement."221 97 In recent years QWL has assumed a more holistic, or broader, meaning. G. Lippitt and J. Rumley write: ...that the Quality of Work Life's meaning has become broader, e.g. QWL 'provides an opportunity for an individual to satisfy a wide variety of personal needs -- from the need to survive with some security to the need to interact with others, to have a sense of personal usefulness, to be recognized and for achievement, and to have an opportunity22 to improve one's skills and knowledge. Edgar F. Huse argues that, unlike organizational development (OD) which focuses primarily at the management level, QWL's main focus is on the worker level.”3 Huse maintains that managers and unions tend to be skeptical of organizational development because: (1) many managers tend to associate organizational development (OD) with T-groups" and related activities, and (2) many union people continue to be distrustful of ”traditional OD” because it has a close management identity.”224 Huse contends that QWL is gaining the support of both management and unions because it has evolved into a "two system-wide approach“. That is, QWL has made inroads "by establishing methods to optimize the interaction of both the technological and the human systems.” Huse, while declining to offer his QWL definition, stresses that QWL has a wide-range of meanings, depending on ones vested interest. In spite of these differences, Huse feels that "the basic conceptual categories of the quality of work life seem to be 98 similar, even coming from such diverse sources as academia, the military and General Motors. In general, the basic categories are: 1. Adequate and fair compensation. 2. Safe and healthy environment. 3. Development of human capacities. 4. Growth and security. 5. Social integration. 6. Constitutionalism. 7. The total life space. 8. Social relevance.225 Summary of Literature on QWL Definitions It appears that the quality of work life concept continues in the infancy stages of development as evidenced by the confusion over a commonly agreed upon definition. For some theorists QWL is perceived as a one-dimensional approach toward improving the socio-psychological well being of workers. Then again, multi-dimensional definitions were provided which suggest that the QWL process transcends beyond environmental improvement of the work place; these theorists insist that QWL can appropriately be utilized to address such management concerns as productivity, product quality, job redesign, etc. The latter category of QWL definitions has been referred to as socio-technical systems (STS) as a preferred, and perhaps more apropos term than QWL. 99 In spite of the apparent difficulty in arriving at a concise QWL definition, or one universally agreed upon, the practice of QWL has made unquestioned inroads as evidenced by its wide-spread practice in numerous U. S. organizations. QWL-Quality Circles Model The following QWL-quality circles in Higher Education model (Table 3) was devised to show the extent to which the institutions embraced QWL principles and practices. 100 TABLE 3. QWL/H.E. Model Principle Percentage Percentage Question of Principle of Total Trust Mission statement established 25 QWL-quality circles steering committee established 25 Proposals/recommendations submitted to management 25 QWL training evaluated by participants 25 Subtotal 100 11 Egalitarianism Members of steering committee 50 Egalitarianism practices used 50 Subtotal 100 11 Continuous Training Continuous training 50 How often offered 50 Subtotal 100 11 Voluntary QWL—Quality Circles Membership How participants chosen 100 11 Commitment Mission statement established 16.6 Members of steering committee 16.6 Which participants trained 16.6 Which organizational levels involved in circles 16.6 Proposals]recommendations submitted to management 16.6 Egalitarianism practices used 16.6 Subtotal 99.9 11 Use of Management Consultants Management consultants used 50 When used 50 Subtotal 100 11 Task Groups Problemrsolving techniques used 100 11 Employee Recognition . How successes recognized 100 11 Consensus Decision Making Decisions reached by consensus 100 11 TOTAL 100 101 The following discussion (Chapter 3) provides the bases in formulating the survey questionnaire. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 102 CHAPTER 2: CITATIONS Barra, Ralph. (1983). Putting Quality Circles to Work: A, PracticalJ‘Strategy for Boosting Productivity and Profits. McGraw-Hill, Inc. p. 39. Ibid. p. 40. Ibid. p. 40. Ibid. p. 40. Main, Jeremy. (1981). ”Battling Your Own Bureaucracy." Working Smarter. (book w/series of articles). p. 84. Ibid. p. 84. Parsons, William. (Winter 1984). ”Participative Decision-Making at WOrk: A Guide to Bibliographic and Program Resources." Labor Studies Journal. 8(3). p. 302. Hersey, Paul, & Blanchard, Kenneth H. (1972). Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources. (2nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. p. 52. Ibid. p. 52. Breman, N. (1953). The Making of a Moron. New York, NY: Sheed & Ward. From Hersey, Paul, & Blanchard, Kenneth H. (1972). Management of Organizational Behavior: UtilizingfiHuman Resources. 72nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. p. 52. Etzioni, Amitai. (1964). Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. p. 21. Ibid. p. 21. Ibid. p. 21. Ibid. p. 32. Ibid. p. 33. Roethlisberger, F. F. & Dickerson, W. J. ‘(1939). Management and the Worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. p. 75. Etzioni, Amitai. (1964). Modern Ogganizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. p. 33. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 103 Hersey, Paul, & Blanchard, Kenneth H. (1972). Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources. (2nd ed. ) Engiewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. p. 44. Ibid. p. 44. Ibid. p. 44. Ibid. p. 23. Ibid. p. 23. Ibid. p. 24. Ibid. p. 24. Maslow, Abraham H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York, NY: Harper and Row Publishers. From Hersey, Paul, & Blanchard, Kenneth H. (1972). Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources. (2nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Han, Inc. p. 24-25. Barra, Ralph. (1983). Putting Qualityg Circles to Work: A Practical Strate for Boosting Productivity and Profits. McGraw-H1ll, Inc. p. 24. Hersey, Paul, & Blanchard, Kenneth. H. (1972). Management of Or anizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources. ‘TPnd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, Inc. p. 46. Bothwell, Jim, (1983). The Arte! of Leadership. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice—Hall, Inc. p. 216. Ingle, Sud & Ingle, Nima. (1983). Quality Circles in Service Industries. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prent1ce- Hall, Inc. p. 11. Ibid. p. 11. Ibid. p. 12. Ibid. p. 11. Ibid. p. 11. Hersey, Paulq & Blanchard, Kenneth H. (1972). Management of Organizational Behavior: Utiliz_pg Human Resources. (2nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, Inc. p. 51. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 104 Ibid. p. 52. Ibid. p. 36. Ibid. p. 54. Ibid. p. 38. Ibid. p. 54. Ibid. p. 58 Ibid. p. 58-59. Ibid. p. 59. Bothwell, Jim, (1983). The Artut of Leadership. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. p. 217. Argris, Chris and Schon, Donald A. (1974). Theory in‘ Practice: Increasing gofessional Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Herzberg, Dr. Frederick. (September 15, 1980). "Leadership in a Period of Psychological Depression." Industry Week. 55-58. p. 58. Ibid. p. 58. Ibid. p. 58. Ibid. p. 58. Ibid. p. 58. Ibid. p. 58. Ibid. p. 56. Ibid. p. 58. Ibid. p. 58. Greiner, Larry E. (1980). What Managers Think of Participative #geadership: Individual Rights in the Corporation. Eds: Westin, Alan E. & Salisbury, Stephan. New York, NY: Pathenon Books. p. 367.. Ibid. p. 370. Ibid. p. 367. Ibid. p. 368. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 105 Maccoby, Michael. (1976). The Samesman: ‘The New Corporate Leaders. New YOrk, NY: Simon and Schuster. p. 183. Ibid. p. 183. Fromm, Eric. (1947). Man for Himself. New York: Rinehart. p. 145-162. Ibid. p. 183. Ibid. p. 184. Ibid. p. 184. Ibid. p. 184. Ibid. p. 183. Ibid. p. 185. Ibid. p. 183. Ibid. p. 184. Ibid. p. 183. Ibid. p. 185. Ibid. p. 183. McGarrity, Susan. (1984). Andntroductionfito Basic Statistical Process Control. Tech Center Coursework Co., Inc. DeMente, Boye. (1981). The Japanese Way of Doing Business: The Psychology of Management in Ja an. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. p. 15-16. Gibney, Frank. (1979). Japan: the Fragile Super Power. (revised ed.) New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc. p. 19. DeMente, Boye. (1981). The Japanese Way of Doing Business: The Psychqlogy of Management in Japan. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. p. 16. Children of the Tribe. (February 7, 1984). (video- tape]. MGT 808, (Japanese .Management, Michigan State University Section 2, Winter, 1984. Ibid. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 106 Ibid. D'Itri, Dr. Pat. [Guest Lecturer, Japanese Management Class at Michigan State University] MGT 808, Japanese Management, Michigan State university, Section 2, Winter, 1984. Ibid. Clark, Rodney. (1979). The Japanese Company. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. p. 14. Ibid. p. 14. Ibid. p. 15. Ibid. p. 14. Ibid. p. 15. Stark, Dr. Stanley. [Professor of Management at Michigan State University] (February 7, 1984). Lecture Notes. MGT 808, Japanese Management, Michigan State University, Section 2, Winter, 1984. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Nakane, Chie. (1970). JapanesgrSociety. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. p. 7. Ibid. p. 7. Ibid. p. 7. Ibid. p. 9. Gibney, Frank. (1979). Japan: the Fragile Super 2232;. (revised ed.) New York, NY: W. W. NOrton and Company, Inc. p. 183. Ibid. p. 183. Ibid. p. 183. Pascale, Richard Tanner, & Athos, Anthony G. (1981). The Art of Japanese Management. New York, NY: Warner Books, Inc. p. 132. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 107 Ibid. p. 72. Ibid. p. 104. Gibney, Frank. (1979). Japan: the Fragile Super Power. (revised ed.) New York, NY: W. W. NOrton and Company, Inc. p. 199. Kamata, Satoshi. (1982). Ja an in the Passing Lane: An Insider's Acgount of Life 1n a Japanese Auto Factory. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. p. 107. Sasaki, Hajimi. (November 1977). Fortune. p. 128. Durlabity, Dr. Subhash. (January 25, 1984) [An expert on Japanese Management who is making plans to teach Japanese Management in a University in his native India]. MGT 808, Japanese Management, Michigan State University, Section 2, Winter, 1984. Graham and Herberger. Class Discussion. MGT 808, Japanese Management, Michigan State University, Section 2, Winter, 1984. Ibid. Gibney, Frank. (1979). Japan: the Fragile Super T Power. (revised ed.) New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc. p. 203. Ibid. p. 203. Ibid. p. 203. Homans, George C. (1960). The Human Group. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc. p. 67. Ouchi, William G. (1981). Theory 2: How' Amgrican Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge. Avon Books. p. 36. Gibney, Frank. (1979). Japan: the Fragile Super Power. (revised ed.) New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc. p. 192. Ibid. p. 192. Clark, Rodney. (1979). The Japanese Company. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. p. 127. Ouchi, William G. (1981). Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge. Avon Books. p. 41-42. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 108 Ibid. p. 42. Ibid. p. 42. Pascale, Richard Tanner, & Athos, Anthony G. (1981). The Arg_of Japanege Management. New York, NY: Warner Books, Inc. p. 187. Ibid. p. 187. Ibid. p. 187. Ibid. p. 195. Ibid. p. 187. Ibid. p. 195. Ibid. p. 195. Ouchi, William G. (1981). Theory 2: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese—Challenge. Avon Books. p. 151. Ibid. 126. p. Ibid. 155. p. Ibid. 155. p. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. (1983). The Change Masters: Innovation for Productivity in thegAmerican CorporatiOn. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, Inc. p. i336. Ibid. p. 130. Fortune. (1983). p. 100. Burck, Charles G. (August 22, 1983). "Will Success Spoil General Motors?“ Fortune. p. 97. ”Can Detroit Catch Up" 1981. Fortune. p. 103. Ibid. p. 103. Burck, Charles G. (August 22, 1983). "Will Success Spoil General Motors?" Fortune. p. 100. Burck, Charles G. (August 22, 1983). ”Will Success Spoil General Motors?" Fortune. p. 95. Stepanek, Marcia. (December 12, 1983). Detroit Free Press. p. 32. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 109 Burck, Charles G. (August 22, 1983). "Will Success Spoil General Motors?” Fortune. p. 95. "Japanese Management Impact and Application In American Industry.” (January 26, 1984). MGT 808, Japanese Management, Michigan State University, Section 2, Winter, 1984. Ouchi, William G. (1981). Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge. Avon Books. p. 7. Ibid. p. 57. Ibid. p. 108. Schisgall, Oscar. (1981). Eyes on_ Tomorrow: The Evolution of Pgoctor and Gamble. Chicago: J. G. Ferguson. p. 143. Rukeyser, Louis. (July 31, 1983). "Accountability Aids Productivity." State News. p. 16. Ouchi, William G. (1981). Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge. Avon Books. p. 137. Burck, Charles G. (1983). ”When Workers Manage Themselves.” Working Smarter. p. 106-107. Kanter, Rosabeth. Moss. (1983). The Change (Masters: Innovation for Productivigy in theAmerican Corporation. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, Inc. p. 125. Ingle, Sud & Ingle, Nima. (1983). Quality Circles in Service Industries. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, Inc. p. 257. Ibid. p. 257. Ibid. p. 258. Gershenfeld, Joel. (July 1982). "Labor-Management Committees in the City of Southfield." The Work Life Review. Lansing, MI: Michigan Quality of Work Life Council. 1(1). p. 14. Ibid. p. 16. Ibid. p. 16. Ibid. p. 15. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 110 Ibid. p. 16 Sinclair Wiegman Wiegman Ingle, Sud & Ingle, Nima. (1983). Quality Circles in Servic4e Industgies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: T’rentice- Hall, Inc. p. 246. Based on Quality Circle presentation at the Fourth Annual Conference of I.A.Q.C., St. Louis, Missouri, 1982. Ingle, Sud & Ingle, Nima. (1983). Quality Circles in Service Industrie_§_. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, Inc. p. 247. Ibid. p. 247. Ibid. p. 248. Ingle, Sud & Ingle, Nima. (1983). anliEyCircles in Serviceg Industries. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, Inc. p. 249. From: ”News and Views on Quality of Circles”, Naval Material Command, MAT DOK, Washington, D. C. 20360. Ingle, Sud & Ingle, Nima. (1983). Quality Circles in Service Industries . Englewood Cliffs , NJ: Prentice- Hall, Inc. p. 249: Ibid. p. 249. Ibid. p. 249. Huse, Edgar F. (1980). prganizationel Development and Change. (2nd ed.). St. Paul: West Publishing Co. p. 427. Ingle, Sud & Ingle, Nima. (1983). Quality Circles in Service Industries. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, Inc. p. 214. Wine, Julie A. and Baird, John E., Jr. (May, 1983). "Improving Nursing Management and Practice 'Through Quality Circles." Journal of Nursing Administration. 12(5). p. 6-7. i Ibid. p. 6. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 111 Ingle, Sud & Ingle, Nima. (1983). anlity Circles in Service Industries. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, Inc. p. 217. Ibid. p. 223-224. Ibid. p. 218. Ibid. p. 8. U. S. and World Report. (October 12, 1981). p. 56. Neill, Shirley B. "How to Motivate Staff." (December 1981). Tips for Principals in NASSP. Carmichael, CA: NASSP. Ibid. Kanter, Rosabeth. Moss. (1983). The Change Masters: Innovation for Productivity in the American Corporation. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, Inc. p. 221. Kleingartner, Archie. (1967). "Professionalism and Salaried Worker Organization." Industrial Research. Madison, Wisconsin. p. 31. Nosow, Sigmund. (Summer, 1984) . ”Improving Teaching Effectiveness Through QWL." Journal of the MASSP. 22(4). p. 10. Dreeben, R. (1960). The Nature of Teaching. Glenville, IL: Scott, Foresman. p. 48. O'Hanlon, James. (February, 1983). ”Theory Z in School Administration." Educational Leadership. p. 17. Ibid. p. 18. Bonner, James. "A Quality Control Process for Educa- tional Excellence." (an unpublished paper). p. 8. Ibid. p. 11. Lorenz, John A. (December 1981). "Japanese Management: Implications for American Education." Educational Technology. 21:23-4. p. 23. Ibid. p. 24. Bonner, James. (June 1982). "Japanese Quality Circles: Can They Work in Education." Phi Delta Kappan. p. 681. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 112 Green, Estill I. (July 1957). "The Nature and Use of Committees." Advanced Management p. 185. Ibid. p. 185. Reeves, Cecil, Project Director. ”San Mateo Educational Quality Circle Consortium," a handout. p. 3. Ibid. p. 2. Doyle, Michael and Straus, Davis. (1977). How to Make Meetings Work. New York, NY: Playboy 'Piperbacks. p. 83-870 Ibid. p. 19. Satterwhite, Frank J. Omowale, Ph.D. (June, 1982). ”Managing Quality Circles Effectively." p. 6. Nichols, David A. (May 1, 1982) "Can 'Theory 2' Be Applied to Academic Management?" The Chronicle of Higher Education. p. 72. Ibid. p. 72. Ibid. p. 72. Richardson, Dr. Richard, Jr. (October 1980). "Decision Making in the 1980's: Hard-nosed Pragmatists Vs. Participative Involvers." Community and Junior College Journal. 11(2). p. 27. Ibid. p. 27. Ibid. p. 27. Putt, Drs. A. D. and Springer, J. F. (1980). "Quality of Work Life Among Public Administration Professors." International Journal of Public Administration. p. 225. Marchant, Dr. Maurice P., Director of the School of Library and Information Sciences, Brigham Young Univer- sity. (April 15, 1982). "Participative Management, Job Satisfaction and Service.“ Library Journal. p. 784. Mills, Ted. (June 8, 1978). anlity of Workin Life: What Is Qualityref Working Life (Excerpted from T%e Name that IsnTt There). Ottawa, Canada: Employment Relations and Conditions of Work Branch, Labour Canada. p. 52. ' Ibid. p. 2. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222. 113 Johnston, Carl P.; Alexander, Mark; & Robin, Jacquelin. (September 1978). gu_ality of Working Life: _ The Idea and Its _Application. Ottawa, Canada: Employment Relations Branch, Quality of Working Life Unit. p. l. Ibid. p. 1. Ibid. p. 1. Goodman, Paul S. (August, 1980). ”Panel Session III: Realities of Improving the Quality of Work Life.” Labor Law Journal. IRRA Spring Meeting. p. 489. Ibid. p. 489. Herman, Jerry J. (November 1982). ”With QWL: Improving Employee Relations." Michigan School Board Journal. p. 10. Walton, Richard E. "Quality of Working Life: What Is It?" Sloan Management Review, Fall 1973, page 11. Ibid. p. 11. Ibid. p. 12. Guest, Richard A. (July-August 1979). "Quality of Work Life -- Learning from Tarrytown.” Harvard Business Review. p. 76. Boisvert, Maurice Philippe. (1977). ”The Quality of Working Life: An Analysis." Human Relations. 22(2). 150. Ibid. p. 155.. Mills, Ted. (June 8, 1978). Quality of Workin Life: What Is Quality_of Working Life-TExcerpted from Tie Name that Isn't There). Ottawa, Canada: Employment Relations and Conditions of Work Branch, Labour Canada. p. 2. Ibid. p. 220. Cutcher-Gershenfeld, Joel. (September 1983). ”QWL: A Historical Perspective." The Work Life Review. Lansing, MI: Michigan Quality of Work Life Council. 11(2). p. 18-19. Lippitt, G. and Rumley, 'J. (January 1977). ”Living With Work -- The Search for Quality in Work Life." Optimum. 8(1). 114 223. Huse, Edgar F. (1980). Organizational Development and Change. (2nd. ed.). St. Paul: WestPublishing 557 p. 236. 224. Ibid. p. 226. 225. Ibid. p. 237-238. CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY Purpose Based on the foregoing Review of the Literature, this study delineated various principles common to OWL programs. These principles appear both necessary and applicable to the application of OWL in higher education institutions. These principles are as follows: Trust Egalitarianism Continuous training Consensus-decision making Voluntary QWL-quality circles membership Commitment to QWL-quality circles from administration Use of management consultants Task groups (quality circles) utilizing problem-solving techniques Employee Recognition A survey questionnaire was devised and submitted to institutions of higher education to determine the extent to 115 116 which these QWL principles are being practiced; i.e. the survey questionnaires was be administered to QWL practitioners in higher education institutions for purpose of "reality testing". (Please refer to Glossary of Terms for definition.) It is a premise in this study that QWL principles considered applicable in industrial QWL settings will not necessarily be considered essential in higher education institutions. Conversely, principles not considered as essential in industry may be essential ingredients for a successful QWL venture by higher education institutions. Selection of Population Once the population was identified, survey question— naires were sent. to those higher education institutions practicing QWL-quality circles. Through use of phone calls and letters, efforts were made to determine higher education institutions practicing QWL/circles activities. A partial and tentative list of institutions was established through secondary (e.g. literature) and primary sources (word of mouth). Upon precise identification of those institutions, survey questionnaires were administered to appropriate QWL/circles representatives (e.g. QWL/circles facilitators. 117 Selection of Questionnaire Respondents Upon identification of higher education institutions with QWL programs, efforts were made to identify appropriate representatives for the purpose of completing the survey questionnaires. Through phone calls and letters, efforts were made to identify those QWL representatives best able to reflect the nature of the QWL venture. Development of Questionnaire The survey questionnaire sought to discern the breadth and depth of QWL-circles practices; that is, who is involved in QWL practices and to what extent are QWL principles practiced. The questions contained within the survey questionnaire sought to provide information related to the aforementioned QWL/quality circles principles. The following questions constitute the survey questionnaire: 1. Please indicate departments/units within your college/university that are utilizing QWL/quality circles. (a) Academic Departments (Specify) (b) Administrative Departments (Specify) 118 (c) Support Departments (Library, Maintenance, etc.) (d) Other (Please specify) Question 1 was included for the purpose of identifying other QWL/circles activities within the institution so that additional survey questionnaires might be administered. That is, if more than one unit or department is practicing QWL-quality circles, then additional survey questionnaires would be administered. Too, the responses to this question should provide information related to the central question, e.g. who within the institution is practicing QWL-circles, and to what extent. 2. When was the start up date of your QWL Quality Circle Project? MONTH YEAR The validity of the responses were determined, in part, by the length of time the QWL-circles venture had been in practice. That is, if the project was new (the last 3-6 months), then sufficient feed-back information may not exist. 3. Has a mission statement or a statement of QWL philosophy been established? YES NO DON'T KNOW As an indication of commitment to the QWL process, it is essential that major officials within an organization sign a mission statement agreeing to the principles and/or 119 philosophy of QWL. A case in point was the mission statement signed by major officials in the UAW and General Motors Corporation. The existence of a signed mission statement frequently"will provide pertinent information (aside from commitment) concerning the emphasis on developing shared values among its QWL participants. QWL theorists tend to regard the development of shared values as desirable; hence it is a QWL principle. Frequently, mission statements contain language *which. indicates. an effort. in developing shared values among its QWL participants. It is hoped that the respondents will comply with a request to provide copies of their mission statements. Mission statements often vary considerably' in their language, thus 'providing' invaluable information about their QWL ventures. To eliminate these institutions' concerns for confidentiality, all respondents were advised that neither their personal names nor the names of their institutions would be disclosed within the research. 4. Do you have a QWL-quality circles steering committee? YES NO DON'T KNOW 4b. If your answer is yes, what is its composition? STUDENTS ADMINISTRATORS FACULTY MEMBERS UNION REPRESENTATIVES OTHER (Specify) It is considered desirable that QWL ventures establish steering committees to provide needed direction* for the Quality Circles' activities. Ideally, the steering committee is composed of equal numbers of members from each major group 120 represented in the QWL process. Question 4 addresses the principles of egalitarianism, commitment and trust. The absence of a steering committee, or disportional group representation, may indicate insufficient attention to the above-stated principles (e.g. the absence of administrators on the steering committee may be indicative of a lack of commitment to the QWL venture by administration. On the other hand, the omission of students, faculty, or union membership (if there is a union) may indicate a lack of trust of those groups. Similarly, the omission of any one of those groups may be an indication of the QWL venture's inability to establish egalitarianism principles. 5. How many times a month do your quality circles meet? times a month Ideally, quality circles should meet on a regular basis, usually once a week for approximately one hour. 5a. How many circles have been established? Less than 5 5 - 9 10 - 15 More than 15 Frequently, the success of QWL-circles ventures is measured by its development throughout the organization, e.g. the establishment of additional circles. 121 5b. How many members participate in each circle? Less than 5 5 - 9 10 - 15 More than 15 Circle sizes vary, but usually the number of partici- pants ranges from 4-12 members. It is generally felt by QWL theorists that if a circle becomes too large (say 15-20 members), the group loses its cohesiveness, hence its problem-solving effectiveness. Conversely, it is felt that circles limited in size (1-3 members) are limited in their potential to generate a sufficient number of ideas: too, sufficient feedback is limited. So. How are participants chosen? VOLUNTARY ASSIGNED TO GROUP DON'T KNOW That QWL members participate on a voluntary basis is a principle of OWL. Forcing or coercing employees to partake in QWL circles activities is considered a departure from the principle that membership should be voluntary. 5d. Are QWL-circles participants from the same work unit/ department? YES NO DON'T KNOW It is considered essential that a QWL circle be composed of members within the same work unit with similar jobs so that they can. effectively' develop Igroup cohesiveness and problem-solving skills. 122 5e. What is the average number of years your quality circle participants have worked at your university? Less than 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 — 20 years Over 20 years Life-time employment is considered a principle in the QWL process. Clearly, if a QWL venture is in its infancy stage, (as many are) the likelihood of achieving life-time employment for its general membership is unlikely. 5f. Show’ differences, if any, in the average length of employment of Quality Circles participants with your institution's employees at large? Use additional sheet if necessary. In spite of a QWL venture's inability to attain life- time employment, responses to Question 5f may indicate that efforts are underway to promote the. principle of life-time employment. 6. What problem solving techniques are utilized by your quality circles? (a) Brainstorming (b) Check Sheets (c) Cause & Effect Problem Analysis (d) Histograms (e) Stratification (f) Data Gathering (Sampling) (9) Pareto Analysis (h) Presentation Techniques (1) Control Charts (j) Scatter Diagrams (k) Other (Specify) 123 7. Are any of the above listed training sessions available to QWL participants? Please mark training areas offered. Please refer to Question 6 and indicate session by letter indicator (e.g. (a), (b), (c), etc.). Use additional sheet if necessary. 7a. Is QWL Quality Circles training evaluated by participants? YES NO DON'T KNOW 7b. Is training continuous? YES NO DON'T KNOW 7c. If training is continuous, how often is it offered? times a 7d. Which of the following quality circles participants are involved in on-going/continuous training? FACULTY ADMINISTRATORS STUDENTS SUPPORT STAFF OTHER (Specify) Questions 6 and 7 (and 7b and 7e) were designed to address the QWL principle relating to continuous training. Continuous training is a commonly used principle available to all its. members. Ideally, QWL ventures make efforts to involve all of its members in continuous, on-going training, while in some QWL ventures, top management (or administra- tors) are exempt from training participation. To discern information related to continuous training, this researcher used the various problem-solving techniques contained within 124 Question 6. QWL-circles ventures will, typically, utilize training in problem-solving techniques in their efforts toward conducting continuous, on-going training. 7a. Is QWL quality circles training evaluated by participants? YES NO DON'T KNOW Question 7a attempts to discern essentially the same information sought in Question 3. Hence, Question 7a addresses the principles of egalitarianism, commitment and trust. It ‘was therefore presumed that the responses to Questions 3 and 7a would find commonalities. 8. On the average, how many proposals and/or recommendations are submitted to management and/or administrators per month? Of those, how many proposals and/or recommendations are implemented? SUBMITTED ACCEPTED IMPLEMENTED Responses to Question 8 revealed information concerning management's and/or administration's commitment to QWL-circles. In addition, the degree to which consensus- decision making is practiced should be indicated. 8a. How are decisions arrived at within the quality circles? MAJORITY RULE CONSENSUS OTHER (Specify) Responses to Question 8a more specifically addressed the principle of consensus decision making to learn the extent it 125 was being practiced. It should be noted that consensus decision. making, unlike majority rule, mandates that all circle members be in agreement on the particular issue (e.g. a proposal to administration). 9. In your opinion, how successful has your QWL-circles project been? VERY SUCCESSFUL UNSUCCESSFUL SUCCESSFUL VERY UNSUCCESSFUL 9a. Briefly' mention the principal reason or reasons the quality circles have been successful or unsuccessful . Use additional sheets if necessary. Theoretically, the responses to Question 9 should be congruent to the composite responses to the questions which address the degree to which the QWL principles are being practiced. 10. Is QWL/circles-related information (e.g. minutes of meetings) made available to all employees? YES NO DON ' T KNOW 10a. If so, how? NEWSLETTER BULLETIN BOARD OTHER (Specify) 126 11. How is recognition of QWL/circles successes communicated to non-QWL employees? AWARDS CEREMONY NEWSLETTER BULLETIN BOARD OTHER (Specify) It is considered a desirable practice to keep all employees, and not just QWL-circles members, abreast of activities, namely to spread QWL-circles activities throughout the organization. In addition, it is considered prudent to advertise QWL's successes to all employees so as to facilitate further development of QWL-circle activity. 12. Please indicate some of the QWL practices which are being used in your organization. SAME PARKING AREAS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES SAME LOUNGE AREAS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES SAME REST ROOMS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES OTHER (Specify) Responses to Question 12 indicateed the extent to which the egalitarianism principle was practiced in the institution. 13. Has your organization used management consultants during its QWL program? YES NO DON'T KNOW 13a. If so, when were they used? START UP CONTINUOUS TRAINING CIRCLES OTHER (Specify) 127 A common practice in an organization's QWL-circle start up phase is to hire a management consultant to assist in its implementation. Generally, an outside consultant will not have formed alliances with any one groUp; therefore, the consultant is ideally positioned to bring together devisive groups to provide the QWL-circle venture the needed support and commitment. 14. What does your institition determine to be the final product? STUDENT DELIVERY OF SERVICES COMBINATION OF BOTH OTHER (Specify) Higher education's product continues to be debated. Is the product the student (e.g. the student's academic preparedness), or the services it provides (e.g. maintenance, etc.) or is it a combination of the above? In theory, a successful QWL-circles venture will produce conditions which will improve product ,quality. But if the product is unclearly identified, then measuring the success or lack of success of the QWL-circles venture may prove troublesome. 15. Does your organization have a method of measuring product quality? YES NO DON'T KNOW 15a. If so, what criteria are used? Use additional sheet if necessary. 128 This study“ presumed that. product. quality' measurement would be non-existent, or imprecise at best. Had an instrument been devised to measure product quality, then it might be thought that the institution's quality of“ work life-quality circle practice was at a comparatively advanced level. Limitations A potential limitation in this study related to conducting sufficient interviews with key QWL participants in higher educational institutions. For example, to enrich this study, it would have been prudent to conduct on-site interviews with those involved in on-going QWL ventures at the City College of New York, Los Rios Community College, San Francisco Community College, Miami-Dade Community College, California State University, and Lane Community College. (It should be noted that some institutions of higher education do not identify their programs as QWL per se, but they have incorporated many of the QWL features, e.g. participative management, employee involvement, consensus decision-making, etc.) Because QWL implementation. in .higher' educational settings is a relatively recent development, the literature 129 is necessarily limited. In light of this, the survey questionnaires for this study assumed an even greater importance. CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS Introduction The data obtained from institutions of higher education with QWL/quality circle programs is reported in this chapter. Each of the reporting institutions has indicated that it is currently employing at least one QWL/quality circle venture. As was stated in Chapter 3, this study is concerned prin- cipally' with the extent to ‘which these institutions are adhering to QWL practices and principles. Demographics The following series of tables indicate demographics showing' general information about the responding institutions. In terms of size, student enrollment, and number of employees, the reporting institutions showed diversity. {There was reported diversity in the QWL/quality Circles' 130 131 structures, e.g. number of circles and. members, and the organizational levels involved. Six of the respondents were identified as two-year institutions of higher education, while four institutions provide a minimum of four years of instruction. The lowest full-time student enrollment was 1,800 and the highest was 47,631. The fewest number of full-time employees is 100, and the institutions with the highest number of full-time employees is 846. Table 4 on the following page provides further detail. It should be noted that a possible bias occurred since the majority of the survey questionnaires were completed by professors. 132 TABLE 4. Characteristics of Respondents ---------- Respondent — A Type of College 2-year College x 4-year College Size of Student Body 1,800 5,000 7,000 8,000 8,500 12,386 x 14,000 32,000 43,000 47,631 No. of Employees 100 350-400 500 510 550 600 800 846 x No Response B C D E F G H I J 133 The reporting institutions indicated that a wide range of departments/units were utilizing QWL-quality circles. The respondents indicated that eight academic departments have implemented quality circles; twelve administrative departments; eight support departments. The following table (Table 5) provides a closer examination of the departments/ units that are utilizing QWL/quality circles within the reporting institutions. 134 TABLE 5. QWL Departments ---------- Respondent A B C D E F G H I J Please indicate departments/units within your college/university that are utilizing QWL/Quality Circles. Academic Departments Arts & Letters x Arts & Sciences x Health Services Industry and Technology Nursing Programs x x Public & Human Services Voc. Tech. x Welding Program x All Mixed at auxiliary campus x Not Specified x Administrative Departments Business Office x Developmental Services Economic Development Group Faculty Services x Financial Aid x Financial Service Mgt. x Financial Service Operations x Food Services Housing Registration x Student Records Special Ed. Support Departments Book Store Clerical x Counselors x Grounds Maint./Physica1 Plant x x Learning Center Library x Math Resource Center x Women's Programs x All All areas of classified staff x Not Specified x Other i'Plus three perimeter campus's are recognized. Each Circle from these campus's include faculty and clerical personnel." X 135 Of the reporting institutions with QWL-quality circles, the most recent start-up date is 1984, and the institution reporting the most longevity was begun 1981. Table 3 provides detail regarding longevity of QWL-quality circle programs. Four of the institutions reported having established less than five circles, and four respondents indicated that their institutions had established at least 15 quality circles. Seven of the ten respondents indicated that their quality circles had 5-9 members, and three reported 10-15 members. Nine of the ten respondents advised that quality circles members (within each circle) are from the same work unit. Eight of the ten respondents reported the formulation of clerical circles. Eight of the ten respondents reported that their QWL-quality circles are successful; two reported very successful. Three of the respondents indicated that faculty members are involved in continuous on-going quality circles training. Four respondents advised that" administrative jpersonnel are involved in on-going continuous training and three respondents reported that staff personnel "and others" are involved in on-going continuous QWL-quality circles training. Six of the ten respondents had identified the "Delivery of Services” as the final product, while four reported that a combination. of ”delivery’ of services" and "students" was considered the final product. 136 Eight of the ten respondents reported that a measurement tool had not been developed to evaluate the quality circles. One respondent advised that the "placement of students” and "student satisfaction” were the criteria to evaluate their quality circles. Tables 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 provide further detail. TABLE 6. Start-Up Dates Respondent A B C D E F G H I J 2. What was the start up date of - your QWL Quality Circle project? 10/81 ‘ x x 02/83 x 10/83 x x x 11/83 x x 1983 x 09/84 x 137 TABLE 7. Frequency of Quality Circles Meetings .......... Respondent A B C D E F G H I J 5. How many times a month do your quality circles meet? 2 x x 4 x x x x x Weekly x No Response x TABLE 8. Number of Quality Circles .......... Respondent A B C D E F G H I J 5a. How many Circles have been established? Less than 5 2 x x 2 S - 9 x 10 -15 x More than 15 x x x x 138 TABLE 9. Members per Circle .......... Respondent A B C D E F G H I J Sb. How many members participate in each Circle? 5 - 9 x x x x x x x 10 - 15 x x x TABLE 10. Quality Circles Participants .......... Respondent A B C D E F G H I J 5d. Are QWL-circles participants from same work unit/department? Yes x x x x x x x x x No 139 QWL Principles This research delineated various principles common to QWL programs as stated in the previous chapter. As these principles appear both necessary and applicable to the implementation of QWL in higher education institutions, questions were included in the survey questionnaire to determine to what extent these principles have been implemented. As noted in Chapter 3, the following principles and practices were identified: Trust Egalitarianism Continuous training Consensus-decision making Voluntary QWL/quality circles membership Commitment to QWL-quality circles from administration Use of management consultants Task groups (quality circles) utilizing problem-solving techniques Employee Recognition Explanation onWL-Higher Education Model The results of the survey questionnaire are discussed below. For clarity and consistency, data has been converted from a monthly to a yearly basis. In addition, a QWL-Higher Education (QWL-H.E.) model was developed to facilitate evaluation of data. 140 The following guidelines were used in developing a point system for the model: In questions where the choice for an answer was "Yes," "No” or ”Don't Know", numerical values were assigned as follows: "Yes" = "1", ”NC" = "0", and ”Don't Know” = "-' (for data given). When "Don't Know” was given for an answer or no response was marked on the questionnaire, a “-" was used to note that no data was available for the answer. For all other questionnaire responses, one point was given to each possible response to that question (ex. Question 6 displayed 10 possible answers, thus 10 points were assigned to that question). For additional consistency and clarity, a percentage system was devised to give equal value to each question within a principle and also to give equal value to each principle used in the QWL-H.E. Model. This system. was devised as follows: 1. Within each principle, an equal value was assigned to each question pertaining thereto. For example, as in the Trust principle, Questions 3, 4a, 8 and 7a were used 141 to see if this principle was adhered to within each responding institution; therefore, each question was given a percentage value of 25% for its equal share of that principle. Each principle was shown as a total percentage of 100%; thus, if only one question was used for a principle, that question was assigned a value of 100%. 2. For the summary table for the QWL/H.E. Model (shown in percentages) in Appendix D, each principle was given an equal value of 11% with all principles totalling 99%. Data for each respondent within this table was prorated on this basis. Percentages showing the degree to which respondents adhered to the QWL/H.E. Model are reflected in the Summary section for each principle. me»; On the basis of a review of the literature, it was determined that in a QWL-structured unit, it is essential that all omganizational levels function interdependently to attain optimal effectiveness and efficiency. To effect an interdependent working relationship, administration and employees need to establish a high trust level. It was on this basis that trust was established as a QWL principle. 142 The following questions were asked of respondents to determine the extent. of trust. between administration and employees: 3. Has a mission statement or a statement of philosophy been established? 4. Do you have a quality circles steering committee? 4a. If yes (Q4), what is its composition? 7a. Is QWL Quality Circles training evaluated by the participants? 8. On the average, how many proposals and/or recommendations are submitted. to management and/or administration per month? Of those, how many proposals and/or recommendations are implemented? Question 3. As noted in Chapter 3, a mission statement is a document signed by administration and by the employees agreeing to the principles and/or philosophy of QWL-quality circles. It is a premise in this study that a trust level needs to exist before all parties can agree to the terms of the mission statement. For that reason, the following question was asked of respondents: 3. Has a mission statement or a statement of philosophy been established? Six of the ten respondents reported the use of a mission statement. Three respondents indicated that mission statements were nonexistent. One respondent answered "don't know". Table 11 indicates whether the respondents had formulated mission statements. 143 TABLE 11. Mission Statement ---------- Respondent A B C D E F G H I J 3. Has a mission statement or statement of philosophy been established? Yes x x x x x x No x x x Don't Know x Questions 4 and 4a. Typically a quality circles steering committee is composed of diverse elements, e.g. administration, unions, faculty, etc. Steering committees are established to oversee the general quality circles activities. Ideally, a steering committee is designed to bring together diverse organizational levels to form a trusting working relationship. The following questions were asked to determine if steering committees had been established and the composition of its members. 4. Do you have a quality circles steering committee? 4a. If yes (Q4), what is its composition? 144 Seven of the ten respondents reported the use of steering committees. Five of the respondents reported administration and faculty members on the steering committees. Six of the respondents had union members; one respondent has "staff employees” on their committee. None of the respondents reported student membership on the steering committees. Table 12 indicates if the respondents have established quality circles steering committees and the composition (e.g. organizational levels) of its members. 145 TABLE 12. QWL Steering Committee Respondent A B C D E F G H I J 4. Do you have a QWL Steering Committee? Yes x x x x x x No x x 4a. If yes (Q4), what is its composition? Administrators 4 x x 6 Faculty x x x 2 Students 0 Union Members 4 x x x 4 Other Para-prof (Lab Asst.) x Managers x Staff Employees x No Response x x 146 Question 7a. Frequently, the QWL trainers are management consultants contracted by the institutions. In addition, QWL trainers are often times employees reassigned by management to the QWL program to provide training. Because QWL trainees are apt to question the trainers genuine interest in the employees, trust between trainers and trainees is paramount. As a way to enhance trust between the trainers and trainees, it is prudent to allow the trainees to evaluate the training. Question 7a was included in the survey to determine if the trainers placed sufficient trust in the participants to evaluate their training. 7a. Is QWL Quality Circles training evaluated by the participants? Six of the respondents indicated that the training is evaluated by the participants; three indicated that the evaluations are not evaluated by the participants, and one answered that he/she did not know. Table 13 indicates if the QWL training was evaluated by the participants. 147 TABLE 13. Training Evaluations Respondent A B C D E F G H I J 7a. Is QWL Quality Circles training evaluated by participants? Yes x x x x x x x NO x x Don't Know x Question 8. One of the principle functions of the quality circles is to identify problems and work toward a proposed solution. Procedurally the proposals are then submitted. to administration. to .be approved for implemen- tation. A Contingent upon approval of a proposal, administration must have trust in the circles' abilities to solve problems effectively. The following question was designed as an indicator of administration's trust in the circles' problem solving skills: 8. On the average, how' many proposals and/or recommendations are submitted to :management and/or administration per month? Of those, how many proposals and/or recommendations are implemented? (To provide clarity, the monthly totals were converted to a yearly basis.) 148 SUBMITTED ACCEPTED IMPLEMENTED Collectively, the respondents reported that 131 proposals were submitted to administration annually, and 114 proposals were accepted and implemented. Two of the respondents did not answer Question 8. Table 14 indicates the total number of proposals/ recommendations submitted to administration, and those approved for implementation. 149 TABLE 14. Proposals/Recommendations from Quality Circles On the average, how many proposals and/or recommendations are submitted to management and/or administration per month? Of those, how many proposals and/or recommendations are implemented? Submitted 0 per team per month 5 -2 per year 1 l 2 3 1 2-3 per year er year er year 'U'U Implemented 1.5 1.6 2 3 1-2 per year 2-3 per year Other Not a monthly basis-- all but 2 proposals were accepted and implemented Only one has not been accepted No Response Respondent D E F G H I J X X X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X 150 Trust Summary. The trust levels between administration and QWL-quality circles members vary considerably from institution to institution. Respondent C received the lowest rating of 10% (due in large part to “No Response” to three of the four questions), while Respondent I received the highest rating of 90%. Overall, there were only three respondents out of ten with a score of 80% or above; therefore, it appears that the trust principle was not adhered to strongly in a majority of the institutions. the respondents are reflected in Table 15. Percentages for all of TABLE 15. Trust QWL/H.E. Model Principle Max. Respondent Question Pts. A B C D E F G H I J Numerical Rating Trust ~ Q3 1 0 l - l 0 1 0 l 1 1 Q4a 5 - 2 2 3 4 2 - 3 3 - Q8 36 2.5 12 - 21.6 1 5 - 18 24 36 - Q7a l l 1 - 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 Subtotal 43 3.5 16 2 26.6 6.5 3 18 29 41 2 Percentage Rating Trust - Q3 25 0 25 - 25 0 25 0 25 25 25 Q4a 25 - 10 10 15 20 10 - 15 15 - Q8 25 2 8.3 - 15 l - 12.5 16.5 25 - 7a 25 25 25 - 25 25 0 0 25 25 25 Subtotal 100 27 68.3 10 80 46 35 12.5 81.5 90 50 151 Egalitarianism That there exists an egalitarian attitude in a QWL- structured organization is considered a desirable feature. Unlike traditional organizational structures, QWL-structured organizations strive to bring all organizational levels together. The following questions were included to determine what, if any, progress had been made toward attaining an egalitarian organizational "culture”. 4. Do you have a quality circles steering committee? 4a. If yes (Q4), what is its composition? 12. Please indicate some of the QWL practices which are being used in your organization. SAME PARKING AREAS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES SAME LOUNGE AREAS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES SAME REST ROOMS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES Questions 4 and 4a. As reported earlier in Chapter 4, a steering committee, is composed of‘ diverse organizational levels; moreover, it is a forum where each member has an equal opportunity to express his/her ideas. Theoretically, each member, regardless of position, is of equal stature in a QWL. organization. The following questions were asked to learn of the diversity and/or composition of the steering committee: 4. Do you have a quality circles steering committee? 4a. If yes (Q4), what is its composition? 152 As reported earlier, seven of the ten respondents reported the establishment of a steering committee. Five of the respondents reported administration and faculty members on the steering committees. Six of the respondents had union members; one respondent has ”staff employees" on their committee. None of the respondents reported student membership on the steering committees. (Questions 4 and 4a were also used on page 138 to determine trust levels.) Table 12 in the Trust section displays the responses for Questions 4 and 4a. Question 12. The following question was asked to determine specific egalitarian practices being utilized: 12. Please indicate some of the QWL practices which are being used in your organization. SAME PARKING AREAS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES SAME LOUNGE AREAS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES SAME REST ROOMS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES Seven of the ten respondents reported that they did not practice any of the three criteria constituting egalitarian- ism. Two of the respondents advised that they practice two of the egalitarian criteria, while one reported the practice of all three egalitarian criteria. 153 TABLE 16. Egalitarianism Practices Respondent A B C D E F G H I J 12. Please indicate some of the QWL practices which are being used in your organization. Same parking areas for all employees x x Same lounge areas for all employees x x x Same rest rooms for all employees x x Other Choosing new administration x I don't understand question x None of the above x No Response x x x x Egalitarian Summary. With the exception of Respondent E which received an egalitarian rating of 90%, it appears that the egalitarian principle is not widely practiced among the reporting institutions. For example, nine of the respondents rated 55% or lower on the egalitarian principle. Based on the results of the data, egalitarian is the least practiced QWL principle. Table 17 displays a summary of the data for the egalitarian principle. 154 TABLE 17. Egalitarian QWL/H.E. Model Principle Max. Respondent Question Pts. A B C D E F G H I J Numerical Rating Egalitarianism Q4a 5 - 2 2 3 4 2 - 3 3 - Q12 4 0 O 0 O 4 0 0 0 2 2 Subtotal 9 0 2 2 3 8 2 0 3 5 3 Percentage Rating Egalitarianism Q4a 50 - 20 20 30 40 20 - 30 30 - Q12 50 0 O 0 O 50 O 0 0 25 25 Subtotal 100 0 20 20 3O 9O 20 0 30 55 25 Continuous Training Proponents of QWL-quality circles argue that employees with proper training, are fully capable of participating with management in the process of problem solving. It is therefore a QWL principle to involve employees in continuous training. The following questions were asked to determine the extent to which efforts were made to involve employees in continuous training: 7b. Is (QWL-quality circles) training continuous? 7c. If training is continuous, how often is it offered? Qgestions 7b and 7c. Nine of the ten respondents reported that the training is continuous; however, the 155 frequency of training varied considerably. (To add clarity, the data has been converted from a monthly to a yearly basis.) One respondent reported. that. QWL-quality circles training was provided ”once a year", while another respondent reported that training was provided twelve times annually. Four respondents indicated that their QWL ventures provided training anywhere from 4-6 times a year. One respondent reported that training was provided ”all the time", but did not specify the number of times training is offered annually. Three respondents did not answer Question 7c. The following table shows the extent of continuous training provided by the reporting institutions. 156 TABLE 18. Continuous Training Respondent A B C D E F G H I J 7b. Is training continuous? Yes x x x x x x x x Yes, for leaders X No x Don't Know x 7C. If training is continuous, how often is it offered? Leaders are trained all the time x Once a month x 3 times a year x 3-4 times a year x Quarterly (4 times a year) x 4-6 times a year x Once a year x No Response x x x 157 Continuous Training Summary. Continuous on-going training does not appear to be a widely practiced principle by the institutions surveyed. While one respondent received a 100% rating' for‘ the continuous training jprinciple, the remaining institutions reported a rating of 70.8% or less. The following table reflects the extent to which the reporting institutions practice the principle of continuous training. TABLE 19. Continuous Training QWL/H.E. Model Principle Max. - Respondent Question Pts. A B C D E F G H I J Numerical Rating Continuous-Training Q7b 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 l 1 1 1 Q7c 12 1 4 5 3.5 - - - 12 3 - Subtotal 13 2 5 6 4 5 1 0 1 13 4 1 Percentage Rating Continuous Training Q7b 50 50 50 50 50 50 0 50 50 50 50 Q7c 50 4 16.6 20.8 14.6 - - - 50 12.5 - Subtotal 100 54 66.6 70.8 64.6 50 50 100 62.5 50 O 158 Consensus Decision Making Another desirable QWL principle, consensus decision making, requires that all quality circles members agree to the decisions made. As opposed to majority rule, where there is a tendency toward the development of power factions to reach a majority, consensus must be reached by circles members. Arriving at a consensus is often tedious and time consuming, but typically, decisions arrived at consensually gain wider support upon implementation. The following question was included to determine the extent to which this principle is being practiced: 8a. How are decisions reached within the quality circles? Five of the ten respondents reported that their respec- tive QWL/quality circles practice consensus decision making to arrive at (decisions, while three respondents practice majority rule. One respondent answered that it "varies", while another respondent reported the use of both majority rule and consensus. Table 20 summarizes the consensus decision making principle. 159 TABLE 20. Consensus Decision Making Respondent A B C D E F G H I J 8a. How are decisions reached within the quality circles? Consensus x x x x x x Majority rule x x x Other Varies with circles x No Answer x Consensus Decision Making Summary. Consensus decision making is regarded in organizational settings as a core QWL principle, but its practice by the surveyed institutions of higher education is minimal. For example, only seven of the ten respondents reported consensus decision making practices by QWL-quality circles. One reported "it varies from circle to circle”, one reported a combination of majority rule and consensus decision making, and two reported majority rule. Considering the importance of consensus decision making, it does not appear that this principle is widely adhered to by the institutions. Table 21 reflects the extent to which the institutions have adhered to the consensus decision making principle. 160 TABLE 21. Consensus Decision Making QWL/H.E. Model Principle Max. Respondent Question Pts. A B C D E F G H I J Numerical Rating Consensus Decision Making Q83 1 1 1 .5 1 .5 0 1 0 1 1 Percentage Rating Consensus Decision Making Q8a 100 100 100 50 100 50 0 100 0 100 100 VoluntaryQW1:QualityCircles Membership It is considered desirable that employees not be coerced into quality circle membership as it is felt that involuntary membership ‘would. probably result in nonacceptance of OWL principles. Voluntary membership is, therefore, a QWL- quality circles principle. The following question was included in the survey questionnaire to determine the extent of voluntary membership in quality circles: 5c. How are the participants chosen? Nine of the ten respondents reported that quality circle membership is on a voluntary basis, while one respondent reported that membership is both voluntary and assigned. 161 TABLE 22. Voluntary Circle Membership Respondent A B C D E F G H I J So. How are the participants Chosen? Voluntary x x x x x x x x x x Ass1gned to Group x Don't Know Voluntary Circle Membership Summary. It appears that voluntary QWL-quality circles membership is the most widely practiced principle by the surveyed institutions. Nine of the reporting institutions received a 100% rating on the voluntarism. principle. Table 23 indicates the extent to which QWL-quality circles membership is voluntary. 162 TABLE 23. Voluntary QWL-Quality Circles Membership QWL/H.E. Model Principle Max. - Respondent Question Pts. A B C D E F G H I J Numerical Rating Voluntary QWL-Quality Circles Membership Q5c 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .5 Percentage Rating Voluntary QWL-Quality Circles Membership Q5C 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 50 Commitment to QWL-Quality Circles from Administration Although administration may have authorized the implementation of quality circles, mere authorization is not a precise indicator that quality circles have received a firm commitment from administration. Instead, this research will report the extent of involvement by administration in QWL/quality circles activities as an indicator of genuine commitment. Data from Question 12 will be reported to determine the degree of egalitarianism being practiced by units using QWL circles because it is presumed that the various egalitarian practices would need administration's approval to be implemented. The following questions were asked in the survey questionnaire to determine the extent of 163 commitment by administration to QWL quality circles activities. (It should be noted that Questions 3, 4, 4a, 7d, 7e, 8, and 12 were used in other principles.) 3. Has a mission statement or a statement of philosophy been established? 4. Do you have a quality circles steering committee? 4a. If yes (Q4), what is its composition? 7d. Which. of the following' quality circles participants are involved in on-going/continuous training? Faculty Administrators Students Support Staff 7e. What organizational levels are included in QWL/quality circles activities? 8. On the average, how many proposals and/or recommendations are submitted to management and/or administration per month. Of those, how many proposals and/or recommendations are implemented? 12. Please indicate some of the QWL practices which are being uSed in your organization? SAME PARKING AREAS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES SAME LOUNGE AREAS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES SAME REST ROOMS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES Question 3. As was reported earlier in Chapter 4, a mission statement is a document signed by administration and by the employees agreeing to the principles and/or philosophy of QWL-quality circles. It is a premise of this research that a signed mission statement indicates a form of commitment by administration. The following question was asked to provide data concerning commitment: 164 3. Has a mission statement or a statement of philosophy been established? As reported earlier, six of the reporting institutions indicated that they had formulated mission statements. Three institutions reported that mission statements had not been formulated, while one respondent answered "don't know". Questions 4 and 4a. The extent of involvement by administrative personnel in steering committees is indicative of commitment to QWL-quality circles. The following questions were asked to obtain data concerning commitment: 4. Do you have a QWL Steering Committee? 4a. If yes (Q4), what is its composition? Administrators Faculty Students Union Members This data was used previously for the trust principle. Question 7d. The extent to which administrative personnel are involved in on-going continuous training demonstrates commitment to QWL / quality circles . Therefore , the following question was asked: 7d. Which. of the following’ quality’ circles participants are involved in on-going/ continuous training? Faculty Administrators Students Support Staff 165 Four of the ten respondents reported that administration circles members are involved in continuous/on-going training. Table 24 indicates which quality circles participants are involved in continuous training. 166 TABLE 24. Continuous Training Participants Respondent A B C D E F G H I J 7d. Which of the following quality circles participants are involved in on-going/continuous training? Faculty x x x Administrators x x x Students Support x x x ix Other All x Deans, managers, current and x potential circle leaders are given a 2-day training session twice a year. The leaders have found that the more resources we have to draw on the better we are able to use the techniques. Only QC facilitators receive x formal training Team leaders and some team members x No Response x x 167 Qgestion 7e. The following question was included in the survey questionnaire to obtain data concerning administration commitment to QWL-quality circles. 7e. What organizational levels are included in QWL/quality circles activities? Five of the ten respondents reported that administration personnel are involved in QWL/circles activities. Table 25 indicates the extent to which administrative personnel are involved in QWL/quality circles activities. TABLE 25. Organizational Involvement in Continuous Training Respondent A B C D E F G H I J 7e. What organizational levels are included in QWL/Circles activities? Maintenance x x x x x x Faculty x x x x x Clerical x x x x x x x x Students Administrators x x x x x Other All x Staff (e.g. engr. group, x cust. serv. reps.) Support staff x 168 Question 8. Question 8 should also provide data concerning the extent of administration commitment to QWL. 8. On the average, how many proposals and/or recommendations are submitted to ‘management and/or administration per month? Of those, how many proposals and/or recommendations are implemented? (It should be noted that the data was converted from a monthly to a yearly basis to provide clarity.) Collectively, the respondents reported that 131 proposals were submitted to administration annually and 114 proposals were accepted and implemented. (Two of the respondents did not answer Question 8.) This data was used previously for the Trust principle. Question 12. Implementation of egalitarian practices require administration approval. The following question seeks to discern data regarding administration commitment to egalitarian practices. 12. Please indicate some of the QWL practices which are being used in your organization. SAME PARKING AREAS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES SAME LOUNGE AREAS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES SAME REST ROOMS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES (It should be noted that the data from Question 12 was also used for the egalitarianism principle.) As was reported on pages 145-146, seven of the ten respondents reported that they did not practice any of the three criteria constituting egalitarianism. 169 Commitment Summary. Overall, there appears to be lack of commitment by administration toward QWL-quality circles efforts as evidenced by minimal involvement by administration in the formulation of mission statements, quality circles steering committee membership, quality circles participation, and the support of egalitarian practices. Respondent I reported the highest commitment rating of 74.8%, while the remaining institutions received commitment ratings of 54.9% or less. The following table reflects the extent to which the reporting institutions practice the commitment principle. TABLE 26. Commitment QWL/H.E. Model Principle Max. Respondent Question Pts. A B C D E F G H I J Numerical Rating Commitment Q3 1 0 1 - 1 0 l 0 1 1 1 Q4a 5 - 2 2 3 4 2 - 3 3 - Q7d 5 3 1 5 3 - - 1 2 3 1 Q7e 6 3 2 6 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 Q8 36 2.5 12 - 21.6 1.5 - 18 24 36 - Q12 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 2 Subtotal 57 8.5 8 13 31.6 12.5 6 22 34 49 7 Percentage Rating Commitment Q3 16.6 0 16.6 - 16.6 0 16.6 0 16.6 16.6 16.6 Q4a 16.6 - 6.6 6.6 10 13.3 6.6 - 10 10 - Q7d 16.6 10 3.3 16.6 10 - - 3.3 6.6 10 3.3 Q7e 16.6 8.3 5.5 16.6 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 13.3 13.3 8.3 Q8 16.6 1.2 5.5 0 10 l - 8.3 11.1 16.6 - Q12 16.6 0 0 0 0 16.6 0 0 0 8.3 8.3 Subtotal 99.9 19.5 37.5 39.8 54.9 39 2 31.5 19.9 47.6 74.8 36.5 170 The Use of Management Consultants Some prOponents of QWL-quality circles recommend the use of management consultants in the implementation of quality circles. It is felt that consultants, with neither an allegiance toward management nor employees, are ideally trained to bring together diverse groups. The following questions were asked to determine this: 13. Has your organization used management consultants during its QWL programs? 13a. If so, when were they used? Question 13. The following question was asked to determine the extent of utilizing consultants in the QWL process: 13. Has your organization used management consultants during its QWL programs? Table 27 indicates whether management consultants were utilized by the responding institutions. 171 TABLE 27. Management Consultants .......... Respondent A B C D E F G H I J 13. Has your organization used management consultants during its QWL program? Yes x x x x x x x x No x x Eight of the ten respondents reported the use of management consultants during the QWL-quality circles process. Qpestion 13a. The following question was asked to determine the stage or stages of consultant use: 13a. If so, when were they used? Seven of the respondents reported the use of consultants during the "start up" phase, while three reported the use of consultants for "training". Table 28 indicates the stages of the QWL/quality circles process that management consultants were utilized. 172 TABLE 28. Management Consultants: When used Respondent A B C D E F G H I J 13a. If so, when were they used? Start Up x x x x x x x Continuous x Training x x x Circles x Other Of facilitators x Our program is patterned after x a private company in Iowa. We are the only educational institution we know of with a QWL program in the state No Response x x Management Consultants Summary. The use of management consultants to assist the reporting institutions in the QWL ”process" is prevalent, especially during the ”start up” stage. Two of the institutions received 100% ratings for the management consultant principle, while seven respondents received scores of at least 62.5%. 173 TABLE 29. Management Consultant QWL/H.E. Model Principle Max. - Respondent Question Pts. A B C D E F G H I J Numerical Rating Use of Management Consultants Q13 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 0 1 1 0 Q13a 4 1 4 2 2 l 1 - 1 1 - Subtotal 5 2 5 3 3 2 2 0 2 2 0 PercentageiRating Use of Management Consultants Q13 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 0 50 50 0 Q13a 50 12.5 50 25 25 12.5 12.5 - 12.5 12.5 - Subtotal 100 62.5 100 75 75 62.5 62.5 0 62.5 62.5 0 Task Groups/Circles Utilizing Problem-Solving Techniques For QWL-quality circles to attain optimal effectiveness and efficiency, it is prudent for trained circle members to utilize numerous problem-solving techniques. The following question was asked to discern data concerning problem-solving techniques utilized. 6. What problem-solving techniques are utilized by your quality circles? Table 30 indicates the problem-solving techniques utilized in quality circles activities by the respondents. TABLE 30. Problem-Solving Techniques ---------- Respondent A B C D E F G H I J 6. What problem-solving techniques are utilized by your quality circles? (a) Brainstorming x x x x x x x (b) Check Sheets x x x x x (c) Cause & Effect Prob.Ana1y. x x x x x (d) Histograms x x x x x (e) Stratification x x x x x (f) Data Gathering (sampling) x x x x (g) Pareto Analysis x x x x x (h) Presentation Techniques x x x x x x x x x x (1) Control Charts x x x x x x x x x (j) Scatter Diagrams x x x All of the respondents reported the practice of at least two problem-solving techniques. Five of the respondents indicated use of at least seven problem-solving techniques. Task Groups Summary. Based on the data from the survey questionnaire, the use of problem-solving techniques by the quality circles is *wide spread. Each. of the ten problem-solving techniques included in the survey were utilized by quality circles from at least three institutions. The following table indicates the extent to which the reporting institutions practice problem-solving techniques in their quality circle program. 175 TABLE 31. Task Groups QWL/H.E. Model Principle Max. - Respondent Question Pts. A B C D E F G H I J Numerical Rating Task Groups Q6 10 7 5 7 5 5 4 5 10 9 3 Percengage Rating Task Groups Q6 100 70 50 70 50 50 40 50 100 90 30 Employee Recognition To facilitate high morale among the circles members, as well as to promote the successes of QWL activities, it is considered prudent to recognize members for their contributions. The following question was asked to determine the extent to which employee recognition is practiced: 11. How is recognition of successes of QWL/circles communicated to non-QWL employees? Nine of the ten respondents reported that QWL-quality circles members are recognized for their contributions. Eight respondents reported that recognition is provided through. newsletters; one through. an awards ceremony; one through the bulletin board; one through the semi-annual 176 report meetings; one through "minutes shared at faculty meetings"; one respondent did not respond. Table 32 shows the information gathered through Question 11. TABLE 32. QWL Success Recognition .......... Respondent A B C D E F G H I J 11. How is recognition of successes of QWL/Circles communicated to non-QWL employees? Newsletter x x x x x x x x Awards Ceremony x Bulletin Board x Other Semi-annual report meetings x Minutes shared at faculty x meetings Newsletter, all employees receive a copy of the Phoenix No Response x 177 Employee Recognition Summary. It appears, superfici- ally, that the employee recognition principle is widely practiced among the reporting institutions, but the extent of practice appears limited. For example, only two of the respondents reported at least four ways to recognize employees for their achievements. Eight of the respondents advised that the only form of employee recognition was through use of newsletters. One institution received a 100% rating, while nine received a 25% or less rating. The following model indicates the extent to which the employee recognition principle was practiced by the respondents. TABLE 33. Employee Recognition QWL/H.E. Model Principle Max. Respondent Question Pts. A B C D E F G H I J Numerical Rating Employee Recognition Q11 4 1 4 l 1 ~ 1 1 l 1 1 Percentage Rating Employee Recognition Q11 100 25 100 25 25 - 25 25 25 25 25 178 Responses to Open-ended Questions The following open-ended questions were asked in the survey questionnaire to elicit responses concerning the least desirable features of their QWL-quality circles programs and what the respondents would do differently in the implementation stages of the QWL process: 16a. What would you consider to be the least desirable features of your QWL/quality circles ventures? 16b. If you were implementing a new QWL-quality circles program, what would you do differently? The following responses were reported by the institutions: 179 TABLE 34. Least Desirable Features Respondent Verbatim Response 168. What do you consider to be the least desirable features of your QWL program? A B Use additional sheet if necessary. Inadequate mid-management support. Workforce skepticism, time and money pressures, resistance from middle managers, inadequate training. No response Frustration of middle managers - lack of support of circle concept. Missed time on the job Lack of interest (genuine) by certain top managers; conflict over procedures philosophy. In beginning, the slowness of getting things going. Too long to get a solution, e.g. problem was: We'd work on the organ's [sic, organization's] most difficult prob(s) [sic, problem(s)]. The steering committee members are addressing the issue of QWL training for managers. Research in cos. (sic, companies] w/active Circle programs indicates that first line supervisors often have the most difficulty buying into the quality circles concept. They view quality Circles as.a directive from upper management into which they have no input, they often resent being left out of a process which impacts them and the work area which they supervise. All deans and. managers at [Respon- dent B] who have circles operating in their areas have been through the initial quality circles training, the Steering Committee believes that additional training would be helpful in making them part of the process. Quality Circles are not intended to raise barriers between managers and employees, but rather to improve communications. Middle mgt. lack of support Yes, would spend more time on training. 180 Table 35. Changes you would make Respondent Verbatim Response 16b. If you were implementing a new QWL program, would you do it differently? A Use additional sheet if necessary. Provide mgt. & classified training (e.g. participatory management group process communication skills); for a mid/upper management QC; publicize results more quickly; track QC efforts more diligently. Training sup(s) earlier; provide adequate budget; increase overall awareness of workforce. Less rigid structure to implement process. Spend 1 year planning and training before implementing any Circles; develop appropriate training materials prior to start up. No Send the Steering Committee Chairman to receive training and info. The facilitator was trained, but is not recognized as authority (not top mgt.) For tng. purposes, I'd assign them a very small project in the beginning, and let them know that once organized, they would select project. No response Spend more time training higher and middle management and get complete acceptance from those in management positions. Yes, would spend more time on training. 181 Based on the data from the "verbatim responses" it appears that most of the respondents felt that their QWL-quality circles have received insufficient support and commitment from administration; e.g., Respondent A reported "inadequate mid-management support” of the quality circles. Respondent B advised that "resistance from middle managers" is a result of administration receiving "inadequate training". Respondent H also felt that administration needs "additional training. . . because it would be helpful in making them part of the process." Respondent D stated that there is a ”lack of support of (the) circle concept from middle managers." Respondent H reported that "first line supervisors (managers) often have the most difficulty buying into the quality circles concept" because "they (the managers) View quality circles as a directive from upper management into which they have had no input." Respondent H further reports that ”they (the managers) resent being left out of a process which impaCts them and the work area which they supervise." Respondent I reported that the most imposing obstacle toward effectively implementing quality circles relates to "middle management lack of support”. Based on the result of the data from the open-ended responses it appears that an obstacle to the success of QWL-quality circles relates to a lack of commitment from administration. CHAPTER 5 : SUMMARY /CONCLUS ION The purpose of this study was to identify and examine QWL-quality circles ventures in institutions of higher education. More specifically, it was the intent of this study to determine the extent to which these institutions utilized established QWL practices and principles; this was accomplished procedurally by submitting survey questionnaires to those institutions with QWL-quality circles. Data from ten respondents (institutions) were then analyzed to determine the extent to which each institution was utilizing QWL principles and practices. The following discussion is a summary of the data. QWL Principles Ire: Overall, the data appear to indicate that neither sufficient trust levels exist between administration and employees nor are sufficient efforts made to establish high trust levels. 182 183 In the initial stage of QWL/quality circles implementation, it is essential that efforts be made by QWL organizers to establish a trusting relationship with administration. The administration should be encouraged to work closely with the QWL organization by being involved in the planning and decision-making processes. Involvement should begin initially with administration as co-signees of the mission statement, yet only six of the ten respondents reported that they had formulated mission statements, signed and agreed upon by administration. Following administration involvement in formulating a mission statement, a QWL-steering committee should be established with proportionate representation from administrators. Steering committees, as noted previously, function primarily to oversee the overall QWL-quality circles operations. Involvement in steering committees provides an opportunity for administration to observe circles' development and to become sensitive of OWL principles. By administrative personnel serving on steering committees, a closer relationship with employees representing a. wide range of organizational levels would probably* be established, thus facilitating’ a Ihigher trust level. As indicated in Chapter 4, seven of the ten respondents reported the use of steering committees, with only five of the 184 respondents reported administrative personnel serving on QWL-steering committees. Another possible indicator of the trust level between administration and QWL quality circles members was the number of proposals the quality circles submitted to administration for approval and implementation. SuperficialLy, it appears that the proposal approval rating was high. For example, of the 131 proposals submitted, collectively, 114 proposals were accepted. But it should be noted that there was disproportionately a higher frequency of proposals approved from quality circles which had administrative members serving on QWL steering committees. For example, of the quality circles with administrative personnel on the steering committee, (5), there were 108 proposals submitted with 94 proposals accepted by administration for implementation. As was indicated in Chapter 4, the highest trust level rated was 90%, while only three institutions reported a trust rating of 80% or above. Egalitarianism Egalitarianism, an established QWL principle, stresses the notion of equality for all members of an organization regardless of position and level. 185 There appeared to be clearly absent a spirit of egalitarianism as was reflected in separate parking lots, cafeterias, lounges, and restrooms. While four of the respondents scored a maximum of eight points on the egalitarian level scale, five of the respondents scored three points or less. As was reported in Chapter 4, the highest egalitarian score was seven points, while eight of the institutions scored three points or less on an eight-point scale. On a five-point scale one of the respondents scored the maximum of five points, while eight of the respondents scored two points or less. Continuous Training Overall, continuous training was provided to the QWL quality circles members, but there was clearly a variance as to ‘what. was considered continuous training, e.g. as was reported in Chapter IV, one respondent reported that his/her quality Circles provided continuous training "once a year," while another respondent reported continuous training ”twelve times annually”. It appears that the "continuous training QWL-quality circles principle was not practiced to a great extent by the reporting institutions. The validity of the responses to question 7b (Is QWL-quality circles training continuous?) is in question based on the variations of what constitutes continuous training, e.g. "once a year" and '12 times annually". As was reported in Chapter 4, one 186 institution reported a 100% rating on the continuous training principle, while the remaining institution received ratings of 70.8% of less. Consensus Decision Making Consensus decision making is a core QWL-quality circle principle, yet it was noted in Chapter 4 only six of the ten respondents reported consensus decision-making practices. Consensus decision making, a principle derived from Japanese management theory and practice, stresses teamwork. That is, the emphasis is on the group, rather than the individual, in arriving at decisions. Consensus decision making, a departure from the practice of arriving at decisions through majority rule, is essential in the QWL "process"; without consensus decision making, the probability of power factions forming to expedite decision making, is increased. As reported in Chapter 4, six of the institutions received 10% ratings for consensus decision making; two received 50% ratings; and two received 0% ratings. Voluntary QWL Quality Circles Membership As was indicated in Chapter 4, voluntary QWL-quality circles membership is an essential principle because forced membership ‘would. probably result. in. nonacceptance ,of QWL principles. As reported in Chapter IV, most of the respondents (9 of 10) reported that their QWL-quality circles 187 membership was based on voluntarism. As was reported in Chapter 4, nine of the ten responding institutions reported a 100% rating on the voluntarism principle. Based on the data voluntarism appears to be the principle most widely adhered to by the respondents. Commitment to QWL-Quality Circles from Administration Overall, the respondents indicated that their major obstacle toward effective implementation of QWL-quality circles relates to a lack of commitment/support from administration. This belief is reflected by a general lack of involvement by administration in the formulation of mission statements, steering committee and quality circles membership, and QWL training. There is a strong belief by QWL proponents that efforts toward gaining administrative commitment shouLd be underway before QWL quality circles are implemented. Results from the survey questionnaire appear to indicate that administration commitment to QWL quality circles ventures is minimal. On a twelve point scale, two of the institutions scored nine points or better, while eight of the institutions scored eight points or less. In spite of the need for acceptance of OWL programs by Administration, the acceptance principle does not appear ‘widely practiced by the respondents. As was reported in Chapter 4, the highest commitment rating was 188 74.8%, while the remaining institutions received commitment ratings of 54.9% or less. Use of Management Consultants Most of the respondents reported the use of management consultants to assist them in their QWL quality circles operations (e.g. 8 of 10 reported the use of management consultants). As noted in Chapter I, traditionally, there has been a tentative, uneasy relationship between administration and other organizational levels (e.g. especially with unions); it is therefore regarded as prudent for management consultants without an allegiance toward either administration, or any other organizational level, to assist in the implementation of QWL/quality circles. Based on the results of the data, it appears that the use of management consultants is a principle widely adhered to by the respondents. Task Groups (Circles) Utilizing Problem-Solving Techniques Overall, the respondents reported that their QWL-quality circles are utilizing numerous problem-solving techniques. As reported in Chapter IV, each of the respondents reported the use of at least two problem-solving techniques. Theoretically, quality circles are designed to generate proposals/recommendations upward, but without the necessary 189 problem-solving techniques their efforts would probably be minimal. Based on the results of the data, it appears that the principle of task groups (circles) utilizing problem- solving techniques is not widely adhered to by the respondents. Employee Recognition Most of the respondents reported that QWL-quality circles members are recognized for their contributions. As indicated in Chapter 4, nine of the ten respondents reported that QWL-quality circles members are recognized for their contributions, but the ways in which employees are recognized are limited. As was reported in Chapter 4, only two of the respondents reported at least four ways to recognize employees for their contributions. Eight of the respondents advised that the only form of employee recognition was through newsletters. One institution received a 100% rating; nine received a 25% or less rating. Responses to Open-ended Questions As was reported earlier in Chapter 4, it is essential to elicit the necessary commitment from administration for QWL/quality circles activities. It was further reported that to gain administrative commitment and support that administrative personnel need to receive training in QWL so 190 that they would become sensitive to the practice of QWL principles. It was further reported that commitment to QWL-quality circles is necessary because administration feels "left out of a process which impacts them and the work area which they supervise." Conclusions In spite of the majority of respondents reporting that they had formulated mission statements and had established steering committees,it seems clear that all of the institutions should have established steering committees and mission statements before attempting to implement quality circles. Steering committees and mission statements are critical in the quality circles process; with them you are involving management in the planning and decision-making processes. By involving administration and management, the likelihood of their support and commitment is enhanced. Of the nine established principles which are considered essential for successful QWL-quality circles implementation, the respondents indicated that only three were widely practiced. These were voluntary QWL-quality circles membership, the use of management consultants, and the use of quality circles/problem-solving groups. 191 Germaine to the overall success of QWL-quality circles is that higher education institutions strive toward adhering to the remaining principles as well (e.g. trust, egalitarianism, continuous training, consensus-decision making, voluntary QWL-quality circles membership, commitment to QWL-quality circles from administration, use of management consultants, task groups (quality circles) utilizing problem-solving techniques, and employee involvement). Until there is established a fUlly integrated practice of the established principles, higher education institutions seeking to implement QWL-quality circles will probably experience obstacles toward a successful conclusions. Recommendations for Further Research There appears to be a need to devise a measurement tool to evaluate QWL-quality circles in higher educational institutions. Unlike industrial organizations where there exist tangible products (e.g. automobiles, refrigerators, etc.), institutions of higher education's final products are frequently intangible, e.g. delivery or services, students, etc. Some of the criteria utilized to evaluate the quality of the QWL-quality circles in industrial organizations are productivity and product quality. Neither productivity nor product quality in higher education institutions is easily evaluated. The QWL/H.E. Model in Chapter 4 was an effort to 192 evaluate the QWL-quality circles programs of the respondents. In spite of the imperfections, it is a beginning. It is strongly recommended that further research. be conducted to find ways to gain administration's commitment to the QWL-quality circles process. Absent administration's commitment the prognosis for' developing' effective, viable QWL—quality circles programs is bleak. As reported earlier, managers, especially mid-level managers, in industrial organizations feel threatened and undermined by task-oriented quality circles. That is, they feel that their problem-solving function is being superceded by the quality circles activities. Until a measurement tool is devised to evaluate QWL-quality' circles performances, and. an 'understanding' of administration's resistance to QWL is reached the success of QWL-quality circles in higher education remains in jeopardy. APPENDIX A Glossary of Terms APPENDIX A Glossary of Terms AMAE: A Japanese term denoting a relationship based on reciprocity. BURNOUT: A condition common in the work place characterized by' ‘workers feeling' physically’ exhausted, emotionally helpless . Typically , "burnout" results in a subpar work performance. CO—DETERMINATION: A European term for workers' membership on boards of directors. More generally, the term means worker' participation. in ‘the jplanning' and decision—making processes (co-determination is mostly identified with German organizations). COLLECTIVISM: Refers to the Japanese spirit and cooperation which is practiced, especially in Japanese organizations. 193 194 EGALITARIANISM: In the context of an organizational setting, it is perceived as equal sharing of ideas/- suggestions between management and workers. EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT (El) : A term coined by the Ford Motor Company that refers to a process whereby employees are encouraged to make decisions that influence their jobs and work environment. FRONTIER SOCIETY: Refers especially to the early colonial period of U. S. history. GROUPISM: A term 'used to characterize the emphasis in Japanese organizations of employees operating effectively within a group structure. ie: A Japanese term and concept referring to a closely-knit family system. JAPANESE MANAGEMENT: A managerial system characterized by intricate coordination between the workers and management. (Features include: life-time employment, continuous train- ing, and statistically-based quality control circles.) 195 JOB ENLARGEMENT: Refers to the practice of involving the workers in several tasks, rather than one. (The antithesis of job specialization.) JOB ENRICHMENT: A program whereby the worker assumes an increased involvement in his/her job, e.g. the worker assumes many of the tasks of the supervisor such as planning and organizing the work of his/her unit. JOB SPECIALIZATION: Refers to the practice of workers being engaged and specialized in just one work task. MISSION STATEMENT: A jointly agreed upon statement by management and union leaders specifying the purpose and goal of the QWL/E1 efforts. QUALITY’ OF ‘WORK ‘LIFE (QWL): A. process that encourages employees increased involvement in decisions which influence their work tasks and work environment. PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION: A term used to describe the main activity of the qualitative researcher, i.e. the researcher starts with observation of particular events, then proceeds to a more generalized perspective. 196 PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT: Refers to a leadership style encouraging worker participation. Participative management is a common characteristic of the QWL/E1 process. A manage- ment leadership style which encourages worker involvement in decision making. PRODUCTIVITY: Productivity measures the relationship between the value of goods and services produced and the cost of producing them. PROCESS: Used within 'the concept of the QWL process, as opposed to distinguished from a program. QUALITY’ CIRCLES (QCs): Small. problem-solving' (groups addressing issues ranging from product quality to morale. Membership is voluntary. QUALITY CONTROL CIRCLES: Similar, yet distinguished from QCs in the sense that the focus is on quality control with an application of statistical quality control methods. "...as one organizational mechanism for integrating people, knowledge, and skills in order to more effectively accom- plish some common purpose. (Landen, 1984, p. 17) RINGI: A Japanese system for circulating proposals. 197 SCANLON PLAN: A group incentive system based on suggestions derived from a worker-supervisor team for the primary purpose to reduce labor costs. SEMI-AUTONOMOUS WORK GROUPS: A. participative management practice which encourages employee involvement in the decision-making planning processes. First utilized at Proctor and Gamble in the 1960's. SHOP FLOOR PARTICIPATION: A management system allowing for a high degree of participation from employees. SOCIO-TECHNICAL SYSTEM (STS): A view of an organization as not merely a technical system or primarily a social system; instead, as a view of a total organization in which various aspects interact "that is, the jobs and the organization around the technology may be adapted to make a better fit with the technical system, or the technology may be adapted to fit around the social system or some of both. (Jenkins, 1981, p.31) A concept and practice to address both social and technical organizational needs. (The VOlvo and Saab plants in Sweden have implemented STS.) 198 STATISTICAL PROCESS CONTROL (SPC): A process whereby production workers, as quality circles members, work as a: unit to improve product quality, productivity, and the work place environment. THEORY Z: A modified Japanese managerial practice (theoret- ically) designed to meet U. S. cultural differences. The term) was caused and popularized by Ouchi in his book, Theory Z. APPENDIX B Bibliography APPENDIX A Bibliography Argyris, Chris and Schon, Donald A. (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Barra, Ralph. (1983). Putting Quality Circles to Work: A Practical Strategy for Boosting Productivity and Profits. McGraw-Hill, Inc. Boisvert, Maurice Philippe. (1977). "The Quality of Working Life: An Analysis.” Human Relations. 12(2). Bonner, James. "A Quality Control Process for Educational Excellence.“ (an unpublished paper). Bonner, James. (June 1982). "Japanese Quality Circles: Can They Work in Education.” Phi Delta Kappan. Bothwell, Jim, (1983). The Art of Leadership. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 199 200 Breman, N. (1953). The Making of a Moron. New York, NY: Sheed 8 Ward. From Hersey, Paul, & Blanchard, Kenneth H. (1972). Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources. (2nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Burck, Charles G. (1983). "When Workers Manage Themselves." Working Smarter. Burck, Charles G. (August 22, 1983). ”Will Success Spoil. General Motors?” Fortune. ”Can Detroit Catch Up" 1981. Fortune. Children of the Tribe. (February 7, 1984). [videotape]. MGT 808, Japanese Management. Michigan State University, Section 2, Winter, 1984. Clark, Rodney. (1979). The Japanese Company. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Cutcher-Gershenfeld, Joel. (September 1983). "QWL: A Historical Perspective." The Work Life Review. Lansing, MI: Michigan Quality of Work Life Council. 11(2). 201 DeMente, Boye. (1981). The Japanese Way of Doing Business: The Psychology of Management in Japan. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Dewar, Donald L. (1980). The Quality Circle Guide to Participation Management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, Inc. D'Itri, Dr. Pat. [Guest Lecturer, Japanese Management Class at Michigan State University] MGT 808, Japanese Management, Michigan State University, Section 2, Winter, 1984. Doyle, Michael and Straus, Davis. (1977). How to Make Meetings Work New York, NY: Playboy Paperbacks. Dreeben, R. (1960). The Nature of Teaching. Glenville, IL: Scott, Foresman. Durlabity, Dr. Subhash. (January 25, 1984) [An expert on Japanese Management who is making plans to teach Japanese Management in a University in his native India]. MGT 808, Japanese Management, Michigan State University, Section 2, Winter, 1984. Etzioni, Amitai. (1964). Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 202 Fortune. (1983). Fromm, Eric. (1947). Man for Himself. New York: Rinehart. Gershenfeld, Joel. (July 1982). ”Labor-Management Committees in the City of Southfield." The Work Life Review. Lansing, MI: Michigan Quality of Work Life Council. 1(1). Gibney, Frank. (1979). Japan: the Fragile Super Power. (revised ed.) New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc. Goodman, Paul S. (August, 1980). "Panel Session III: Realities of Improving the Quality of Work Life.” Labor Law Journal. IRRA Spring Meeting. Graham and Herberger. Class Discussion. MGT 808, Japanese Management, Michigan State University, Section 2, Winter, 1984. Green, Estill I. (July 1957). "The Nature and. Use of Committees." Advanced Management. 203 Greiner, Larry E. (1980). What Managers Think of Partici- pative Leadership: Individual Rights in the Corporation. Eds: Westin, Alan E. 8 Salisbury, Stephan. New York, NY: Pathenon Books. Guest, Richard A. (July-August 1979). “Quality of Work Life -- Learning from Tarrytown." Harvard Business Review. Herman, Jerry J. (November 1982). "With QWL: Improving Employee Relations.” Michigan School Board Journal. Hersey, Paul, 8 Blanchard, Kenneth H. (1972). Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources. (2nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Herzberg, Dr. Frederick. (September 15, 1980). ”Leadership in a Period of Psychological Depression.” Industry Week. 55-58. Homans, George C. (1960). The Human. Group. New' York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc. Huse, Edgar F. (1980). Organizational Development and Change. (2nd ed.). St. Paul: West Publishing Co. 204 Ingle, Sud 8 Ingle, Nima. (1983). Quality Circles in Service Industries. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. "Japanese Management Impact and Application In American Industry.” (January 26, 1984). MGT 808, Japanese Manage- ment, Michigan State University, Section 2, Winter, 1984. Johnston, Carl P.; Alexander, Mark; 8 Robin, Jacquelin. (September 1978). Quality of Working Life: The Idea and Its Application. Ottawa, Canada: Employment Relations Branch, Quality of Working Life Unit. Kamata, Satoshi. (1982). Japan in the Passing Lane: An Insider's Account of Life in a Japanese Auto Factory. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. (1983). The Change Masters: Innovation for Productivity' in. the American. Corporation. New York, NY: Simon 8 Schuster. Kleingartner, Archie. (1967). ”Professionalism and Salaried Worker Organization." Industrial Research. Madison, Wisconsin. 205 Kowalski, Casimir J. 8 Bryson, J. Richard. (1982). ”Participative Management. in. Organizations of Higher Education: Leadership Mandate for the 80's." Paychologyi A Quarterly Journal of Human Behavior. 12(2/3). 22-27. Lippitt, G. and Rumley, J. (January 1977). "Living With Work -- The Search for Quality in Work Life." Optimum. 8(1). Lorenz, John .A. (December 1981). "Japanese Management: Implications for American Education." Educational Technology. 21:23-4. Maccoby, Michael. (1976). The Gamesman: The New Corporate Leaders. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Main, Jeremy. (1981). "Battling Your’ Own Bureaucracy." Working Smarter. (book w/series of articles). Marchant, Dr. Maurice P., Director of the School of Library and Information Sciences, Brigham Young University. (April 15, 1982). ”Participative Management, Job Satisfaction and Service." Library Journal. 206 Maslow, Abraham) H. (1954). Motivation and Personality; New York, NY: Harper and Row Publishers. From Hersey, Paul, 8 Blanchard, Kenneth H. (1972). Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources. (2nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. McGarrity, Susan. (1984) . An Introduction to Basic Statistical Process Control . Tech Center Coursework Co. , Inc . Mills, Ted. (June 8, 1978). Qualityof Working Life: What Is Quelity of Working Life (Excerpted from The Name that Isn't. There). Ottawa, Canada: Employment. Relations and Conditions of Work Branch, Labour Canada. Nakane, Chie. (1970). Japanese Society. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Neill, Shirley B. "How to Motivate Staff." (December 1981). Tips for Principals in NASSP. Carmichael, CA: NASSP. Nichols, David A. (May 1, 1982). Can 'Theory 2' Be Applied to Academic Management? The Chronicle of Higher Education. 3;. 72-73. 207 Nosow, Sigmund. (Summer, 1984). "Improving Teaching Effectiveness Through QWL." Journal of the MASSP. 88(4). O'Hanlon, James. (February, 1983). "Theory Z 1J1 School Administration." Educational Leadership. Ouchi, William G. (1981). Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge. Avon Books. Parsons, William. (Winter 1984). "Participative Decision- Making at Work: A Guide to Bibliographic and Program Resources". Labor Studies Journal. 8(3). Pascale, Richard Tanner, 8 Athos, Anthony G. (1981). The Art of Japanese Management. New York, NY: Warner Books, Inc . Putt, Drs. A. D. and Springer, J. F. (1980). "Quality of Work Life Among Public Administration Professors." International Journal of Public Administration. Quality Circle presentation at the Fourth Annual Conference of I.A.Q.C., St. Louis, Missouri, 1982. Reeves, Cecil, Project. Director. "San. Mateo EduCational Quality Circle Consortium," a handout. 208 Richardson, Dr. Richard, Jr. (October 1980). "Decision Making in the 1980's: Hard-nosed Pragmatists Vs. Participative Involvers.” Community and Junior College Journal. 81(2). Roethlisberger, F. F. 8 Dickerson, W. J. (1939). Manage- ment and the Worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Rukeyser, Louis. (July 31, 1983). ”Accountability .Aids Productivity." State News. Sasaki, Hajimi. (November 1977). Fortune. p. 128. Satterwhite, Frank J. Omowale, Ph.D. (June, 1982). “Managing Quality Circles Effectively." Schisgall, Oscar. (1981). Eyes on Tomorrow: The Evolution of Proctor and Gamble. Chicago: J. G. Ferguson. Stark, Dr. Stanley. [Professor of Management at Michigan State University] (February 7, 1984). Lecture Notes. MGT 808, Japanese Management, Michigan State University, Section 2, Winter, 1984. Stepanek, Marcia. (December 12, 1983). Detroit Free Press. U. S. and World Report. (October 12, 1981). 209 Walton, Richard E. (Fall 1973). "Quality of Working Life: What Is It?” Sloan Management Review Wine, Julie A. and Baird, John E., Jr. (May, 1983). ”Improving Nursing Management and Practice Through Quality Circles.” Journal of Nursing Administration. 18(5). APPENDIX C Survey Questionnaire Cover Letter CONSENT FORM I understand that my name will be used for follow-up purposes only. I further understand that each individual questionnaire will remain completely confidential and will not be seen by any person other than the researcher. Please indicate whether you choose to disclose the name of your institution for use within the final report. I authorize the use of the name of my institution to be used within the report. YES NO CSllege7University'Name Street Address iCity State iTp Code Name of Person Responding iTitle i—Phone Number QUALITY OF WORK LIFE IN HIGHER EDUCATION QUESTIONNAIRE Size of Student Body #1 No. of Employees 1. Please indicate departments/units within your college/university that are utilizing QWL/Quality Circles. (a) Academic Departments (Specify) (b) Administrative Departments (Specify) (c) Support Departments (Library, Maintenance, etc.) (d) Other (Please specify) 2. When was the start up date of your QWL Quality Circle project? MONTH YEAR 3. Has a mission statement or a statement of philosophy been established? YES NO DON'T KNOW 210 4a. 5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e. 5f. 211 Do you have a quality circles steering committee? YES NO DON'T KNOW If yes (Q4), what is its composition? STUDENTS ADMINISTRATORS FACULTY MEMBERS UNION MEMBERS OTHER (Specify) How many times a month do your quality circles meet? times a month How many circles have been established? Less than 5 5 - 9 10 - 15 More than 15 How many members participate in each circle? Less than 5 5 - 9 10 - 15 . More than 15 How are the participants chosen? VOLUNTARY ASSIGNED TO GROUP DON'T KNOW Are QWL-circles participants from same work unit/department? YES NO DON'T KNOW What is the average number of years your quality circle participants have worked at your university? Under 5 16 - 20 6 - 10 Over 20 11 - 15 Show differences, if any, in the average length of employment of Quality Circle participants with your institution's employees at large. Use additional sheet if necessary. What problem solving techniques are utilized by your quality circles? (a) Brainstorming (b) Check Sheets (c) Cause 8 Effect Problem Analysis (d) Histograms (e) Stratification (f) Data Gathering (Sampling (9) Pareto Analysis (h) Presentation Techniques (i) Control Charts (j) Scatter Diagrams 8a. 212 Are any of the above listed training sessions available to QWL participants? Please mark training areas offered. Please refer to Ques. 6 and indicate session by letter indicator ((a). (b). (c), etc.). Use additional sheet if necessary. 7a. Is QWL Quality Circles training evaluated by participants? YES NO DON'T KNOW 7b. Is training continuous? YES NO DON'T KNOW 7c. If training is continuous, how often is it offered? times a 7d. Which of the following quality circles participants are involved in on—going/continuous training? FACULTY ADMINISTRATORS STUDENTS SUPPORT STAFF OTHER (Specify) 7e. What organizational levels are included in QWL/circles activities? MAINTENANCE FACULTY CLERICAL STUDENTS ADMINISTRATORS OTHER (Specify) On the average, how many proposals and/or recommendations are submitted to management and/or administration per month? Of those, how many proposals and/or recommendations are implemented? SUBMITTED ACCEPTED IMPLEMENTED How are decisions reached within the quality circles? MAJORITY RULE CONSENSUS OTHER (Specify) In your opinion, how successful has your QWL Quality Circle project been? VERY SUCCESSFUL UNSUCCESSFUL SUCCESSFUL VERY UNSUCCESSFUL 10. 11. 12. 13. 13a. 14. 15. 213 9a. Briefly mention the principal reason or reasons the quality circles has been successful or unsuccessful. Use additional sheets if necessary. Is. QWL/circles related information (e.g. minutes of meetings) made available to all employees? YES NO DON'T KNOW 10a. If so, how? NEWSLETTER BULLETIN BOARD OTHER (Specify) How is recognition of successes of QWL/circles communicated to non-QWL employees? AWARDS CEREMONY NEWSLETTER BULLETIN BOARD OTHER (Specify) Please indicate some of the QWL practices which are used in your organization. SAME PARKING AREAS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES SAME REST ROOMS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES SAME LOUNGE AREAS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES STUDENT FEES SAME FOR ALL STUDENTS U' (D P' :3 (Q OTHER (Specify) Has your organization used management consultants during its QWL program? YES NO DON'T KNOW If so, when were they used? START UP CONTINUOUS TRAINING CIRCLES OTHER (Specify) What does your organization determine to be the final product? STUDENT DELIVERY OF SERVICES COMBINATION OF BOTH OTHER (Specify) Does your organization have a method of measuring product quality? YES NO DON'T KNOW '15a. 16. 16a. 16b. 214 If so, what criteria are used? Use additional sheet if necessary. What do you consider to be the best features of your QWL/circles venture? Use additional sheet if necessary. What do you consider to be the least desirable features of your QWL/circles venture? Use additional sheet if necessary. If you were implementing a new QWL/quality circles program, would you do it differently? Use additional sheet if necessary. What other QWL programs do you know of in college/university settings? Cbllege/University Name Street Address City State Zip Coae Name of Person to Contact Title Phone Number I would like a copy of the results of this study. YES NO THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP IN COMPLETING THIS STUDY. 215 March 23, 1985 Dear Survey Participant: I am completing an historical Ph.D. dissertation in the Department of Higher Education Administration at Michigan State University, and I request your assistance in completing the enclosed survey questionnaire. The dissertation relates to the implementation of OWL and/or quality circles in higher education institutions. The purpose of this research is not to determine the effectiveness of your QWL/quality circles venture; instead, this research is concerned with identifying quality circles concepts practiced in higher education institutions. Moreover, this research is concerned with the extent to which QWL/quality circles are practiced in U. S. institutions of higher education. Each individual. questionnaire ‘will remain completely confidential and will not be seen by any person other than the researcher. The name of your institution will not be used unless so authorized in the Consent Form (contained within the questionnaire). Your name and telephone number are requested for follow-up purposes only. It is requested that the survey(s) be completed by a knowledgeable quality circles representative, such as a quality circle facilitator, circle's leader, or someone very familiar with the development of your quality circles. Please complete one survey for each circle. A self-addressed stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience. I urge you to return the completed surveys promptly so that the dissertation can be finalized soon. If you are knowledgeable of other institutions of higher education employing QWL/quality circles, please list them and the contact persons in the last item of the questionnaire. Please use additional pages as needed for your responses. I wish to thank you for participating in this research. If you would like a copy of the results obtained, please check the appropriate item on the questionnaire. It is hoped that this study along with your responses will contribute toward the advancement of QWL-quality circles in higher education institutions. Sincerely, Michael Beechem 1308B University Village East Lansing, Michigan 48823 Enclosures APPENDIX D Summary Tables TABLE 36. QWL/H.E. Model (Shown in Numbers) Principle Max. Respondent Question Pts. A B C D E F G H I J Trust Q3 1 0 1 - 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 Q4a 5 — 2 2 3 4 2 — 3 3 - Q8 36 2.5 12 — 21.6 1.5 - 18 24 36 - Q7a 1 1 1 - 1 1 O O 1 1 1 Subtotal 43 3.5 16 2 26.6 6.5 3 18 29 41 2 Egalitarianism Q4a 5 - 2 2 3 4 2 - 3 3 - Q12 4 O 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 2 Subtotal 9 O 2 2 3 8 2 O 3 5 3 Continuous Training Q7b 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 Q7C 12 1 4 5 3.5 - - - 12 3 - Subtotal 13 2 5 6 4.5 1 0 1 13 4 1 Voluntary QWL-Quality Circles Membership QSC l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Commitment Q3 1 0 1 - 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 Q4a 5 - 2 2 3 4 2 - 3 3 - Q7d 5 3 1 5 3 - - 1 2 3 1 Q7e 6 3 2 6 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 Q8 36 2 S 12 - 21.6 1.5 - 18 24 36 - Q12 4 O 0 0 0 4 0 O 0 2 2 Subtotal 57 8.5 8 1 31.6 12.5 6 22 34 49 7 Use of Management Consultants Q13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Q13a 4 1 4 2 2 1 1 - 1 1 — Subtotal 5 2 5 3 3 2 2 0 2 2 0 Task Groups Q6 10 7 5 7 5 5 4 5 10 9 3 Employee Recognition Q11 4 1 4 1 1 - l 1 '1 1 1 Consensus Decision Making Q8a 1 1 1 l .5 0 1 0 1 1 216 217 TABLE 37. QWL/H.E. Model (Shown In Percentages) Principle Max. Respondent Question 2 A B C D E F G H I J Trust QB 25 O 25 - 25 0 25 O 25 25 25 Q4a 25 - 10 10 15 20 10 - 15 15 - Q8 25 2 8.3 - 15 1 - 12.5 16.5 25 - 7a 25 25 25 - 25 25 O 0 25 25 25 Subtotal 100 27 68.3 10 80 46 35 12.5 81.5 90 50 Egalitarianism Q4a 50 - 20 20 3O 40 20 - 30 30 - Q12 50 0 O 0 O 50 0 0 O 25 25 Subtotal 100 0 20 20 30 90 20 O 30 55 25 Continuous Training ' Q7b 50 50 50 50 50 50 0 50 50 50 50 Q7e 50 4 16.6 20.8 14.6 - - - 50 12.5 - Subtotal 100 54 66.6 70.8 64.6 50 0 50 100 62.5 50 Voluntary QWL—Quality Circles Membership Q5c 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 50 Commitment Q3 16.6 0 16.6 - 16.6 0 16.6 0 16.6 16.6 16.6 Q4a 16.6 - 6.6 6.6 10 13.3 6.6 - 10 10 - Q7d 16.6 10 3.3 16.6 10 - - 3.3 6.6 10 3.3 Q7e 16.6 8.3 5.5 16.6 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 13.3 13.3 8.3 Q8 16.6 1.2 5.5 0 10 1 - 8.3 11.1 16.6 - 012 16.6 0 O 0 0 16.6 0 0 0 8.3 8.3 Subtotal 99.9 19.5 37.5 39.8 54.9 39.2 31.5 19.9 47.6 74.8 36.5 Use of Management Consultants Q13 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 O 50 50 0 Q13a 50 12.5 50 25 25 12.5 12.5 - 12.5 12.5 - Subtotal 100 62.5 100 75 75 62.5 62.5 0 62.5 62.5 0 Task Groups Q6 100 70 50 70 50 50 4O 50 100 90 30 Employee Recognition Q11 100 25 100 25 25 - 25 25 .25 25 25 Consensus Decision Making Q8a 100 100 100 50 100 50 O 100 O 100 100 218 TABLE 38. QWL/H.E. Model Summary (Shown in Numbers) Max. Respondent Principle Pts. A B C D E F G H I J Trust 43 3.5 16 2 26.6 6.5 3 18 29 41 2 Egalitarianism 9 0 2 2 3 8 2 0 3 5 3 Continuous Training 13 2 5 6 4.5 1 0 1 13 4 1 Voluntary QWL- Quality Circles Membership 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .5 Commitment 57 8.5 8 13 31.6 12.5 6 22 34 49 7 Use of Management Consultants 5 2 5 3 3 2 2 0 2 2 0 Task Groups 10 7 5 7 5 5 4 5 10 9 3 Employee Recognition 4 1 4 1 1 - 1 1 1 l 1 Consensus Decision Making 1 1 1 .5 1 .5 O 1 O l 1 TOTAL 143 26 47 35.5 76.7 36.5 19 49 93 113 18.5 219 TABLE 39. QWL/H.E. Model Summary (Shown In Percentages) Max. Respondent Principle 1 A B C D E F G H I J Trust 11 3 7.5 1.1 8.8 5.1 3.9 1.4 9 9.9 5.5 Egalitarianism 11 0 2.2 2.2 3.3 9.9 2.2 O 3.3 6.1 2.7 Continuous Training 11 5.9 7.3 7.8 7.1 5.5 0 5.5 11 6.9 5.5 Voluntary QWL- Quality Circles Membership 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 5.5 Commitment 11 1 4.1 4.4 6.1 4.3 3.5 2.2 5.2 8.2 4 Use of Management Consultants 11 6.9 11 8.3 8.3 6.9 6.9 0 6.9 6.9 0 Task Groups 11 7.7 5.5 7.7 5.5 5.5 4.4 5.5 11 9.9 3.3 Employee Recognition 11 2.8 11 2.8 2.8 - 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 Consensus Decision Making 11 11 11 5.5 11 5.5 O 11 0 11 11 TOTAL 99 49.3 70.6 50.8 63.9 53.7 45.7 28.4 60.2 72.7 40.3 220 TABLE 40. MEANS Mean Principle 2 Voluntary QWL-quality circles membership 95 Consensus decision making 80 Continuous training 56.8 Task groups utilizing problemrsolving techniques 60 Use of management consultants 56.2 Trust 50 Commitment to QWL-quality circles from administration 40.1 Employee recognition 30 Egalitarianism 29