Organization Development:
Techno-Structural
Interventions
Prepared by the Master’s Students in
Industrial-Organizational Psychology
Radford University
Class of 2001
Edited by
Organization Development: Techno-Structural Interventions
Prepared by the Master’s Students in Industrial-Organizational Psychology Radford University
Class of 2001
Organization development activities can be directed toward individuals, groups, divisions, or entire organizations. Regardless of whether the recipient of an intervention is a person or a multi-national corporation, the ultimate goal is the same: to improve the effectiveness of the organization. This document reviews selected techno-structural interventions – change programs focusing on the structure and/or technology of the organization. Each intervention’s purpose, cost, procedures, expected results, likely results as documented in the literature, and reports of industry use are provided, along with a list of relevant references. Most summaries provide the following information, though some will have more or less.
1. NAMEOF INTERVENTION: Most commonly used name, along with alternatives.
2. TARGETLEVEL(S) OFANALYSIS: Is it directed toward organization-wide, group/ unit/
department, or individual change?
3. PURPOSEOFTHEINTERVENTION: What is the primary goal of the intervention?
4. EFFECTIVENESSCRITERIA: What are the most appropriate outcomes (behaviors, attitudes,
knowledge, skills, performance measures) to assess?
5. EVIDENCEOFEFFECTIVENESS: a. What does the literature suggest regarding the likely
outcomes of the intervention? Effect sizes are reported where available.
b. What organizations, groups, individuals have used this intervention? Exemplary case studies are reported where available.
6. HOW/WHENWILLOUTCOMESBEASSESSED: How has the intervention been evaluated?
7. CHARACTERISTICSOFTYPICALPARTICIPANTS: CEO, upper or lower management, new hires, blue collar,
education level, etc., of typical participants are reported.
8. TIME-FRAMEOFTHEINTERVENTIONITSELF: How long does the intervention take?
10. RESOURCESTOCONDUCTINTERVENTION: Internal/external consultant(s), technology, space, physical
environment, money, time, support staff, etc., necessary for implementation.
11. EXPERTISEOFCONSULTANTS: Training or education or experience requirements to cconduct
the intervention are provided.
12. DOPARTICIPANTSNEEDTOPREPARE: Are there pre-intervention instructions? Does the
organization, group, or individual need to be involved in planning?
13. HOWISTHEINTERVENTIONCONDUCTED: A detailed description of the conduct of each intervention is
provided.
14. RESISTANCETOCHANGE: Are participants likely to resist change? How can that be
overcome?
15. MAINTAININGCHANGE: What should be done to minimize the return to old habits?
16. FOLLOW-UP: Is follow-up needed?
17. SPECIALCONSIDERATIONS/CRITIQUE: What else do we need to know?
18. REFERENCES: Citations (particularly for Sections 5 (a & b), 13, and 14) are
TABLEOF CONTENTS
Intervention Name Page
Total Quality Management ………. 5
Employee Empowerment Programs ……… 15
Quality of Work Life Programs ……….. 26
Implementing a Team-based (AWG, etc.) Organization ……… 34
ISO 9000 and Beyond ………. 47
Process Reengineering ……… 54
Total Quality Management (prepared by Julie Martin) 2. TARGET LEVELOF ANALYSIS:
TQM programs are directed at the entire organization including the suppliers and its customers. Although quality at the individual level is important, the successful TQM program calls for quality from every person, at every level of the organization, in every capacity within the organization. In short, TQM programs require a change in the organizational philosophy and culture.
3. PURPOSEOFTHE INTERVENTION:
The purpose of Total Quality Management is to increase customer satisfaction by improving the quality of the goods or services offered by the organization. This improvement is centered on the product or services, and the processes involved in making or delivering the product or service to the customer. Ultimately the goal of TQM is to make quality the way of doing things within the organization.
4. EFFECTIVENESSCRITERIA:
In all Total Quality Management programs the ultimate effectiveness criterion is customer satisfaction. According to the research, to reach this ultimate goal of effectiveness requires that the organization measure several other criteria on a continual basis (Weaver, 1991; Hackman & Wageman, 1995; Dahlgaard, 1999; Clark, 2000). The appropriate criteria to measure depends on the type of organization, and whether they deliver a product or a service. In a production-based organization, the effectiveness criteria are divided into product measures and employee
measures. The possible measures for the product include: increases in production, increases in sales, increases in market share, increases in stock prices, reductions in the product cycle time, reductions in the number of reworks, reductions in the inventories, and reductions in customer returns. The employee measures include: satisfaction with the company, commitment,
performance, turnover, absenteeism, and grievance activity (Clark, 2000). In service
organizations the measures of effectiveness may include reductions in customer complaints, increases in return customers, increase in customer referrals, higher customer volume, higher employee satisfaction and commitment.
5. EVIDENCEOFEFFECTIVENESS:
Research into the effectiveness of TQM programs focuses mainly on the increase in market shares, and the increase in stock prices. Many organizations measure the success of their programs in the reduction in cycle time and product failures. The success of quality programs are most often related to percent increases in the market share, and overall capital of the organization. (Creech, 1994). Successful organizations like Harley-Davidson, Ford Motor Company, Johnson & Johnson, Motorola, Xerox, and others, tell of a long, arduous journey and complete re-organization of their companies from centralized, out-put focused, to de-centralized customer focused before they were capable of reaching their goals of Quality at all levels of the organizations.
6. HOW/WHENWILLOUTCOMESBEASSESSED:
In order for TQM to be successful, outcomes should be measured frequently and on an ongoing basis throughout the entire organization (Cartin, 1993). The main idea behind this intervention is to increase and maintain customers through the ongoing improvement of the products or services offered by the organization. To follow this ideology requires that all phases of the
manufacturing be monitored and evaluated on a continual basis. According to Cartin (1993), most TQM programs ultimately fail because management mistakenly assumes that the first successes are the end results of the program. When this happens, the organization cries victory, and the TQM program eventually fails in the absence of continual monitoring. Cartin argues that TQM is an ongoing intervention with no end, therefore assessment of outcomes must also be ongoing and continuous if the TQM program is going to succeed.
7. CHARACTERISTICSOFTYPICALPARTICIPANTS:
The participants involved in TQM programs are many and varied in their education and
experience. According to Deming (1986) TQM involves the leaders, the employees, suppliers, and the customers of the organization. Once the organization has decided to implement the principles of TQM into the organization culture every person in the organization is affected. The key to participation within the organization is a willingness to embrace quality and as noted by Creech (1994), a willingness to live quality. Key to successful TQM programs, is the attitude of upper management. It is through upper management that the ideas of total quality take root and grow within the organization. Without the total commitment of upper management TQM programs lack the role models central to changing the employees.
8. TIME FRAMEOFTHE INTERVENTION:
The time frame of implementing a TQM program is dependent on several factors. The
organizational structure, the resources available to change from out-put based to quality-based operations, the actual structure of the facilities, the processes, the product, the suppliers, the employees and finally customer acceptance of the end product. The actual organizational change may occur in a relatively short period, however, the ongoing revisions in the process and the ultimate goal of winning back customers, or acquiring new customers, may take years to complete. It is important to keep in mind that a successful TQM program is an ongoing program, which involves all phases of the organization at all times until the organization is no longer viable. If a TQM program is to succeed quality has to become the culture for the organization (Deming, 1986; Weaver, 1991; Cartin, 1993; Creech, 1994; Reylito, 1999; Clark, 2000).
9. TIME FRAMEOFTHEANTICIPATED CHANGE:
The time frame for TQM programs are in theory endless. According to proponents of the intervention, the intervention by nature requires that the organization change in such a way that rather than being a quick fix with immediate results, it becomes the way to solve all problems with beneficial long-term outcomes. According to Robert Heller (1995), the key word is “long”. You can win quick and great benefits from TQM, but establishing a lasting culture takes several years. Most successful TQM programs see documented results within the first few years after implementing the programs. However, for some organizations the market climate may be such that immediate results are virtually nonexistent and success can only be measured in the
intervention, throughout implementation of the program it is necessary to set small obtainable goals, which have to be achieved before the entire organization is completely quality oriented. The most common short term goals achieved are reductions in operating cost, reduction in inventories, decreases in product cycle time and decreases in the number of reworks (Hakes, 1991).
10. RESOURCESTO CONDUCTTHEINTERVENTION:
Implementation of TQM programs may require tremendous resources, including capital, people, and mostly time. In some organizations implementation of a TQM program required the total restructuring of the organization toward a more de-centralized structure. Resources may also be required if the physical structure of the organization (i.e. facilities) need to be changed in order to facilitate the necessary process changes. Training programs are also key to the success of quality programs. There is little argument that to successfully implement TQM programs, requires a huge investment of time, indeed time is the one resource that all organizations will require if they are going to be successful at implementing a TQM program (Creech, 1994).
11. EXPERTISEOFCONSULTANTS:
Many organizations attempt to implement TQM programs without assistance from outside consultants, with mixed results. Many organizations bring in technical consultants to identify problems with the processes, and the product. In addition to technical assistants managers often seek out consultants to assist in the empowerment and training of employees. Although there is no research to indicate specific consulting needs, it is important for the leadership to seek advice from qualified individuals. Ideally, consultants should have experience in guiding the
organization away from out-put production techniques to team based quality programs. 12. DOPARTICIPANTSNEEDTOPREPARE:
In order for TQM programs to work they must be accepted and taken into the very core of the organization. This involves communicating the need for change to every person in the
organization. The success of the program depends on its acceptance by the employees and management as the right method to remain competitive. It is important that employees are prepared to assume the role of managers within the organization, because TQM requires that all employees be able to recognize and correct problems in the process. In addition, employees must be prepared to accept the possibility of job loss, and the need for additional training. Empowerment of the employee means that each employee be prepared to assume responsibility for their own work and the work of others in order to guarantee success. The entire focus of the organization shifts from focusing on the individual to focusing on the system as a whole. The emphases of TQM is on group performance, it focuses on changing the system and the total work process not the individual workers productivity.
13. HOWISTHEINTERVENTIONCONDUCTED:
o According to Deming (1994) to succeed in implementing a quality program a company must adopt a 14-point system at all levels of the organization. These points are:
1. Drive out Fear: The organization must communicate the plan of action to every employee, supplier, including short term and long-term goals. If the program is to
be totally accepted management must communicate to the employees their vision for the future.
2. Eliminate quotas and numerical goals: According to Deming, quotas and numerical goals force employees into an out-put frame of mind, leaving little chance of quality thinking.
3. Break down all barriers between departments: In most centralized
organizations there are definite lines of communications that must be followed and a division of labor according to departments. In order to implement a TQM program requires that the organization move toward a de-centralized system in which communication between departments is frequent and ongoing. In many organizations, this meant the creation of work teams and quality circles in which each employee’s inputs were actively sought and followed up on.
4. Eliminate inspection. Learn to build products right the first time: This is perhaps the hardest point in the implementation of TQM. According to Creech, (1994), inspection of products is necessary until that point in time when the processes and the product is at the highest possible quality. Only when the product is quality can inspection be eliminated. The idea that one can learn to make a product right the first time is great in theory, but often it takes many prototypes and revisions before the product is superior in quality. In addition to the need to design and try the products for production, improvements may be needed and the easiest way to measure if the improve- ments are effective is to inspect the product before releasing it to market.
5. Institute a vigorous program of education: This means that the company must educate all people involved in the implementation of the program as to the
purposes, the ultimate goal of the program, and the anticipated benefits for everyone involved with the organization. This education may involve training managers and employees to work together to achieve quality. Often management must be educated in the workings of team based production systems, and
employees must be educated on how to work effectively in teams. Without education as to the purpose, and benefits of the program, employees and managers alike are likely to sabotage the entire program before it is fully implemented (Hakes, 1991; Kanji, 1990; Maccoby, 1992; Wilkinson & Witcher, 1993). 6. Remove barriers that rob workers of their right to pride of workmanship:
According to Deming, organizations often fail to recognize employee
contributions to the bottom line. If TQM is to be successful employees must have a sense of accomplishment and pride in the product they are producing. In order to foster this sense of pride the organization must empower the employees. Empowerment means that each individual employee has the knowledge and training to inspect his or her own contributions and make necessary improvements (Blake & Mouton, 1981). Management’s job is to recognize each employee’s unique contributions to the process and to recognize employees for their contributions to the overall quality of the product. (Hall, 1987). In Deming’s
program, performance appraisal systems are inappropriate measures of employee contributions. Performance appraisals should be used to measure product
performance not individual employees. In order for TQM to succeed
management must instill a sense of pride in their employees. This sense of pride can be realized by creating a vision of the future to which employees can strive. Harley Davidson created such a vision for their employees, “Well made in America” meant that employees were rewarded for reducing the overall number of reworks and scrap components, while working toward making a Harley Davidson the best made motorcycle in the world. This quality focused incentive program led to a greater commitment and pride in producing quality above quantity (Reid, 1990).
7. Institute leadership: The aim of leadership should be to help people do a better job: This is perhaps the most vital part of any TQM program. Leadership serves as the role model for the rest of the organization. If the leadership is not fully committed to quality, the program will fail (Juran, 1989). According to Cartin (1993), the critical role of managers is to understand the TQM
philosophies, tools, and techniques, and regularly participate in their application at every level of the organization. The old analogy of a company leader being the captain of the ship is no longer appropriate. The leader of an organization cannot just set the course and bark orders when corrections are needed. He or She must set the objectives but solicit the employees on the best methods of reaching the objectives. This willingness to lead instead of manage is key to the success of the program.
8. Eliminate slogans, exhortations and production targets: In order to do this the leadership must be willing to let the quality process take hold regardless of the time constraints. Deming and others argue that in successful TQM programs the production will surpass any possible production targets the leadership might set. The idea that quality is worth the wait is central to the success of the program, production targets shift employees’ attention away from quality and toward out-puts thus reducing the overall quality of the product.
9. Adopt a new philosophy: According to Deming, the organization must adopt a new philosophy, which has quality at its core. This new philosophy should provide the vision and direction of the company and its employees. Failure to make quality a philosophy of business means that the whole system will crumble upon itself. “The philosophy of the organization is the center pillar on which the TQM program is built upon, without which the entire system falls to ruin” (Creech, 1984).
10. End the practice of awarding business based on the price tag. Move toward a single supplier for any one item. Base this long-term relationship on loyalty and trust: One of the keys to successful implementation of TQM programs is identifying your suppliers, and communicating your philosophy and visions to them. According to Deming organizations must end the practice of selecting
suppliers based on price. The organization must seek out suppliers that share their vision of quality and build a relationship with these suppliers built on loyalty and trust. This is a crucial step in insuring that the implementation of a quality
program succeeds. The structure of organizations is such that often completion of a single product may involve the utilizing the products of several different
organizations. This dependence on others for the necessary parts or services means that organizations must actively seek out suppliers who are willing to meet the quality standards required, and abandon those suppliers whose products are sub-standard (Burt, 1989). Often the failure of TQM programs can be traced back to poor quality parts of services from suppliers (Gurnani, 1999).
11. Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service: This is perhaps the heart of any successful TQM program. Improving the quality of the product or service is key to remaining successful. The implementation of quality programs means that the processes and products are constantly measured against the products of competitors. If an organization is to remain competitive they must implement improvements in the entire production system. Quality must
encompass all phases of production, including improving technology, processes, machinery, and communication throughout the entire system (Hill & Collins, 1999).
12. Put everyone to work to accomplish this transformation: As mentioned earlier, the implementation of a TQM program involves every person in the organization. Leaders must work to ensure that every person is contributing to the success of the program, from the janitor to the CEO (Savolainen, 2000). The implementation of a successful TQM program hinges on the willingness of all involved parties to actively pursue quality.
13. Institute job training: Training new employees in quality production is central to a successful TQM program. When instituting a training program, management must determine, when to train and what to teach their employees. There are two general approaches that identify when to train. One is to determine the kind of TQM training appropriate for the various classifications of employees and then to train all employees. Every employee is then equipped to be effective in the analysis of his or her own job and is prepared when he or she becomes a team member. This approach is somewhat mechanistic and, for large organizations, less effective. It has been the experience of organizations that used this approach, that if skills are not applied a short time after training they are lost. A more effective approach is what the Northrop Corporation calls just-in-time training. After each team is formed, it is trained in the skills needed to begin, and then during its operation, it is trained further as specific new skills are needed. The learning is then immediately reinforced through application (Cartin, 1993). In order to be successful a team or individual must know how to solve problems, know the processes, know the work rules, how to plan, conduct good meetings, manage logistics and details, gather useful data, measure process performance, analyze data, implement change, and measure its effectiveness. The ability to do
these things effectively is called having the soft skills of decision-making and problem solving. This is compared to the many hard skills of various job specialties, which are traditionally all that are taught. Implementing TQM involves a planned change form one management system to another that is quite different. It is a management process improvement. Everyone in the organization from the top down must understand its scope direction objectives and
methodologies. It requires extensive ongoing training, this training must be planned so that all the required skills are identified and scheduled. The plan must also be able to identify the resources required. . If employees are not trained to think in terms of quality, they cannot recognize the need for changes within the process. Training employees to be aware of the process and what the end result should be is crucial. Too often organizations fail to realize that employees can be taught how to make the product, but they may not b able to move form making the product to improving the product. Training is necessary and should be ongoing if the organization is to maintain a quality driven production.
14. Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service to become competitive and to stay in business and to provide jobs: Although the implementation of TQM programs often means the loss of jobs, the key success is to communicate the purposes of the lay-offs and to emphasize that layoffs may be a necessary part of the program. The ultimate goal of TQM is to increase the quality of the product in the hopes of remaining in business and to become competitive in the market.
**Note: In practice most organizations tailor their TQM programs to meet their own
organizational needs and goals. Deming’s original fourteen points serve as a basis for designing these programs. As noted by Creech (1994), “Although, the name Total Quality Management now covers a very broad tent encompassing all sorts of management practices and has become the buzz phrase to describe a new type of quality-oriented management, there are no bad TQM programs, only incomplete programs that lack in the total involvement of all employees and all processes within the organizations.” According to Creech, all TQM programs must meet four criteria if they are to be successful: first they must be based on a quality mindset and quality in all activities at all times (every process and every product), second, they must be strongly
humanistic to bring quality to the way employees are treated, included, and inspired; third, TQM must be based on a de-centralized approach that provides empowerment at all levels especially at the frontline, so the enthusiastic involvement and common realities are realities and not slogans. Finally, TQM programs must be applied holistically so that its principles, policies, and practices reach every nook and cranny of the organization.
14. RESISTANCETOCHANGE:
Employees generally resist TQM programs for two major reasons-they believe that is will cause job loss and that management would refuse to share the fruits of such programs. If the
employees (union members or not) are not consulted or involved, it will likely reinforce the same perception-that TQM is a threat to their well being, or the union organization, or both. It is only through greater level of employee involvement and commitment that management can ensure the success of TQM. This resistance to change may be minimized by empowering the employees to
act independently or in groups to implement changes needed to insure the success of the program.
15. MAINTAINING CHANGE:
As previously noted TQM programs are not quick fixes that disappear after the organization has regained its original standing; successful TQM programs change the entire organizational culture, to one of quality. Given this fact, maintaining change is relatively simple. During the reorganization phase of the program, the organization has either dismissed or retrained
employees who insisted on the old way of doing business, with this new mindset, and continuous improvement at the core of the program, TQM programs become the way things are done at the organization, therefore maintaining change is not difficult to achieve.
16. FOLLOW-UP:
TQM programs by nature dependent on constant follow up. Following the product throughout the entire production process is crucial to maintaining the quality of the product. If changes are implemented in the process, follow up must also be implemented to ensure that the change leads to improvement of the product. Failure to follow up on product changes can lead to substandard products and less customer satisfaction. To implement follow up on the effectiveness of TQM programs, management must facilitate feedback from within the organizations and create opportunities for customers to provide feedback to the company. Harley Davidson sponsors Bike Weeks, through which they actively seek follow up information from their customers (Reid, 1990).
17. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/CRITIQUE:
Although many organizations utilize TQM programs, they are often modified versions of Deming’s original concept. Since it conception Total Quality Management has become the buzzword in business, however, few organizations embrace the philosophies of TQM fully. In most organizations, TQM principles are applied to the processes and product, but not the
employees. Many spin-offs of Deming’s original principles abound in organizations worldwide, examples of which include ISO-9000, Sigma-Six, a Taughchi systems.
REFERENCESFOR TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT
Anderson, J. C., Rungtusanatham, M., & Schroeder, R.G. (1994). A theory of quality
management underlying the Deming management method. Academy of Management Review, 19, 472-510.
Blake, R. R., and Mouton, J. S., (1981). Productivity the human side. New York:AMACOM. Briggs, S. & Keosh, W., (1999). Intergrating human resource strategy and strategic planning to achieve business excellence. Total Quality Management. 27, 473-485.
Burt, D.N., (1989). Managing suppliers up to speed. Harvard Business Review, 17. Cartin, T. J., (1993). Principles and practices of tqm. Wisconsin: ASQC.
Clark, S., (2000). Decades later, TQM is still key to success. Memphis Business Journal, 21,19-20.
Creech, B., (1994). The five pillars of tqm. NewYork: Dutton.
Dahlgaard, S., (1999). The evolution patterns of quality management: some reflections on the quality movement. Total Quality Management, 12, 473-485.
Deming, W. E., (1986). Out of Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Hackman, J. R. and Wageman, R. (1995). Total quality management. Public Administration Review, 54, 129-136.
Hakes, C., (1991)., Total quality management: the key to business improvement. London: Chapman.
Hall, G., (1987). How to make reengineering work, Harvard Business Review. 119-131. Hayes, R. H., Wheelwright, S. C., and Clark, K.B., (1988). Dynamic manufacturing: creating
the learning organization. NewYork: Free Press.
Heller, R., (1995). The heart of the quality matter. Management Today, June, 25-29.
Hill, S. & Collins L., (1999). Total quality management and business process re-engineering: a study of incremental and radical approaches to change management at BTNI. Total Quality Management, 10, 37-56.
Juan, J. A. M., (1989). Juran on leadership for quality. New York: Free Press.
Kanji, G. K., (1990). Total quality management: the second industrial revolution. Total Quality Management. 1, 3-12.
Maccoby, M., (1992). Creating empowered organizations, Research Technology Management. 35, 50-51.
Mckee, B., (1992). Turn your workers in a team, Nations Business, 80, 34-38.
Reid, P. C., (1990). Well made in America: lessons from harley-davidson on being the best. New York: Mcgrall
Reylito, A. H., (1999). In the workplace: tqm and labor relations. Business World (Philippines). 22-25.
Ross, J. E., (1993). Total Quality Management: text, cases, and readings. Florida, St. Lucie Press.
Saraph, J. V. and Sebastian, R. J., (1993). Developing a quality culture. Quality Progress. 26, 9, 73-78.
Savolainen, T., (2000). Leadership strategies for gaining business excellence through tqm: a finnish case study. Total Quality Management, 10,2, 211-230
Scherkenbach, W., (1990). The deming route to total quality and productivity: road maps and
roadblocks. MD: Mercury.
Solomon, R.J., (1996). Organizational culture is the key to total quality management. American Medical News, 39, 32-34.
Tatar, J., Prasad, S. & Thorn, R., (1999). The influence of organizational structure on the effectiveness of tqm programs. Journal of Managerial Issues, Winter, 440-454.
Weaver, C. N., (1991). TQM: a step-by-step guide to implementation. Wisconsin:ASQC.
Wilkeson, A. & Witcher, B., (1993). Holistic total quality management: take account of political processes. Total Quality Management, 4, 47-56.
Employee Empowerment Programs (prepared by Irena Pashaj) This intervention is also known as:
Employee Involvement Intervention Employee Empowerment
Quality of Work Life
2. TARGETLEVELSOFANALYSIS:
Employee Involvement may be perceived at individual level, such as the relationship between subordinate and supervisor. It may also be viewed at group, unit or departmental level, such as a group working together to achieve a common goal, or at organizational level (Brady, 1989). The level of involvement taking place in an organization might be determined by the number of employees participating in the intervention. Brady (1989) believes that it is at the individual level, i.e. subordinate, that we can really determine the scope of employee involvement in decision-making process of the organization.
Involvement does not exist unless the individual feels that his or her decisions and actions are actually affecting the issues and problems that are of importance for the organization (Brady, 1989). Brady (1989) suggests that counting the number of employees in the group is not the way to determine the level of involvement in an organization. Thus, Brady (1989) implies that the best way to ascertain the level of involvement is by determining the number of employees who truly believe that they are influencing those areas, that
employees themselves, their coworkers and management consider important. Brady (1989) concludes that there are at least three levels of employee involvement:
1. Individual. This level is concerned with the individual performance in their jobs.
2. Unit/department. This level applies to performance at the unit or departmental level.
3. Organization. This level pertains to issues and policies concerning the entire organization.
Different conditions will determine the level of employee involvement. Thus the latter should fit the goals and objectives of the intervention.
3. PURPOSEOFTHEINTERVENTION:
The main purpose of employee involvement intervention is to move the power and decision making to lower levels of the organization in order to improve the participation, responsibility, and efficiency of employees. It anticipates extensive employee participation in decisions that influence organization success and employee welfare (Glew, O’Leary-Kelly, Griffin, and Van Fleet, 1995). EI involves the participation of all employees so that the latter experience the feelings of pride, confidence, and trustworthiness. Lawler (1986), identified four essential elements that advocate employee involvement:
1. Power. This element involves presenting employees with the authority to make decisions concerning work-related issues, such as task assignment, productivity outcomes, selection, and so forth. Depending on the amount of authority that employees are able to afford, the level of this power will vary tremendously.
2. Information. Immediate access to appropriate information is critical in making efficient decisions.
3. Knowledge and skills. Employees must have the necessary knowledge and skills to make the right decisions. If they lack these requirements, organizations must offer training and
development programs to improve their knowledge and skills.
4. Rewards. They are powerful tools in involving people to participate in the organizational issues. The rewards can be external such as pay and promotion and/or internal such as feelings of fulfillment and self-respect. Paulsen (1994) suggests the use of group-based bonus arrangement or gainsharing system as a means of making EI intervention very effective.
These four elements determine the extent to which employees will participate in decision making process, thus clearly influencing the EI effectiveness. EI would be more successful if all four elements are moved to lower levels of organizations. The elements are interdependent with each other. So, they require being changed together in order to attain accurate results.
Management support is identified as another important element of EI (Brady, 1989).
Management should be willing to facilitate employees’ participation in decision-making process. Sigvard Rubenowitz (1992), as cited in Blair and Meadows (1996), identified three essential aspects in which the managers must act in order to support the EI intervention:
1. Managers must focus at the same time on three strategic areas: the directing system of the technological and administrative environment; the organizational structure; and interpersonal relationships.
2. They must pay attention to employees’ need for training.
3. They must be considerate of the supervisors who are undergoing fundamental changes, and include them in the process and offering them training for their new role.
4. EFFECTIVENESSCRITERIA:
Employee involvement affects employee satisfaction, quality improvement and productivity enhancement (Pun, Chin, and Gill, 2001). Lawler and Ledford (1982) have suggested that EI intervention affects productivity by way of improving communication, motivation and
capabilities, which in turn affect productivity. Employee involvement has a positive influence on other company objectives, such as greater teamwork within and among departments and better communication of goals and results (Paulsen, 1994). Organizational citizenship behaviors are also found to be an effective outcome of employee involvement (Cappelli and Rogovsky, 1998). 5. EVIDENCEOFEFFECTIVENESS:
a. Pun et.al. (2001) conducted an empirical study involving Hong Kong organizations, which they gave a survey intended to identify factors and benefits of EI implementation. They looked at electronics and plastics manufacturers. The authors reported the mean ratings of these factors and outcomes, which was based on a five point scale (1 = the least important; 5 = the most important. The results showed that for electronics manufacturers, employee satisfaction was the most
important outcome of employee involvement with a mean rating ranging from 3.86 to 3.96. This was followed by quality improvement and productivity enhancement. For plastics manufacturers, quality improvement with a mean rating of 4.25 and productivity enhancement with a mean rating of 4.17 were more important than employee satisfaction.
b. Case studies:
1. Lakewood assembly plant (Kouzes and Posner 1995).
Lakewood assembly plant outside Atlanta was shut down for a year and a half because of a decline in car sales. Employees were obliged to seek and find new jobs in other plants all over United States. Patricia M. Carrigan, who was the first female assembly plant manager in the history of General Motors, realized that the plant needed a completely new approach. Under her leadership, employee involvement intervention was implemented throughout the plant. First, management worked together with employees in developing start-up training for all employees. Also, employees played the role of facilitators in the process. Second, management worked closely with union to encourage employees to continue to participate in the program. There were 133 voluntary work groups, who concentrated on planning and solving problems. Third, an ongoing training program was developed for Lakewood employees. The skills of more than 3,000 employees were improved in 360,000 hours of training. In the first published audit after the makeover, Lakewood was the first plant in the history of GM to receive a widely accepted corporate standard for high quality. Grievances decreased, absenteeism declined tremendously, sickness and accident cost were lowered by two-thirds. These results are evidence of the joint involvement of management and labor at Lakewood assembly plant.
2. Harley-Davidson Motor Company (Young and Murrell 1998).
During the mid 1970s and early 1980s Harley-Davidson motor company had a reputation for poor quality. An organizational development intervention was needed, so the company instituted the Productivity Triad Philosophy, which was a new management philosophy. An important element of the productivity triad was employee involvement intervention. Union- Management programs and work teams were implemented to encourage employee involvement and
participation in problem solving process. Employees were held accountable for their work and decisions on work-related issues. The intervention stressed mutual trust and respect, open
communication between employees and management and commitment to the company. Training and development was also an important part of this OD intervention. This intervention in joint with other parts of the triad not only saved the company from bankruptcy, but also improved production and quality tremendously.
6. HOW/WHENWILLOUTCOMESBEASSESSED:
A survey can be given to participants asking if they feel in control of the situation and if they are
able to make decisions concerning their work (Spreitzer, 1996). Examining the behavior of the employees during critical incidents is another suggested way of assessment (Mainero, 1986). Another approach is evaluating the degree to which employees work under conditions that
promote empowerment (Spreitzer, 1996). An example of these conditions could be a manager
who allows employees autonomy to make decisions by themselves. The above approaches of EI intervention can be conducted during the time of the intervention. Evaluation must also be carried out in the beginning and the end of the intervention and results must be compared to see if any change in the level of employee empowerment occurred.
EI intervention encompasses a wide variety of participants. Participants vary from blue collar to white collar; from old employees to new employees; lower management to higher
management; from no education to college graduates. The main goal of EI intervention is to highly involve employees in the lower levels of the organizations and give them the authority to make decisions by themselves. But, first-line supervisors can not perform efficiently if they lack the necessary information and have no control over the supplies for their unit (Kanter, 1979). The same holds true for middle managers who need to have the power necessary to perform their job effectively. Beside employees, managers are not the only ones who require some authority to do their job well. Staff specialists such as
planners as well as engineers and technical specialists will not be able to contribute enough if they do not have the needed power to make the necessary decisions (Kanter, 1983). 8. TIME-FRAMEOFTHEINTERVENTIONITSELF:
Employee Involvement can be considered an ongoing intervention. It will last as long as the organization experiences the anticipated change. Thus, it can range from twenty four hours to a decade depending on the level of change of the organizations and resources available (Lawer, 1992).
9. TIME-FRAMEOFANTICIPATEDCHANGE:
Sometimes, change can be so dramatic, that it changes the entire organization overnight. This is a very high-risk strategy, but it can be effective when the organization needs such a fast change. General Electric and Motorola plants are examples of such change, where the old organization is shut down and a completely new organization is created (Lawler, 1992). But, these are very rare cases. Most organizations do not change overnight, neither in a week, nor a month, or a year. It takes years, it may take a decade to see and enjoy the positive results of EI intervention (Lawler, 1986; Lawler, 1992).
10. RESOURCESTOCONDUCTINTERVENTION:
• People are the most important resources in implementing EI intervention. High-involvement organizations prefer highly motivated employees who are able and willing to learn new skills and solve work-related problems (Lawler, 1992).
• Human resource systems such as selection, training, and career development are another resource. These systems are important because they determine future employees for organizations (Lawler, 1986).
• Technology is also critical because the EI intervention focuses on creating work settings that foster intrinsically motivating work, thus making employee feel more satisfied with his or her work (Lawler, 1992).
• Time is another critical resource. Management must offer employees enough time for their activities, thus giving the message to employees that management is considerate of their efforts (Brady, 1989).
• Management support is essential because it is through managers that most of the
employees’ needs for this process are made possible. For example, managers are the ones who make training possible (Brady, 1989).
• Money will determine the depth of the intervention and the time spent in implementing it. For example, the extent of the training program will depend on the budget available.
11. EXPERTISEOFTHECONSULTANT:
N/A.
12. DOPARTICIPANTSNEEDTOPREPARE:
Employees and management need to get together, discuss the new intervention and prepare to get involved in implementing it. In most cases, employees and managers require proper training in order to properly analyze the problems of the organizations and offer suggestions (Lawler, 1992). Training could be in technical area and/or interpersonal relationship in order to facilitate decision making and solution implementation. Employees are informed that they are responsible for their own actions and their decisions on work-related issues will affect them as much as it will affect organization as a whole.
13. HOWISTHEINTERVENTIONCONDUCTED:
Once the decision is made to implement the employee involvement intervention, it is critical that objectives, goals, structure, focus, and limitations of the program are clearly defined and clearly communicated to everyone involved. Employees should have the opportunity to share their opinions and decisions on issues that concern their performance and work area (Paulsen 1994). There are different approaches of EI intervention:
1. Quality Circles. Quality circles or employee involvement teams, were one of the most popular EI interventions in the 1980s (Lawler, 1986; Lawler, 1992). They were originally developed in Japan in the mid-1950s and were adopted by American organizations in the 1970s as a way of competing more efficiently with Japanese companies (Lawer and Mohrman, 1985). Quality circles were very successful in improving product quality in Japan. These results attracted the American companies to start implementing this type of EI intervention. But, Japan in contrast to the individualistic United States, has a very collectivistic culture, which nurtures the quality circle. This difference in culture makes the process of implementing the circle approach more difficult in United States, which is characterized by individualistic and independent thinking (Munchus, 1983).
Quality circles consist of small groups of volunteers from a certain unit or department with three to fifteen members each. Usually there are more volunteers than openings in the circle, so some employees are not approved to participate, at least early in the process. Later, participation changes when circles stop meeting and new circles are created in the same unit or department. Now, the employees that were refused membership earlier can participate in these new circles. Circles meet for about one to two hours once in two weeks on company time. Later in the process, they may meet more often (Lawler, 1992). Training is an important aspect of quality circles. Initially, members are trained in identifying and analyzing problems, and in problem-solving techniques. Training involves ten to twenty hours per member and company might use training packages usually offered by consultants (Lawler, 1992). Each circle has a leader who leads the group meetings and facilitates discussions. Another important feature of quality circles is the facilitator, who coordinates the activities of different circles. The various circles within the organization are called parallel circles (Lawler, 1992).
Early utilization of quality circles was mostly in blue-collar areas. Nowadays, white-collar participant and technical areas are also using quality circles. In both blue-collar and white-collar cases, management does not take part in this type of intervention (Lawler, 1992). Quality circles aim at improving product quality. They do not focus on quality of work life. They are restricted to identifying, analyzing and recommending solutions on product quality only, may be
sometimes productivity (Lawler, 1986). Whenever members of quality circles suggest useful ideas, they are not directly financially rewarded. They are paid for the time since they meet on company time and they are often recognized with awards other than monetary. This is the same model as the Japanese one where employees are rewarded with symbols, pictures, banquets and so forth (Cole, 1989).
2. Work teams. This approach originated from Europe, specifically Britain. A case was reported from the British coal industry, where workers created their own team. Members of the team helped each-other while working and high productivity and job satisfaction were reported. Work teams were adopted in United States in the 1970s (Lawler, 1986). Membership is not voluntary. A team comprises of all employees in a particular area. Just like in job enrichment, employees are responsible for working on the whole product or service (Hackman & Oldham, 1980).
Training is very important for successful work teams. Employees receive task training in order to perform multiple duties, and interpersonal skill training to facilitate the
communication and interaction among group members. Work teams meet in scheduled meetings once a week (Lawler, 1992). Initially, a leader is either appointed or voted by members and he or she helps the group in making critical decisions. As the team evolves, the role of leader changes. Now he or she plays the role of the facilitator (Schlesinger 1982). Work teams use a reward system of skill-based pay. Employees are paid according to the number of tasks they perform (Lawer and Ledford, 1985). Some teams are more autonomous than others are. Highly autonomous teams make critical decisions such as hiring, firing, and determining quality and work methods and so forth. In less
autonomous teams, management determines the above decisions. These teams deal with setting productivity goals, deciding on the types of work methods and so on. According to Lawler (1986), effective work teams can:
• Improve work methods and procedures • Increase staffing flexibility
• Increase service and product quality • Improve rate of output
• Reduce the level staff support • Reduce supervision
• Improve decision making
According to Paulsen (1994), an employee involvement team should follow these guidelines:
* The group consists of 4-7 employees * Holds regular meetings.
* One person facilitates the process by directing the group. But, each member has equal influence in making decisions concerning the group.
* The team discusses various work-related issues and solves those problems that are under its control
* Identifies, analyzes, solves problems
* Recommends solutions. The team proposes solutions to problems that it considers critical, but it is the management that enjoys the decision-making authority.
* Members are trained to utilize systematic, problem-solving techniques in identifying problems, making decisions and implementing solutions * Uses focused action plans to carry out solutions
* Monitors execution of solutions
Employees will pay close attention to work-related issues that they find critical or of main concern to their work place and will carefully evaluate them and take action if necessary. As long as the team is focusing on important issues and is considerate of the interests of the organization, it is essential that management does not impose issues or solutions to the employees involved in the program.
3. Union-Management Programs. These programs are similar to Quality of Work Life programs. In United States, union-management programs were created during World War II. Once the war was finished, these programs also died. They came back in early 1970s (Lawler, 1986). The goal of union-management programs is to improve quality of work life and productivity through dual involvement of union and management (Davis and Sullivan, 1979). Lawler (1992) identified the following characteristics of Quality of Work Life programs:
• Committee Structure. The committee, which is made up of top level
management and union representatives, is at the center of most projects. It focuses in directing activities that improve quality of work life and organizational
effectiveness. Also, committee expresses concern about increasing productivity and improving quality. Sometimes it is necessary to create more than one
committee in order to assist different areas of the project in different levels of the organization.
• Agreements. Management and union representatives sign a letter of agreement, which states that no employee loses his or her job because of the project. The agreement also states that the program will not interfere with collective bargaining issues.
• Objectives. QWL have three objectives: union, management, and joint objectives.
• Training. QWL focuses on general training for all employees involved in the project.
4. Job Enrichment. This approach focuses on making work more interesting. It consists of allowing the employee to be responsible for the whole product or service. When employees feel that their work is important and useful, they feel more motivated and more satisfied. Lawler (1986), identified five job-design characteristics that challenge employee’s skills and make the employee feel important:
• Feedback systems • Skill variety • Task identity • Task significance
Through job enrichment approach, lower levels of employees feel that they have the authority to make decisions that affect their individual jobs (Lawler, 1986).
5. High-Involvement Organizations (HIO). HIOs are characterized by high consideration and high involvement of employees in critical decisions that affect all aspects of the organization (Lawler, 1986). Employees are treated with respect by management and are trusted to make important decisions about their job or the
organization. Projects are designed by both management and employees together. Below is a list of design features characterizing HIOs as identified by Lawler (1986).
• An organic, flat organizational structure makes possible the flowing of information among different levels of organization and fosters the involvement of employees in making suggestions and decisions on various issues.
• Enriched job design gives the employees the authority to make changes necessary in their individual jobs.
• Training is essential in HIOs, since these interventions focus on growth and development. The organization needs to offer training to develop needed technical skills and interpersonal and problem-solving skills.
• Career system is important in facilitating the success of the intervention. Organizations must clearly communicate to employees the career options and the skills they need to achieve the wanted careers. Here is a good opportunity for offering training.
• Selection system is where it all starts. Thus, organizations must pay closer attention to the procedures they use to select employees. Giving the applicant a realistic job preview is suggested to be a very important step in improving the selection system.
• Reward system in HIOs is different from the one used in traditional
organizations. It focuses on skill-based pay, gainsharing, profit sharing, flexible benefits, and employee ownership.
• Personnel policies in HIOs should fit the local work force. The support staff must pay close attention to issues such as type of benefits offered, flextime, discipline, and layoffs. High-Involvement Organizations have shown to be highly effective for the organization by improving quality life, productivity, product quality and decreasing grievance rate (Lawler, 1992).
14. RESISTANCETOCHANGE:
In order for high involvement organizations to be successful, organizations must be willing to make enormous changes in such areas as internal systems, operating procedures and so forth. The resistance to change starts with high level managers, who fail to provide leadership to employees in implementing EI. Lawler (1992) identifies some of the reasons for change resistance:
• Major change in an organization takes quite a long time to produce impressive results, and senior managers are not going to be in their job for so long.
• Managers do not want to lose the power, authority and rewards that they enjoy from their positions (Lewis, 1998).
• They have used and perfected their old skills for a very long time and these skills are effective only in mechanistic organizations.
Senior managers are not the only ones that resist change. Employees can be as resistant to change as managers can. Changes in the organization require that employees be more involved with organizational issues and actively express their opinions. But, that means that employees need to change their old behaviors and habits (Corsentino and Bue, 1993). Not all employees are willing to change their old behaviors and not many are willing to take responsibility for their actions. Thus, they are going to resist change and this will make it harder for the new intervention to be implemented. Some employees are just incapable to accept responsibility for change. Another reason that employees resist change, is the stress they experience while working in a high-involvement environment. Usually, employees are able to overcome this stress. But in situations over which the employee thinks he has no control, stress can be debilitating (Kahn, 1981). Lawler (1992) found that managers are more resistant to change than employees.
15. MAINTAININGCHANGE:
Senior managers should be trained to learn new skills so they can adapt to the new, organic
organizational structure. They must learn to give up some of the privileges that they have enjoyed so far (Lawler, 1992).
Organization must create environments that are friendly and make the employee feel comfortable and in control of the situation. This would lower stress level of employees and they would be more open to change.
Change does not happen overnight. On the contrary, it requires a very long time before managers and employees can see the result of their work. This mission should be clearly transmitted to all individuals involved in the program, so they know what to expect and avoid disappointment (Lawler, 1992). Once the change starts, it is important that it includes all areas of the
organization in order to balance power, information, knowledge, and rewards. 16. FOLLOW-UP:
EI is an ongoing process and since it involves employee participation, it needs to make sure that employees continue to stay active in decision making process even after the positive results (Lawler, 1986). If the organization does not follow up, there is a high chance that employees would fall back to their old habits, where they were before the intervention.
17. SPECIALCONSIDERATIONS/CRITIQUE:
• There is no one EI project that would fit all organizations, so each organization must develop its own version. This makes it hard to convince managers and employees to participate in the EI project (Blair and Meadows, 1996).
• Organizations must be careful not to move faster than they should in implementing the EI intervention. Enough time should be given to proper training of necessary skills needed for successful results (Blair and Meadows, 1996).
• Employees’ priorities during involvement process must be in congruence with those of customers (Blair and Meadows, 1996).
REFERENCESFOR EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT PROGRAMS:
Blair, G., & Meadows, S. (1996). A real-life guide to organizational change. England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Brady, Gene F. (1989). Management by Involvement. New York, NY. Human Sciences Press. Inc.
Cappelli, P., & Rogovsky, N. (1998). Employee involvement and organizational citizenship: implications for labor law reform and “lean production”. Industrial and Labor Relations Review,
51, 633-654.
Cole, Robert. E. (1989). Strategies for Learning. Berkeley, CA. University of California Press. Corsentino, D., & Bue, P. T. (1993). Employee involvement: implementing quality change. The
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 62, 10-12.
Davis, L. & Sullivan, C. (1979). A labor-management contract and quality of working life.
Journal of Occupational Behavior 1, 29-41.
Glew, D., O’Leary-Kelly, A., Griffin, R., & Van Fleet, D. (1995). Participation in organizations: a preview of the issues and proposed framework for future analysis. Journal of Management, 21, 395-421.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work Redesign. Reading. MA. Addison-Wesley. Harrison, M., & Shirom, A. (1999). Organizational diagnosis and assessment: Bridging theory
and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Kahn, R. L. (1981). Work and Health. New York. NY. Wiley.
Kanter, R. (1979). Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business Review, 57, 65-75. Kanter, R. (1983). The Change Masters. New York, NY. Simon and Shuster.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Lawler, E. E., & Ledford, G. E. (1982). Productivity and the quality of work life. National Productivity Review, 2, 23-36.
Lawler, E. E., & Mohrman, S. A. (1985). Quality circles after the fad. Harvard Business Review,
85, 64-71.
Lawler, Edward E. (1986). High-Involvement Management. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Lawler, Edward E. (1992). The Ultimate Advantage. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass Publishers. Lewis, Bob (1998). Employee involvement is losing favor, and for all the wrong reasons.
InfoWorld, 20, 88-89.
Mainero, L. (1986). Coping with powerlessness: The relationship of gender and job dependency to empowerment-strategy usage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 633-653.
Munchus III, G. (1983). Employer-employee based quality circles in Japan: human resource policy implications for American firms. Academy of Management Review, 8, 255-261. Paulsen, K. M. (1994). Total employee involvement - why are you waiting? Industrial
Engineering, 26, 16-18.
Pun, K. F., Chin, K. S., & Gill, R. (2001). Determinants of employee involvement practices in manufacturing enterprise. Total Quality Management, 12, 95.
Schlesinger, L. A. (1982). Quality of Work Life and the Supervisor. New York, NY. Praeger. Spreitzer, G. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy
of Management Journal, 39, 483-504.
Young, J. & Murrell, K. L. (1998). Harley-Davidson motor company organizational design.
Quality of Work Life Programs (QWL) (prepared by Adeola Oduwole) 2. TARGETLEVELOFANALYSIS:
Quality of work life programs are organization-wide initiatives. Most QWL programs are designed and implemented based on organizational demographics, structure and goals. These programs are designed to impact the organization as a whole.
3. PURPOSEOFTHEINTERVENTION:
The primary goal of QWL programs is to improve the overall well being of the employee, while achieving organizational objectives, such as increased productivity. QWL initiatives started in the United States in 1972. It was first described as a movement of participative management and workplace democracy (Davenport, 1983; Feuer, 1989). The premise of the QWL movement (formerly “quality of life” at work) was that increased productivity would result by involving employees in the decision-making process at work (Davenport, 1983). In addition to this, QWL programs were developed to reduce absenteeism, turnover and increase productivity (Martinez, 1997).
Although it is difficult to come up with an all-encompassing definition of QWL, many researchers describe QWL in term of its major content areas. For example, May, Lau and Johnson (1999) define QWL companies as organizations that promote job security, employee growth, rewards and employee satisfaction. Overman (1999) suggests that QWL programs fall into two categories. The first category are work reorganization programs. These include things such as restructuring jobs and duties, telecommuting, job sharing, and flextime. The second category are employee benefit policies. These include things such as on-site childcare/eldercare and/or referral services, paid family and medical leave, release time and limits on business travel. Furthermore, Greenfield and Terry (1995) describe QWL programs around six initiatives:
Helping employees manage their physical and metal health and helping employee’s care for dependents. Flexible leave policies (e.g. personal days, gradual return to work programs). Saving employees time (e.g. on-or-near-site banking) and supporting employees’ thorough the financial life cycle (e.g. financial and retirement planning). Two common themes emerge in all QWL initiatives: The first is to make working conditions more conducive to employees’ non-work lives. Second, is to increase employee involvement in the decision-making process (Feuer, 1989).
4. EFFECTIVENESSCRITERIA:
Prince (2000) says that when it comes to the measurement of work life programs, the idea that you can quantify or ‘count’ the amount of money saved is inadequate. This is because the outcomes to QWL programs are things that cannot be measured, such as, job satisfaction and increased morale. These factors should be taken into consideration when measuring the
effectiveness of QWL programs. However, it is important to note that increased productivity is indirectly tied to these factors. For example, May, Lau & Johnson (1999) suggest that an organizations financial performance is linked to the measurement and improvement of such things as employee satisfaction, innovation and productivity. Further, surveys conducted by groups, such as SHRM (Society of Human Resources Management) suggest that the main reason for implementing QWL programs relates to organizational performance, as measured by
recruitment, retention and productivity (Mechelen, 1998). May, et al. (1999) suggest that QWL initiatives fall along two lines: the employer (organizational effectiveness) and the employee (improved working conditions). When both of these objectives are achieved, you have what is called a “win-win” situation. What this means is that there is a positive and reciprocal
relationship between QWL and organizational performance, as measured by these bottom-line measures.
In a tight labor market, characterized by intense competition for qualified employees, such programs are not just added benefits, but deemed a necessity (Greenfield & Terry, 1995). Overman (1999) supports this view, when he says that the labor market has heightened the need for such programs, and the survival of some companies depends on it. Roberts (1996) says that for companies to be competitive they need to implement some kind of work life initiative. A study conducted by the William M. Mercer Inc. found that over 50% of the 800 companies responding to a work life survey feel that QWL programs positively influence employee morale, attendance and productivity. This survey also found that flextime was a primary aid in recruiting. May et. al (1999) also suggest that companies that offer QWL programs will have the advantage in hiring and retaining qualified workers. These programs are also positively related to customer retention and satisfaction.
5. EVIDENCEOFEFFECTIVENESS:
The effectiveness of QWL programs have been tremendous, as demonstrated by bottom-line or firm performance measures. For example, the Dupont Company reports that its family resources program results in a 637% financial return in increased performance, retention, stress reduction, and lowered absenteeism (Rowan, 1997). May et al. (1999) have found that QWL programs result in lowered absenteeism, lower turnover, improved job satisfaction, increased recruitment and competitiveness.
The Towers and Perrin study found that over forty percent of employees’ report that QWL programs helped recruiting efforts, and gave impression that the company was a “good place to work.” Thirty percent report that these programs positively influence employee loyalty, job satisfaction, employee awareness, and appreciation of the human resource policy. Approximately 25% of employees say that these programs have increased their productivity and have resulted in decreased absenteeism (Greenfield and Terry, 1995). Further, one expert from the Human
Resources Institute says that companies that offer wellness programs (e.g. fitness centers) have fewer absences, lower disability claims, higher productivity and lower insurance costs (Marcus, 2000). Overall, work life programs result in increases in productivity and positive employee perceptions about the organization.
Mechelen (1998) found that organizations with QWL programs are considered to be high
performing organizations. For example, evidence from both private and public sector companies suggest that QWL programs increase productivity, workforce stability, customer service and reduce costs. Mechelen highlights each of these criteria using a case study of the
Hewlett-Packard company. For this company, a compressed workweek increased profits by fifty-percent. A caregiver assistance also helped remove barriers to work productivity. QWL programs also result in workforce stability. Mechelen (1998) suggests that QWL programs improve
