The articles in this issue of Quality Management Journal focus primarily on the issues facing work groups. What sorts of approaches facilitate the development of effective work groups? What steps should be taken to empower work groups? How can work groups be designed to achieve sustainable performance improvement? How should work groups be trained? We also focus on quality management for manufacturing and service organizations in an international context. This issue of QMJ also includes research conducted using a variety of methods, from a field experiment to a case study to a survey.
We begin with “The Impact of a Performance Management Intervention on Work Processes and Operational Indicators,” by Marla E. Hacker of Oregon State University, Tygh J. Newton of the Performance Center, and Akinyinka Akinyele of the U.S. Postal Service. They describe their use of a field experiment to investigate the effectiveness of an intervention, where managers were given specific tasks to accomplish and were expected to report their outcomes at a future training session. The authors used two facilities at the U.S. Postal Service to make this comparison, one with the intervention and one without. Their pre- and post-testing indicated that there were three critical changes in the group with the intervention: (1) improved feedback to employees about their performance, (2) improved facilitative leadership, and (3) improved quality orientation. The authors also found that productivity increased and sick leave decreased at the site with the intervention.
In a conceptual article entitled “Empowerment in Total Quality: Designing and Implementing Effective Employee Decision-Making Strategies,” Zoe Dimitriades of the University of Piraeus in Greece discusses empowerment, developing a conceptual definition and an implementation strategy. Her careful analysis includes discussion of the many influences on the effectiveness of empowerment, including contextual influences such as national culture, industrial relations, and product market conditions; organizational influences such as strategy, technology, leadership, culture, ownership, and size; and personal influences, such as demographic characteristics, and psychological profile of the empowered employee.
Joy M. Field, of Boston College, describes a case study of four production work teams in a unionized plant, in “Beyond Design: Implementing Effective Production Work Teams.” She followed the teams over a three-year period, with a follow-up one year later, finding that sustainable quality performance was influenced by both design decisions and the implementation process. All the teams had sustainable quality gains over their previous performance, before functioning as work teams. Most of the performance improvements occurred after they participated in toolkit training and the implementation of systemic performance improvement ideas. The sustainability of their performance was a function of institutionalization of the work teams, including making provision for their continuity and mandatory membership and management involvement.
Our fourth article, “Quality Management Training in Small to Midsized Manufacturing Firms,” by Chuck Ryan of the University of Southern Mississippi, Richard H. Deane of Georgia State University, and Ned P. Ellington of the Georgia Institute of Technology, uses survey research to assess the effectiveness of quality training in small to medium-sized firms, to see whether quality training pays off. The authors found that, although quality training had a significant effect on firm performance, family-owned firms conducted less training. The critical factors in the training included instruction in employee technical skills and relations, management and supplier quality culture and tools, and management and supplier leadership and communications. All three factors were highly related to performance, particularly for nonfamily-owned businesses.
In the final article, we switch focus from work groups to an international perspective. In “Comparing Quality Management Practices in the Manufacturing and Service Industries: Learning Opportunities,” Hongyi Sun, of the City University of Hong Kong, describes part of a larger study of international quality management effectiveness in Europe, Asia, and North America. Focusing on organizations in Norway, he takes a detailed look at the difference in quality management approaches between manufacturing and service organizations, using Baldrige Award categories as the framework for his survey. Sun found that there was no difference between Norwegian manufacturing and service organizations in strategic management, human resource management, or business results. However, manufacturing was significantly stronger in approaches related to leadership, information and analysis, process management, and supplier relations. In contrast, the Norwegian service organizations were stronger in practices related to customer consideration. Sun concluded by highlighting the areas in which manufacturing and service organizations can learn from each other.
These articles describe some very interesting and useful research findings. I think you will enjoy reading them.
Barbara B. Flynn
Editor
Quality Management Journal
EDITORIAL
EDITOR
Barbara B. Flynn
Wake Forest UniversityPAST EDITOR
George S. Easton
Emory UniversityFOUNDING EDITOR
William A. Golomski
University of ChicagoBOOK REVIEW EDITOR
James B. Kohnen
St. Mary’s College of CaliforniaDISSERTATIONS EDITOR
William O. Winchell
Lawrence Technological UniversityADMINISTRATION/PRODUCTION
PUBLISHER
William TonyMANUSCRIPT COORDINATOR
Kristen JohnsonCOPY EDITORS
Jane Crouse
Kris McEachernPRODUCTION
Cathy SchnackenbergDIGITAL PRODUCTION SPECIALISTS
Michael Andes
Jill ZimmermanHTML CODING
Michael AndesEDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
John Anderson
University of MinnesotaSelwyn Becker
University of ChicagoRobert E. Cole
University of CaliforniaJames W. Dean, Jr.
University of North CarolinaJames R. Evans
University of CincinnatiJohn P. Evans
University of North CarolinaFrank M. Gryna
University of TampaJohn Hamburg
APEX, Inc.David Luther
Luther Quality AssociatesRam Narasimhan
Michigan State UniversityRoger G. Schroeder
University of MinnesotaKalyan Singhal
University of BaltimoreMichael J. Stahl
University of TennesseeEDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD
Sanjay Ahire
University of DaytonSusan D. Amundson
Arizona State UniversityKimberly A. Bates*
University of TorontoPaul M. Bobrowski
Syracuse UniversityKenneth Boyer
Michigan State UniversityKenneth E. Case
Oklahoma State UniversityInjazz Chen
Cleveland State UniversityBarrie Dale*
University of ManchesterRichard Deane
Georgia State UniversityJohn Delery
University of ArkansasKevin Dooley
Arizona State UniversityEdward Duplaga
Bowling Green State UniversitySusan West Engelkemeyer
Babson CollegeByron Finch
Miami UniversityMark P. Finster
University of WisconsinLaura Forker
University of Massachusetts at DartmouthSoumen Ghosh
Georgia Institute of TechnologyGlenn H. Gilbreath
Virginia Commonwealth UniversityJohn M. Groocock*
TRW (Retired)Robert Handfield
North Carolina State UniversitySandra J. Hartman
University of New OrleansMarilyn Helms
Dalton State College
Mary Collins Holcomb
University of TennesseeAnn Jordan
University of North TexasGary Kern
Indiana University South BendJill Phelps Kern
Digital SemiconductorDavid Kerridge*
Aberdeen UniversityRay A. Klotz
Qualcomm Inc.Frank Knight
FISI Madison FinancialRonald D. Kurtzmann
Diamond Management SystemsKeong Leong
Ohio State UniversityA. Magid Mazen
Suffolk UniversitySatish Mehra
University of MemphisKim I. Melton
North Georgia College and State UniversityHenry R. Neave*
British Deming AssociationYoram Neumann
California State UniversityWilliam Newman
Miami UniversityGary Ragatz
Michigan State UniversityGipsie B. Ranney
Belmont UniversityRichard N. Rosett
Rochester Institute of TechnologyBrooke Saladin
Wake Forest UniversityHelmut Schneider
Louisiana State UniversityNirmal Sethia
California State Polytechnic UniversityJohn G. Surak
Clemson UniversityWilliam Tallon
Northern Illinois UniversityMichael D. Tveite
The Tetrad GroupPeter Ward
Ohio State UniversityL. David Weller
University of GeorgiaTed Weston
Colorado State University*International reviewer
